nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

ALL THINGS IRISH WATER/WATER CHARGE RELATED POST HERE

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Find more posts tagged with

water

fanny

irish water

water charges

con job

wrecked

water consumption

brainwashed

new world order in action

nazi aliens!

make them pay joe!

imf agenda

u & whose army?

end of 31st dáil

denis o’brien

Comments

listermint

Highflyer13 wrote: »

So you are basically saying water charges is another stealth tax being hidden as a utility?

Oh sh*t hes been found out.

leggit boyz........

listermint

Banjo String wrote: »

I think he's just saying we're all 'leeches' . That's his buzz word.

No No hes saying we are all not tax payers, Despite me paying taxes indirectly and directly for over two decades and continuing to prop up mismanaged, bloaty and downright reprehensible organisations.

Highflyer13

listermint wrote: »

No No hes saying we are all not tax payers, Despite me paying taxes indirectly and directly for over two decades and continuing to prop up mismanaged, bloaty and downright reprehensible organisations.

Yes, he can call us leeches all he wants. At the end of the day I am working 60hr weeks and balancing different courses with that and consistently trying to make myself better and achieve more. I've paid my fair share of taxes and this is the tipping point. Not another cent. I've given more than enough to this economy and get very little in return for it.

This revolt stems from all classes, lower, middle and upper. People can see right through IW for what it really is. A horrible, bloated, waste of money, inefficient, incompetent, intrusive quango.

ROCKMAN

Think Mick Wallace TD made a good point yesterday that seems to be largely overlooked ,He asked/stated that all the money been spend on Irish Water was on the bill collecting /money making side on F**K ALL was being spend on getting it working in the first place .
Show's where the government's priorities lie ...IMO..

Banjo String

Has anyone spared a thought yet for the folk who've been letting the urine build up to four or five pees, then flushing the Jack with water collected from the Water from the showers, (before it ran cold) or cooking /washing with boiled rain water?

3weeks of living like a caveman, and for what now? No need to conserve now until mid 2016 if the Govt get it's way.

_Kaiser_

Banjo String wrote: »

Has anyone spared a thought yet for the folk who've been letting the urine build up to four or five pees, then flushing the Jack with water collected from the Water from the showers, (before it ran cold) or cooking /washing with boiled rain water?

3weeks of living like a caveman, and for what now? No need to conserve now until mid 2016 if the Govt get it's way.

Hmm.. what else is happening around that time..........

Highflyer13

I cant believe the government are lining themselves up for a battle with the people on this. I have to ask the question after big Phil being promoted to EU agriculture commissioner, Are FG promised something for implementing this in austerity era Europe? It just stinks all round. Really does.

Barely There

Highflyer13 wrote: »

. I've paid my fair share of taxes and this is the tipping point. Not another cent. I've given more than enough to this economy and get very little in return for it.

Sorry buddy - but you don't get to decide that.

listermint

Barely There wrote: »

Sorry buddy - but you don't get to decide that.

All citizens do actually. There is avenues to make this stop.

Sorry buddy.

Caliden

I think people are going to stage their own protest over this and not pay.

Similar to the way we voted out FF. As a people we don't shout a lot but we love a bit of the old 'passive aggressive' protest.

Trying to pass off the budget as a good one was a joke to be honest. USC and income tax changed but Irish water wiped out any increase in net pay.

_Kaiser_

listermint wrote: »

All citizens do actually. There is avenues to make this stop.

Sorry buddy.

+1.. What seems to be forgotten (by some) here is the government works for the people, not the other way around

Their role in this context is to take only as much as needed as to provide the services the citizens demand and to make efficient use of that money to deliver quality and value at all times.

No prizes for spotting the discrepancies in this vs IW or government spending in general.

Banjo String

Plans for Limerick.

Water charge protesters have threatened to burn Irish Water application packs in a Halloween cauldron at a protest taking place in Limerick this weekend.

The protest is organised by the “We Won’t Pay” campaign, initiated by the Anti- Austerity Alliance .

Alliance city councillor Cian Prendiville, who is organising this weekend’s protest, says he expects it to be “a real Halloween scare for the Government”. He believes the growing campaign of “organised mass non-payment of water charges is the Government’s worst nightmare”.

“People are being encouraged to bring any forms or packs they have been sent by Irish Water, and we will burn them in our cauldron on the day as well. If you have your Halloween costume already, wear that too. We must remember, they cannot take this from wages or welfare, nor cut off water supply,” he said.

