ALL THINGS IRISH WATER/WATER CHARGE RELATED POST HERE

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Tax has paid for water up till now. You've already drank or bathed in that water, its gone. Now, with the country costing more to run, the current taxes are not covering everything, So, the people that pay income tax can pay more of it to cover everyone or people can all start paying their own share of things that can be paid for in this way.

Tax used to pay for 10 or 20 thousands people to be on the dole , now it pays for nearly 400,000 . Should those extra 380,000 people be told theres no money to pay them?

Dude, I know you are an intelligent guy. I've seen enough posts of yours to know that for sure.

Can you see how many millions are being wasted on 'consultants', bailouts, bonuses etc etc. The list goes on.

There IS money there. But it's being spent on the wrong things.

They don't want their gravy train to end. So here come more taxes to keep the train going.

You know this, right?

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

You're assuming that the "dismantling" of LPT and Water Charges in 1977 meant these things went away - they didn't... they were loaded onto Income tax rates and motor tax.

Again, unless ANYONE here can show how water was "free" for the last few decades, then your entire argument is flawed from the start.

I'll get ye started.. where does the government get it's taxes? The people (both employed AND unemployed)

And where does it get the money to spend on services. From those taxes, which in recent times have seen the full amount of taxes used up on social welfare, health and education. You could say that everything else is paid for by borrowing. You forgot about borrowing.

_Kaiser_

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Tax has paid for water up till now. You've already drank or bathed in that water, its gone. Now, with the country costing more to run, the current taxes are not covering everything, So, the people that pay income tax can pay more of it to cover everyone or people can all start paying their own share of things that can be paid for in this way.

Tax used to pay for 10 or 20 thousands people to be on the dole , now it pays for nearly 400,000 . Should those extra 380,000 people be told theres no money to pay them?

Again the flawed notion that those who aren't working pay no tax.

Reality is that those people proportionally pay MORE in tax as more of their income goes directly back into the local economy and as VAT (y'know.. tax!)

But hey, it's a good way to try and muster support I suppose - the "us vs them" nonsense that is the hallmark of this country that distracts the "peasants" while the real "freeloaders" continue to rob us ALL blind!

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Bertie, is that you? :P

sssshh. I'm on the wifi in Fagan's.

Satriale

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Well then food should be free so , no?

Get back to me when i am paying to pipe food into your house!

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Incidentally, water is metered in Germany and they don't generally drink tap water, most (in the areas I have family in) drink bottled water. It's not generally thought to taste nice enough or be nice enough to drink.

I lived in Mannheim for a few months on a work thing a few years ago. The average price of 2 litres bottled water is 50 cent. They have lovely bottled water there. The Germans prefer to drink bottled water as it is so cheap. However the tap water is more than suitable for drinking. Isn't it gas that a litre of water here in Topaz can cost you more than a litre of petrol?

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

At the moment its a flat rate.

Right. So i'll rephrase what I said.

Surely the policy on water leaks should have been sorted by Irish Water before they had the audacity to start charging people a flat rate for water services.

waking dreams wrote: »

Isn't it gas that a litre of water here in Topaz can cost you more than a litre of petrol?

Not really when you consider that Topaz and Irish Water have the same owners.

Wurly wrote: »

Dude, I know you are an intelligent guy. I've seen enough posts of yours to know that for sure.

Can you see how many millions are being wasted on 'consultants', bailouts, bonuses etc etc. The list goes on.

There IS money there. But it's being spent on the wrong things.

They don't want their gravy train to end. So here come more taxes to keep the train going.

You know this, right?

There are many more millions being used to pay for the proper running of the country. This needs to be paid for regardless of what other wastage is going on. So the focus should be on sorting the wastage, not seeing how we can not pay for things that really should be paid for.

Next time the economy is doing well and taxes are lowered so that taxpayers can have more money, it wont be as big an issue as recently when it was used to buy votes and contributed to a collapse when single large income streams suddenly dried up.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Reality is that those people proportionally pay MORE in tax as more of their income goes directly back into the local economy and as VAT (y'know.. tax!)
!

Is giving someone €188 a week and getting €45 of it back in tax really that great an income stream for the government? Some economists might even called that a net loss.

waking dreams wrote: »

I lived in Mannheim for a few months on a work thing a few years ago. The average price of 2 litres bottled water is 50 cent. They have lovely bottled water there. The Germans prefer to drink bottled water as it is so cheap. However the tap water is more than suitable for drinking. Isn't it gas that a litre of water here in Topaz can cost you more than a litre of petrol?

