nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Water charges for excessive usage

is_that_so

IW have been given approval by the Commission for Regulation of Utilities to start charging people for using excessive amounts of water, above the 213,000L annual limit set by legislation. By the looks of it people will have plenty of time to conform and then there'll be a charge of €1.85 for each 1,000 litres above that limit. A sensible move in my view as there are an estimated 80,000 households going over the limit.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0717/1063532-irish-water/

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

odyssey06

Deleted User wrote: »

Make no mistake, money will have to be spent to fix the pipes and leaks etc. Whether its through IW or the Local authority or whatever. Those who contribute more to the Govt. coffers (i.e. those with a job) will end up paying more than the rest. It is as simple as that.
People call it a stealth tax now. What if they just upped income tax by 1% across the board and used that to fund it?

Probably they'd be paying for it largely one way or another, whether through general taxation directly going to Irish Water OR in welfare payments & pension payments to people who then have to pay an Irish Water bill.

They could also consider...
What if they said this year there's no €5 increase in welfare or pension?
Or, increase the payout with a €5 levy for water services?

They could also consider...
Which is a higher priority?
€3 billion for the National Broadband plan or water services?
We have windfall gains from surge in corporation tax payments, seems like a creaking water service infrastructure should be higher priority for those funds.

In France I wouldn't have a problem paying Aqua Francaise or whatever.
In Ireland, a government with a massive majority had a chance to setup a water services company and gain popular support for it.
They failed spectacularly through gombeenism and feather bedding.

So yeah, politically it will have to be funded through general taxation.

[Deleted User]

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

No issue with that. Good idea actually.

See, that's where you and I differ. I'm appalled with the way IW was handled from the get go. Couldn't even take the day off work to protest, couldn't afford it. Two of my unemployed neighbours were out at the lights holding a placard on a few occasions as I was coming home from work, fair play to them.

Last winter, with all the snow, I overheard the two of them having a chat about leaving the taps running overnight so that the pipes didn't freeze. Why in the name of Christ should I and the rest of people with jobs have to subsidise that kind of crap?

MacDanger

I agree that IW was poorly planned and setup (for a start, it should have been located outside Dublin).

However, the reality is that water needs to be paid for, be it out of general taxation or charges. The infastructure also needs to be upgraded and in fairness IW are progressing with this - way less raw sewerage going into the sea than in years gone by but still a lot more to be done with it. Less people on boil notices also.

To those who won't pay water charges on the basis that IW is a wasteful quango, etc. - surely you should be protesting that this wastefulness is still ongoing? Or is it just that because you don't have a bill to pay that you think that waste is no longer happening? Or is it that you actually don't give a sh*t about the wastefulness and you'd just rather not pay regardless?

suicide_circus

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I seem to remember over a billion being invested in the set up of IW including the metering programme. Cart before the horse and all that. I billion would have fixed alot of pipes.

agreed. 100% correct. but that money is gone. the pipes still need to be fixed. what's the use in pointing out the obvious mistakes made? Irish Water, that exspensive sh1tshow of a quango, is here now and its tasked with investing in and maintaining our water infrastructure. it needs money to do this. existing taxes wont cut it. whats your solution?

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

I find this funny. Some of the posters in another thread about crappy public services and taxation are here giving out about this fee.

Couldn't make it up, to be honest.

I'll explain the irony of your comment.

Water maintenance and supply was/is funded through general taxation. However, the service was let go so crappy, (see where this is going?) rather than tackling it they created a quango with crony appointments and a still under investigation Sitserv deal.

IW is FG/Lab's answer to how to deal with...are you ready?.....a crappy public service our taxes pay for.

It's 'the fix' people have issue with, not improving poor service.

MacDanger wrote: »

..

To those who won't pay water charges on the basis that IW is a wasteful quango, etc. - surely you should be protesting that this wastefulness is still ongoing? Or is it just that because you don't have a bill to pay that you think that waste is no longer happening? Or is it that you actually don't give a sh*t about the wastefulness and you'd just rather not pay regardless?