According to the councillor, the water charge issue is “haunting Government” and is refusing to go away.

“The Government is now desperate to pin the blame on Irish Water. Undoubtedly, Irish Water is a monster of a company, but it is a Frankenstein creation by this Government for a particular purpose, to gather together the assets, to impose charges and to prepare for privatisation.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/protesters-plan-to-burn-irish-water-packs-1.1971986

[Deleted User]

So I assume if the government keep rowing back on this and people in cities and others on public water schemes get away without paying for water that they will be reimbursing those who have no choice but to pay for water and have been paying for years i.e. those with private wells who had to pay to sink the wells, pay for their upkeep and pay for the electricity to pump the water and those on group water schemes who have been metered and paying for water for years...... not bloody lightly.

There are a large number of people in the country who have been paying for water for years with no choice, this appears to be completely unknown to the people getting up in arms over the water charges.

Daith

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Think Mick Wallace TD made a good point yesterday that seems to be largely overlooked ,He asked/stated that all the money been spend on Irish Water was on the bill collecting /money making side on F**K ALL was being spend on getting it working in the first place .
Show's where the government's priorities lie ...IMO..

That's exactly it. What's the point with the overheads in creating Irish Water when most of the actual work is still done by the local councils. Why not just call it a water tax and be done with it.

All IW seem to offer is what? A billing system?

Satriale

Banjo String wrote: »

Plans for Limerick.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/protesters-plan-to-burn-irish-water-packs-1.1971986

i have my scary costume picked already.

Caliden

Daith wrote: »

That's exactly it. What's the point with the overheads in creating Irish Water when most of the actual work is still done by the local councils. Why not just call it a water tax and be done with it.

All IW seem to offer is what? A billing system?

IW is only there to simply 'move' the cost of water off the Government books while at the same time get the general public to pay for it's cost instead of it being a budgetary cost.

So now they've got more money to waste and it's cost is covered....or so they hope.

hiFidelity

Highflyer13 wrote: »

I cant believe the government are lining themselves up for a battle with the people on this. I have to ask the question after big Phil being promoted to EU agriculture commissioner, Are FG promised something for implementing this in austerity era Europe? It just stinks all round. Really does.

Of course they are, ministers pay at the minute is the equivalent of a mini lottery being lodged into their account every year, plus the possible option of a position in Europe if they successfully implement the orders of the EU, Troika, whoever.

This isn't about doing what is best for the people of the country. This is about the 'Ruling Class' looking after themselves and their own vested interests.

listermint

Rosa Hot Lumberman wrote: »

So I assume if the government keep rowing back on this and people in cities and others on public water schemes get away without paying for water that they will be reimbursing those who have no choice but to pay for water and have been paying for years i.e. those with private wells who had to pay to sink the wells, pay for their upkeep and pay for the electricity to pump the water and those on group water schemes who have been metered and paying for water for years...... not bloody lightly.

There are a large number of people in the country who have been paying for water for years with no choice, this appears to be completely unknown to the people getting up in arms over the water charges.

I assume Nox, that you are well aware that the major urban centres of the country pay more than the bulk of the tax for You're local services, which would and could not be covered by you're local taxes alone.

I am sure you are thoroughly aware that without the bulk of the taxes paid for my major urban centres you would have very little in the way of services. (we spread the tax base out) But i am sure you are aware of that fact already.

That said you chose to live where you are, there are benefits and drawbacks just as there is living in an urban environment.

So which would you prefer, paying for you're well, or i dont know Urban Taxes staying completely in Urban areas.....

Im sure you can see the point on this one........

Irish Steve

Highflyer13 wrote: »

I cant believe the government are lining themselves up for a battle with the people on this. I have to ask the question after big Phil being promoted to EU agriculture commissioner, Are FG promised something for implementing this in austerity era Europe? It just stinks all round. Really does.

The smell is becoming increasingly rancid,and if I look at the way it's all been done, I think that FG were expecting the population to just roll over on this, but with the appalling manner in which it's been set up, the ongoing and offensive cronyism, the appointment of people from other semi state areas with a considerably less than stellar track record, and the entire mess that looks so much like a repeat of the creation of the bloated HSE, and the manner that charging has been set up, it's no wonder that people are now saying, and very clearly "NO MORE".

Don't get me wrong, I am very happy with the concept of paying an appropriate price for good quality water through the pipes, and for making sure that my grandchildren can play on beaches without being at risk from waste that has not been properly treated.

