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

Daith

twowheelsgood wrote: »

I would agree that it is not clear that if and when you pay for water via IW the taxes you have paid that would be used to provide water will be used for something else (at present, plugging our deficit.) But it is so.

Whenever this gets sorted you should see more of a change here. Not 100% of course as this is just council spending but you shouldn't see stuff like €105 million spent on water supply for Dublin. It's not all from taxes either of course.

http://localauthorityfinances.com/spending/7/

gandalf

twowheelsgood wrote: »

I would agree that it is not clear that if and when you pay for water via IW the taxes you have paid that would be used to provide water will be used for something else (at present, plugging our deficit.) But it is so.

Well from my perspective this has highlighted the fact we need to start asking the questions. Where exactly is our tax money going and are they (the government) ensuring it is being spent in the most cost effective manner possible (yes I do know the answer to this is definitely a big fat no).

I do realise that water infrastructure has to be funded but I am also know that those on both sides of this argument who say that people don't pay for water are perpetuating a complete and utter fallacy. We always have paid for water.

The problem with the creaking infrastructure has occurred over the years because of bad governance by the very people who have now created an unnecessary company to squeeze even more money out of the citizens of this state and in particular the taxpayers.

Irish Steve

TippRebel1 wrote: »

a natural source from the earth should not be something we have to pay a bill for

If you're happy to use buckets or similar to collect what falls from the sky, then that's half the bill reduced, but there are risks to drinking it long term if you've been storing it in any way, and even a cheap and simple pump to get it into the tanks in the house will cost you money to install and operate, and it very likely won't be the same quality as the water that comes out of the pipes now, or not for very long.

And yes, IW has some issues to deal with on water quality, there are areas where what's coming out of the taps is not acceptable for health reasons, let alone for quality reasons, and that's another whole big story for another day and another thread

If you're prepared to dig a VERY big hole on your property to capture and deal with all the sh1t that comes out of your property so that it doesn't cause pollution problems on beaches, or more locally, that's the other half of the bill sorted, but the hole has to be cleaned on occasions, and the water still has to drain away somewhere safe.

If however, you want to be able to drink what comes out of taps in your house, and not have to worry about what goes out of your house, and you don't have a septic tank or similar (and that's a whole other big story), they you're going to be paying specifically rather than indirectly for those services going forward, like every other country in the EU, and most other developed urbanised societies have been doing for quite some time.

Water and waste water has been almost criminally neglected over the last couple of decades by local and national politicians who have been more interested in visible vote winning schemes than in funding underground non visible schemes, and yes, it is that simple, and it's been across the board, local and national politics have ignored water and waste water for at least a couple of decades, and a 40% loss of the treated water from the delivery mains is the unacceptable result of that neglect, and it's unsustainable going forward.

The Troika forced the issue, because the local gombeens didn't have the balls to do so, as they knew that it would be as popular as NCT testing was, so the only way to make it happen was to blame Europe, or in this case, the IMF/Troika, which is what they've done, and they are now doing exactly the same with water as they did with the NCT, sweetening the change with tax allowances, they put scrappage schemes into place to sweeten the NCT arrival.

Then, to compound the felony, they've created a super quango that is IW, the ESRI have stated that it's overstaffed by 2000 people, http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0127/500350-irish-water/, the vast majority are public servants with no chance to remove them if they're not performing, the organisation is headed by a leader with a very suspect track record, and there's a bonus culture in place before they've done anything to deserve any sort of recognition, with bonuses for people that "need improvement", all of which serves to confirm that the Golden Circle snout in trough concept that has permeated the entire political structure is alive and well, and being well supported by Enda and his team.

The concept of metering, properly implemented, is appropriate, but that's about the only aspect of this whole comedy of errors that's been done partly correctly, after that, it's a total cluster fcuk that's typical of the political elite and their increasing detachment and disconnect from the people that they are answerable to.

