Water charges revisited?

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Let me remind you that you proclaimed there was literally No water right now.

Stop trying to shift the goalposts.

I am pretty certain that you were one of those who told us that Ireland didn't have a water supply problem. Well, people were very wrong about that, as this week shows us.

There is more to come, this water supply issue will only get worse over the next few years. I said this at the time, but nobody listened. I don't like being right about the problems with the water supply, but chickens do come home to roost.

Demand measures i.e water charges, will have to come back on the table.

blanch152

Rennaws wrote: »

In your opinion..

The protesters, myself included, felt differently.

You only seem to like democracy when people agree with you which isn't how it works.

We won. The refunds are being processed. Water charges are off the table.

Move on..

Yes, you felt differently, so here we are, with water shortages and no demand measures in place. So to repeat my post, the water charges protests were stupid, misguided, ignorant, dangerously populist, crazy and wrong, As has been shown by recent events.

blanch152 wrote: »

Of course protest is a democratic right.

But that doesn't mean that a particular protest isn't stupid, misguided, ignorant, dangerously populist, crazy or wrong. And the Irish Water protests were all of those.

FreudianSlippers

Many people who pay little to no tax are more than happy to ensure their services are paid for through taxation.

We are mobile, we work in a digital world, we have good jobs... we don't need to be tax resident here.

Best of luck.

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

It wasn't just a one off 80 million cost as you well know. A nice expensive call centre has to be paid along with performance bonuses etc etc. Now again, FG and their incompetence is what has caused the present mess despite you seeking to apportion blame everywhere except where it belings

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Pay rises in the public sector would in my opinion be a topic for a different thread. Didn't TD's get an extra 5 k last year? Not huge money but would fix a few leaks too.

This once again shows how stupid and laughable the opposition to water charges was.

5k for 166 TDs, adds up to 80k, a drop in the ocean, just like the money for a poor driver to be a board member (still the snobbery about that goes on);. The lies continue too. The 80m for consultants was a once-off cost. Why is it being conflated with the call centre costs and the performance bonuses and the "etc." that we don't know what it is? Because of the desperation to sling the blame at everyone except the idiotic protestors.

I really hope a Government Minister steps up after these water shortages and tells the country how FG lost seats in the election and that FF demanded an end to water charges having run scared after SF and Paul Murphy et al. as well as the destruction of Labour. I hope they explain that is how we ended up with no water charges and no water supply this summer and how that needs to change after the next election with the reintroduction of water charges.

FG would get my number 1 then, rather than the number 3 or 4 they have been used to.

FreudianSlippers

Rennaws wrote: »

Really

Good luck with that..

The Bill might already be an Act (I'm not positive on that) but not enacted. The Bill has definitely cleared the relevant stages for enactment with cross-party support.

aido79

blanch152 wrote: »

For some people, water charges were the only government charge that they were actually going to see themselves pay.

Yes, they paid VAT, which is invisible, but apart from that, they didn't pay income tax, most of them didn't pay USC, and those that did, hated that they had to pay it.

In reality, there is a cohort of 15-25% of the population who don't visibly pay any taxes and weren't prepared to pay water charges, which is what brought them down.

This thing about everyone paying taxes that got repeated on the old water threads is a bit of a red herring too.

Its a bit like if you go to the supermarket and on the way in you are handed a voucher for €100 by the manager. You then grab a trolley and put €100 worth of groceries in it and head up to the checkout and hand over the voucher and walk out with the groceries. Have you actually spent money in the shop? Have you paid VAT on the groceries?
I would say no to these questions since you were given the money for little to no effort on your part but others would see it as them having a right to that voucher. They might even think they should have got a voucher of a higher value.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

5k for 166 TDs, adds up to 80k, a drop in the ocean, just like the money for a poor driver to be a board member (still the snobbery about that goes on);. The lies continue too. The 80m for consultants was a once-off cost. Why is it being conflated with the call centre costs and the performance bonuses and the "etc." that we don't know what it is? Because of the desperation to sling the blame at everyone except the idiotic protestors.