IW unfortunately is not proving themselves capable of delivering either service effectively, economically and appropriately, the whole bonus culture, where poor performers are "rewarded", and the migration of many local authority people into IW without any real justification or evaluation of those people means that with the semi state job for life culture, there will unfortunately be people in IW who have been moved there because they are not performing in the local authority. It's been done before, it will be done again until the time comes when the job for life culture is ended.

Then there's the lack of engagement by IW with "customers", and I could go into a lot of detail there, but this is the wrong place to do that.

Then there's the issue that many areas of the country are at present receiving water that does not meet EU standards, in some cases because of contamination, and in many more because it's just too darn hard, and does damage to the plumbing and structure of the house.

Every other utility has a standing charge, which is paid regardless of how little or how much "product" is used, and then there is a charge for usage, which in some cases is a fixed rate regardless of consumption, and in other cases, it varies. It makes much more justifiable sense to have a standing charge, with usage at a rate above that.

Meters will deal with wastage, leaks and help with finding out where the problems with the larger infrastructure are located, if x million litres are metered, and x+y million litres go into the area, then there's a leak that needs to be found and repaired, but until there is a better indication of real usage, that's not as easy to do without running acoustic tracing equipment over every metre of pipe to listen for leaks. That's slow, expensive and not always effective depending on local circumstances. It has to be done, if we take the total cost of water as being 1.5 Billion, and split that between water and waste, the "cost" of water is about 750 Million, if nearly 50% (somewhere over 40% for the pernickity) is going to waste, that's a BIG bill for damn all return, nearly 400 MILLION per year for nothing. We have been paying that via taxation, and will be paying it via water charges until the leaks have been repaired.

Another issue that's not been mentioned recently is that IW needs to be positively and pro-actively involved in the inspection of infrastructure during construction (the local authorities do this in the UK, as part of building regulations) to ensure that builders are correctly and properly separating foul water and storm water, which has not been happening in the past, (it was cheaper for the builder, dump it all in the one pipe) but the costs and other problems that it causes for waste treatment are massive.

The work that IW needs to be doing, (properly, which is another issue) is WAY bigger and more important than just billing water usage, they have to take on the responsiblility for sourcing water (Especially for the the East coast), treating it, delivering it to where it's needed, and then collecting the waste water and dealing with it in line with increasingly strict EU pollution regulations. Ireland is 20 or more years behind the game on both of these, and the neglect of the infrastructure over that time has been close to criminal, in a lot of cases because of political interference, vote catching visible pet projects were invariably more attractive to politicians than spending large sums on long term projects that were buried in the ground.

The Troika and IMF forced the issue, it's been coming for years, (a bit like the NCT system was deferred by successive governments until the last possible moment), but now, it HAS to happen, to make sure that there is a viable water system that's needed for not just domestic users, but also, even more so, for industry, who have been paying for their water for years.

So far, because of the way that semi states work, it's been an unmitigated disaster, and it is likely to continue to be so.

For now, it would make more sense to be having a standing flat charge until IW (MK 2, not the present mess) is properly running, has the meters in place, and has the right people on the ground to deliver the service that it has to. Semi state retirees are the wrong people to have at the top, if that means head hunting someone from another country with real experience of running water, then that's what's needed, we certainly do not need wasters who have a poor track record, which is what's happened so far.

Yes, I'm resentful of the people that are involved right now, because I have very close and personal experience of trying to engage with those people, and it's cost me a LOT of money, time, stress and heartache, and 10 years down the line, I'm still at risk of being flooded every time it rains because Meath County Council will not deal with issues that were/are 100% their responsibility.

So far, IW are as bad as MCC, they should be responding to "customers", but their track record so far is considerably less than stellar. Not really surprising, the local authorities never had a customer related culture, and the people from water have moved over, but you may be sure that the culture won't have changed just because the name has.

The one good thing to come out of this is that there is now a significant and vocal public awareness that will mean that the political elite can no longer ignore this issue and the public, so things might at last start (slowly) to change for the better.

We can but hope

Colm R

Rosa Hot Lumberman wrote: »

So I assume if the government keep rowing back on this and people in cities and others on public water schemes get away without paying for water that they will be reimbursing those who have no choice but to pay for water and have been paying for years i.e. those with private wells who had to pay to sink the wells, pay for their upkeep and pay for the electricity to pump the water and those on group water schemes who have been metered and paying for water for years...... not bloody lightly.

