ALL THINGS IRISH WATER/WATER CHARGE RELATED POST HERE

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Stuff about gyms and bonuses is not a policy. Any self respecting private sector manager would get paid 10 times what a manager in IW does.

Anger is not a policy. What is their policy on funding the €1.77 billion investment planned by IW between now and 2016?

Just about the dumbest line I've ever read.

Poor Enda having a fit now.
When he can't involve the Revenue in this he resorts to scaremongering of his own. An arrogant spoilt child is our Enda -

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/income-tax-will-rise-4pc-if-government-abolishes-water-charges-taoiseach-30710647.html

tracking

Originally Posted by dxhound2005
I don't want income tax increased to fund water for non tax payers. Workers like me are already paying more than our share for all the non tax payers. And suffering much more in wage cuts than the non tax payers would pay for water.

But do you like the misinformation and waste being caused deliberately? Nonsense about water and electricity bear identical responsibility on the user. Global warming is already sending sea water into the ground water. Global efforrt is required to assure global supply, thus metering. As for burning fossil carbs in Ireland, going to carry penalties. Waste of resources and people's time and deriliction of duty to inform.

Rightwing wrote: »

Just about the dumbest line I've ever read.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/icon-chiefs-7m-is-best-pay-package-in-country-29355403.html

Aryzta's Owen Killian notched up €15.5m in pay and bonus share deals to cash in the most money among Irish chief executives.

Other wealthy chief executives such as Ryanair's Michael O'Leary got a salary and bonus of just €1.35m but also get generous share options.

Grandpa Hassan

tayto lover wrote: »

I can see chinks beginning to appear in the armour of the pro FG posters.
I believe they are seeing the futility of IW at last.

The futility of IW. Not the futility of the charge itself. And there were plenty marching today who are not against the charge....you only have to look through this thread to see that.

The structure of IW and the concept of a water charge are two completely different issues.

Larbre34

Somebody said 'anger is not a policy'.

Well y'know what? It kinda is......

donvito99

gladrags wrote: »

We are victim's of our own demise.

Default is an illusion,contrived by psuedo economic charlatans.

Should Enda Kenny default.?

And f**k off?

Okay then. You wear the foil hat, and I'll put the kettle on - ah shoite, not free - and we'll both default together.

dxhound2005 wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/icon-chiefs-7m-is-best-pay-package-in-country-29355403.html

Aryzta's Owen Killian notched up €15.5m in pay and bonus share deals to cash in the most money among Irish chief executives.

Other wealthy chief executives such as Ryanair's Michael O'Leary got a salary and bonus of just €1.35m but also get generous share options.

They are not managers, they are CEOs of some of the biggest companies on the Irish Stock Exchange. It's like comparing a taxi driver to a F1 driver.

Meanwhile:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/calls-to-cut-salaries-of-bosses-at-irish-water-279102.html

Environment Minister Alan Kelly has been urged to slash the salaries of Irish Water managers after it emerged the group is costing twice as much as similar bodies in the UK.

Details revealed yesterday confirm Irish Water’s operating costs between now and 2016 will cost twice the average amount for similar regional groups in England and Wales and 2.6 times the price of its Scottish equivalent.

The comparison was drawn up by independent London-based consultancy Nera, which was particularly critical of staff spending issues.

The report says the decision to continue employing 4,300 council workers once Irish Water is set up may not be necessary and will effectively lead to some positions continuing despite being obsolete.

twowheelsgood

Smidge wrote: »

I cant be bothered spoonfeeding people who are purposely being obtuse, it adds nothing to debate.
Go back and read the post you have quoted above again.
That was about LAWS being unjust.

I know what it is about. You made the ludicrous reference to apartheid in an attempt to justify the disregard of the law in a democracy, simply because you don’t agree with the law and imagine (with no supporting evidence) that the majority agree with you.

There are good arguments that you can make against IW and how it is emerged. You may even have an argument that the current way of funding water is better than a pay what you use approach.

Drawing parallels, however oblique, with apartheid however, is simply daft.

Larbre34 wrote: »

Somebody said 'anger is not a policy'.

Well y'know what? It kinda is......

It kinda isn't when you are dealing with delivering hundreds of millions of litres of treated water to the populace every day. In a circumstance where the system has been denied the chief source of it's funding which existed until 1977.

Red Pepper

I went to the Galway protest today. It seemed to be a very large crowd. Some of the "speeches" were simply stupid but they got the crowd going I suppose. The unnerving thing for me was the amount of Sinn Fein and AAA posters. They seem to be using the water protests for their own political gain. I would also like to know the background of some of the speakers. All in all though I am glad we sent a message to the government. I do not want to pay back the private banking debt for the rest of my life and I believe the water tax revenue will be used to do that. Others seems happy paying private banking debt by whatever means but I am not.

twowheelsgood wrote: »

I know what it is about. You made the ludicrous reference to apartheid in an attempt to justify the disregard of the law in a democracy, simply because you don’t agree with the law and imagine (with no supporting evidence) that the majority agree with you.