The 5 k applied to the grade in the CS TD salaries are linked to so a little bit more than 80k. What lies are your referring too? perhaps FS's claim that there is 'literally no water ' . Or are you making an unfounded allegation?
As for your voting intentions yes of course you only give FG a 3rd or 4th preference, but why you feel it's necessary to say this is a mystery to be honest.
It's late goodnight.

FreudianSlippers

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The 5 k applied to the grade in the CS TD salaries are linked to so a little bit more than 80k. What lies are your referring too? perhaps FS's claim that there is 'literally no water ' . Or are you making an unfounded allegation?
As for your voting intentions yes of course you only give FG a 3rd or 4th preference, but why you feel it's necessary to say this is a mystery to be honest.
It's late goodnight.

I may be guilty of hyperbole, but I'm not guilty of talking nonsense.

FreudianSlippers

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Pay rises in the public sector would in my opinion be a topic for a different thread. Didn't TD's get an extra 5 k last year? Not huge money but would fix a few leaks too.

Just to repeat for clarity: fixing the Dublin water infrastructure will cost five billion Euro, fixing the nation's water infrastructure will cost thirteen billion Euro.

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The 5 k applied to the grade in the CS TD salaries are linked to so a little bit more than 80k. What lies are your referring too? perhaps FS's claim that there is 'literally no water ' . Or are you making an unfounded allegation?
As for your voting intentions yes of course you only give FG a 3rd or 4th preference, but why you feel it's necessary to say this is a mystery to be honest.
It's late goodnight.

you are talking nonsense once again. The cost of fixing water is billions, yet you use a 5k increase for TDs as reason for opposing water charges. Really this is just silly now. I got a zero wrong, so whether it is 80k or 800k is a hill of beans in the context of fixing the water supply. As usual, the permanently outraged have fixed their sights on the wrong target.

We have a water supply problem that will take decades to solve with money that the Government doesn't have. The only way of doing it is to introduce demand-side measures such as water charges to both reduce demand in the shorter term and create an income to fund infrastructure development in the longer term.

This is simple basic common sense.

Hitman3000

FreudianSlippers wrote:

We don't. There's literally no water right now.

Hyperbolic nonsense tbh. As i said to Blanch goodnight. I'm sure you and a few of the regular posters will keep each other company throughout the wee hours.

FreudianSlippers

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Hyperbolic nonsense tbh. As i said to Blanch goodnight. I'm sure you and a few of the regular posters will keep each other company throughout the wee hours.

That's now the second time you've said that and quoted that post. I've admitted it was hyperbole. Not enough thanks or padding the post count?

Either way... NOT ENOUGH WATER! ATTACK THE POST NOT THE POSTER

Good loser

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, you felt differently, so here we are, with water shortages and no demand measures in place. So to repeat my post, the water charges protests were stupid, misguided, ignorant, dangerously populist, crazy and wrong, As has been shown by recent events.

That summarises the situation perfectly and succinctly. The stupidity was mind boggling. The last and decisive daggers wielded by FF.

Quoting from Saturday View on June 30.

'Irish Water is probably the biggest missed opportunity in this country for 25 years. Along with housing, water infrastructure is the most urgent investment need in the country. IW was the ideal vehicle to raise the money to make that investment. And it was hounded, shamefully I think, by politicians and people who didn't know what they were talking about.'

Coz

Good loser wrote:

' IW was the ideal vehicle to raise the money to make that investment. And it was hounded, shamefully I think, by politicians and people who didn't know what they were talking about.'

I've not been able to follow every post on this thread so forgive me if this has already been covered.

A major concern many had was that IW was destined to be privatised. Go down that route and water poverty is only a few years away. The business will be all about the bottom line.

I absolutely subscribe to water conservation but if a PLC is providing the service, the more people conserve, the more they have to charge.