There are a large number of people in the country who have been paying for water for years with no choice, this appears to be completely unknown to the people getting up in arms over the water charges.

I have raised this point a few times on a few forums and in general its ignored. It does not suit the argument of those who are against the water charges so its easier to ignore the point.

Its hard to nail down the exact cost of water, but in general I pay:

€250 per year in electricity cost. (worked out from average consumption and the type of pump).

€7.50 a month on salt for treatment.

€0.50 per day on electrical cost for the Bio Cycle.

€140 I've just booked another service to replace UV Lamp and filters ( I really need how to figure out how to do this myself)

I've banished the capital cost of the Bio Cycle and sinking the well to the dark recesses of my brain never to be thought about again.

I'm not complaining that I have to pay this - I am perfectly happy to do this for myself and my family - but I pay tax too. No problem with my tax going towards those less well off, for example the household payments that those on social welfare get a payment for water.
No problem with the tax credit for those that will have to pay Irish Water - and I won't even argue that I should get it also.

listermint

Colm R wrote: »

I have raised this point a few times on a few forums and in general its ignored. It does not suit the argument of those who are against the water charges so its easier to ignore the point.

Its hard to nail down the exact cost of water, but in general I pay:

€250 per year in electricity cost. (worked out from average consumption and the type of pump).

€7.50 a month on salt for treatment.

€0.50 per day on electrical cost for the Bio Cycle.

€140 I've just booked another service to replace UV Lamp and filters ( I really need how to figure out how to do this myself)

I've banished the capital cost of the Bio Cycle and sinking the well to the dark recesses of my brain never to be thought about again.

I'm not complaining that I have to pay this - I am perfectly happy to do this for myself and my family - but I pay tax too. No problem with my tax going towards those less well off, for example the household payments that those on social welfare get a payment for water.
No problem with the tax credit for those that will have to pay Irish Water - and I won't even argue that I should get it also.

Please see my post on this above.

I believe in the Tax base being spread out. But sure in the interest of fairness (as advocate by you and Nox) We'll keep all our tax for ourselves then.

:rolleyes:

listermint

Example of some facts

Dublin is getting 50 times less funding for local services than some rural areas.

New figures from Dublin City Council show the capital is largely subsidising other parts of the country, but city dwellers are only being allocated about €5 per head for local services.

The Local Government Fund - which is mainly made up of Property Tax receipts - is the largest source of central Government money for city and county councils.

According to analysis by Dublin City Council, the capital is being underfunded, getting 50 times less for local services than rural areas.

The allocation of €5 per person in Dublin this year compares poorly to the €260 designated to those living in Leitrim.

does that put your i pay for a well nonsense to bed?

Id love to have my own land and house by itself. but by god id never get PP for anywhere rural. Anti outsiders 'Local use only' jazz everywhere, which was designed to stop holiday homes but in fact prevents new blood coming into areas.

Id love to have my own well, and i wouldnt give out about it.

[Deleted User]

listermint wrote: »

I assume Nox, that you are well aware that the major urban centres of the country pay more than the bulk of the tax for You're local services, which would and could not be covered by you're local taxes alone.

I am sure you are thoroughly aware that without the bulk of the taxes paid for my major urban centres you would have very little in the way of services. (we spread the tax base out) But i am sure you are aware of that fact already.

That said you chose to live where you are, there are benefits and drawbacks just as there is living in an urban environment.

So which would you prefer, paying for you're well, or i dont know Urban Taxes staying completely in Urban areas.....

Im sure you can see the point on this one........

Nope I see no valid point whatsoever in your post. Your reply has no relevance at all to the point I made.

Colm R wrote: »

I have raised this point a few times on a few forums and in general its ignored. It does not suit the argument of those who are against the water charges so its easier to ignore the point.
.

I didn't even mention the fact rural people also pay for their own sewage system and upkeep of it. Another thing provided to those in urban areas.

listermint

Rosa Hot Lumberman wrote: »

Nope I see no valid point whatsoever in your post. Your reply has no relevance at all to the point I made.

I didn't even mention the fact rural people also pay for their own sewage system and upkeep of it. Another thing provided to those in urban areas.

Please see above, your comments make no sense on the context of what we are discussing. You are advocating fairness but yet one way fairness ? Is that it?

[Deleted User]

listermint wrote: »

Please see above, your comments make no sense on the context of what we are discussing. You are advocating fairness but yet one way fairness ? Is that it?