If that is the average price then some must be lower even than 50 cents? How low does it go. I don't buy bottled water here, but I think I saw 5 litres for €2.19 in Lidl. Why would someone shop in Topaz if they are short of money, 2 litres of milk there would be a euro more than in a supermarket?

Wurly wrote: »

Not really when you consider that Topaz and Irish Water have the same owners.

The government? Cos they own the shares in IW.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

There are many more millions being used to pay for the proper running of the country. This needs to be paid for regardless of what other wastage is going on. SO the focus should be on sorting the wastage, not seeing how we can not pay for things that really should be paid for.

Next time the economy is doing well and taxes are lowered so that taxpayers can have more money, it wont be as big an issue as recently when it was used to buy votes and contributed to a collapse when single large income streams suddenly dried up.

Yes, lots of money is being used to fund the country and rightly so.

So if we added up the figure for bailing out bondholders, cutting TD's wages to be in line with the average wage, removing bonus entitlements from cretins like Bertie Ahern et al, e-voting machines blah blah, do you not think we'd have a princely sum?

Can you justify this wastage? I can't. Shouldn't taxing people to oblivion be the last resort? Shouldn't that be sorted first?

It seems that our differences lie in what should be paid for and what shouldn't.

In my opinion, income tax should cover water. It did so in the past. Why not now? Can you see cronyism increasing evermore in Irish politics as the years progress? I can. It is undoubtedly a bigger problem than ever before.

Which means this system just doesn't work. And this system is all for the wrong reasons.

Please please believe me when I tell you that this is a sham. We really need to be on each others side here. Us extraordinary joes are not the enemy.

It is a failed system, designed to fund the elite. When we realise this, changes will happen.

dxhound2005 wrote: »

If that is the average price then some must be lower even than 50 cents? How low does it go. I don't buy bottled water here, but I think I saw 5 litres for €2.19 in Lidl. Why would someone shop in Topaz if they are short of money, 2 litres of milk there would be a euro more than in a supermarket?

I just came back from Spain and there I got 6 litres for 60 cent. Madness. With regards to Topaz, I find myself thirsty the odd time when getting petrol. On the M1 motorway I haven't got the option of Supervalue or Tesco's. I find it funny though.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The government? Cos they own the shares in IW.

Good ou'l Denis.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/banks-write-off-over-300m-in-three-deals-with-denis-o-brien-1.1830533

Wurly wrote: »

Right. So i'll rephrase what I said.

Surely the policy on water leaks should have been sorted by Irish Water before they had the audacity to start charging people a flat rate for water services.

Would you have been happy if that policy had been finalised to make householders pay for every leak after the meter? Some of the leaks could be due to poor workmanship on the customer side. Like the person here who found a leaking hose in his greenhouse, identified by the meter installation. A leaking tap could waste hundreds of litres a year, the customer should be liable to get that fixed in my opinion. I don't think the possible proposed policy is particularly audacious.

If 41% of water is being leaked not on the customer side, that might be a more urgent issue to get sorted out.

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Would you have been happy if that policy had been finalised to make householders pay for every leak after the meter? Some of the leaks could be due to poor workmanship on the customer side. Like the person here who found a leaking hose in his greenhouse, identified by the meter installation. A leaking tap could waste hundreds of litres a year, the customer should be liable to get that fixed in my opinion. I don't think the possible proposed policy is particularly audacious.

If 41% of water is being leaked not on the customer side, that might be a more urgent issue to get sorted out.

Who are the customers here and who are they a customer to?

Tony EH

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I have a question...

What exactly is it driving the pro-side that are posting here?

Is it:

- Vested interests (government/IW staffers or employees)

- Begrudgery (the flawed notion that "freeloaders" pay nothing and contribute nothing to the country - when in fact pretty much all their money goes directly back into the local economy and VAT returns and the "genuine" freeloaders are far outnumbered by ordinary decent people who are struggling to get by while looking for a job/on low-paid wages)

- Naivety (when even FG/LAB cabinet members themselves are privately admitting it's a disaster and causing serious trouble both among the public, and in the government)

... and all this for (maybe) €150 million??