Yes, the Government said privatisation was not in the cards, yet they refused to put measures in place to ensure that it couldn't be.

aido79

Coz wrote: »

I've not been able to follow every post on this thread so forgive me if this has already been covered.

A major concern many had was that IW was destined to be privatised. Go down that route and water poverty is only a few years away. The business will be all about the bottom line.

I absolutely subscribe to water conservation but if a PLC is providing the service, the more people conserve, the more they have to charge.

Yes, the Government said privatisation was not in the cards, yet they refused to put measures in place to ensure that it couldn't be.

This is pure conspiracy theory stuff here.

Who in their right mind would buy a company that would require a €13billion investment for it to run efficiently with an almost certain chance that most of your customers won't pay and the main reason they won't pay is because you bought the company.
Plumbing apprenticeships would be the most in demand job with the amount of people looking to have their meters bypassed.

F34

I agree we do need some type of water charge to stop people wasting an expensive to produce resource. I also signed up to Irish water and was willing to pay charges until the facts of how much money they were squandering setting it up.

Massive over spend on consultants, dubious practices on meter installation contracts bonus being paid for no reason other than people showing up to work. The biggest pisser got me was the unit price they came out with would have been one of the highest in the EU.

People say that money currently going to Irish water could be spent on housing or health if it wasn’t being given to Irish water but we would literally be throwing good money after bad we have huge issues with inefficiency across our public sector and Irish water was set up in the exact same way where it’s there to look after it’s em first and foremost rather than the task it was set up to do.

McMurphy

Yet again people are forgetting that the charging system in place was abolished by FG, on the recommendations of an expert commission put in place by FG.

The haimes made of Irish Water begins and ends with them, so it is fantasist and a farce trying to accost anyone and everyone else for the haimes, from protesters to the shinners, and from FF to PBP.

I don't envisage any political party being completely and utterly dense enough to try reinforcing them, prob in generation or two.

Difficult to swallow and accept I imagine, but thems the facts.

The Bishop Basher

aido79 wrote: »

This here is the biggest problem among people against water charges. The mentality is that regardless of how much water is lost through leaks the onus will always be on the government to supply you with water.

Correct. I pay the government for this service and I expect to receive it. I pay the top rate of tax across the board get practically nothing in return. Water is one of the few services I actually benefit from. I'm not paying for it a third time. Not then, not now, not ever.

aido79 wrote: »

It doesn't matter how many other services have to fight for the money from the overall general taxation fund.

We elect a government to manage this. Are you saying they're not up to the task ?

aido79 wrote: »

Does it not make even a little bit of sense to you to take the huge cost of supplying water to a majority of the homes in the country off the government books so that more of this money can be used for things like health and housing?

It's certainly one of a number of options but it also depends on which problem you're trying to fix.. as I said above, I already pay well over 50% of every euro I earn in direct and indirect taxation yet despite this we're in the midst of a catastrophic housing crisis and our public services are in total disarray. All of this while we're also increasingly paying separately for those same services.

This is the urgent problem. Water charges are a red herring and deflection by the government for not doing their job.

If were not spending money on water and every other service is a shambles, where is it all going ?

We aren't spending the current tax take efficiently enough so why should we reach into our pockets, yet again, to pay for a service that we're already paying for, just because the government aren't capable of doing their job competently.

Fix that problem first and then lets see where we're at..

aido79 wrote: »

General taxation is not the bottomless pit of money that some people seem to think it is.

That goes both ways. They reached the bottom of this money pit some time ago.

The Bishop Basher

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I may be guilty of hyperbole, but I'm not guilty of talking nonsense.

The problem is you'd be the first on any other thread to be accusing others of hyperbole and telling them they're talking nonsense. It's a little inconsistent.

The other problem is that there so much hyperbole from the pro tax posters, it's difficult to tell fact from fiction..

It reminds of the introduction of the family home tax when they told us the streetlights were about to go out..

There are massive infrastructural projects and upgrades underway as we speak. Our taps are not about to run dry and water charges will not eliminate water shortages in the summer months.