The ONLY way that IW will have any acceptability will be for Tierney and the other semi state heads to be removed and replaced with people who are not tainted with a couple of decades of corruption, self serving and other issues, and for the new board to be given the right to only take the people they need, not every individual that's had some sort of vague nebulous connection to water for the last 25 years, and even then, with 26 local authorities and the other local councils, there are massive duplications of function if they are all merged into the one super quango, and that is no longer appropriate or acceptable.

If that means that some state servants then end up on social welfare rather than being a cost to IW, then that is the way it has to be, the clear and blatant mistakes of the creation of the HSE from the 8 or 9 health boards cannot be allowed to be repeated with IW.

I will make it very clear.

The future of safe water AND waste water treatment is too important for the ongoing success of the Irish Economy to be allowed to remain under political mismanagement and control, it HAS to be taken out of the political arena and correctly funded and resourced.

IW as presently structured, mis managed and over resourced is completely and utterly the wrong way to deal with the issue, and it was clear from the way that FG put the enabling legislation through the Dail in less than half a day that they were unwilling and unable to properly deal with the issues that IW presented, so they hoped to force it through and implement it without too many people looking too closely.

They were WRONG, so wrong it's now embarrassingly coming home to haunt them massively, and might even cost them the next election, though an acceptable alternative is looking increasingly hard to find.

As for the PPS distraction, that's only a side show in the overall picture, though if the DSP looks carefully, they will find things like single parents cohabiting, among other issues, and could well find people that have managed to evade the system in other areas, but that's not the function or responsibility of IW to do, what this has exposed is the deplorable state of the structure and integrity of the fundamental data base structures being used by the different State services, which are so disjointed, and poorly organised, it's no surprise that they can't provide some of the services that would be appropriate in a modern society, but that's another subject for another day.

Tomorrow's protests will be interesting to observe, and to see how many people are really prepared to stand up and be counted.

Daith

gandalf wrote: »

The problem with the creaking infrastructure has occurred over the years because of bad governance by the very people who have now created an unnecessary company to squeeze even more money out of the citizens of this state and in particular the taxpayers.

Under-funding is the main reason however I do agree that bad governance would be another factor.

This is why I'm skeptical of Irish Water and their apparent "entitlement" culture. I can see why in a corporate environment you would have gyms and bonuses and so on. However it just seems this message is coming across rather than anything to do with fixing or upgrading our water infrastructure. They just seem insanely bad at communicating.

Barely There

People who go out marching tomorrow are basically saying 'I want the current model of funding our water infrastructure to continue'.

Short-sighted and selfish - much like our politicians who've spent decades under-funding infrastructure while trying to buy votes.

Still, they say you end up with the politicians you deserve.

twowheelsgood

gandalf wrote: »

Well from my perspective this has highlighted the fact we need to start asking the questions. Where exactly is our tax money going and are they (the government) ensuring it is being spent in the most cost effective manner possible (yes I do know the answer to this is definitely a big fat no).

Start? Surely this is a question that we should be continually asking, irrespective of how we pay for water?

gandalf wrote: »

I do realise that water infrastructure has to be funded but I am also know that those on both sides of this argument who say that people don't pay for water are perpetuating a complete and utter fallacy. We always have paid for water.

I am not sure there are many who think we don't pay for water. The debate is how we should pay. "Free" is often used as a shorthand for "the state pays"

gandalf wrote: »

The problem with the creaking infrastructure has occurred over the years because of bad governance by the very people who have now created an unnecessary company to squeeze even more money out of the citizens of this state and in particular the taxpayers.

Alas, more money has to be "squeezed" out of the taxpayer and it will continue thus until our deficit is under control.

gandalf

Daith wrote: »

Under-funding is the main reason however I do agree that bad governance would be another factor.

Bad governance is the main reason tbh.

This is why I'm skeptical or Irish Water and their apparent "entitlement" culture. I can see why in a corporate environment you would have gyms and bonuses and so on. However it just seems this message is coming across rather than anything to do with fixing or upgrading our water infrastructure.

