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

Little CuChulainn

knarkypants wrote: »

Here is another report about the incident which claims the worker was trespassing on the mans property. No where in either article does it mention the man was protesting against the water meters.

http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/news/irish-water-worker-flees-after-homeowner-brandishes-shotgun#.VFCvVqCwqG8.facebook

It says he accidentally wandered onto his land. That is not trespassing in civil or criminal law. Certainly not grounds to lock and load your gun.

Banjo String

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What taxation is ringfenced for water?

They spent €1.2bn on water last year.

What tax is ring-fenced for anything here?

Why will water be different?

Larbre34

fxotoole wrote: »

Not anymore.

Wrong. The seed capital to get the meters installed was lifted from the Pension Reserve Fund, which itself was funded by taxation/social insurance and investment of same over many years.

Even as we speak, every cent in ongoing maintenance, or disappearing into the IW money pit, is tax. Not a penny of revenue from charges has been raised yet. And the way the Government are flying kites about keeping the fixed charge for another few years, tax will still be the primary source of funding for this mess.

Banjo String

fxotoole wrote: »

I disagree. Let's leave it at that and get the thread back on topic.

You disagree

Right so, that's certainly told me.

knarkypants

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It says he accidentally wandered onto his land. That is not trespassing in civil or criminal law. Certainly not grounds to lock and load your gun.

I'm not talking about the right or wrongs of it. The point I was making was that the other poster who linked to the story was implying it was something to do with workers needing protection from protesters. This man was on his own property and found someone who had no permission to be there on it. Nothing to do with a protest.

Larbre34

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Everyone paying for themselves is absolutely better than some paying for all.

Be careful what you wish for, if you were billed the full economic cost of your water and waste you might have a heart attack.

You're right though in principle, and if we were to be billed for a well engineered, efficient supply system and a minimal bureaucracy to manage it, it might be a very reasonable proposition. But we arent. We are being asked to pony up on the double for a supply system in collapse and a monolithic quango.

Guy:Incognito

Banjo String wrote: »

What tax is ring-fenced for anything here?

Why will water be different?

So do those couple of increases from 1998 (Iirc) cover the €1.2b paid last year? Is there more for the investment needed?

VinLieger

Larbre34 wrote: »

Be careful what you wish for, if you were billed the full economic cost of your water and waste you might have a heart attack.

You're right though in principle, and if we were to be billed for a well engineered, efficient supply system and a minimal bureaucracy to manage it, it might be a very reasonable proposition. But we arent. We are being asked to pony up on the double for a supply system in collapse and a monolithic quango.

So we shouldn't pay for it and just let it collapse?

shinzon

VinLieger wrote: »

So we shouldn't pay for it and just let it collapse?

Do people purposefully ignore things or just want to stir the pot again, but for the trillionth time we are already paying for water through general taxation to the tune of 1.2 billion.

Queue the people who say the budget fixed all that with tax decreases etc etc, when in actual fact it was a massage of figures to move things about a bit to have some people marginally better off then before.

The amount of people in this country defending the indefensible is absolutely astonishing, I never knew there was so many people willing to part with more cash to pay the bondholders cause none of the money handed over will ever be used to pay for the pipes

Shin

BoJack Horseman

shinzon wrote: »

Do people purposefully ignore things or just want to stir the pot again, but for the trillionth time we are already paying for water through general taxation to the tune of 1.2 billion.

Correction.

Most people pay through taxation
Some pay through both taxation & annual maintenance/quality costs
Some don't pay either.

Everyone paying their share is surely a much better system?

Guy:Incognito

shinzon wrote: »

Do people purposefully ignore things or just want to stir the pot again, but for the trillionth time we are already paying for water through general taxation to the tune of 1.2 billion.

Queue the people who say the budget fixed all that with tax decreases etc etc, when in actual fact it was a massage of figures to move things about a bit to have some people marginally better off then before.

The amount of people in this country defending the indefensible is absolutely astonishing, I never knew there was so many people willing to part with more cash to pay the bondholders cause none of the money handed over will ever be used to pay for the pipes

Shin

€ 1.2b was paid last year from taxes. So let's assume it'll be another €1.2b next year.

The government predicts we'll have to borrow €5b to balance the budget. So in reality it'll probably be more. Do you not think that's a problem.?

Now what about money needed for infrastructure investment?

So forget the €1.2b. It's needed elsewhere to cover costs and people need to pay for the water they use.it's the fairest system and everyone pays for what they use, not what someone else uses.

