Bullseye1 wrote: » This is lost on the yes side:p
DoesNotCompute wrote: » Already planned ahead - purchased and installed a rain barrell out the back garden, to offset the proposed water charges.
DoesNotCompute wrote: » Absolutely, much better to plan ahead, budget, and be prepared, instead of whinging and moaning online about bank taxes and bondholders ;-)
donalg1 wrote: » Do you have a link for this? And what is to stop them from amending the current legislation when introducing the water charges. As they will need to draw up some new act to govern the charges I would imagine it would be straight forward enough to put a line in it dealing with non payment of the charges and consequences of this.
Ghandee wrote: » No link, but I've read it online somewhere that they, under law can only reduce your pressure.
donalg1 wrote: » So in theory they could reduce to a non existant level i.e. a level that takes four hours to fill a cup with water? Anyway there is nothing stopping them from inserting a line in the new legislation giving the Minister the powers to cut off supply as a consequence of non payment.
tayto lover wrote: » If the Minister had to do it himself they would have some fun looking for him in all the posh hotel all over the world and he there at our expense.
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » It's off topic I know, but like Ghandee I was under the impression that it was illegal to cut off someone's water supply. However, on doing a bit of googling I discovered that, at least when water rates were last in force, in the 1970s, it was legal to cut off supply in the event of non-payment of rates.
Ghandee wrote: » Nothing stopping anyone getting it turned back on either.
donalg1 wrote: » Nope nothing at all, they would simply just have to pay for it.
Ghandee wrote: » Or call a plumber? It's only a valve/meter, not open heart surgery. Might not be 'legal' but with not paying a property tax, nor registering for it, may as well be in for a penny and all that.
donalg1 wrote: » So in theory they could reduce to a non existant level i.e. a level that takes four hours to fill a cup with water? .
donalg1 wrote: » Ah yes the old break the law advise again!! Anyway I am sure the Councils are a little bit more sophisticated these days compared to the 1970's technology wise, and would be able to track down the tamperers a bit more easily. Say there is a road with 20 houses and they have every house metered and 19 of the 20 have paid their water charges and house no. 20 that hasnt has their water cut off then the council I am sure wouldnt have much of a problem seeing that the amount of water being used is more than the amoung being paid for by the 19 houses. So either there is a leak somewhere or house no. 20 is using some, given that they were able to find a leak under my Dad's patio for him using a machine that basically x-rayed his pipes through the patio and earth I would imagine it would be easy enough to rule out the possibility of a leak somewhere.
Bullseye1 wrote: » I wonder if the Ministers can write off the property tax and water charges as unvouched expenses.
donalg1 wrote: » using a machine that basically x-rayed his pipes
donalg1 wrote: » Given that I bought my house two years ago I have a pretty good indication of the value, and the fact I paid an amount that is close to the bottom of one of the bands they will have to up their value by over €40k to make me pay more than what I believe I should be paying. So no not too worried about that.
donalg1 wrote: » Well it is utterly stupid asking Revenue to value properties as this isnt something they will have done before, hence my assumption that they will provide broad guidelines for us to decide how much its worth, guidelines like area, sq foot, bedrooms, bathrooms, land area and whatever else.
donalg1 wrote: » I havent given it much thought as it will be pretty simple for them to value my house, its on the property price register and I am in receipt of TRS so they can get the purchase price of my property from the register and they can get the mortgage amount using the TRS.
donalg1 wrote: » Not to mention the fact that whoever takes power after the next election wont just sign off on scrapping a massive stream of income.
donalg1 wrote: » The only reason they would do such a thing would be to win votes but hey if they are in power they hardly need to win votes now do they!
Bruthal wrote: » They wouldn`t have to have it that low, just low enough that it is below a pressure of a 5 meter head of water. It wont fill the attic tank then, unless your in a bungalow:).
Slick50 wrote: » ASIDE... I don't think you can change the pressure at the meter, just the flow rate.
Slick50 wrote: » "Given that I bought my house two years ago..." I'm sure this speaks oceans for your attitude to the property tax. If you had bought a few years prior to that, and paid C.€20-€30k in stamp duty, you would be feeling considerably different.
And, you have paid your registration fee, and given them all the information they need... you will definitely be getting a personalised bill, congrats.
This is going to raise about €500million, which is now a massive ammount. But when it suits, this kind of figure is described as insignificant, or not worth while when it comes to justifying not taking others steps to raise these sort of sums. But I'd say it is going to be a massive revenue stream when/if it gets to full implementation. The only reason it is being kept so low now, is the ammount of resistance it has been met with.
Which is something that needs to be changed. If they state their policies, and are elected on the strength of their declared policies, there should be consequences for them for scrapping/changing these.
Ghandee wrote: » I'm just thinking of not paying for water twice, as far as I'm concerned income tax already pays for it. Let them cut whatever they expect it to generate from the new cpa. Legally they can't cut your water off.
Aquarius34 wrote: » Besides they put fluoride in it, which is toxic waste. i don't drink tap water. so I don't pay for it. Even if I did drink the water, I wouldn't pay for it. Water is free and no one own's it and no one has the right to make us pay for something that is free and plentiful.
donalg1 wrote: » I'm sure I would feel differently if I had paid stamp duty however I would still feel obliged to pay the property tax.... ...if I had bought when stamp duty was applicable it wouldnt do much good moaning about the fact now as I would have known when buying that I would have to pay stamp duty and would have bought anyway.
donalg1 wrote: » My point wasnt that they would be able to find me and send me a bill, it was that it would be very easy for them or me to value my property, and that there were at least two easy ways for Revenue to do this that I could think of straight off.
donalg1 wrote: » Well it is staying at current levels until 2016 so we know what it will be for the next few years anyway.
donalg1 wrote: » And who is going to enforce these consequences, I think we all know at this stage that no politician is ever going to deliver on all their pre election promises to think otherwise would be to be very naive. What we have and would have is politicians saying "if I get elected I will aim to .....", meaning if they dont deliver they would simply say "I only said I will aim to do ...., and never said I would definitely do ..."
Aquarius34 wrote: » If they cut your water off, that's basically saying we will kill you if you don't give us money.