It's both for me. It is funded by tax, therefore we already pay. The issue is it was under funded for decades and left on the back burner. It needed more attention and resources. Raise taxes or preferably learn how to manage money, (see inappropriate Noonan and children's hospital over run).
The quango used water supply as the cover for crony appointments and sweet deals for friends, the environment talk was blarney. So I wouldn't pay a cent to IW personally, given the option.

Plumbthedepths

suicide_circus wrote:

. whats your solution?

Public ownership of the resource and the network. Flat charge of prehaps 200 euro per annum no exception collected by Revenue. Money ringfenced for water infrastructure and borrow from the EIB. Yours?

James Brown

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Public ownership of the resource and the network. Flat charge of prehaps 200 euro per annum no exception collected by Revenue. Money ringfenced for water infrastructure and borrow from the EIB. Yours?

I'd prefer we got in people who are good at sums to watch over government spending. We've no magic wand tree fix for some things and bottomless pockets for others.

suicide_circus

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Public ownership of the resource and the network. Flat charge of prehaps 200 euro per annum no exception collected by Revenue. Money ringfenced for water infrastructure and borrow from the EIB. Yours?

Public Ownership. Pay by usage with no exemptions collected by the body appointed to administer and maintain the network.

James Brown

suicide_circus wrote: »

Public Ownership. Pay by usage with no exemptions collected by the body appointed to administer and maintain the network.

If you're unemployed or sick you get Hogan's trickle?

Plumbthedepths

suicide_circus wrote:

Public Ownership. Pay by usage with no exemptions collected by the body appointed to administer and maintain the network.

I don't agree with the pay by usage element as there are several in society due to medical reasons that require large volumes of water. However private pools should be dealt with separately. Lastly Revenue are far more effective at collecting money and this collection method ensures public ownership.

suicide_circus

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If you're unemployed or sick you get Hogan's trickle?

who am i kidding. look at the rent arrears in council housing. perhaps a public well in the town square?

suicide_circus

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I don't agree with the pay by usage element as there are several in society due to medical reasons that require large volumes of water. However private pools should be dealt with separately. Lastly Revenue are far more effective at collecting money and this collection method ensures public ownership.

Yes i could concede the Revenue point perhaps. Although they told RTE where to go re the tv licence.

James Brown

suicide_circus wrote: »

who am i kidding. look at the rent arrears in council housing. perhaps a public well in the town square?

If I put all my money in bonds and the market crashes and/or I'm several years in arrears on my 5.2M house, will I get that money back off the tax payer and allowed stay in the house while it goes through the courts? Probably.

One has nothing to do with the other. If you are on low/no income and not paying rent to the council you should be evicted or have your welfare garnished at source IMO.
Paying to line Dinny's pockets at a loss to the tax payer? No ta.

James Brown

suicide_circus wrote: »

Yes i could concede the Revenue point perhaps. Although they told RTE where to go re the tv licence.

Again, different issue. RTE is a playground for a particular gene pool at the expense of the public under the guise of a public service. Given the choice I wouldn't pay them a cent either. Let Lottie Ryan go out and get a f***ing job.

NuttyMcNutty

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

No issue with that. Good idea actually.

Isn't our Pascal talking about lowering the tax rate over the coming years?

Plumbthedepths

NuttyMcNutty wrote:

Isn't our Pascal talking about lowering the tax rate over the coming years?

He is, there's also an election on the horizon. ;-)

Boggles

Why are people saying if they start charging per use they will fix the network.

Has someone seen a plan I haven't?

I see proposed folly in 170 km piplines. No concrete costed plan in actually fixing the leaks.

glomar

deathtocaptcha wrote: »

NO CONSENT, NO CONTRACT

If you share this text on Facebook, the Irish government legally cannot charge you for water under The Water Act of 1568, section 7:G :pac:

but ireland wasnt a country in 1568 it was a colony

BarryD2

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Public ownership of the resource and the network. Flat charge of prehaps 200 euro per annum no exception collected by Revenue. Money ringfenced for water infrastructure and borrow from the EIB. Yours?

suicide_circus wrote: »

Public Ownership. Pay by usage with no exemptions collected by the body appointed to administer and maintain the network.

Either model would be a solution - the thing people need to get their heads around is that public users of water will need to contribute above and beyond the mantra of 'general taxation'.

