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

more irish water nonsense

Options
124678

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »
    By getting water provided by the state all paid for it, by providing your own water you paid for your own supply and you also paid the tax everyone else paid, so in effect paid twice for your water. Now a fair system has come in and people are moaning.

    I don't have a meter or will ever have one how is that fair ? I can sit here with the shower on all day and all the taps running.


  • Options
    #93
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    papu wrote: »
    It's paid for by the huge unsustainable loans the government takes out.

    Yes every year for the past 6 years the loans taken out to keep the hospitals open, the over 65's paid their pension, the schools open. The state was running a a 20 billion a year loss where else was the money to come from.


  • Options
    #94
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    323 wrote: »
    Its to be an additional payment, over and above that already payed through general taxation, for a public service. To a private company, with no independent means of redress when they do not provide that public service.

    A bit like electricity, and gas, and bins, and phone service?


  • Options
    #95
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    I don't have a meter or will ever have one how is that fair ? I can sit here with the shower on all day and all the taps running.

    It's not fair. People here seem quite happy that people will have to pay for water they don't use and start using rubbish comparisons with contracts to prove their point.


  • Options
    #96
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    I don't have a meter or will ever have one how is that fair ? I can sit here with the shower on all day and all the taps running.

    A person supplying their own water can do the same. If a person does not have a meter they are still paying.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    A bit like electricity, and gas, and bins, and phone service?

    Yup that's fine you have an opportunity to go with another company if you don't like their service. Can you do that with water ? It’s effectively a captive market where they can charge what they like. And will you just see. When people start saving water and they cant raise enough money the unit price goes up.


  • Options
    #98
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Daith wrote: »
    Everyone has been paying through tax. Not enough yes but I wish people would stop with this "you were getting water for free" bollox.

    When people say 'free' they mean 'free at the point of access'. Its clear to everyone that water was being paid for.

    Many thousands of people who provided their own water and wastewater treatment were also contributing through the tax system to the public system. There weren't too many people starting threads on boards complaining about double taxation or stealth taxes until they were asked to contribute directly.


  • Options
    #99
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »
    A person supplying their own water can do the same. If a person does not have a meter they are still paying.

    Then why have the Government been spinning "It's to conserve water" ?


  • Options
    #100
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Water is already paid for, Or there would be no water. It's quite simple.

    Yes and some people paid twice (it's that simple) they did not get a rebate of tax or a credit, so some people got water as part of the public service they paid for and others also paid for the public water and again had to pay to actually provide water. Is that simple enough for you.

    There is nothing incorrect in the statement that some people paid for the actual water they drank. Others paid through direct taxation for many services including water.


  • Options
    #101
    Glebee
    Registered Users Posts: 6,618 ✭✭✭Glebee


    Anybody know what date the meter starts running and your billable from????

    Edit* OK I see it, 1st October I think.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Daith wrote: »
    Are you saying that no taxes from the public contributes to the water infrastructure?



    Same question. Public taxes have never went into our water infrastructure?

    What paid for the water system then?


  • Options
    #103
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Then why have the Government been spinning "It's to conserve water" ?

    Metering is a conservation measure. Flats rate charging - not so much.


  • Options
    #104
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,458 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Water is already paid for, Or there would be no water. It's quite simple.

    Roads are already paid for so there is no need for road tax (Motor tax for the pedantic amongst us) right?


  • Options
    #105
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Phoebas wrote: »
    When people say 'free' they mean 'free at the point of access'. Its clear to everyone that water was being paid for.

    Many thousands of people who provided their own water and wastewater treatment were also contributing through the tax system to the public system. There weren't too many people starting threads on boards complaining about double taxation or stealth taxes until they were asked to contribute directly.

    Different argument, inability to connect to the public system was a choice, when moving or living in a house that had no connection to it. So supplying your own water was a necessary reality.


  • Options
    #106
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Glebee wrote: »
    Anybody know what date the meter starts running and your billable from????

    Charging is from 1st October. First bill is in January 2005.


  • Options
    #107
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Then why have the Government been spinning "It's to conserve water" ?

    Because for those with a meter it is, for those with out there is still the knowledge that if everyone uses more the overall cost goes up the average goes up.


  • Options
    #108
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Phoebas wrote: »
    Charging is from 1st October. First bill is in January 2005.

    How much do I owe I'll be bankrupt.


