Water charges

psheaser

Yay or nay?

Lux23

Pay

Elmo

well the media say pay.

The government continue to deal with Water Charges badly. It doesn't help that the media seem entirely on side.

To me from a conservation view point each household should be given a free amount of Water and after that you pay.

Successive governments could then decide weather or not they should charge for the initial amount of water used.

The waste/recycling charge was also badly dealt with. Pay by weight is fine if you have lower pay by weight for Recycled material. I don't think the new bill suggests this, instead you pay the same for your recycling, biodegradable and waste bins. Why would you bother with either a recycling or a biodegradable bin when you can dump everything at the same price?

mahoganygas

Oh God. Not again.

pam65

I'm new to this but wonderd if anyone else has the problem i have... In rented accomadation you have to pay water bills. My problem is i recently moved. did everything by the book and thought all was grand until i received my closing bill that was far too high in price.. Phoned Irish Water Office Cork to query this and lo and behold was told not once but twice that 25 euro of the amount i am billed is moving charges. Once by a call handler, and again by a acting supervisor. I have contacted head office in Dublin about this but no reply. There is nothing on my bill that states moving charges.. I will pay for water i have used but i am not paying 25 euro for moving charges, both properties have water meters.

05eaftqbrs9jlh

pam65 wrote: »

I'm new to this but wonderd if anyone else has the problem i have... In rented accomadation you have to pay water bills. My problem is i recently moved. did everything by the book and thought all was grand until i received my closing bill that was far too high in price.. Phoned Irish Water Office Cork to query this and lo and behold was told not once but twice that 25 euro of the amount i am billed is moving charges. Once by a call handler, and again by a acting supervisor. I have contacted head office in Dublin about this but no reply. There is nothing on my bill that states moving charges.. I will pay for water i have used but i am not paying 25 euro for moving charges, both properties have water meters.

That is some audacity.

flogen

This isn't really a media-related discussion at the minute... If people want to make it one that's fine - but if not I can move it to a more suitable forum.

Elmo

I think the representation of both the Water Charges and the Property tax in the media should be up for discussion.

Somethings I don't think they really explain all that well: -

Why where these taxes/fees introduced? It is daft to think that it was just down to funding water and local authorities when up to 2008 central taxation had been able to fund both. Both where created to replace exchequer funding which ultimately goes to paying of debt that was largely created by the banking bailout. The media seemed to suggested (along with both govs) that such charges were to be introduced to improve services.

Why were both services run badly with funding from direct taxation? and why should such service be run better with the use of a property tax and a water fee?

RTE report into the water charges sound more like nah nah nah na na ah we were right you were wrong the EU told us so there.

L1011

Elmo wrote: »

Both where created to replace exchequer funding which ultimately goes to paying of debt that was largely created by the banking bailout.

Nowhere close.

Both were introduced to replace exchequer funding as, even ignoring debt payments, the exchequer was in a multi billion euro per annum hole. It took the first three harsh budgets before we even got close to correcting the public spending to tax take imbalance. The government(s) were very poor at putting this message across and let the nonsense that "its all going to DE BANKERS" take hold in the media - who were, as always, bloody useless and utterly populist.

The continuing reduction in bond rates, which are now far below what they were when times were good even, further reduces the amount spent on debt repayments - and the exchequer is still in deficit!

Elmo

L1011 wrote: »

Nowhere close.

Both were introduced to replace exchequer funding as, even ignoring debt payments, the exchequer was in a multi billion euro per annum hole. It took the first three harsh budgets before we even got close to correcting the public spending to tax take imbalance. The government(s) were very poor at putting this message across and let the nonsense that "its all going to DE BANKERS" take hold in the media - who were, as always, bloody useless and utterly populist.

The continuing reduction in bond rates, which are now far below what they were when times were good even, further reduces the amount spent on debt repayments - and the exchequer is still in deficit!

This is also this issue people using the phrase "populist" here are media organisations that haven't taken that "populist" line.

Was the exchequer not paying enough for local and water services? Or where they paying too much causing a massive debt and a recession? Was it planned that the property tax would increase the amount going to local authorities, while a centralize water infrastructure would better maintain a mish-mash of local authorities while also providing more money to Irish Water.

How much banking debt do we own Versus what we spend on public services?

Are the public not willing to listen to the media and government or is it simple that the message hasn't got across that direct taxation could not handle the amount of money required.

L1011

Elmo wrote: »

Was the exchequer not paying enough for local and water services?

