Water Rates refund if abolished

Zelda247

Does anyone think those who paid will get a refund?

Valetta

Zelda247 wrote: »

Does anyone think those who paid will get a refund?

Not a chance.

But it's a non issue; they're going nowhere IMO.

barneystinson

What's this got to do with elections and referendums?!

Zelda247

Zelda247 wrote: »

Does anyone think those who paid will get a refund?

Why should they? If they overpaid, they will be allowed on their next bills. Same if they are not yet metered, once they are and are shown to be using less than the "cap" they will be allowed the difference off subsequent bills.

aphex™

Want services, won't pay for them, will complain when they go wrong because of underfunding.

Will also whinge when costs of services taken out of general tax take for transparency.

Signed,
Irish Electorate

the groutch

Sinn Fein have already said they wouldn't refund anyone.

Phoebas

the groutch wrote: »

Sinn Fein have already said they wouldn't refund anyone.

Sinn Fein, the party of the 'fair recovery' won't refund anyone who paid, but won't charge anyone who didn't i.e. you get penalised if you follow the rules and rewarded if you break the rules.

AAA-PBP appear to be refunding everyone.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/abolition-of-irish-water-would-cost-271m-claim-aaa-pbp-1.2536978

I don't think any of the other parties who plan to unwind Irish Water have any clue how they would do it or if they would give refunds.

Akrasia

There will be a lot of sour grapes towards those who never paid their water charges if post election, they are scrapped as part of a rainbow coalition

There's no way people would get a refund, but they should be grateful to the people who didn't pay, because despite losing the money they already paid, they'll be spared the creeping charge in perpetuity

The Sunk Cost fallacy basically the main strategy of Irish water. 'People have already paid once, so now they've bought into paying again, and again, and again'

boardsuser1

As much as i'm against water charges accept it lads Irish Water is here to stay. Those saying they'll abolish it are only doing it for political gain. Just remember Pat Rabbitte in 2011 qhen asked about making false promises "isn't that what you tend to do during an election"

Akrasia

KC161 wrote: »

As much as i'm against water charges accept it lads Irish Water is here to stay. Those saying they'll abolish it are only doing it for political gain. Just remember Pat Rabbitte in 2011 qhen asked about making false promises "isn't that what you tend to do during an election"

Irish water could well be here to stay, but there's nothing to stop them keeping the utility while scrapping the tax and funding it from general taxation.

That would be a compromise that would allow FG to pretend that it wasn't a complete waste of money after all, while still appeasing the coalition partners who promised an end to water charges.

Having a single State utility responsible for water services in Ireland is a much better system than the council oriented system from before, and the existence of metres, even if not used for billing, could help identify leaks and wastage of water.

Irish water could have a free allowance that is more than the normal household would ever use, but introduce a charge if a house is extremely wasteful (eg, has leaks that they couldn't be bothered to fix)

There we would have the best of both worlds.

Jack Killian

Phoebas wrote: »

Sinn Fein, the party of the 'fair recovery' won't refund anyone who paid, but won't charge anyone who didn't i.e. you get penalised if you follow the rules and rewarded if you break the rules.

AAA-PBP appear to be refunding everyone.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/abolition-of-irish-water-would-cost-271m-claim-aaa-pbp-1.2536978

I don't think any of the other parties who plan to unwind Irish Water have any clue how they would do it or if they would give refunds.

I would presume that anyone claiming a refund would also return the bribe paid for out of our taxes ?

seamus

Irish Water won't be unwound.

Any of the parties promising it will quickly turn around and say they're "surprised" at how much it would cost to shut down Irish water, and instead promise to cap people's bills until 2021, and blame everything on the previous government.

Someone needs to manage our water infrastructure. You can't make that go away. Unravelling Irish Water now and reverting to the CC system will cost billions.

At best someone may nationalise IW as a utility and throw €3bn a year at it to make it stop sending out bills.

Jack Killian

seamus wrote: »

Irish Water won't be unwound.

Any of the parties promising it will quickly turn around and say they're "surprised" at how much it would cost to shut down Irish water, and instead promise to cap people's bills until 2021, and blame everything on the previous government.

Someone needs to manage our water infrastructure. Unravelling Irish Water now will cost billions.

Billions ? Really ? Link / proof ?

And if so it should not be glossed over that it's FG & Labour that cost us those billions due complete and utter incompetence.

At best someone may nationalise IW as a utility and throw €3bn a year at it to make it stop sending out bills.

Bruthal

aphex™ wrote: »

Want services, won't pay for them, will complain when they go wrong because of underfunding mismanagement.

People hit with USC, high motoring taxes, property taxes and an endless list of other taxes, and you say they wont pay?

seamus

Jack Killian wrote: »

Billions ? Really ? Link / proof ?

