Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Water charges revisited?

1…1718202223…39

Comments

  • #572
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,520 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Sorry, no. Not at all.

    Your analogy is wrong. It would work if the waiter told you the bill for the meal was €20, gave you a receipt and then billed you an additional 30 for using knives and forks.

    You are asked to pay tax for covering numerous things, including water supply. Any shortfall is the states bad house keeping, unless you dodge tax, you are paying for water.

    No.
    You pay tax which partially covers numerous things.
    If the tax you paid actually paid for 100% of the things it was earmarked for our budgets would be a lot more exciting.

    Your tax would also be a lot higher.

    How can you say any shortfall is the states bad housekeeping exactly?

    This is pretty simple maths. Forget about water. Our Tax take doesnt cover our expenses as a country...thats why we have debt.:confused:


  • #573
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,520 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Matt Barrett wrote: »

    Well, anecdotal evidence aside, (hearsay and conjecture?) we lose over 50% of water through mains leaks over decades. I suppose that was due to not bringing in metering a few years ago?

    No, its because the bt of tax you pay doesnt even nearly cover the expense of the things its used for. One of those things is water, hence poor water infrastructure.
    Another is roads, hence poor road infrastructure.


  • #574
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Edward M wrote: »
    Maybe not a few years ago, a couple of decades more like.
    But even a few years ago, and with IW borrowing on its own, some progress might have been made by now.
    Its a pity FG/Lab made such a pigs ear of it I admit, and share your sentiments re cronyism and perks for staff, but I think metering and charges are necessary.

    There might have been marginally more progress, sure, why not. The point stands it's decades/generations of kicking that particular can down the road has it were it is.
    I do not believe the main motivation behind Irish Water was improving the water supply infrastructure. It would have been a side benefit. IW went completely to plan, if it were not due to public demands it would have remained in the same set up with the same cronies behind the scenes that was railroaded through the Dail. The cronyism, perks and sweet deal weren't accidents.


  • #575
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    GreeBo wrote: »
    No, its because the bt of tax you pay doesnt even nearly cover the expense of the things its used for. One of those things is water, hence poor water infrastructure.
    Another is roads, hence poor road infrastructure.

    No, it really is. Are you suggesting fifty/sixty years ago it was grand right up until 2011?
    Maybe raise taxes and stop wasting money on quangos/cronies/bad deals?


  • #576
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    GreeBo wrote: »
    No.
    You pay tax which partially covers numerous things.
    If the tax you paid actually paid for 100% of the things it was earmarked for our budgets would be a lot more exciting.

    Your tax would also be a lot higher.

    How can you say any shortfall is the states bad housekeeping exactly?

    This is pretty simple maths. Forget about water. Our Tax take doesnt cover our expenses as a country...thats why we have debt.:confused:

    If they had of tended to it sooner we wouldn't be were we are now. Money was allocated elsewhere. Bad management/housekeeping. It's naive to think in 2011 FG suddenly start worrying about water supply.


  • Advertisement
  • #577
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,520 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    If they had of tended to it sooner we wouldn't be were we are now. Money was allocated elsewhere. Bad management/housekeeping. It's naive to think in 2011 FG suddenly start worrying about water supply.

    Tended to it sooner?
    From what I can see all that would have done is moved up your "peaceful protests" to the meters.

    Installing meters and raising capital off the balance sheet IS dealing with it. But people like you are preventing it.
    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    No, it really is. Are you suggesting fifty/sixty years ago it was grand right up until 2011?

    I have no idea what this means?
    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Maybe raise taxes and stop wasting money on quangos/cronies/bad deals?
    So you are against specific water charges based on usage, but you want general taxation to increase?
    You wouldnt be on the welfare by any chance would you?


  • #578
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I have never been asked to accept this or not. It's manifestly irrelevant to whatever point you were, unsuccessfully, trying to make earlier.

    If this is your new point, I still support any reduction in water usage regardless of whether it is currently believed that the average Irish household uses less water than previously thought.

    I think this is a massive own-goal for you and your ilk though, as it is the first building-block in the eventual reduction of the allowance come January 2019 when the charges for use over the allowance are re-introduced (by law).


    Me and my ilk?

    I find that an offensive term.
    A bit like if I were to refer to you as you and your fellow travellers I'm sure you'd find it offensive.