Doesn't make sense to me at this stage, no matter what "side" you're on.

I think it's clear that there are at least two people who are motivated by simple pettiness as is obvious by their recent posts.

They're willing to place themselves in an arguably worse position re: IW, just to satisfy an inherent bitterness.

Incredible really.

Irish Steve

Just been reading the Kerrigan article.

I am very unhappy with the way IW has been set up, with the number of semi state heads that are sticking their noses into a very lucrative trough, and the total absence of coalition engagement with the people to explain the real reasons why the IW concept happened at all.

Water is not cheap, and the subsequent treatment of waste water is even more expensive, and not likely to become cheaper as the EU introduce ever more stringent rules on purity of water at things like beaches, and with large populations living close to the coast, waste water treatment is no longer optional.

Taking water out of political control and short term influence was essential, for way too long, water and waste has been chronically underfunded by the local authorities because there were/are very few votes in something that is long term, expensive and in most cases underground, so when local (and national) politicians are under pressure, the best way to become more popular is to fund a high visibility project that can be pointed to as "our commitment to the electorate", and water pipes and sewers and the like don't fit into the category, so they have been neglected for years in favour of "pet projects" that would have a vote return.

The example mentioned a few messages ago is an example of the issues, 720 Litres a day being lost (probably through a leak), and no one knew until the meter was fitted, now they do know, and that is only one house, on a small bore pipe.

Repeat that scenario across the country, and it's easy to see how 40% of the treated water is being lost through leaks, and that's only on small bore pipes, the same issue applies to large bore main feed pipes as well, though the flow from them tends to become apparent due to the volume of water that is lost.

So, things had to change, not just because of the funding issues as a result of the state funding deficit, or the biggest recession in living memory, or because of the bank bailout, or because of the orders of the IMF/troika, though all of these factors have been an additional pressure to make the final change.

It had to change in order to ensure that areas like Dublin will have a reliable water supply in the years to come, and that EU legislation to protect all of us, as well as the environment, is complied with, and that we're not spending millions of Euro treating water that then goes to waste.

IW as a concept had to happen, IW as presently structured, funded and implemented is a banana skin that has shown just how lacking in real change the coalition has been, there's too much cronyism, too many semi state job for life heads, too much spent on consultancy, too many things that have not been properly decided and are having to be made up as they go along despite that massive consultancy bill.

Changing it now is going to be even harder, and there is not the political will to make changes to how the status quo at political level operates, they're very comfortable thank you very much, and will fight tooth and nail to prevent things being changed for the better of "people".

We desperately need the "recall" concept that's being brought in to many democracies now, where if a person or organisation is found to be operating corruptly, or ineffectively, or otherwise not in accordance with an acceptable standard, if enough people raise the issue, the people concerned can be changed, and at a more frequent interval than every 5 years at a General Election.

Given the straight jacket he was put in by FF, and the IMF/Troika, Michael Noonan hasn't done a bad job of turning things round and rebuilding a shattered economy.

Enda? Enda who? He's been conspicuous by his lack of visibility in so much of what's happened, and has to carry the can for the failure of real reform in so many other areas where it was promised, the most visible failure being his total inability to deliver real Dail reform.

I won't go there in this, it's long enough already, but there is a LONG list of "outstandings", which was why FG got such a large vote last time round, and I don't see too much enthusiasm for making those changes that we were promised.

That leaves us with an even bigger question. Who to vote for / trust next time.....................................

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Would you have been happy if that policy had been finalised to make householders pay for every leak after the meter? Some of the leaks could be due to poor workmanship on the customer side. Like the person here who found a leaking hose in his greenhouse, identified by the meter installation. A leaking tap could waste hundreds of litres a year, the customer should be liable to get that fixed in my opinion. I don't think the possible proposed policy is particularly audacious.

If 41% of water is being leaked not on the customer side, that might be a more urgent issue to get sorted out.

No, that would not have pleased me in the slightest.

What I would have preferred is that they honoured the 'rumour' of the free leak policy instead on reneging on it until 2015.

Actually, what i'd love more is for my taxes to be spent correctly on things like water, waste charges etc. Rather than on bailing out some greedy bondholder w@nker. But that's just me.

waking dreams wrote: »

I just came back from Spain and there I got 6 litres for 60 cent. Madness. With regards to Topaz, I find myself thirsty the odd time when getting petrol. On the M1 motorway I haven't got the option of Supervalue or Tesco's. I find it funny though.