Well, if it cost billions to take water out of the hands of local authorities, then it stands to reason that it will cost billions to send it back there.

You have staff, contractors, sub-contractors and a whole pile of other things that would have to be paid off and/or renegotiated. And that's before you have to go and modify your infrastructure again.

It would be like putting an extension on your house, deciding you don't like it and you want it back the way it was. It would basically cost you the same to undo what's been done.

And if so it should not be glossed over that it's FG & Labour that cost us those billions due complete and utter incompetence.

Oh no, absolutely not. That's not the question really.

The question is about the ability of any of the other parties to deliver on their promises. The phrase "throwing good money after bad" comes to mind when people talk about getting rid of Irish Water.

Irish Water is here to stay, that's undeniable. And it requires additional investment to improve its operations. That too is undeniable. The meters will remain. Because there's no reason to pull them out of the ground.

The only question is whether a party will use that metering data to issue bills, or just for curiosity's sake.
Whichever way it goes, the taxpayer is going to be paying. That's undeniable.

Anyone who believes that Irish Water will be "gone" after this election is absolutely delusional. At best it'll get a lick of paint and a quiet spot in the DoECNR where it can hide out and eat money.

Jack Killian

seamus wrote: »

Well, if it cost billions to take water out of the hands of local authorities, then it stands to reason that it will cost billions to send it back there.

You have staff, contractors, sub-contractors and a whole pile of other things that would have to be paid off and/or renegotiated. And that's before you have to go and modify your infrastructure again.

It would be like putting an extension on your house, deciding you don't like it and you want it back the way it was. It would basically cost you the same to undo what's been done.

Oh no, absolutely not. That's not the question really.

The question is about the ability of any of the other parties to deliver on their promises. The phrase "throwing good money after bad" comes to mind when people talk about getting rid of Irish Water.

Irish Water is here to stay, that's undeniable. And it requires additional investment to improve its operations. That too is undeniable. The meters will remain. Because there's no reason to pull them out of the ground.

The only question is whether a party will use that metering data to issue bills, or just for curiosity's sake.
Whichever way it goes, the taxpayer is going to be paying. That's undeniable.

Anyone who believes that Irish Water will be "gone" after this election is absolutely delusional. At best it'll get a lick of paint and a quiet spot in the DoECNR where it can hide out and eat money.

if you want to condone that and be complicit in it, then fire away.

Akrasia

I don't know who is ideologically opposed to 'Irish Water' as an entity

Yes, there are concerns that it could some day be privatised, but given the political backlash the government have gotten from heavily 'subsidised' water charges, it will be a long time before FG or FF would have the appetite to even suggest privatising our water infrastructure

In fact, I think a single entity protects it from privatisation more than having it controlled by dozens of local authorities, any one of whom could decide to 'licence' it's operations to a private operator without any real oversight

seamus

Jack Killian wrote: »

if you want to condone that and be complicit in it, then fire away.

I'm not sure what makes you think I'm condoning anything.

Just pointing out the simple truth.

On RTEs Radio News today, FF said it will disband Irish Water, which will cost €200,000,000 and will take at least a year. They will then upgrade the infrastructure and then introduce Water Charges.

BoJack Horseman

Akrasia wrote: »

I don't know who is ideologically opposed to 'Irish Water' as an entity

The far left parties are for sure.... they have stated many times that they preferred the status quo

Yes, there are concerns that it could some day be privatised, but given the political backlash the government have gotten from heavily 'subsidised' water charges, it will be a long time before FG or FF would have the appetite to even suggest privatising our water infrastructure

The only party to suggest privatisation was SF & they quickly backtracked on that.
There seems zero political appetite for it.

Harry Palmr

Deleted User wrote: »

On RTEs Radio News today, FF said it will disband Irish Water, which will cost €200,000,000 and will take at least a year. They will then upgrade the infrastructure and then introduce Water Charges.

FF abolished rates and reduced car tax to a fiver in 1977 and the local government has been bolloxed ever since. They can promise all they want, people are not going to fall for it this time.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

On RTEs Radio News today, FF said it will disband Irish Water, which will cost €200,000,000 and will take at least a year. They will then upgrade the infrastructure and then introduce Water Charges.

Like I say, lick of paint. There's no way they can "disband" it for €200m. What they mean is that it will become a sub-department of DoECNR (Dept. of Water Services or something) until such time as they are ready to re-introduce water charges.

They will literally spend €200m on nothing. It would be cheaper to tell Irish Water to stop billing completely and put the money directly into them.

Mr.Micro

Deleted User wrote: »

On RTEs Radio News today, FF said it will disband Irish Water, which will cost €200,000,000 and will take at least a year. They will then upgrade the infrastructure and then introduce Water Charges.

