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 for excessive usage

Options
1…1213151718…85

Comments

  • Options
    #422
    cameramonkey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,220 ✭✭✭cameramonkey


    markodaly wrote: »
    There is no need for Carbon taxes because we pay VAT. That is the logic here from some.


    You seem to be a big fan of taxes, do you work in the civil service?


  • Options
    #423
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 28,463 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Boggles wrote: »
    I've heard that before actually, it was tacked on at some stage in the 70s. Don't know if it is true or not. What is true is

    In 1977 Fianna Fail abolished rates on private dwellings.

    In 1997 FG\Labour\DL government with Ruairi Quinn as Finance Minister assigned the revenue from motor tax to the local authority, in lieu of local authority charges to domestic consumers for water and sewerage facilities.

    A lot more happened, and it is summarised here.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#First_abolition_of_domestic_water_charges_(1970s)

    So there was a ring-fencing of motor tax revenue to fund local authorities, including water and sewerage facilities.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #424
    cameramonkey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,220 ✭✭✭cameramonkey


    Tommy Kelly wrote: »
    That's what they are doing. Contractors have leak investigation surveyors visiting the properties where there is a constant flow of water being measured going through the meter on the road every day.


    what if they dont have a meter?


  • Options
    #425
    Tommy Kelly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 416 ✭✭Tommy Kelly


    cameramonkey wrote: »
    what if they dont have a meter?

    I have no idea what'll happen there. Saying that loads of people that have no meters avail of the first fix leak repair. They're usually obvious leaks though as in a serious drop in water pressure all of a sudden.

    Once again if you've no internal plumbing issues there's no need to worry about charges. It's not that hard to run around your house & check that ball-cocks in the cisterns & in the tank above in the attic don't need replacing. Cisterns constantly filling are the biggest reason by far for a constant flow through a meter. An external leak will be sorted out by IW.


  • Options
    #426
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 14,054 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Boggles wrote: »
    A cross party committee and our governance decided that's how it should be done.

    You'll have to take it up with them Mark.

    That is about 10% of the truth of the matter.
    We all know what happened around the protests.

    We all know that funding utilities from general taxation is a bad idea, yet here we are. An Irish solution to an Irish problem.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #427
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 14,054 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    cameramonkey wrote: »
    You seem to be a big fan of taxes, do you work in the civil service?

    Not really, but I do think people should pay for what they use in regards a utility such as water. As shocking as that sounds.


  • Options
    #428
    Brendan Bendar
    Registered Users Posts: 19,169 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    I think we all need to stand back a little bit.

    What we have here, as I see it,irrespective of the ins and outs of things, seems to be a situation where people who were compliant can get punished, and those who put obstacles up can’t be touched.

    I realise that’s a bit simplistic, but, and here’s the thing which started all this off,

    How can you measure the usage of those who have no measuring units, and how can you expect those who have such units submit to rules not applicable to all.

    This was a debacle first time out, let’s not make it another debacle, as in its present clothing, it surely will.


  • Options
    #429
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 28,463 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    markodaly wrote: »
    That is about 10% of the truth of the matter.
    We all know what happened around the protests.
    We all know that funding utilities from general taxation is a bad idea, yet here we are. An Irish solution to an Irish problem.

    And we've been here before. What other country has abolished water charges in some shape of form across three generations ... 1977 and 1997 and 2017.
    Whatever about the objective merits of not funding it through general taxation, it just ain't going to stick politically.
    We've been here before, let's not go there again, and any political party would be mad to touch it. It cost FG-Labour dozens of seats last time out and for what political gain?

    (as an aside, it's freaky it's every 20 years)

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #430
    cameramonkey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,220 ✭✭✭cameramonkey


    Tommy Kelly wrote: »
    I have no idea what'll happen there. Saying that loads of people that have no meters avail of the first fix leak repair. They're usually obvious leaks though as in a serious drop in water pressure all of a sudden.

    Once again if you've no internal plumbing issues there's no need to worry about charges. It's not that hard to run around your house & check that ball-cocks in the cisterns & in the tank above in the attic don't need replacing. Cisterns constantly filling are the biggest reason by far for a constant flow through a meter. An external leak will be sorted out by IW.


    I had a leak in my mains (front garden) many moons ago, I hadn't a clue. The council told me about it and i fixed it, no need for a meter.


  • Options
    #431
    cameramonkey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,220 ✭✭✭cameramonkey


    markodaly wrote: »
    Not really, but I do think people should pay for what they use in regards a utility such as water. As shocking as that sounds.


    Not really sounds like you are a bit of a civil servant. My experience of them is that they love to tax people except of course themselves.



    In the last year I have paid PRSI, VAT, VRT, USC, road tax. Through the companies that I run I pay Excise, Rates, VAT, Charge to use water, charge to discharge water, income tax, company tax and I am sure I have forgotten others.