Pay by usage (with allowances for those that need it) would be fairer - plenty of well heeled households with multiple en suite bathrooms and large gardens to water who should be paying for their excesses.

[Deleted User]

Boggles wrote: »

Why are people saying if they start charging per use they will fix the network.

Nobody is saying that. People are saying that in order to fix the network, money needs to be sourced from somewhere. The fairest way, in my opinion, is charging by use (above and beyond a very generous allowance).

liatroimabu

Why is it that people in this country expect everything for nothing? Water, oh no should be free, Tv licence, oh no RTE is muck, motor tax, why should i pay , my lane in the back end of nowhere isn't any good, etc. etc.

Also on the subject of water, those of us on private group schemes or with wells have been paying for water for years and paying tax that in turn pays for the water of those who get it for free. The water charges would've been so miniscule in this country compared to others that some people need to wise up and stop expecting handouts.

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody is saying that. People are saying that in order to fix the network, money needs to be sourced from somewhere. The fairest way, in my opinion, is charging by use (above and beyond a very generous allowance).

They've no interest in solutions. If you can come up with an earner, that helps solve the problem, or doesn't, they're all over it.
That's why people are reluctant to sign up to anything.

is_that_so

daheff wrote: »

How soon does excessive usage drop so that everyday use becomes excess? How soon does the usage fee increase to be sky high and that we end up pay as you go?

In Germany at the moment. Town I’m in has just had a 5k per home bill sent out to every dwelling in the town just to pay for necessary works on their water supply.

The limit is set under legislation so until that's amended no change.

Utter Consternation

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Great news. A charge for consumption of this precious commodity is much needed. Irish Water is no different than the ESB or Gas Networks Ireland. A charge will ensure that monies are raised to allow for continued investment in our water infrastructure, and that it doesn’t become the first thing to be cut from the general taxation wish list as it's ‘out of sight, and out of mind’ infrastructure.

Well said, Johnny. The sense of entitlement from some people who expect everything for nothing is breathtaking sometimes.

It's always net contributors who feel the burden of other peoples entitlements too.

odyssey06

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody is saying that. People are saying that in order to fix the network, money needs to be sourced from somewhere. The fairest way, in my opinion, is charging by use (above and beyond a very generous allowance).

That source of money would quickly dry up, if you'll forgive the pun, if you are talking about domestic users. If the reason why the domestic user is waay over the generous allowance is a leak, then it's a matter of time before leak is fixed.
If you exclude the leaks, what % of domestic users will therefore be exceeding the very generous allowance? I don't see much revenue there.

Irish Water isn't entirely dependent on general taxation, commercial users are metered per use and account for 40%-60% of all water use.
So if you are talking about domestic water users without leaks who exceed a very generous allowance, I think we are talking single digit of overall water use there.

zimmermania

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody is saying that. People are saying that in order to fix the network, money needs to be sourced from somewhere. The fairest way, in my opinion, is charging by use (above and beyond a very generous allowance).

What about all the apartment dwellers who do not have meters?

is_that_so

NuttyMcNutty wrote: »

Isn't our Pascal talking about lowering the tax rate over the coming years?

DOF has raised some flags on that. Very slowly if he does.

James Brown

Utter Consternation wrote: »

Well said, Johnny. The sense of entitlement from some people who expect everything for nothing is breathtaking sometimes.

It's always net contributors who feel the burden of other peoples entitlements too.

When I pay my taxes I do feel entitled to water supply. That's just me now. Do they expect free money?

[Deleted User]

I've a neighbour whose overflow in the attic is leaking for a year. His solution put a bin at the bottom of the house on the path to stop it splattering on his concrete. I kid you not, it's also a rental so he cares less about it, told him he can easily stop it by either replacing ball cock or even trying to bend the handle downwards.

No interest in fixing it, pure laziness.

Plumbthedepths

BarryD2 wrote:

Pay by usage (with allowances for those that need it) would be fairer - plenty of well heeled households with multiple en suite bathrooms and large gardens to water who should be paying for their excesses.

What's has multiple ensuites got to do with anything?