    Not something I would stoop to, and I think you should apologise for using it.

    It's a pity that the conversation degenerated like this when the flies in the ointment are analysed.

    The flies in the ointment in this case appear to be the lack of public knowledge pertaining to the absolute basics, how much water is supplied into the system and how much is used every day on average.

    Quite remarkably, nobody knows.

    Therefore we are in a position where nobody can illustrate what alleged benefits are supposed to accrue from households being encouraged to use 10% less water, other than it seems like a spiffing idea.


    How many litres it would give back to the system for farms and factories to use, nobody knows.

    The public might take the matter more seriously if the whole thing didn't come across as if it's constantly being made up as it goes along.

    At the moment it's like someone saying invest your money in fund A and when you ask why, the answer is, don't know but everyone's doing it.



    I'd say you're bang on about the allowances getting a quick haircut, that was the plan last time round too, once enough enthusiastic early adopters had been enticed on board.


  • #579
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Tended to it sooner?
    From what I can see all that would have done is moved up your "peaceful protests" to the meters.

    Installing meters and raising capital off the balance sheet IS dealing with it. But people like you are preventing it.


    I have no idea what this means?


    So you are against specific water charges based on usage, but you want general taxation to increase?
    You wouldnt be on the welfare by any chance would you?

    Sooner being decades ago. They weren't my peaceful protests they were the individuals attending.
    Meters may have off set the cost of the meters and IW administration.

    I get that. It's not a new problem just discovered. They underfunded it for generations. It was not suddenly discovered in 2011.

    I'm against being conned. People on welfare would have it paid for them. You don't seem to know what you're arguing for.

    Seriously, despite the poor judgement of people who certainly know better going over well covered ground, I suggest you look into things before you comment further.


  • #580
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    I do not believe the main motivation behind Irish Water was improving the water supply infrastructure.

    What do you believe the main motivation was?


  • #581
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    What do you believe the main motivation was?


    To comply with the troika and the EU liberalisation of water utilities policy.

    http://ec.europa.eu/competition/general/liberalisation_en.html


  • Advertisement
  • #582
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 43,133 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    dense wrote: »
    To comply with the troika and the EU liberalisation of water utilities agenda.
    Agenda? :rolleyes:


  • #583
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    dense wrote: »
    To comply with the troika and the EU liberalisation of water utilities policy.

    http://ec.europa.eu/competition/general/liberalisation_en.html

    At any rate water infrastructure was merely the vehicle for the whole thing. I wonder how they kept a straight face in the early days of it talking about 'the environment'?


  • #584
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    dense wrote: »
    To comply with the troika and the EU liberalisation of water utilities policy.

    http://ec.europa.eu/competition/general/liberalisation_en.html
    That would be the policy where member states are allowed to delegate the provision of public services to companies?
    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    At any rate water infrastructure was merely the vehicle for the whole thing.

    The vehicle for what whole thing? You didn't answer my question.


  • #585
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    Agenda? :rolleyes:


    I changed it to "policy" because people can sometimes think agenda has suspicious connotations, but it's one and the same really, isn't it?


  • #586
    charlie14
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,645 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    dense wrote: »
    I changed it to "policy" because people can sometimes think agenda has suspicious connotations, but it's one and the same really, isn't it?


    Especially in relation to political parties.;)


  • #587
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    That would be the policy where member states are allowed to delegate the provision of public services to companies?


    It would be less than a little incongruous of the EU to have a liberalisation policy for water utilities that wasn't permitted!!


  • #588
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    dense wrote: »
    It would be less than a little incongruous of the EU to have a liberalisation policy for water utilities that wasn't permitted!!

    Right, but it's also incongruous to claim that the government liberalised the provision of water services in order to comply with a policy that permits the liberalisation of water services. They were already in compliance with that policy.

    So, I'm still waiting for an answer to the question.


  • #589
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    as it is the first building-block in the eventual reduction of the allowance come January 2019 when the charges for use over the allowance are re-introduced (by law).

    Sorry, but just to come back to this..... weren't they introduced "by law" last time too :D?

    Please don't tell me we're about to go through the dejavu twilight zone where posters such as yourselves and others will be telling us (again) that water charges will be introduced by law, are here to stay, and all the threats that went with it last time too?


    I don't think water charges, either by way of metering or by way of going over allowances are going to return anytime soon.