TBH not all the people working for IW are getting the "perks" only the big boys in head office are. The poor old outsourced entry level people in Abtran certainly aren't.

Having studied PR this year I can't think how IW and the Government could have done a worse job at selling this organisation to the public. It's nearly like they hired an Anti-PR person to mess things up on purpose.

Daith

Barely There wrote: »

People who go out marching tomorrow are basically saying 'I want the current model of funding our water infrastructure to continue'.

In fairness I'd say for a lot of people, the current model of funding is working for them. Not to mention people on boil notices, undrinkable water who are being asked to spend more.

Irish Water really should be showing the current state of our water infrastructure and what the implications of it could be if it remains underfunded. They should be showing what they're going to do. They really aren't doing this though.

gandalf

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Start? Surely this is a question that we should be continually asking, irrespective of how we pay for water?

Now it's a bigger question. Where are taxes are spent and are we getting value for money. We aren't, this for a lot of us is the straw that broke the camels back.

I am not sure there are many who think we don't pay for water. The debate is how we should pay. "Free" is often used as a shorthand for "the state pays

"

People who don't pay taxes do not pay for water. So if you are long term unemployed, who rent and don't own a car then yes you are getting free water.

Alas, more money has to be "squeezed" out of the taxpayer and it will continue thus until our deficit is under control.

Yes by excreting a mountain of cash to set up a unnecessary private quango. Thats sensible

Maybe the best step to getting our deficit under control is by examining the public service, removing the job for life, reforming it properly and firing unnecessary people. If politicians were serious about sorting out our deficit and setting the country onto a even keel for the future this is where they should be looking instead of layering more taxes on top of the taxpayer to maintain the status quo in the PS.

To g

[Deleted User]

Pat Kenny is wiping the floor with a Cobh Water charge protester, on Newstalk.

the groutch

Barely There wrote: »

People who go out marching tomorrow are basically saying 'I want the current model of funding our water infrastructure to continue'.

Short-sighted and selfish - much like our politicians who've spent decades under-funding infrastructure while trying to buy votes.

Still, they say you end up with the politicians you deserve.

there is no need for an overly-beaurocratic "super-quango" to collect the money via a different method, while still having councils do all the groundwork.

the cost to the government of reducing the top rate of PAYE is as high as the revenue for IW on an annual basis, so if they hadn't made that cut they would have the same cashflow without the need for all this nonsense.

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

Pat Kenny is wiping the floor with a Cobh Water charge protester, on Newstalk.

She was some fvcking eejit, living in this imaginary world where nobody is capable of wasting water and her solution to people that do is "to educate them"

Barely There

Daith wrote: »

Irish Water really should be showing the current state of our water infrastructure and what the implications of it could be if it remains underfunded. They should be showing what they're going to do. They really aren't doing this though.

I agree. IW have been a communications disaster so far.
They need to be on the airwaves to explain to people the amount of money required to maintain, expand and improve our current infrastructure. The public need to given a choice on how this should be paid for, because the choice is not between paying for it or not.

Instead they're running around like headless chickens putting out fires every day and not being helped much by the Government either - who are wobbling.

Into this vacuum the usual suspects of the Looney Left have descended - they can always be relied upon to wade in where they smell some disaffected voter anger They've attempted at every turn to muddy the issue with their usual populist guff.

The choice for the Irish people is simple - do you want a dedicated body charged with the running of our water infrastructure, or do you want to depend on the Government parcelling out the minimum amount of money they can get away with to a host of local authorities and continue down the road that's gotten us to our current position.

stevedublin

Jack O'Connor has voiced his SUPPORT to water charges!

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/union-leader-says-public-will-pay-twice-as-much-if-water-charges-are-dropped-649248.html

gandalf

stevedublin wrote: »

Jack O'Connor has voiced his SUPPORT to water charges!

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/union-leader-says-public-will-pay-twice-as-much-if-water-charges-are-dropped-649248.html

I would assume that the majority of council workers being seconded to Irish Water are members of SIPTU so it is in their interest to back the charge.