Why was it fair for businesses to pay up to now or people on group schemes or ones that had to pay for wells. Where was the uproar about their human rights?

TheChizler

Banjo String wrote: »

What tax is ring-fenced for anything here?

Why will water be different?

Exactly, how can it be said that we'll be paying twice for water when nothing's ringfenced? It all goes into this one big pot.

In all likelyhood, and simplistic terms, whatever payments IW receive will cover x % of the basic cost of supplying domestic water, this year the Government will pay the (100 - x) % shortfall, and possibly contribute something towards upgrading the network, next year after figuring out the actual cost of supplying water (which they couldn't possibly know initially) with the permission of the regulator the price should rise by 100*(100 - x)/x %, or it could indeed decrease if this year's price was an overestimate.

This is complicated by the fact that the cost of treating 1000 L of waste water is deemed the same as treating the same amount of fresh water, but in fairness the cost of either of those is a best guess at this stage. Once they're established a while these prices should become more transparent as costs are realized.

What I think could have been a good way to address the inaccurate claims of double paying, and a good PR exercise, would have been for the Gov. to say that the equivalent tax income spent on water services would for the next few years be contributed instead towards upgrading infrastructure. There would be no way then to even remotely claim that people are paying twice for supply. This would do nothing for our deficit however, which realistically should be a priority here, above PR.

shinzon

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

€ 1.2b was paid last year from taxes. So let's assume it'll be another €1.2b next year.

The government predicts we'll have to borrow €5b to balance the budget. So in reality it'll probably be more.

Now what about money needed for infrastructure investment?

And why are we borrowing that money, to pay for the so called neutral budget which was in actual fact a panic budget to try and quell the anger over IW, which hasn't worked

and as for infra structure investment

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1029/655597-irish-water/

The head of the body representing county and city councillors has said that the board of Irish Water has lost the public's confidence.

President of the Association of Irish Local Government Padraig McNally said that under the stewardship of John Tierney, there seems to be one mistake after another.

He said while he is not arguing about the principle of the utility, he believes that local authorities were doing a good job and could have done a better job if they had the financial resources as proposed for Irish Water.

Speaking on RTÉ's News at One, Mr Nally said that under local authorities, there was a disparity in water provision because there were inconsistencies in finances.

"I certainly would be of the belief that in many cases the local authorities were doing a reasonably good job and the reason they weren't doing a better job was because of the lack of funding".

Shin

Cantona's Collars

Wait until the government cop onto the idea of payment for having a private well & metering them ala the UK.Then we'll see all those who cry "Unfair,why should our taxes subsides urban water users" take to the streets also.

As it stands,the system in place is the fairest,we pay tax and that goes into the pot,the cost of water is taken from that.Why do people so vehemently feel we need to pay again.

Tony EH

Bitterness.

BoJack Horseman

zerks wrote: »

As it stands,the system in place is the fairest,we pay tax and that goes into the pot,the cost of water is taken from that

Some paying for all is not in anyway fair.

Some may consider it progressive, but it isn't fair.

TheChizler

zerks wrote: »

Wait until the government cop onto the idea of payment for having a private well & metering them ala the UK.Then we'll see all those who cry "Unfair,why should our taxes subsides urban water users" take to the streets also.

Is that a thing? In the UK your private well is metered and you pay a rate for the supply of your own water? Who do you pay, seeing as there are multiple options of supplier in different regions? Can you show us where to find official information on this?

mikom

zerks wrote: »

Wait until the government cop onto the idea of payment for having a private well & metering them ala the UK.Then we'll see all those who cry "Unfair,why should our taxes subsides urban water users" take to the streets also.

That's what the "tick" boxes are for in the Irish water application pack.
Nothing but a data collection venture.
Tick that you have a private well......... well then expect that info to be logged and for you to receive a "ground water preservation" levy or some such made up muck in the next few years.

Tell them nothing.
They are on the big bucks and have 100's of consultants coming out of their arseholes, so let them work for their info.

Don't be building a file on yourself.

Guy:Incognito

zerks wrote: »

Wait until the government cop onto the idea of payment for having a private well & metering them ala the UK.Then we'll see all those who cry "Unfair,why should our taxes subsides urban water users" take to the streets also.

As it stands,the system in place is the fairest,we pay tax and that goes into the pot,the cost of water is taken from that.Why do people so vehemently feel we need to pay again.

Would it be fair to change to the same system for gas and electricity so? Person in a one bed apartment can pay the same as a mansion.
Depending on what way their tax is set up the guy in the mansion may well be paying less. Hardly seems a fair system.

