Water charges for excessive usage

PommieBast

charlie14 wrote: »

Tbh, I`m not sure what you mean in relation to meters or rationing.

Telling people to use less water is unenforceable unless individual places are metered. It is far cheaper to tell people to use less than invest in things like extra capacity and repairs, as the UK experience shows..

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/17/united-utilities-hosepipe-ban-firm-loses-133-litres-of-water-a-day-per-household-heatwave-weather

I have no idea what they are doing in Temple Bar or why, but with the lock-down and social distancing I would be surprised if it is normal mains repairs rather than an emergency type exercise where a major leak has cut of the supply of water in te area.

Temple Bar from what I recall is one of the worst places for leaks but all the pubs businesses there whinged about loss of custom should the street be dug up for repairs.

charlie14

PommieBast wrote: »

Telling people to use less water is unenforceable unless individual places are metered. It is far cheaper to tell people to use less than invest in things like extra capacity and repairs, as the UK experience shows..

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/17/united-utilities-hosepipe-ban-firm-loses-133-litres-of-water-a-day-per-household-heatwave-weather
Temple Bar from what I recall is one of the worst places for leaks but all the pubs businesses there whinged about loss of custom should the street be dug up for repairs.

When you compare the household usage of water here from IW`s figure to the O.E.C.D. figure for the UK it doesn`t look as if metering does a lot to encourage less usage. Or that it does a lot for leakage level either from the figures in that article.



That may be what is happening in Temple Bar, but as I said, a bit surprising that with this lock-down and a government campaign on social distancing that IW are still doing this.

PommieBast

charlie14 wrote: »

When you compare the household usage of water here from IW`s figure to the O.E.C.D. figure for the UK it doesn`t look as if metering does a lot to encourage less usage. Or that it does a lot for leakage level either from the figures in that article.

I disagree with water metering in principle (to me "use less water" means "wash less often") so I make no claims whether the intentions I mentioned are actually effective.

IW claims 43% is lost to leaks - they should be fixing that rather than forcing "conservation" down householders' throats.

Nevin Parsnipp

PommieBast wrote: »

I disagree with water metering in principle (to me "use less water" means "wash less often") so I make no claims whether the intentions I mentioned are actually effective.

IW claims 43% is lost to leaks - they should be fixing that rather than forcing "conservation" down householders' throats.

Yep ! that makes good sense...do not encourage conservation of a valuable and expensive resource until all the leaks are fixed.

"use less water = wash less often"? A tad simplistic I would opine ...but hey ..your a black and white type of guy....so that's ok.

Any other metering you disagree with "in principle" Gas /Electricity / Street Parking etc. ?

Idbatterim

I dont know how you still have the energy for the bickering lads. Charging for water is a sound principle. But this is an Irish problem with an Irish solution! Forget it, theyll save the same amount by not raising welfare a fiver a week, which isnt in any way contentious! Raising a fiver a week from them for water charges? world war 3! What would you do?

Brendan Bendar

Idbatterim wrote: »

I dont know how you still have the energy for the bickering lads. Charging for water is a sound principle. But this is an Irish problem with an Irish solution! Forget it, theyll save the same amount by not raising welfare a fiver a week, which isnt in any way contentious! Raising a fiver a week from them for water charges? world war 3! What would you do?

Look, Batthers, lot of these lads just want to steer clear of signing up for anything.....y’know yourself...... tip around... this and that.... stay under the radar.....keep her lit Joxer.

charlie14

PommieBast wrote: »

I disagree with water metering in principle (to me "use less water" means "wash less often") so I make no claims whether the intentions I mentioned are actually effective.

IW claims 43% is lost to leaks - they should be fixing that rather than forcing "conservation" down householders' throats.

The whole conservation sell by IW, and that government especially, was laughable from the start as to what their priority was.


We had Enda Kenny telling us that there would be no metering until we had a world class service. The reality was the complete opposite.While mains were leaking like sieves the priority was to spend countless millions on meters. To further add to the farce that it was anything to do with conservation, when people told them where to stuff their meters they were then prepared to throw good money after bad by giving away another 130 Million plus of free money on a water conservation grant that was nothing even remotely connected to water conservation.


All that money wasted when a survey for relatively minuscule amount of that waste would have shown that households here do not waste water, and that without metering Irish households conserve water much better than the vast majority of countries that have metering.

charlie14

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Look, Batthers, lot of these lads just want to steer clear of signing up for anything.....y’know yourself...... tip around... this and that.... stay under the radar.....keep her lit Joxer.

Domestic water and waste water services are funded from general taxation.
I cannot see how anyone could "stay under the radar" and not contribute to general taxation. Do you ?

Plumbthedepths

charlie14 wrote: »

Domestic water and waste water services are funded from general taxation.
I cannot see how anyone could "stay under the radar" and not contribute to general taxation. Do you ?

Pity you quoted his rubbish, I had him on ignore. Only so much crap you could read.

suicide_circus

questionable water infrastructure is a consequence of paying for it out of general taxation, we just need to get used to it, its grand most of the time and cock ups happen everywhere including countries that pay by usage.