    We already pay for water through these taxes, the government is just trying to impose another one to pay for their inflated view of themselves.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #432
    Tommy Kelly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 416 ✭✭Tommy Kelly


    cameramonkey wrote: »
    I had a leak in my mains (front garden) many moons ago, I hadn't a clue. The council told me about it and i fixed it, no need for a meter.

    Good stuff. And fair play to you for repairing it because back then if you didn't nobody else would have. Nothing as bad as treated water being wasted.


  • Options
    #433
    cameramonkey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,220 ✭✭✭cameramonkey


    Tommy Kelly wrote: »
    Good stuff. And fair play to you for repairing it because back then if you didn't nobody else would have. Nothing as bad as treated water being wasted.


    That is true but I don't believe the new commitment to leaks is about water conservation because if it was IW would be the ones levied with the biggest fines for wasting water through leaks and for polluting.

    I think the government will use this as a stealthy way to reintroduce water charges.


  • Options
    #434
    Tommy Kelly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 416 ✭✭Tommy Kelly


    cameramonkey wrote: »
    That is true but I don't believe the new commitment to leaks is about water conservation because if it was IW would be the ones levied with the biggest fines for wasting water through leaks and for polluting.

    I think the government will use this as a stealthy way to reintroduce water charges.

    I honestly don't know what's going to happen down the line.

    The company I have worked for the last 20 years (leak detection / pipe tracing) are after being being contracted to 4 and a half years work as part of IW's leak reduction programme. There was 4 of us up until the contract, I think there's over 20 now. There are several other companies contracted in as well in different regions. So it's a pretty large scale project.

    Money, charges and what has gone on in the past aside, the state of the pipe work / water system in this country is atrocious.


  • Options
    #435
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Tommy Kelly wrote:
    The company I have worked for the last 20 years (leak detection / pipe tracing) are after being being contracted to 4 and a half years work as part of IW's leak reduction programme. There was 4 of us up until the contract, I think there's over 20 now. There are several other companies contracted in as well in different regions. So it's a pretty large scale project.


    Weren't you on a CE scheme 2 years ago? How did you hold done a job and a CE scheme at the same time? Also why would you need to ask IW are they continuing their first fix scheme? Yes I checked your post history.


  • Options
    #436
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,745 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    markodaly wrote: »
    We all know that funding utilities from general taxation is a bad idea,

    Sure lets make it work. All though from what I am seeing I don't hold out much hope.

    It's not like treating water as a utility assures quality of service, value for money or conservation.

    The narrative that it does is patently false.
    markodaly wrote: »
    An Irish solution to an Irish problem.

    That would have been the untethered version of Irish Water I'd suggest.


  • Options
    #437
    blackcard
    Registered Users Posts: 3,894 ✭✭✭blackcard


    cameramonkey wrote: »
    Tommy Kelly wrote: »
    Good stuff. And fair play to you for repairing it because back then if you didn't nobody else would have. Nothing as bad as treated water being wasted.


    That is true but I don't believe the new commitment to leaks is about water conservation because if it was IW would be the ones levied with the biggest fines for wasting water through leaks and for polluting.

    I think the government will use this as a stealthy way to reintroduce water charges.
    This has to go down as one of the stupidest comments ever. There was over 50 % of water leaking into the ground in 2013 due to decades of underinvestment. Whoever took over in 2014 would automatically be 'responsibile' for the most leaks


  • Options
    #438
    Benedict
    Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭Benedict


    The government is desperate to find some way of introducing charges without causing a revolution. Unfortunately for them, they just can't figure out how to do it. The current idea was designed to keep the "militants" happy. They have no meters so they'll be able to use all they want with no charge so they won't be on the streets. They think the "softies" who said ok to the meters will just roll over, charges will come in and they can set about doing a deal to sell IW to a multi-national for a fortune.


  • Options
    #439
    blackcard
    Registered Users Posts: 3,894 ✭✭✭blackcard


    Benedict wrote: »
    The government is desperate to find some way of introducing charges without causing a revolution. Unfortunately for them, they just can't figure out how to do it. The current idea was designed to keep the "militants" happy. They have no meters so they'll be able to use all they want with no charge so they won't be on the streets. They think the "softies" who said ok to the meters will just roll over, charges will come in and they can set about doing a deal to sell IW to a multi-national for a fortune.
    Or someone is trying to reduce excessive wastage of water


  • Options
    #440
    blackcard
    Registered Users Posts: 3,894 ✭✭✭blackcard


    Benedict wrote: »
    The government is desperate to find some way of introducing charges without causing a revolution. Unfortunately for them, they just can't figure out how to do it. The current idea was designed to keep the "militants" happy. They have no meters so they'll be able to use all they want with no charge so they won't be on the streets. They think the "softies" who said ok to the meters will just roll over, charges will come in and they can set about doing a deal to sell IW to a multi-national for a fortune.
    Or someone is trying to reduce excessive wastage of water


  • Options
    #441
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,745 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    blackcard wrote: »
    Or someone is trying to reduce excessive wastage of water

    The majority of them are leaks. Engage and get them fixed.

    Spending money on a conservation drive when the vast vast majority of people are below the cap seems a misappropriation of funds at this stage.

    Especially when you consider the 43% (actual problem) píssing out the network is barely a foot note.

    I wonder how long it will be before our "independent" regulator is back on the air waves telling us our caps are too generous.

    12 months?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #442
    Brendan Bendar
    Registered Users Posts: 19,169 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    Benedict wrote: »
    The government is desperate to find some way of introducing charges without causing a revolution. Unfortunately for them, they just can't figure out how to do it. The current idea was designed to keep the "militants" happy. They have no meters so they'll be able to use all they want with no charge so they won't be on the streets. They think the "softies" who said ok to the meters will just roll over, charges will come in and they can set about doing a deal to sell IW to a multi-national for a fortune.

    They better think again, as you rightly said, Mr B


  • Options
    #443
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Benedict wrote:
    They think the "softies" who said ok to the meters will just roll over.


    They will roll over though suggesting otherwise is delusional.


  • Options
    #444
    ct5amr2ig1nfhp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,019 ✭✭✭ct5amr2ig1nfhp


    What about the new houses being built with no water meter? I didn't believe it until a colleague showed me he has no water meter. Perhaps this is not the 'norm' though?


  • Options
    #445
    Benedict
    Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭Benedict


    Aryan Fierce Bolt wrote: »
    What about the new houses being built with no water meter? I didn't believe it until a colleague showed me he has no water meter. Perhaps this is not the 'norm' though?


    Of course new houses are being built with no meter. IW stopped installing them some time ago. Many people who had no problem with meters didn't get one because IW just pulled the plug. We don't know why. Maybe they just got bored?


    Look, once again, the issue is not "Should there be charges for IW customers". The issue is "Should there be charges for some - but not for others" - which is what they are proposing.


    It is simply unfair that all the charges will be heaped on around half of the IW customers while the other half can use what they like.


    If you listen to them, IW keep referring to "people" being charged for excessive use. They never say "half the people". They are hoping that the "people" don't realise that half the home will have an amnesty. They are praying that people won't realise this.


  • Options
    #446
    NIMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 33,205 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    Gov needs to be careful how this is handled.

    Could add another reason for people to switch their votes.


  • Options
    #447
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,745 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Aryan Fierce Bolt wrote: »
    What about the new houses being built with no water meter? I didn't believe it until a colleague showed me he has no water meter. Perhaps this is not the 'norm' though?

    It would appear the toys were fúcked out of the pram.

    Irish Water has not installed a domestic meter for five months
    Irish Water has not installed a single domestic meter since February despite an Oireachtas committee recommending they should be fitted to all newly built homes

    Article is 2 years old so they may have changed since then. Who knows. Transparency isn't their strong point.


  • Options
    #448
    Benedict
    Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭Benedict


    NIMAN wrote: »
    Gov needs to be careful how this is handled.

    Could add another reason for people to switch their votes.


    I would be happy to pay if the same rule applied to every IW customer.


    But it doesn't - and it won't!


  • Options
    #449
    jmreire
    Registered Users Posts: 8,351 ✭✭✭jmreire


    astrofool wrote: »
    55% with meters, the rest they can estimate, and then pin it down to individual dwellings afterwards after surveying the pipes directly.

    Not sure how anyone can complain with paying a relative pittance after going so far over the average amount. Potable water doesn't fall from the sky!

    The main objection is that what start's as a pittance, in this Country can escalate very quickly. The "Thin Edge of Wedge" comes to mind. Let them hold the referendum locking public ownership in place. Then take it from there. Privatizing will turn it into a profit focused enterprise.


  • Options
    #450
    Benedict
    Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭Benedict


    jmreire wrote: »
    The main objection is that what start's as a pittance, in this Country can escalate very quickly. The "Thin Edge of Wedge" comes to mind. Let them hold the referendum locking public ownership in place. Then take it from there. Privatizing will turn it into a profit focused enterprise.


    They are claiming that if someone in a house without a meter is using excessive water they will know and the owner will get fined just like a metered house. But how will they know? They can put a meter at the entrance to an estate and see that a lot is being used. But they can't be sure who's using too much without putting a meter on the house they suspect. And how will they put a meter on a house of a protestor? And even if they "sneak" in the meter and discover the person is using too much, all the person has to do is say "I'm not paying a fine because nobody else on the estate is being asked to pay a fine and you don't know it's only me using too much".
    People in apartments are safe already but it's also true that people in houses without meters can use what they like and no fines are possible.

    The people in houses with meters are going to have to carry the entire cost for the whole country and that's not fair.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #451
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Benedict wrote:
    The people in houses with meters are going to have to carry the entire cost for the whole country and that's not fair.


    If only they had protested.........


Advertisement