Daith

Barely There wrote: »

The choice for the Irish people is simple - do you want a dedicated body charged with the running of our water infrastructure, or do you want to depend on the Government parcelling out the minimum amount of money they can get away with to a host of local authorities and continue down the road that's gotten us to our current position.

This is IW's communication mess. The message they're presenting is
"Give us, our bonus paid, taxpayer funded gym, headed by a guy who looked after the waste of 100m on the Poolbeg incinerator, your PPS numbers."

Not the message you are showing.

gladrags

Barely There wrote: »

People who go out marching tomorrow are basically saying 'I want the current model of funding our water infrastructure to continue'.

Short-sighted and selfish - much like our politicians who've spent decades under-funding infrastructure while trying to buy votes.

Still, they say you end up with the politicians you deserve.

In your vindictive rush to judgement.

You firstly make a typical unfounded claim.

You then answer your own vitrol by recognising another reason,why individuals are expressing their democratic right tomorrow.

Jesus

FionnK86

I've already been invited to two facebook groups by "friends" who are "protesting" on Saturday. The majority of the comments in the groups are about getting naggins today instead of political statements, although as my friends are in their later teens this is to be expected.

I've been silent on this issue, I believe in water charges, but Irish Water seems to be doing a crap job. However, with many politicians in Sinn Fein joining in, and also the new "protesters" with their naggins, I am not sure about attending anymore.

I think back to the NCT and everyone complaining when it was brought in, though it ultimately improved the quality of cars on our roads. I don't think Irish Water would be able to do this, might be time for another company to be brought in?

Cantona's Collars

papu wrote: »

They reduce your pressure and pursue you for payment.
I don't see any reason why they couldn't cut people off , it happens in America when people don't pay for water.

Lol,I mentioned the situation in Detroit & was pretty much attacked by the pro-tax brigade: "This is Ireland,what has America got to do with it?" was the gist of it.
Typical of the pro side to change things to suit themselves.:rolleyes:

twowheelsgood

gandalf wrote: »

Now it's a bigger question. Where are taxes are spent and are we getting value for money?

Exactly the same thing was being said around the time of the introduction of the HHC / property tax. I.e. eliminate the waste before you introduce new charges. Of course once that debate ended the collective concern for waste elimination returned to its familiar position towards the lower end of our priorities list.

gandalf wrote: »

People who don't pay taxes do not pay for water. So if you are long term unemployed, who rent and don't own a car then yes you are getting free water.

Nevertheless, the debate is about how we (even if “we” is not all of us) pay for water, not if.

gandalf wrote: »

Maybe the best step to getting our deficit under control is by examining the public service, removing the job for life, reforming it properly and firing unnecessary people.

They have made extensive savings in the PS. Many would say they did not go far enough but I don’t think cutting the PS alone would have sorted out our problems, even if you ignored the likely consequences of a more aggressive approach. Anyway, that’s for a different thread.

Take Your Pants Off

Feck that ****e boyshh You can just get water from you local rivers and filter it using the filter machine you can buy in shops.
Also put a bucket outside for the next few days and collect the rainwaiter and wash yourself with it.
It be more cleaner then the water we get from the shower.
Also for flushing just pee in the shower.
We should not have to pay for water if we are already pay a good load of taxes and the goverment is getting millions of loans from the EU and Germany what is that being spent on: To wipe Kennys Arse

gandalf

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Exactly the same thing was being said around the time of the introduction of the HHC / property tax. I.e. eliminate the waste before you introduce new charges. Of course once that debate ended the collective concern for waste elimination returned to its familiar position towards the lower end of our priorities list.

The property tax I can understand and I support. It makes sense. Providing it is used for local services and not diverted elsewhere.

Nevertheless, the debate is about how we (even if “we” is not all of us) pay for water, not if.

Again we already are paying for water but because of bad governance or diversion of the resources to areas other than water we are now in this mess.