Brendan Bendar

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Pity you quoted his rubbish, I had him on ignore. Only so much crap you could read.

Don’t have a problem with that, you see,my friend , it boils down to this.

There are folk who once they are asked to ‘pay for something specifically’ which ties them to an address, a property, a traceable number, a link to useage, a name, ...stuff like that.

They get very jittery, get a bit ‘anxious’ start wondering about things, how do I hold on to my ‘entitlements’ and still tip around, do this and that, operate on the edge of the envelope, good man ..cash is best mate.

Signing up for water meters wouldn’t ease that anxiety, for sure.

How many residents in the casa.... jaysus.... whah do the fhuukers want that stuff for.

No way mate...

pablo128

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Don’t have a problem with that, you see,my friend , it boils down to this.

There are folk who once they are asked to ‘pay for something specifically’ which ties them to an address, a property, a traceable number, a link to useage, a name, ...stuff like that.

They get very jittery, get a bit ‘anxious’ start wondering about things, how do I hold on to my ‘entitlements’ and still tip around, do this and that, operate on the edge of the envelope, good man ..cash is best mate.

Signing up for water meters wouldn’t ease that anxiety, for sure.

How many residents in the casa.... jaysus.... whah do the fhuukers want that stuff for.

No way mate...

You're like a broken record. Every single post of yours looks exactly the same.

Plumbthedepths

pablo128 wrote: »

You're like a broken record. Every single post of yours looks exactly the same.

It's laughable that he presumes everyone that opposed the set up FG inflicted on the country is a tax dogder. I have worked since I was 16 suffered during the economic crash but f**ked if I was going to allow FG pull that stunt without so much as a whimper from me.

Nevin Parsnipp

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

It's laughable that he presumes everyone that opposed the set up FG inflicted on the country is a tax dogder. I have worked since I was 16 suffered during the economic crash but f**ked if I was going to allow FG pull that stunt without so much as a whimper from me.

I don't think he presumes that EVERYBODY opposed to the water charges is a tax dodger.

Just a sizable cohort who "operate on the fringes" pretty hard to deny that a lot of that kind of stuff is happening.

We whinge about our water infrastructure and we whinge more when we are asked to fund it.

We pay for the Lecky and the Garse....so why not water .

Will conserve a valuable resource and discourage waste of same ...?

pablo128

Nevin Parsnipp wrote: »

Will conserve a valuable resource and discourage waste of same ...?

Time and time again it has been pointed out that we as a nation are a conservative bunch when it comes to water consumption and usage. The single biggest issue the state could do to reduce usage is to repair the many mains leaks.

Joe Kaine

A flat rate charge across the board is badly wanted. 200 euro per house per year.

Plumbthedepths

Nevin Parsnipp wrote: »

I don't think he presumes that EVERYBODY opposed to the water charges is a tax dodger.

Just a sizable cohort who "operate on the fringes" pretty hard to deny that a lot of that kind of stuff is happening.

We whinge about our water infrastructure and we whinge more when we are asked to fund it.

We pay for the Lecky and the Garse....so why not water .

Will conserve a valuable resource and discourage waste of same ...?

Why do you presume to speak for someone else?
Now if this was After Hours the rest of your reply might garner a like from a few posters but since it's a slightly more serious forum can you provide a definite figure for that large cohort you refer to and evidence of their ability to skirt paying either direct or indirect taxes.

Brendan Bendar

Joe Kaine wrote: »

A flat rate charge across the board is badly wanted. 200 euro per house per year.

No exceptions/ derogations/nods/winks and stuff.

Would be a start.

Plumbthedepths

pablo128 wrote: »

Time and time again it has been pointed out that we as a nation are a conservative bunch when it comes to water consumption and usage. The single biggest issue the state could do to reduce usage is to repair the many mains leaks.

It was also stated by the lovely Miss Arnett at the time ,that if people conserved water the unit price would increase.

Nevin Parsnipp

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Why do you presume to speak for someone else?
Now if this was After Hours the rest of your reply might garner a like from a few posters but since it's a slightly more serious forum can you provide a definite figure for that large cohort you refer to and evidence of their ability to skirt paying either direct or indirect taxes.

Look Dude I am not speaking for someone else ..I am commenting on their post.

Is that not allowed ?

As for the number who operate on the fringes ...no I cannot provide any definite figures .nor evidence of their ability to dodge taxes...but I believe such a cohort exists based on anecdotal evidence.

If you asked me for figures to prove that gangland crime in Ireland had massively increased in recent years I could not provide them ...yet it is obvious that it is so ?

Have you any figures to prove that my comments on tax dodging are incorrect ?

charlie14

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Pity you quoted his rubbish, I had him on ignore. Only so much crap you could read.

Apologies. No excuse.
I`m around long enough to know better than respond to that continuous inane mantra.

pablo128

Nevin Parsnipp wrote: »

Look Dude I am not speaking for someone else ..I am commenting on their post.

Is that not allowed ?

As for the number who operate on the fringes ...no I cannot provide any definite figures .nor evidence of their ability to dodge taxes...but I believe such a cohort exists based on anecdotal evidence.