  • Options
    #109
    mickydoomsux
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,290 ✭✭✭mickydoomsux


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Roads are already paid for so there is no need for road tax (Motor tax for the pedantic amongst us) right?

    They needs continual funding for maintenance and improving whereas our water infrastructure is world class and not at all ancient and leaking all over the shop because of decades of underfunding.


  • Options
    #110
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Yup that's fine you have an opportunity to go with another company if you don't like their service. Can you do that with water ?

    No, a bit like the ESB until recently, Eircom until deregulation, gas until recently etc.

    Whether it makes sense to introduce competition into water supply later, I don't know. In telecoms, competition has been very effective. In electricity, the network is a natural monopoly, but producers and supply companies are competing. Some of the pro-market private company stuff doesn't really apply in a market where no company can be allowed to fail.


  • Options
    #111
    mickydoomsux
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,290 ✭✭✭mickydoomsux


    Phoebas wrote: »
    Charging is from 1st October. First bill is in January 2005.

    Time traveling water-bastards!

    I knew this was going to happen!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Roads are already paid for so there is no need for road tax (Motor tax for the pedantic amongst us) right?

    What has this got to do with a per units charge of a resource based utility ?


  • Options
    #113
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Different argument, inability to connect to the public system was a choice, when moving or living in a house that had no connection to it. So supplying your own water was a necessary reality.

    They could have been given tax credits, or a rebate, which would have been fair.


  • Options
    #114
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Different argument, inability to connect to the public system was a choice, when moving or living in a house that had no connection to it. So supplying your own water was a necessary reality.

    It was a necessity and those people also had to pay towards the public scheme.
    The new system seems fairer.


  • Options
    #115
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Phoebas wrote: »
    It was a necessity and those people also had to pay towards the public scheme.
    The new system seems fairer.

    But it's not though is it, I can sit here with my shower on all day and night and pay the same flat rate. You think anyone in My position is going to save water rather than getting their money's worth ?


    I will be using water normally like always.


  • Options
    #116
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    Phoebas wrote: »
    If you don't have a meter and you are attached to the public system then you are liable to pay the 'default assessed charge'. This is regardless of how much water you use (or don't use), so there is hardly a need for IW to demonstrate your usage to any court.

    So the contract is meaningless?

    Why the need for one so? Why not just say pay up lads. End of story.
    You seem to enjoy going over the very same ground over and over again on various Irish Water threads and wilfully ignore the information you're given again and again.

    Dont you seem to be on various water charge threads, property tax threads, come to think of it LOADS of Govt related threads.

    Always in defence. Even when it's Indefensible.


  • Options
    #117
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    But it's not though is it, I can sit here with my shower on all day and night and pay the same flat rate. You think anyone in My position is going to save water rather than getting their money's worth ?


    I will be using water normally like always.

    And you will pay the average (that's an important word) using more than or less than the average is not unfair, it's called an average for a reason.

    As you say "I will be using water normally like always."


  • Options
    #118
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Banjo String wrote: »
    So the contract is meaningless?

    Why the need for one so? Why not just say pay up lads. End of story.



    Dont you seem to be on various water charge threads, property tax threads, come to think of it LOADS of Govt related threads.

    Always in defence. Even when it's Indefensible.

    Have you a copy of contract.


  • Options
    #119
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    But it's not though is it, I can sit here with my shower on all day and night and pay the same flat rate. You think anyone in My position is going to save water rather than getting their money's worth ?


    I will be using water normally like always.
    Of course it would be better if everyone was metered but that's not going to happen overnight and won't happen ever for some households where it just isn't going to be practical.

    I do think that metering will lead to a culture of water conservation that will eventually spread to people who don't see a direct financial benefit.


  • Options
    #120
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Banjo String wrote: »
    Dont you seem to be on various water charge threads, property tax threads, come to think of it LOADS of Govt related threads.
    And there I was almost thinking that IW is a private company. ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Phoebas wrote: »
    Of course it would be better if everyone was metered but that's not going to happen overnight and won't happen ever for some households where it just isn't going to be practical.

    I do think that metering will lead to a culture of water conservation that will eventually spread to people who don't see a direct financial benefit.

    But the government has already said if they cannot raise enough money they will put up the price of water. So everyone saving water will have a disastrous effect. It's nothing to do with conservation.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement