Water charges for excessive usage

Plumbthedepths · 24-09-2020 10:01am

Ah yes the straw man argument. What would ever make someone think privatisation was part of the agenda. I for one am stumped. Maybe Fergus can shed some light.

https://youtu.be/5KQygGbkNwM

Benedict · 24-09-2020 10:18am

IW appear to have completely check-mated themselves. It is a fact that usage cannot be determined where there is no meter - and pretending they can do so is silly.

Therefore, they cannot charge non-metered homes based on usage and therefore it would be unfair to charge metered homes on usage.

So all they can do is keep postponing the matter while they continue to try to figure how what to do.

cursai · 24-09-2020 10:29am

I would have thought all the people opposing it would have died from natural selection at this stage.
Being eaten by stay cats or something.

Bass Reeves · 24-09-2020 1:03pm

Benedict wrote: »

So all they can do is keep postponing the matter while they continue to try to figure how what to do.

Bring in a flat charge tax on house's for water or sewerage services provided. Stop it from Social welfare payments or from tax allowances if unpaid.

Keep up increasing it until water meters look attractive

McMurphy · 24-09-2020 1:09pm

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Bring in a flat charge tax on house's for water or sewerage services provided. Stop it from Social welfare payments or from tax allowances if unpaid.

Keep up increasing it until water meters look attractive

Getting revenue involved last time was something they flatout refused to do, which further fuelled the privatisation theories.

charlie14 · 24-09-2020 1:11pm

Nevin Parsnipp wrote: »

Still bangin away at the old "privatization" drum.......

A straw man argument pal .....

I was going to tell you to get back to me on the straw man argument when the promised referendum on privatisation date is announced but I see that has been more or less covered.
Then again on that basis chances are I would never hear from you again.:)

Bass Reeves · 24-09-2020 1:51pm

McMurphy wrote: »

Getting revenue involved last time was something they flatout refused to do, which further fuelled the privatisation theories.

They wanted it arms length from the state do as the borrowings would not be considered national debt. With protestors the only way around is a flat charge and revenue/welfare to collect

McMurphy · 24-09-2020 2:07pm

Bass Reeves wrote: »

They wanted it arms length from the state do as the borrowings would not be considered national debt. With protestors the only way around is a flat charge and revenue/welfare to collect

That's one theory too.

I'm siding with the privatisation one though.

Plumbthedepths · 24-09-2020 2:12pm

Bass Reeves wrote: »

They wanted it arms length from the state do as the borrowings would not be considered national debt. With protestors the only way around is a flat charge and revenue/welfare to collect

Yeah Revenue could collect a charge and be very efficient at doing so. Makes you wonder why they didn't go done this route, instead they set up a saleable asset. ( Revenue can't collect on behave of a semi state/ private company) something in EU law about it.

Brendan Bendar · 24-09-2020 4:46pm

Charge everyone or charge nobody

That’s the answer.....

Get the lads doing ‘this and that’ out from under their slates.

Spanish Eyes · 24-09-2020 4:52pm

The only way this will ever work is a water levy attached to the ESB bill. Flat charge for everyone, no exceptions.

But it won't happen either, because the can't pay won't pay cohort will have another conniption. And of course there may be legal restrictions for taking this option also. I don't know.

But if anyone decides to charge ME because I accepted a meter and don't have a clue what to charge someone else a mile or two away was they DID object, well I'd be prepared to refuse to obey the law for the very first time in my life and wouldn't care about the consequences anymore. It is unworkable. And IW know it.

3DataModem · 24-09-2020 5:02pm

Simple system for the estates with no meters.

Calculate an average for the estate. If it's 15% higher than national average, charge the excess fee.

Anyone who doesn't want to pay the excess fee, proves they are not the problem by getting a meter.

Plumbthedepths · 24-09-2020 5:08pm

Thread has gone full retard.

Spanish Eyes · 24-09-2020 5:09pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Thread has gone full retard.

Do tell us more.

McMurphy · 24-09-2020 6:06pm

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Do tell us more.

I'll take this one.

It's the equivalent of a pair of bald men fighting over a comb.

The last FG/Lab government fcuked and pricked around with water charges to the point that they're toxic now, no-one in their right minds will touch them for a generation of two because of the ineptitude of the last cretins.

Thanks to the aforementioned cretins theres a heap of shiny expensive meters buried in the ground with a lifespan that's almost over already without returning a single solitary cent for the fcuking and pricking that went on.

They had their chance and they ballsed it up.

It's over lads, it's fcuking FINISHED, take your levies, your fcuking free allowances and water caps, and your Irish fcuking water and fcuk off, it's OVER so no sense when hypothetically discussing them.

Hope that clears it up.

Brendan Bendar · 24-09-2020 6:40pm

McMurphy wrote: »

I'll take this one.

It's the equivalent of a pair of bald men fighting over a comb.

The last FG/Lab government fcuked and pricked around with water charges to the point that they're toxic now, no-one in their right minds will touch them for a generation of two because of the ineptitude of the last cretins.