I wonder who will pay the 200 million? Us of course. Martin really is grasping, any old S*** to get elected.

Macy0161

Akrasia wrote: »

Irish water could well be here to stay, but there's nothing to stop them keeping the utility while scrapping the tax and funding it from general taxation.

There's also a large cohort who already pay for water through group scheme's and private wells/ waste water systems, who would (rightly) be annoyed if it goes back to them and businesses being the only ones paying for water.

Elemonator

Initially, I didn't support the water charges. I can understand the fact that people are angry the fact they've technically had to pay multiple times and its cost has come out of other taxes. However, having visited a certain area of Wicklow, I think the water charges are necessary. I was shown the tunnel that brings water to Dublin. It was a crumbling state unfortunately. Looked to be built in Victorian times and could collapse at any minute. If it did, Dublin would have no water for months.

There's also the issue of the future. Dublin's population is exploding and we simply don't have the supply of water to meet the demand. I think that is where the Shannon water project comes in. Something has to pay for it.

Phoebas

Deleted User wrote: »

On RTEs Radio News today, FF said it will disband Irish Water, which will cost €200,000,000 and will take at least a year. They will then upgrade the infrastructure and then introduce Water Charges.

Did FF say what they would do about the law abiding majority who paid their water bills - many of whom may well be opposed to Irish Water and water charges, but don't use that as an excuse to break the rules?

Or are the law abiding going to get screwed again while those who break the rules get rewarded?

joe40

I could be wrong but are there not limits to how much a national government can finance a utility. Therefore it will not be possible to keep lrish water and fund it from general taxation. I could be mistaken on this though.

Phoebas

joe40 wrote: »

I could be wrong but are there not limits to how much a national government can finance a utility. Therefore it will not be possible to keep lrish water and fund it from general taxation. I could be mistaken on this though.

I think you are referring to the Market Corporation Test, which includes the limit that the state can finance it without having it's debt included on the government books.

Shurimgreat

Akrasia wrote: »

I don't know who is ideologically opposed to 'Irish Water' as an entity

Yes, there are concerns that it could some day be privatised, but given the political backlash the government have gotten from heavily 'subsidised' water charges, it will be a long time before FG or FF would have the appetite to even suggest privatising our water infrastructure

In fact, I think a single entity protects it from privatisation more than having it controlled by dozens of local authorities, any one of whom could decide to 'licence' it's operations to a private operator without any real oversight

Ideological is the key word here. The anti IW protest leaders are all far left ideologues. They believe strongly in nationalisation, and massive and inefficient government monopolies. They'd prefer to see Aer Lingus, Eircom, etc renationalised in full. Along with this, they'd be happy to see the monopolies of these companies fully restored. They'd gladly accept positions on the boards mind, and all the perks, expense accounts and junkets to go along with it. Just look at all the union officials who were on the boards of these companies and the slush funds they enjoyed as well as slush funds in FAS etc.
They'd only be too happy to drag us back to a time when it took years to get a fixed line telephone, and a weeks wages to fly to London.
These left wing ideologues certainly don't represent the interests of the ordinary people.

joe40

Yeah that might be what I was thinking about. I dont neccessarily think it would be a good idea but theoretically the government could just fund irish water. Bit like the HSE

johnnyskeleton

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Ideological is the key word here. The anti IW protest leaders are all far left ideologues. They believe strongly in nationalisation, and massive and inefficient government monopolies. They'd prefer to see Aer Lingus, Eircom, etc renationalised in full. Along with this, they'd be happy to see the monopolies of these companies fully restored. They'd gladly accept positions on the boards mind, and all the perks, expense accounts and junkets to go along with it. Just look at all the union officials who were on the boards of these companies and the slush funds they enjoyed as well as slush funds in FAS etc.

I'm sure not all of them. A significant part of the anger against Irish Water is the fact that it has cost an extraordinary amount of money to set up and on consultancy fees etc. People are legitimately outraged by this. Not all of the Water Protesters are doing so on ideological grounds.

Shurimgreat

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm sure not all of them. A significant part of the anger against Irish Water is the fact that it has cost an extraordinary amount of money to set up and on consultancy fees etc. People are legitimately outraged by this. Not all of the Water Protesters are doing so on ideological grounds.

No I agree that not all protesters are doing it on ideological grounds. But most of the protest leaders will be from the hard left. You can be sure the Socialist Workers Party will be well represented as well as people there like Daly, Higgins, Murphy, O'Connor, Ogle and a couple more. They will be leading the "We won't pay" campaign.

Akrasia

Macy0161 wrote: »

There's also a large cohort who already pay for water through group scheme's and private wells/ waste water systems, who would (rightly) be annoyed if it goes back to them and businesses being the only ones paying for water.

It's a choice they make when you live in a rural area.