If you asked me for figures to prove that gangland crime in Ireland had massively increased in recent years I could not provide them ...yet it is obvious that it is so ?

Have you any figures to prove that my comments on tax dodging are incorrect ?

Look at the numbers of people who protested against water charges, and the numbers who failed to engage with Irish water. Are they all tax dodgers? Do they all work in the black economy?

Plumbthedepths

Nevin Parsnipp wrote: »

Look Dude I am not speaking for someone else ..I am commenting on their post.

Is that not allowed ?

As for the number who operate on the fringes ...no I cannot provide any definite figures .nor evidence of their ability to dodge taxes...but I believe such a cohort exists based on anecdotal evidence.

If you asked me for figures to prove that gangland crime in Ireland had massively increased in recent years I could not provide them ...yet it is obvious that it is so ?

Have you any figures to prove that my comments on tax dodging are incorrect ?

So you just making up stuff without any evidence.
Why are you asking me for figures, I made no claims, you did hence I asked you for evidence .Anecdotal evidence? Sorry that belongs in the 'i heard from a reliable source category'.
You're right I didn't ask you about crime stats of any sort. I'll stick with what I asked you.

Joe Kaine

pablo128 wrote: »

Look at the numbers of people who protested against water charges, and the numbers who failed to engage with Irish water. Are they all tax dodgers? Do they all work in the black economy?

Attitude towards IW has changed an awful lot since especially as themselves and the county councils are working alongside one another now. I'm on the ground everyday dealing with people face to face so I'd have a fair idea.

charlie14

Nevin Parsnipp wrote: »

I don't think he presumes that EVERYBODY opposed to the water charges is a tax dodger.

Just a sizable cohort who "operate on the fringes" pretty hard to deny that a lot of that kind of stuff is happening.

We whinge about our water infrastructure and we whinge more when we are asked to fund it.

We pay for the Lecky and the Garse....so why not water .

Will conserve a valuable resource and discourage waste of same ...?

It`s also pretty hard to deny that one of the major financial benefactors from water metering, (and who now has his snout in the National Broadband Plan trough), is a tax exile.


Not only that, but along with an ex FG minister someone who has an adverse finding from a tribunal report into a prior Government contract. I don`t see that poster or any other IW supporters, to their shame, on here having a problem with that "operator on the fringe".

Plumbthedepths

charlie14 wrote: »

It`s also pretty hard to deny that one of the major financial benefactors from water metering, (and who now has his snout in the National Broadband Plan trough), is a tax exile.


Not only that, but along with an ex FG minister someone who has an adverse finding from a tribunal report into a prior Government contract. I don`t see that poster or any other IW supporters, to their shame, on here having a problem with that "operator on the fringe".

You have to remember Charlie , it's always punch down never up.

PommieBast

suicide_circus wrote: »

questionable water infrastructure is a consequence of paying for it out of general taxation, we just need to get used to it, its grand most of the time and cock ups happen everywhere including countries that pay by usage.

I don't agree with water metering but I am comfortable with a charge linked to the fixed costs.
From what I have read there was a form of water charge in the 1970s but then it was shunted onto local authorities who were unable and/or unwilling to fund it. I heard stories of water mains that disintegrated when they were dug up because the pressure of the ground around them was all that kept them intact.

pablo128 wrote: »

Time and time again it has been pointed out that we as a nation are a conservative bunch when it comes to water consumption and usage. The single biggest issue the state could do to reduce usage is to repair the many mains leaks.

Even if it was not the case most people don't have that much control over how much water they use. They need so many baths/showers/dumps/laundry a week and the amount of water each uses is more or less fixed.

Nevin Parsnipp

charlie14 wrote: »

It`s also pretty hard to deny that one of the major financial benefactors from water metering, (and who now has his snout in the National Broadband Plan trough), is a tax exile..

Agreed ! But does that in itself make water meters a bad thing ?

Plumbthedepths

Joe Kaine wrote: »

Attitude towards IW has changed an awful lot since especially as themselves and the county councils are working alongside one another now. I'm on the ground everyday dealing with people face to face so I'd have a fair idea.

LOL.

charlie14

Nevin Parsnipp wrote: »

Agreed ! But does that in itself make water meters a bad thing ?

My post that you refer to had nothing to do with whether metering was either good or bad.


It was in relation to your reply, and apparent agreement with another poster, that like many pro water charges supporters based on nothing other than hearsay innuendo and imagination that a sizeable cohort, "who operate on the fringes", refused to "engage" with Irish Water as a tax dodge for financial gain.


I simply pointed out that rather than hearsay innuendo and imagination, the fact is that one of the main financial benefactors, who was very much engaged with Irish Water, (and now the National broadband Plan), is a tax exile. Someone who along with a previous FG Minister has a prior adverse Tribunal finding in relation to a major State contract. A finding that has the ramification to cost this State potentially Billions in compensation from an ongoing court case.


Would it not be best for the sake of discussion and debate if we stuck to facts rather than baseless flights of fantasy on " sizable cohorts"