    Not within a generation or two.


  • #590
    spaceHopper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,170 ✭✭✭spaceHopper


    Nothing in the settings up of Irish water was none right not one thing a big fat zero.

    This is a once in 40 year event it will pass. It not helped by the existing leaks or the 500M+ wasted it setting up of Irish Water which could have been much better spent.

    It is toxic. Much as I don't like Paul Murphy's policies he was right


  • #591
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    spaceHopper wrote: »
    Nothing in the settings up of Irish water was none right not one thing a big fat zero.

    This is a once in 40 year event it will pass. It not helped by the existing leaks or the 500M+ wasted it setting up of Irish Water which could have been much better spent.

    It is toxic. Much as I don't like Paul Murphy's policies he was right

    2 Billion is what I read.


  • Advertisement
  • #592
    spaceHopper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,170 ✭✭✭spaceHopper


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    2 Billion is what I read.

    Wow speechless


  • #593
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,935 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    Sorry, but just to come back to this..... weren't they introduced "by law" last time too :D?

    Please don't tell me we're about to go through the dejavu twilight zone where posters such as yourselves and others will be telling us (again) that water charges will be introduced by law, are here to stay, and all the threats that went with it last time too?


    I don't think water charges, either by way of metering or by way of going over allowances are going to return anytime soon.

    Not within a generation or two.

    The law allowing water charges has never been repealed to my knowledge.


  • #594
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,935 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    2 Billion is what I read.


    Do you have a link to that? Preferably from the Irish Water Official Accounts?


  • #595
    spaceHopper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,170 ✭✭✭spaceHopper


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Do you have a link to that? Preferably from the Irish Water Official Accounts?

    It's some where between 500M+ and 2B either way can you tell us one thing they did right


  • #596
    charlie14
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,645 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    blanch152 wrote: »
    The law allowing water charges has never been repealed to my knowledge.


    Any idea how many have been prosecuted under that law ?:D


  • #597
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,935 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    I didn't think I'd have to simplify this, but here goes.

    We use less water than those already metered?

    Being resourceful/non wasteful with water evidently does not have a direct correlation with metering, otherwise people already metered in different countries wouldn't be using more than we are.

    Ie, people paying for what they use might not view it as wasting it. Why would they? They're paying for it after all.

    That is the statistical equivalent of saying that reducing the number of pirates increases climate change.

    The evidence has shown that where metering occurs, those who are metered are less wasteful than those who are not. As you are comparing people in similar cultural situations, it is statistically relevant and appropriate.

    Between countries there may be many reasons, other than metering, as to why water consumption varies. Greater need for irrigation, greater number of swimming pools, cultural differences re bathing etc. That makes your comparisons statistically unsafe.

    Furthermore, because the amount of leaks are estimates, and the amount of usage in Irish households are only estimates, as many are not metered, you cannot definitively state the average usage in Ireland.


  • #598
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,935 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    charlie14 wrote: »
    Any idea how many have been prosecuted under that law ?:D

    Why would anyone be prosecuted?

    Water charges have been suspended, the law has not been repealed.


  • #599
    charlie14
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,645 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Do you have a link to that? Preferably from the Irish Water Official Accounts?


    Good one :D


    Listed right next to consumption figure, "depending on what you are using them for something something....."


  • #600
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    blanch152 wrote: »
    The law allowing water charges has never been repealed to my knowledge.

    Nor enforced to the best of mine. :D
    blanch152 wrote: »
    Do you have a link to that?

    Yup.

    Irish Water has cost State €2bn
    Preferably from the Irish Water Official Accounts?


    Lol......

    These ones will have to suffice.
    Figures released to the Irish Examiner show the controversial utility will cost the State €844m in 2016 alone, when its operating subvention, capital contributions and the replacement revenue — provided by the State following the decision to suspend billing customers — are taken into consideration.

    The State gave Irish Water €678m and €621m in 2014 and 2015 respectively in operating subventions and capital contributions, bringing the total cost to €2.143bn over the past three years


  • Advertisement
  • #601
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,935 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    Nor enforced to the best of mine. :D



    Yup.

    Irish Water has cost State €2bn



    Lol......

    These ones will have to suffice.

    And how has that €2bn been wasted?

    After all, you have been supplied with water, that water has been treated, and there has been investment in repairing leaks.


Advertisement