I know nothing much about Spain except that I read here that the price of bottled water is subsidised by the EU because the public water infrastructure there is in such poor condition. But the subsidy is due to end and prices for bottled water will increase. That is just from memory, could be complete nonsense.

Wurly wrote: »

In my opinion, income tax should cover water. It did so in the past. Why not now? .

I disagree. Anything that can be counted and charged separately should be. It's the fairest system.

There's been loads of threads on the motors forum asking why motor tax cant be added to fuel and that way its charged on usage. Why are people opinions on water the complete opposite? Why should someone that owns a swimming pool and decides to empty and refill it regularly not pay more for water than someone in a one bed apartment that showers once a day has a few cups of tea?

I doubt anyone would see it as a fair system for a block of apartments to have their electricity bill on one meter and divided equally amongst the apartments (well the higher usage ones might but that's the point).

Why not focus all the protests and effort towards changing the way the wastage occurs because at the end of the day, water charges or not, the wastage is still there.

http://www.moneyguideireland.com/who-owns-irish-water.html

Wurly wrote: »

Good ou'l Denis.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/banks-write-off-over-300m-in-three-deals-with-denis-o-brien-1.1830533

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I disagree. Anything that can be counted and charged separately should be. It's the fairest system.

There's been loads of threads on the motors forum asking why motor tax cant be added to fuel and that way its charged on usage. Why are people opinions on water the complete opposite? Why should someone that owns a swimming pool and decides to empty and refill it regularly not pay more for water than someone in a one bed apartment that showers once a day has a few cups of tea?

I doubt anyone would see it as a fair system for a block of apartments to have their electricity bill on one meter and divided equally amongst the apartments (well the higher usage ones might but that's the point).

Ok I see why you would hold this opinion.

Now imagine this.

That your income tax is divided up to cover all things like water, motor and waste charges.

Are you going to deny someone a bath when you might drive further in your car?

I don't understand why income tax cannot be used in a clear and transparent way to cover all of these things.

Taxing everything seperately just adds up to more taxes and rates being hiked all the time. Why didn't they reduce income tax then if they were going to introduce water charges? Surely THAT would have been fairer. But they didn't and it's now yet another charge people are expected to pay. Where does it end?

waking dreams wrote: »

Who are the customers here and who are they a customer to?

The customer is the person who receives the service and is charged for it. They are customers of the service provider.

I shouldn't have written that. All sorts of Freemen will be along to ask more stupid questions

Wurly wrote: »

Taxing everything seperately just adds up to more taxes and rates being hiked all the time. Where does it end?

It adds up to a broad tax base that isn't subject to sudden collapse when the **** hits the fan.

When everything is paid for with income taxes what happens when the amount of income tax payers drops by say , 400,000 and the amount of people needing social welfare goes up by a not coincidental similar number?

_Kaiser_

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I disagree. Anything that can be counted and charged separately should be. It's the fairest system.

There's been loads of threads on the motors forum asking why motor tax cant be added to fuel and that way its charged on usage. Why are people opinions on water the complete opposite?

I think you'll find that not everyone on Motors supports such a system at all and the ones who are advocating it are those who want to run a big-engined weekend car for the most part. Nothing to do with being "fair" at all - they just want someone else to pay for it.

(Said as someone who pays 422 every 3 months to tax his car - but that's my choice!)

Those motorists who rely on their car to get to work and who have been pushed out into the sticks in the last property boom (and it's happening again) have a very different opinion.

A better idea would be a "weekend rate" as well as a monthly payment option and an ending of the unfair penalties you pay if you can't stump it up annually, but that'd require a bit of cop-on by the civil servants and enforcement by the girls n girls currently acting as a private security force for IW.

dxhound2005 wrote: »

The customer is the person who receives the service and is charged for it. They are customers of the service provider.

I shouldn't have written that. All sorts of Freemen will be along to ask more stupid questions

So we are customers to the Government? Im getting scared now.

_Kaiser_

waking dreams wrote: »

So we are customers to the Government? Im getting scared now.

That's exactly what we are.. the government and their EU masters have managed to reduce the populations of entire countries from citizens to expendable economic resources in the EU superstate.