Remember peak oil ? We were supposed to have run dry 20 years ago now.

similar stuff. Put simply, these claims from the pro tax posters are nothing but blatant lies.

blanch152 wrote: »

In reality, there is a cohort of 15-25% of the population who don't visibly pay any taxes and weren't prepared to pay water charges, which is what brought them down.

This is the rock you perished on. No doubt that there were welfare scroungers involved but it took a much wider demographic to create the numbers and force the many subsequent u turns.

I've never taken a days dole in my life. There were many more like me at every march. The majority of people i met had never been involved in any kind of protest before.

You underestimated us then and you're doing it again now.

Please, keep doing it..

The Bishop Basher

Coz wrote: »

Yes, the Government said privatisation was not in the cards, yet they refused to put measures in place to ensure that it couldn't be.

Because they were lying.

blanch152

Coz wrote: »

I've not been able to follow every post on this thread so forgive me if this has already been covered.

A major concern many had was that IW was destined to be privatised. Go down that route and water poverty is only a few years away. The business will be all about the bottom line.

I absolutely subscribe to water conservation but if a PLC is providing the service, the more people conserve, the more they have to charge.

Yes, the Government said privatisation was not in the cards, yet they refused to put measures in place to ensure that it couldn't be.

The idea that Irish Water was destined to be privatised is a complete urban myth spread by irresponsible populist politicians and swallowed by some gullible people out there.

The legislative basis of Irish Water was little different to that of any semi-State company, and by diluting it in response to the gullible, the government made a serious mistake which ended up with Irish Water being unable to borrow other than on-book.

Those irresponsible populist politicians who stoked up the masses have to carry the blame for this mess.

View

Rennaws wrote: »

Coz wrote: »

Yes, the Government said privatisation was not in the cards, yet they refused to put measures in place to ensure that it couldn't be.

Because they were lying.

If the government were (or are) lying then there is nothing to stop them trying to privatise the water system immediately, either as a complete IW package or by selling it off on a local authority by local authority basis.

The only real argument to support such a move though would be to get away from all the political nonsense that has occurred when the state decided to directly, rather than indirectly, charge for water.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Yet again people are forgetting that the charging system in place was abolished by FG, on the recommendations of an expert commission put in place by FG.

The haimes made of Irish Water begins and ends with them, so it is fantasist and a farce trying to accost anyone and everyone else for the haimes, from protesters to the shinners, and from FF to PBP.

I don't envisage any political party being completely and utterly dense enough to try reinforcing them, prob in generation or two.

Difficult to swallow and accept I imagine, but thems the facts.

No matter how many times you say it, it simply isn't true. The commission was a FF dreamchild and part of the price they demanded for supporting FG. That is only one aspect of the revisionism you have got wrong.

Rennaws wrote: »

Correct. I pay the government for this service and I expect to receive it. I pay the top rate of tax across the board get practically nothing in return. Water is one of the few services I actually benefit from. I'm not paying for it a third time. Not then, not now, not ever.

Except we never paid for water services ever. That is why we have such a crap infrastructure (together with the incompetence of local authorities over a century).

Rennaws wrote: »

It's certainly one of a number of options but it also depends on which problem you're trying to fix.. as I said above, I already pay well over 50% of every euro I earn in direct and indirect taxation yet despite this we're in the midst of a catastrophic housing crisis and our public services are in total disarray. All of this while we're also increasingly paying separately for those same services.

There isn't enough income to pay for everything. Whether it comes from you or from those that never pay is the question.

Let us remember a few things. We were told by water charges protestors that Irish Water would be privatised after the election. It didn't happen.

We were told by water charges protestors that there would never be a water shortage in Ireland. They got that wrong as well.

Now some of them are back here saying it is all FG's fault. Laughable and pathetic.

As someone who supported water charges, I predicted it would never be privatised. I also predicted that if the charges were abolished, there would be water shortages because of the lack of demand-side measures, the constrained supply in Dublin, and the lack of money for investing in fixing leaks. All has come to pass.