They also get much cheaper accommodation and transport (you probably have free parking 90% of the time and no tolls to pay every day for example)

Akrasia

joe40 wrote: »

I could be wrong but are there not limits to how much a national government can finance a utility. Therefore it will not be possible to keep lrish water and fund it from general taxation. I could be mistaken on this though.

No, you've got it backwards

The government was hoping to have Irish water declared as a pseudo commercial entity, so they could pretend that the debt attached to Irish water was separate to the Irish national debt 'A Special purpose vehicle' But the E.U. decided that the entity was not commercially funded, and it's illegal for the state to fund commercial entities, so they refused to allow us to declare Irish water debt as separate to the Irish national debt.

They failed at cooking the books, which was the reason they set up Irish water in the first place. They might as well just run it as a semi state utility now.

Mr.Micro

joe40 wrote: »

Yeah that might be what I was thinking about. I dont neccessarily think it would be a good idea but theoretically the government could just fund irish water. Bit like the HSE

The HSE is an absolute shambles. If Irish water was to be funded the same way, then we really are done for.

Macy0161

Akrasia wrote: »

It's a choice they make when you live in a rural area.

Group schemes and wells/ wastewater treatment aren't just for one off houses - they're present in what planners classify as "urban" areas too.

Jack Killian

seamus wrote: »

Like I say, lick of paint. There's no way they can "disband" it for €200m. What they mean is that it will become a sub-department of DoECNR (Dept. of Water Services or something) until such time as they are ready to re-introduce water charges.

They will literally spend €200m on nothing. It would be cheaper to tell Irish Water to stop billing completely and put the money directly into them.

Would we still be stuck with the pointless waste and marketing and crony, wasteful CEO and all the dodgy contracts ? If so then there would rightly be war over it; extra cost and waste with no improvement in service.

Jack Killian

Elemonator wrote: »

Initially, I didn't support the water charges. I can understand the fact that people are angry the fact they've technically had to pay multiple times and its cost has come out of other taxes. However, having visited a certain area of Wicklow, I think the water charges are necessary. I was shown the tunnel that brings water to Dublin. It was a crumbling state unfortunately. Looked to be built in Victorian times and could collapse at any minute. If it did, Dublin would have no water for months.

There's also the issue of the future. Dublin's population is exploding and we simply don't have the supply of water to meet the demand. I think that is where the Shannon water project comes in. Something has to pay for it.

Well then let Dublin pay for it. We're repeatedly told that it costs to bring broadband, etc, to rural areas, and that despite paying our taxes we shouldn't expect decent roads, lighting, Gardai etc.

As was said earlier :

Akrasia wrote: »

It's a choice they make when you live in a rural area.

Why does the same argument not apply to the choice to live in Dublin ?

One way of avoiding the explosion and spread out the recovery and jobs would be to stop additional development on the east coast and improve infrastructure in the other cities and major towns.

If Dubs need water and don't have enough, let them pay for it. "User pays" model in action.

vicwatson

Only get a refund if you've paid the tax right? Ah well

Phoebas

Jack Killian wrote: »

Well then let Dublin pay for it. We're repeatedly told that it costs to bring broadband, etc, to rural areas, and that despite paying our taxes we shouldn't expect decent roads, lighting, Gardai etc.

I don't think Dublin would have a problem with that.

Guy:Incognito

Bruthal wrote: »

People hit with USC, high motoring taxes, property taxes and an endless list of other taxes, and you say they wont pay?

We could scrap them all and a smaller number of people (the people that work and pay tax )can just pay more each to cover the shortfall. Then when the economy shrinks a bit and a heap of people lose their jobs, the now smaller again group of taxpayers can just pay more.

A nice narrow tax band , with one income source is exactly what we need, what could go wrong...........

Guy:Incognito

Macy0161 wrote: »

There's also a large cohort who already pay for water through group scheme's and private wells/ waste water systems, who would (rightly) be annoyed if it goes back to them and businesses being the only ones paying for water.

It's funny that all the anti water charge groups never mention these people and they certainly werent concerned with how these peoples human rights have been infringed upon for decades. #right2water:rolleyes:

Jack Killian

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It's funny that all the anti water charge groups never mention these people and they certainly werent concerned with how these peoples human rights have been infringed upon for decades. #right2water:rolleyes:

Nice claim, but it falls down in real life as I'm one "of these people" and object to my existence being used to exaggerate support for the cesspit.

Then again, the pros just don't seem to get that not all antis are following groups or mouthy politicos; many of us are thinking for ourselves and objecting on principle, even though it cost us the bribe. I'd be up money if I complied - imagine that! I wouldn't be up my full LPT though; hence the objection, and the country would have less cash to spend where the LPT was meant to go.

Putting our money where our mouth is.