Thanks to the aforementioned cretins theres a heap of shiny expensive meters buried in the ground with a lifespan that's almost over already without returning a single solitary cent for the fcuking and pricking that went on.

They had their chance and they ballsed it up.

It's over lads, it's fcuking FINISHED, take your levies, your fcuking free allowances and water caps, and your Irish fcuking water and fcuk off, it's OVER so no sense when hypothetically discussing them.

Hope that clears it up.

Uhmmmm..... lot of anger here..... not a very respectable response it has to be said.

O er the top

McMurphy · 24-09-2020 6:48pm

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Uhmmmm..... lot of anger here..... not a very respectable response it has to be said.

O er the top

Apart from the fact is was quite obviously light hearted humour, feel free to jump in and contradict any of it brendy.

Your party of choice fcuked it up a chara, deal with it.

Brendan Bendar · 24-09-2020 7:03pm

McMurphy wrote: »

Apart from the fact is was quite obviously light hearted humour, feel free to jump in and contradict any of it brendy.

Your party of choice fcuked it up a chara, deal with it.

Hmmm far from light hearted as I can see it, seems like a major breakdown and serious rant for me.

Have you drink taken, one might wonder, very serious attack of folk.

McMurphy · 24-09-2020 7:08pm

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Hmmm far from light hearted as I can see it, seems like a major breakdown and serious rant for me.

Have you drink taken, one might wonder, very serious attack of folk.

If you think "cretins" is an "attack on folk" it's not me you need to worry about as regards "having drink taken" benndy.:pac:

Brendan Bendar · 24-09-2020 7:11pm

McMurphy wrote: »

If you think "cretins" is an "attack on folk" it's not me you need to worry about as regards "having drink taken" benndy.:pac:

Very serious attack I’m afraid, but I’ll not take it any further.

The Brenner doesn’t do anything, just takes it on the chin, no complaints.

McMurphy · 24-09-2020 7:19pm

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Very serious attack I’m afraid, but I’ll not take it any further.

The Brenner doesn’t do anything, just takes it on the chin, no complaints.

The swivel eyed cretins funked it up brenny. Deal with it,

Brendan Bendar · 24-09-2020 7:24pm

McMurphy wrote: »

The swivel eyed cretins funked it up brenny. Deal with it,

Have to draw a curtain over those comments.

Not what I am used to, I’m afraid.

McMurphy · 24-09-2020 7:48pm

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Have to draw a curtain over those comments.

Not what I am used to, I’m afraid.

Must've been on the devil's buttermilk yourself just yesterday evening lad, short memory an all. :pac:

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Were they up in McAleers bar after the big game?

Social distancing..No

Face coverings..No

Up on tables..Yes

Sectarian songs..Yes

Not a word about these cretins.

Not a lot of suffering up in McAleers Bar, cock

Brendan Bendar · 24-09-2020 7:52pm

McMurphy wrote: »

Must've been on the devil's buttermilk yourself just yesterday evening lad, short memory an all. :pac:

Facts, dear boy, facts.

Very same in Donegal, and Lollypop head is looking “support”.

Take responsibility Pearse.

McMurphy · 24-09-2020 7:57pm

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Facts, dear boy, facts.

As were mine about water charges being like a certain sketch from monty python.

Dead, deceased, no more and not coming back. Because of the cretins brenner, the cretins funked it up.

blanch152 · 25-09-2020 10:31am

McMurphy wrote: »

As were mine about water charges being like a certain sketch from monty python.

Dead, deceased, no more and not coming back. Because of the cretins brenner, the cretins funked it up.

Next government involving Greens will bring them back in, things in Europe will have moved further making it impossible not to.

You are right that it is too toxic in the short-term for this government, but we will look back in a decade and wonder why we allowed mob rule to dictate water charges policy.

Plumbthedepths · 25-09-2020 10:41am

I wonder can we have a plebiscite on privatisation, that's equally as binding as a referendum right?

McMurphy · 25-09-2020 10:41am

blanch152 wrote: »

Next government involving Greens will bring them back in, things in Europe will have moved further making it impossible not to.

You are right that it is too toxic in the short-term for this government, but we will look back in a decade and wonder why we allowed mob rule to dictate water charges policy.

The current govt makeup includes the greens.

Eamon Ryan: I only signed up for water charges because I thought Labour would veto them

I wouldn't be placing too much hope on them being a knight in shining armour.

Plumbthedepths · 25-09-2020 11:28am

McMurphy wrote: »

The current govt makeup includes the greens.

Eamon Ryan: I only signed up for water charges because I thought Labour would veto them

I wouldn't be placing too much hope on them being a knight in shining armour.

I find the 'mob rule' commentary a pathetic and condescending attitude best ignored. FG got afraid of the 'mob' when they saw 10's of thousands of ordinary tax payers and voters ( many of them their own) on the march.

charlie14 · 25-09-2020 12:25pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I wonder can we have a plebiscite on privatisation, that's equally as binding as a referendum right?

:D:D:D

Water charges for excessive usage

Comments