The Bishop Basher

blanch152 wrote: »

Those irresponsible populist politicians who stoked up the masses have to carry the blame for this mess.

No.

Enda, Phil and all their incompetent colleagues carry the blame for this mess.

View wrote: »

If the government were (or are) lying then there is nothing to stop them trying to privatise the water system immediately, either as a complete IW package or by selling it off on a local authority by local authority basis.

They can't privatise water because it would be political suicide.

blanch152 wrote: »

Except we never paid for water services ever. That is why we have such a crap infrastructure (together with the incompetence of local authorities over a century).

That's a blatant lie. We paid twice for water services. The government went off chasing rainbows with the cash and now they've come crying for more. You're just making stuff up now.

blanch152 wrote: »

There isn't enough income to pay for everything. Whether it comes from you or from those that never pay is the question.

Of course there isn't. If we're not wasting it we're giving it away to Europe or refusing it from Apple. We're incapable of handling our own finances.

But we do need to broaden the tax base and lower the burden on the rest of us because the current tax system is blatantly unfair.

blanch152 wrote: »

As someone who supported water charges, I predicted it would never be privatised. I also predicted that if the charges were abolished, there would be water shortages because of the lack of demand-side measures, the constrained supply in Dublin, and the lack of money for investing in fixing leaks. All has come to pass.

As i've said a few times on this thread, we have major infrastructural upgrades underway as we speak. These are being paid for from general taxation. The sky hasn't fallen in and the taps are still running. Stop lying.

As for predicting water shortages ? They happen all over the world including countries with a charge so your prediction is about as impressive as me predicting rainfall sometime this winter..

blanch152

Rennaws wrote: »

That's a blatant lie. We paid twice for water services. The government went off chasing rainbows with the cash and now they've come crying for more. You're just making stuff up now.

If we paid twice for it, how come it isn't fit for purpose?

Rennaws wrote: »

As i've said a few times on this thread, we have major infrastructural upgrades underway as we speak. These are being paid for from general taxation. The sky hasn't fallen in and the taps are still running. Stop lying.

As for predicting water shortages ? They happen all over the world including countries with a charge so your prediction is about as impressive as me predicting rainfall sometime this winter..

The taps may be running but the hosepipes aren't.

These water shortages will get worse, mark my words. We are one burst old pipe away from a crisis.

theyoungchap

My objection to water charges starts and finishes with the bloated quango they set up to pay for it.

The first thing which should have been done was added to property tax, and 250 quid per household (which was the rough figure) set aside for repair of old mains pipes ONLY.
Once that is done, give people the option of a meter, and if they fall below certain consumption targets, then they get a rebate of some/all of their 250 quid. That way if you want to fill the paddling pool, you pay for it.

Unfortunately, we have ended up with the worst of every world. A bloated quango, which only the tax payer is paying for, which is costing us a fortune and nothing being done about the crumbling water infrastructure. Meanwhile, Paul Murphy and his ilk tells people water charges were abolished - instead, the private sector tax payer is paying the full bill. Galling.

I honestly think we need a massive outage or shortage in Dublin, a situation where masses of people need to go to the local tanker for water, to finally make people realise we need a sensible debate about water rather than a debate fuelled by political one-upmanship and point scoring. Watch the protest politicians disappear "on holiday" for a few weeks while that would unfold.

Seth Brundle

Rennaws wrote: »

Correct. I pay the government for this service and I expect to receive it. I pay the top rate of tax across the board get practically nothing in return. Water is one of the few services I actually benefit from. I'm not paying for it a third time. Not then, not now, not ever.

Rennaws wrote: »

That's a blatant lie. We paid twice for water services. The government went off chasing rainbows with the cash and now they've come crying for more. You're just making stuff up now.

In what way have we paid for water twice?
Funding for water services may have been taken from a number of sources but that does not directly mean that we paid for it multiple times - to suggest so is deliberately misleading.
Given the crap state of the water network, we've not paid enough once to maintain it!