It wasn't - there was insufficient investment. This really isn't the right forum to discuss this though.

Elmo wrote: »

How much banking debt do we own Versus what we spend on public services?

Total public spending is estimated at 54.3Bn this year with debt servicing consisting 7.1Bn of that

2011 budget deficit was 17.7Bn - even if every cent of debt servicing wasn't there (and there was about 3Bn of that in the good days) there was still a chasm to fill.

Cuts to public spending and tax increases are not down to "the banks", they're down to an unacceptably small tax base which collapsed the second the economy sneezed.

Elmo wrote: »

Are the public not willing to listen to the media and government or is it simple that the message hasn't got across that direct taxation could not handle the amount of money required.

The public listen to the media too much / too slavishly and believe almost everything they say - unless its RTE in which case it gets accused of being a state mouthpiece. This is how so many layers of nonsense have built up and are believed.

The media tell the people its "the bankers" fault and that their water charges/property tax/whatever are being used to pay bank debt and people believe it when the figures show this is a complete fiction. The Governments inability to explain that it isn't doesn't help but a sales/revenue desperate media is the main issue.

Elmo

So let use this thread to examine news reports on Water Charges and other taxes. Perhaps a name change is required.

However though this would be off topic (apologies Mods).

Up to 2008 local and water charges were through direct taxation. Now I can understand that as people loose their jobs the floor falls from under neat the tax base. Thus leading to significant re-adjustments. I get this.... but ....

The cost of running the country has increased due to the bailing out of the banks which takes a significant cut of taxes raised.

As pointed out a fall in tax revenues even if the banks did not have to be bailed out causes a shortfall meaning adjustments are required in terms of spending and taxes.

That is fine, only if the bail out didn't happen the government is on a better footing to take out loans and those loans could be taken out for public services such as Local facilities and water.

Meaning taxes are being used to foot the bill for the collapses of the banking system which would have otherwise been used for public service.

L1011

Elmo wrote: »

The cost of running the country has increased due to the bailing out of the banks which takes a significant cut of taxes raised.

I've just shown you it doesn't. The tax increases and spending cuts were required to close the gap in normal expenditure.

You cannot twist and turn things to try and "prove" that. "de bankers" did not cause local property tax and water charges. An unsuitable, incredibly narrow, purchase tax based taxation system did.

There would be a need for property taxation (and water charges when they are inevitably re-introduced within a year) whether the banks had got a cent or not. You are not going to be able to support your position with any figures.

Elmo

So your saying that no tax increases where required for the banking bail out? And the reason for such increases is only down to the low tax base?

L1011

Elmo wrote: »

So your saying that no tax increases where required for the banking bail out? And the reason for such increases is only down to the low tax base?

No, I'm saying that very little of the adjustments (tax increases and spending cuts) pay for the bailout. There was an eleven figure hole in the books every year.

You are clutching to the little that is and trying to state that the bank bailout is the reason for water charges/property tax which is untrue and patently nonsensical to be honest. It may be what the tabloid media have taught everyone but it isn't true.

horse7

So water charges are suspended now, what exactly does that mean. If my meter reads 100 when it suspends on 1st July ,and reads 175 when the charges restart, does that mean the extra 75 is not charged for,as it was suspended, or is the charge from 100 ,at the start of the suspension period. In other words from 1st July is the charge abolished until the date the suspension is lifted, or are we going to be charged for the suspension period also?

jenny smith

It's all the gubbermint and the meejas fault.

horse7

jenny smith wrote: »

It's all the gubbermint and the meejas fault.

Perfectly clear now, or is it?

jenny smith

horse7 wrote: »

Perfectly clear now, or is it?

takes a while to see through the gubbermiint and the meeja

horse7

Clear as mud.

L1011

Nobody really knows whats going to happen to current bills and outstanding charges for those who never paid or stopped paying. You're probably spot on with the "when charges restart" though - this suspension was FF trying to get a little win and finding someone to blame when they come back in dearer (and closer to what FF proposed originally).

horse7

The question is not about current bills up to July.

miss perfect

never pay

miketheDIYman

I am hoping to sell my house and downsize but have never paid any water charges - will I be made to pay up when my solicitor finalizes the sale ???

horse7

miketheDIYman wrote: »

I am hoping to sell my house and downsize but have never paid any water charges - will I be made to pay up when my solicitor finalizes the sale ???

Yes, pay now or you'll hold up the sale.