Fairness would either both urban dwellers and rural dwellers pay for their water or neither of them do. I think the cost of water should be coming from our tax take and not have additional charges but if one group has to pay both should. Also its my home place that is metered, I currently live in rented accommodation in an urban area so will be affected by "the water charges" which are being brought in until such a time as I am at home again (and would then be paying to a group water scheme). I don't particularity want to pay them but its still fairer than some paying and others not.

Why should an urban dweller get free water while a country person is forced to pay for it. Both pay the same taxes so why should you be provided with free water and not the person living rurally?

listermint

Rosa Hot Lumberman wrote: »

Fairness would either both urban dwellers and rural dwellers pay for their water or neither of them do. I think the cost of water should be coming from our tax take and not have additional chrages but if one group has to pay both should. Also its my home place that is metered, I currently live in rented accommodation in an urban area so will be affected by "the water charges" which are being brought in until such a time as I am at home again.

Why should an urban dweller get free water while a country person is forced to pay for it. Both pay the same taxes so why should you be provided with free water and not the person living rurally?

How would fairness include allowing someone to live in the middle of nowhere and paying for their right to do so. I mean The central fund already pays for the local council services. Do you think rural dwellers could affort that on their own? The arguement is ridiculous.

What if Urbanites kept all their taxes to I dont know pay for their own services locally. How do you think that would work out for Rural dwellers?

Answer is not very well. So stop harping on about paying for a well. Id love to have the luxury of the chance.

Because they get to live in beautiful idylic settings thats why. There has to be some compromise , they even getter lower property taxes. Its a silly arguement you have.

Colm R

Rosa Hot Lumberman wrote: »

Fairness would either both urban dwellers and rural dwellers pay for their water or neither of them do. I think the cost of water should be coming from our tax take and not have additional chrages but if one group has to pay both should. Also its my home place that is metered, I currently live in rented accommodation in an urban area so will be affected by "the water charges" which are being brought in until such a time as I am at home again.

Why should an urban dweller get free water while a country person is forced to pay for it. Both pay the same taxes so why should you be provided with free water and not the person living rurally?

The cost of water is greater for a rural dweller. So in principle, we should pay more. Up to this month, we paid 100% paid more - depending on cirumstances, we will now pay between 50% and 75% more. I think thats fair.
As an aside, I think it is still important that rural dwellers should be targeted for spetic tank inspection - and the costs associated with it.

With regard to the cost per person and the example of Leitrim, I would like to see a breakdown on the services and where the money is spent. I'm willing to bet that most is spent on services within towns in Leitrim and not in rural areas.

[Deleted User]

listermint wrote: »

How would fairness include allowing someone to live in the middle of nowhere and paying for their right to do so. I mean The central fund already pays for the local council services. Do you think rural dwellers could affort that on their own? The arguement is ridiculous.

What if Urbanites kept all their taxes to I dont know pay for their own services locally. How do you think that would work out for Rural dwellers?

Answer is not very well. So stop harping on about paying for a well. Id love to have the luxury of the chance.

Because they get to live in beautiful idylic settings thats why. There has to be some compromise , they even getter lower property taxes. Its a silly arguement you have.

I'd love to know these services which are being provided for rural people over urban, because I don't see them. Living in an urban area demonstrates how little is actually provided for rural people compared to those in urban areas.

Banjo String

Rosa Hot Lumberman wrote: »

Fairness would either both urban dwellers and rural dwellers pay for their water or neither of them do. I think the cost of water should be coming from our tax take and not have additional charges but if one group has to pay both should. Also its my home place that is metered, I currently live in rented accommodation in an urban area so will be affected by "the water charges" which are being brought in until such a time as I am at home again (and would then be paying to a group water scheme). I don't particularity want to pay them but its still fairer than some paying and others not.

Why should an urban dweller get free water while a country person is forced to pay for it. Both pay the same taxes so why should you be provided with free water and not the person living rurally?

So people should pay less if they've no kids for child benefit /education?
Anyone paying private health insurance, should get a proportionate rebate, from any hse contributions?
People not owning cars?
I don't go to a library. Where's my rebate for those taxes

[Deleted User]

Banjo String wrote: »

So people should pay less if they've no kids for child benefit /education?
Anyone paying private health insurance, should get a proportionate rebate, from any hse contributions?
People not owning cars?
I don't go to a library. Where's my rebate for those taxes

I'm certainly confused? There is no connection at all between your reply and my post.