The Bishop Basher

blanch152 wrote: »

If we paid twice for it, how come it isn't fit for purpose?

You would have to pose that question to all the previous finance ministers who decided to use that money elsewhere..

Probably lobbing a few quid at the grey vote or giving guards another pay rise.

Whatever the reason, we paid as requested and they spent it elsewhere..

Now they need to go figure out how to budget properly.

blanch152 wrote: »

The taps may be running but the hosepipes aren't.

As with every other country on the planet in times of drought.

blanch152 wrote: »

These water shortages will get worse, mark my words. We are one burst old pipe away from a crisis.

Yep, heard that 3 years ago too.

We're currently getting a very significant upgrade to our infrastructure here so if water shortages get worse it won't be due to lack of infrastructural funding.

Oh and we had a major burst pipe some months ago.. It was fixed. We all survived.

Your nonsense is really being exposed here..

View

Rennaws wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

Those irresponsible populist politicians who stoked up the masses have to carry the blame for this mess.

No.

Enda, Phil and all their incompetent colleagues carry the blame for this mess.

View wrote: »

If the government were (or are) lying then there is nothing to stop them trying to privatise the water system immediately, either as a complete IW package or by selling it off on a local authority by local authority basis.

They can't privatise water because it would be political suicide.

The Oireachtas is free to privatise or nationalise anything as and when it sees fit.

It is only “political suicide” for the politicians if they do it in the 18 months or so before a General Election. If they do it immediately after a general election, there will be few people voting on the basis of that decision come the next GE.

After all, if the Oireachtas had privatised the water system back in, let’s say, 2009, and it was now all owned by companies such as (French water company) Suez, how many people would be casting their votes based on that decision at the next general election?

BarryD2

blanch152 wrote: »

As someone who supported water charges, I predicted it would never be privatised. I also predicted that if the charges were abolished, there would be water shortages because of the lack of demand-side measures, the constrained supply in Dublin, and the lack of money for investing in fixing leaks. All has come to pass.

It has come to pass and will continue to be an ongoing problem. A chronic shortage in public water supplies with lengthy outages for domestic customers is what will knock sense into people.

The concept of reasonable usage as understood by many is laughable. There needs to be a public education programme to help people understand what is reasonable use and what is wanton waste. And if people want to waste above reasonable limits, then let them pay for their extravagance for every extra litre they use.

BarryD2

Rennaws wrote: »

As i've said a few times on this thread, we have major infrastructural upgrades underway as we speak. These are being paid for from general taxation. The sky hasn't fallen in and the taps are still running. Stop lying..

And that's why any politician looking for votes here next time is going to have to answer why?? Let those who use public water supplies pay for their own upgrades.

The Bishop Basher

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Funding for water services may have been taken from a number of sources but that does not directly mean that we paid for it multiple times

Of course it does.

Where else does the funding come from

The Bishop Basher

View wrote: »

It is only “political suicide” for the politicians if they do it in the 18 months or so before a General Election. If they do it immediately after a general election, there will be few people voting on the basis of that decision come the next GE.

Let them try it so.

blackdog1

theyoungchap wrote:

The first thing which should have been done was added to property tax, and 250 quid per household (which was the rough figure) set aside for repair of old mains pipes ONLY. Once that is done, give people the option of a meter, and if they fall below certain consumption targets, then they get a rebate of some/all of their 250 quid. That way if you want to fill the paddling pool, you pay for it.

I disagree. They should have got rid of property tax and put in water charges. Once property tax was introduced you never actually own your home. Look at the states where there is a huge problem with repossession from not paying your property tax and certain areas of cities are uninhabitable for low income families due to the huge property tax put on highly sought after areas.

Seth Brundle

Rennaws wrote: »

Of course it does.

Where else does the funding come from

How was it paid for several times rather than from several sources?

View

Rennaws wrote: »

View wrote: »

It is only “political suicide” for the politicians if they do it in the 18 months or so before a General Election. If they do it immediately after a general election, there will be few people voting on the basis of that decision come the next GE.