They have made extensive savings in the PS. Many would say they did not go far enough but I don’t think cutting the PS alone would have sorted out our problems, even if you ignored the likely consequences of a more aggressive approach. Anyway, that’s for a different thread.

I disagree there have not been real savings made yet in the PS. What we have seen is a "rearranging of the deckchairs around the Titanic" scenario and yes they will have to "break a few eggs to make that omelette" to really get to the bone of the problem. But you are right that is a complete topic in itself.

BoJack Horseman

gandalf wrote: »

I disagree there have not been real savings made yet in the PS.

Who can say?

30,000 fewer people now work in the PS vs peak.
Public spending is down 15% from peak (or €9bn lower).

Consider that:
Of the €54 billion spent, €18bn goes on PS pay & pensions.
€20 is given as social welfare.

Meaning the actual running of this little nation is done on just €16bn per annum.

Not much fat to trim from €16bn.

In the context of water, its curious that people think taxation must remain static.
No new taxes introduced.... ever.
No matter the merit.

Odd.

brooke 2

gandalf wrote: »

FFS I read this thread and I nearly want to smack my head off the desk here.

We have always paid for water.

It is funded from our income tax.

It is funded from Motor Tax (wtf!!!)

It is funded from the Property Tax.

Now they want to fund it from another tax on top of these?

I don't have a problem with a consumption tax, but I do have a problem with tax being taken in multiple different ways without a clear reduction in those other tax streams. I do have a problem with a consumption tax where the charge could go up when people are actually conserving water at a better rate than the Utility expects. I do have a problem as an apartment owner with being forced to pay a static charge.

I'm marching tomorrow because of this and also because I do not agree with handing a necessary infrastructure over to a private monopoly. I have an extreme problem providing sensitive personal information to a private company that has a proven lack of ability with its data management (over the very short period of their existence!). I have a problem with their stated data policy of leaving open basing our data outside the jurisdiction of the EU leaving our information open to lesser standards of Data Protection and remediation.

+100

gandalf

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Not much fat to trim from €16bn.

No but I can guarantee there is from the €18bn in wages and pensions.

BoJack Horseman

gandalf wrote: »

No but I can guarantee there is from the €18bn in wages and pensions.

True dat gandalf.

However the unions aren't for turning.

brooke 2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Pat Kenny is wiping the floor with a Cobh Water charge protester, on Newstalk.

Yes, as I've said elsewhere, Denis O'Brien must be delighted with his new white
headed boy!!

gandalf

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

True dat gandalf.

However the unions aren't for turning.

With the right political will they would be. The problem is that the current crowd in power and the ones waiting in the wings for power don't have the testicular fortitude to take them on.

twowheelsgood

gandalf wrote: »

No but I can guarantee there is from the €18bn in wages and pensions.

Well it really is for another thread but I find something curious about the implicit reasoning here.

I.e. I (you) as a private sector worker (presumably), with my family, mortgage etc. commitments cannot afford another charge that might make a negative contribution to my income to the tune of €100s, or even €1000s.

Instead, why don’t you fire a PS worker, making a negative contribution to his income to the tune of tens of €1000s!

(And whether or not the PS worker is surplus to requirements, which may be the case, is not the point here so don’t reply telling me the PS is still too big/remunerated too handsomely

)

gandalf

No I am basing my reasoning on having dealt with the PS from a business perspective and not from my own personal circumstances. I have seen first hand the waste and the mentality that permeates the PS. The sense of entitlement and the fact that they expect to get rewarded just for occupying a seat. If this government does actually sort out the whole performance management debacle in the CS then it will be a step in the right direction but in reality I have little fate it will be sorted.

I have no problems paying taxes when I know they are being used on a efficient and streamlined administration that ensures the majority of the resources actually make it to delivering services to its customers (taxpayers). So instead of resourcing layers upon layers of admin in the HSE for example we could resource properly the assets at the coal face, again something that is not happening at the moment.