Cantona's Collars

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Would it be fair to change to the same system for gas and electricity so? Person in a one bed apartment can pay the same as a mansion.
Depending on what way their tax is set up the guy in the mansion may well be paying less. Hardly seems a fair system.

IIRC a person in a mansion still uses the jacks and showers the same as somebody in an apartment.

No taxation system will ever be perfect but as much as we hate ours,it's still pretty fair.But of course our government just wants more & more from those who employ them

Larbre34

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Would it be fair to change to the same system for gas and electricity so? Person in a one bed apartment can pay the same as a mansion.
Depending on what way their tax is set up the guy in the mansion may well be paying less. Hardly seems a fair system.

A daft analogy. By inference, a person living in a one bed apartment is likely to have an income which correlates with his circumstances. The guy in the mansion may be tax non-resident or some such outlier of the tax code, but in the main the distribution is fair, albeit the middle income people pay more as a group because they are prevalent.

Cantona's Collars

TheChizler wrote: »

Is that a thing? In the UK your private well is metered and you pay a rate for the supply of your own water? Who do you pay, seeing as there are multiple options of supplier in different regions? Can you show us where to find official information on this?

There's an amazing new thing called google.Is this another IW thing? Let us do the work for you?

BoJack Horseman

zerks wrote: »

But of course our government just wants more & more from those who employ them

Well, if you can think of a way of avoiding the €45bn+ accumulated in debt just running the state in the last 4 years without tax rises, the dept of Revenue would love to hear from you.

Highflyer13

Was here today for lunch. Passing on a charge for tapwater onto the customer even though its covered in their rates. Knowing the greed on our Island, this will become commonplace.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/discover/this-dublin-pub-has-started-charging-for-glasses-of-tap-water-649030.html

Cantona's Collars

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Well, if you can think of a way of avoiding the €45bn+ accumulated in debt just running the state in the last 4 years without tax rises, the dept of Revenue would love to hear from you.

Employment is rising,less of a drain on public finances.The "temporary" USC is still here despite Ireland now having one of the fastest growing economies in the world.Of course times have been bad but now we are on the rise,the excuse of the government being stuck for money is tiresome at this point.They are meeting & exceeding expectations on debt repayment so your point is ringing hollow.Don't use it as an excuse to double up on tax.

BoJack Horseman

zerks wrote: »

Employment is rising,less of a drain on public finances.The "temporary" USC is still here despite Ireland now having one of the fastest growing economies in the world.Of course times have been bad but now we are on the rise,the excuse of the government being stuck for money is tiresome at this point.They are meeting & exceeding expectations on debt repayment so your point is ringing hollow.Don't use it as an excuse to double up on tax.

So.... Now that taxes finally match expenditure.... You want taxes to fall?

Still wondering about the last 4 years....
How would you have fixed the primary deficit if not by raising revenue?

VinLieger

shinzon wrote: »

Do people purposefully ignore things or just want to stir the pot again, but for the trillionth time we are already paying for water through general taxation to the tune of 1.2 billion.

Queue the people who say the budget fixed all that with tax decreases etc etc, when in actual fact it was a massage of figures to move things about a bit to have some people marginally better off then before.

The amount of people in this country defending the indefensible is absolutely astonishing, I never knew there was so many people willing to part with more cash to pay the bondholders cause none of the money handed over will ever be used to pay for the pipes

Shin

Yeah we paid 1.2 billion and we are still losing 40% do you call that acceptable? Cus I sure as hell don't. We need to pay for it through one unified body and also invest at the same time and since water is going to become a scarcer and more valued resource as the world continues to fill up why shouldnt we pay for what we use instead of paying a flat rate and using whatever we want?

Geuze

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So.... Now that taxes finally match expenditure....

They don't.

2014 deficit = 6,890m

2015 planned deficit = 5,315m

2016 planned deficit = 3,875m

2017 planned deficit = 1,930m

BoJack Horseman

Geuze wrote: »

They don't.

Primary budget surplus for yr end 2014 will be 0.3% of GDP.... Or around €500m.

Underlying deficit with national debt repayment is as you mention above.

But the cost of running the nation day-to-day is covered by taxation (finally).

duckcfc

All this back and forth saying whats best for our water. The reality is this isn't even about water, its just another way to make a company private to syphon our hard earned money from us. I know it won't be a private company straight away but the deal will have already been done and it'll be just a waiting game with the men already picked to take over this company.