Let them try it so.

How many people cast their ballots on the basis of whether Eircom or Aer Lingus were privatised/sold or whether they should be nationalised again?

View

Rennaws wrote: »

That's a blatant lie. We paid twice for water services. The government went off chasing rainbows with the cash and now they've come crying for more. You're just making stuff up now.

If “the government went off chasing rainbows with the cash“ then the money obviously wasn’t spent on water services, so we clearly didn’t pay twice for water services.

We may have “paid twice” for the health service or something else but that is a different issue.

facehugger99

The is still a huge misunderstanding on the original purpose of IW.

By far and away, it's most important aim was to allow a mechanism whereby money could be borrowed off balance sheet for the necessary investment into the water infrastructure.

In order to do this they needed an entity that could pass the Eurostat market corporation test and show it could raise half its income from non-Government sources - i.e. charges.

Political opportunism was (once again) allowed to trump long-term strategy and we have effectively painted ourselves into a corner for the next few decades.

The sheer scale of investment required to sort the underlying issues with the infrastructure cannot be borrowed nor raised through general taxation. We will do what we've always done continue to apply sticking plasters to a hemorrhaging wound and pass the parcel to a future generation to sort out while hoping for the best.

Meanwhile, the populist politicians who whipped up the outrage and frenzy amongst the ignorant can swan off into the sunset with their gold-plated pensions.

Great little country altogether.

crossman47

facehugger99 wrote: »

The is still a huge misunderstanding on the original purpose of IW.

By far and away, it's most important aim was to allow a mechanism whereby money could be borrowed off balance sheet for the necessary investment into the water infrastructure.

In order to do this they needed an entity that could pass the Eurostat market corporation test and show it could raise half its income from non-Government sources - i.e. charges.

Political opportunism was (once again) allowed to trump long-term strategy and we have effectively painted ourselves into a corner for the next few decades.

The sheer scale of investment required to sort the underlying issues with the infrastructure cannot be borrowed nor raised through general taxation. We will do what we've always done continue to apply sticking plasters to a hemorrhaging wound and pass the parcel to a future generation to sort out while hoping for the best.

Meanwhile, the populist politicians who whipped up the outrage and frenzy amongst the ignorant can swan off into the sunset with their gold-plated pensions.

Great little country altogether.

Spot on. Thats exactly the situation. There was a genuine valid reason for setting up IW but it was handled so ineptly that water charges will not now happen but neither will the necessary investment because no government will do the right thing and raise taxes to fund it. And they shouldn't do it by borrowing more!

Wanderer78

facehugger99 wrote:

Meanwhile, the populist politicians who whipped up the outrage and frenzy amongst the ignorant can swan off into the sunset with their gold-plated pensions.

I wonder did failed economic ideas such as austerity have anything to do with this 'populism'?

FreudianSlippers

aido79 wrote: »

This is pure conspiracy theory stuff here.

Who in their right mind would buy a company that would require a €13billion investment for it to run efficiently with an almost certain chance that most of your customers won't pay and the main reason they won't pay is because you bought the company.
Plumbing apprenticeships would be the most in demand job with the amount of people looking to have their meters bypassed.

+1

The operating revenue of IW is less than €300m with expenses around €700m. There is nobody on the planet that would buy that company.

That aside, let's just say someone did agree to buy that for some crazy reason - the state still own the infrastructure itself and the actual water; privatisation concerns are so far-fetched as they rely on so many outlandish "what if" situations.

FreudianSlippers

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Yet again people are forgetting that the charging system in place was abolished by FG, on the recommendations of an expert commission put in place by FG.

Again, I'm not sure you've read the expert report you keep referencing have you?

FreudianSlippers

Rennaws wrote: »

The problem is you'd be the first on any other thread to be accusing others of hyperbole and telling them they're talking nonsense. It's a little inconsistent.

Yeah... every once in a while I'm inconsistent with my language. You'll admit it's pretty rare for me?

Chalk it up to a mistake and move on.

We are not literally out of water, we are literally in a serious water shortage that could potentially get worse quickly and result in many people being literally without running water.

The other problem is that there so much hyperbole from the pro tax posters, it's difficult to tell fact from fiction..

That's the pot calling the kettle black if I've ever seen it.

There are massive infrastructural projects and upgrades underway as we speak. Our taps are not about to run dry and water charges will not eliminate water shortages in the summer months.

There really aren't in all honestly. A few million being spent is a drop in the Victorian bucket of the billions we need to spend.

Remember peak oil ? We were supposed to have run dry 20 years ago now.

Yes, I'm guilty of hyperbole and I'm the only one guilty of it.

similar stuff. Put simply, these claims from the pro tax posters are nothing but blatant lies.

I'm hardly "pro-tax" by supporting a charging regime at Irish Water. In fact, I think calling me a "pro-tax" poster given my history on this forum is laughable.

facehugger99

crossman47 wrote: »

Spot on. Thats exactly the situation. There was a genuine valid reason for setting up IW but it was handled so ineptly that water charges will not now happen

The ability of our politicians to properly explain the issues was baffling and frustrating in equal measures.

The entire agenda and conversation around the need for charging was dictated by the usual suspects in the 'no way, we won't pay' brigade.

The media were quite happy to run with the bull****.

I said it at the time, the Government should have been buying regular 10 minute airtime slots on the national broadcaster and explaining clearly, consistently and concisely why IW was being set up - not 'how', not 'what'. Have a bloody Powerpoint presentation outlining the requirements and aims!!

The 'message' was all over the place - it was a disgraceful performance.

VinLieger

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I wonder did failed economic ideas such as austerity have anything to do with this 'populism'?

Austerity for a short sustained period is a perfectly acceptable economic theory that worked for us and many other countries.

It has undoubtedly led to other issues but who's to say with any certainty those issues or other worse ones would not exist were other strategies followed to bring us out of the hole we were. Calling it failed after it succeeded in its purpose its hilariously agenda driven and quite simply populist propaganda

FreudianSlippers

Rennaws wrote: »

They can't privatise water because it would be political suicide.

But then wouldn't that be the case either way?

That's a blatant lie. We paid twice for water services. The government went off chasing rainbows with the cash and now they've come crying for more. You're just making stuff up now.

I can't say I missed this old chestnut of not understanding taxation. We didn't pay twice, we barely even paid once.

Half of the money came from taxation to subsidize the allowance, the remainder was the charge - that's paying ONCE.

Of course there isn't. If we're not wasting it we're giving it away to Europe or refusing it from Apple. We're incapable of handling our own finances.

Nonsense of the highest order unfortunately.

As i've said a few times on this thread, we have major infrastructural upgrades underway as we speak. These are being paid for from general taxation. The sky hasn't fallen in and the taps are still running. Stop lying.

You've said it, but it's not supported by any shred of evidence.

FreudianSlippers

theyoungchap wrote: »

My objection to water charges starts and finishes with the bloated quango they set up to pay for it.

Do you have any idea how much we pay the Local Authorities to do it?

FreudianSlippers

Rennaws wrote: »

Of course it does.

Where else does the funding come from

Sorry the onus in this forum is not on us to explain basics such as taxation to you - it's for you to explain to us, using figures which are publicly available, how we have "paid twice".

It doesn't even pass a basic logic test in honesty.

FreudianSlippers

blackdog1 wrote: »

Look at the states where there is a huge problem with repossession from not paying your property tax

There are zero States in the US where your home can be repossessed for failure to pay property tax.

The State can put a lean on your home, but it cannot repossess it.

and certain areas of cities are uninhabitable for low income families due to the huge property tax put on highly sought after areas.

This part is just blatantly untrue.

theyoungchap

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Do you have any idea how much we pay the Local Authorities to do it?

When you say "we pay", what do you mean - who is paying and how are you paying it? General tax, commercial water rates, etc?