There are good arguments that you can make against IW and how it is emerged. You may even have an argument that the current way of funding water is better than a pay what you use approach.

Drawing parallels, however oblique, with apartheid however, is simply daft.[/QUOTE]

But it is de rigueur on AH. Any thread to do with separating money from unwilling citizens always has to make reference to the holy trinity. Slavery, the Nazis and apartheid. It just goes with the territory.

Also Martin Luther King and Gandhi must be mentioned.

[Deleted User]

Barely There wrote: »

Pretty pathetic turnout today.
Ironically the water kept people away.

Looks like the Government will be breathing a big sigh of relief tonight.

Wonder will the protests planned for December even go ahead at all?
I predict they won't.

ha ha yeah ! 120,000 (according to RTE News) is a pathethic turnout??? Despite the rain??
The Government are far from breathing a sigh of relief now!!

tracking

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

The futility of IW. Not the futility of the charge itself. And there were plenty marching today who are not against the charge....you only have to look through this thread to see that.

The structure of IW and the concept of a water charge are two completely different issues.

Veolia Transport Water and Energy company could have taken the responsibility for metering and a national grid similar to our motorway programme. Leave local authorities to process and pump. IW is like setting up an individual company for one motorway.

Like to see how pricings compare. IW versus Veolia

This SF chap hit the nail on the head:

Sinn Féin counterpart, Brian Stanley, said the figures show the State is in danger of creating a “corporate monster” which will fail to offer value for money.

“They’ve made a mess of the water system costs. They need to reduce staff, end the duplication of council and Irish Water engineers, cut salaries, and end bonuses,” he said.

“There needs to be a root-and-branch review of the cost structure.”

gladrags

Larbre34 wrote: »

Somebody said 'anger is not a policy'.

Well y'know what? It kinda is......

A truly relevant observation,if ever I read one.

Thanks.

dxhound2005 wrote: »

twowheelsgood wrote: »

I know what it is about. You made the ludicrous reference to apartheid in an attempt to justify the disregard of the law in a democracy, simply because you don’t agree with the law and imagine (with no supporting evidence) that the majority agree with you.

There are good arguments that you can make against IW and how it is emerged. You may even have an argument that the current way of funding water is better than a pay what you use approach.

Drawing parallels, however oblique, with apartheid however, is simply daft.[/QUOTE]

But it is de rigueur on AH. Any thread to do with separating money from unwilling citizens always has to make reference to the holy trinity. Slavery, the Nazis and apartheid. It just goes with the territory.

Also Martin Luther King and Gandhi must be mentioned.

What about the false statement you made earlier?
Haven't seen you retract it as yet.
Be a man now DX.

donvito99

gladrags wrote: »

A truly relevant observation,if ever I read one.

Thanks.

Your observations - if they can be called that - are usually as insightful as a tweet or semaphore.

Little CuChulainn

zerks wrote: »

800,000 made contact with Irish Water,that didn't mean they registered to pay.This has been gone over before,it's not difficult so how can you not get to grips with the fact that making contact with IW doesn't equate to signing up with them.

No, the reports say 800,000 have signed up which equates to half the customer base.

[Deleted User]

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Question for those marching: what happens now? What do you think the government will actually do in response?

bring in the Revenue Commissioners - they'll put manners on us :eek::eek:

adrian92

Valetta wrote: »

There is no law that says they cannot seek your PPS number.

There may be one that says you do not have to give it to them, which is a completely different matter.

Of course.

Just because one is asked for something does it follow that one should comply.

A personal choice.

(Unless, of course, there is fear imposed)

bigbertieb

i dont want to pay any more than i have to but its happening and the sooner people accept that the better.

if water charges arent paid another stealth will be imposed.

pay it and lets move on....

adrian92 wrote: »

Of course.

Just because one is asked for something does it follow that one should comply.

A personal choice.

(Unless, of course, there is fear imposed)

Ah, good old FEAR. I forgot that we have to have FEAR along with the Nazis, apartheid and slavery.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

No, the reports say 800,000 have signed up which equates to half the customer base.

Many of those were returned "NO Contract" I believe.

The Government need to go back to the drawing board, paying many salaries of €100K+ for this quango is outrageous.

We are not paying for water, we are paying for a quango.

Beaner1

tayto lover wrote: »

Many of those were returned "NO Contract" I believe.

Nope, those were not counted trust me.

Andy-Pandy

Once again the loudest voices that can be heard from both ends of the argument are those of extremists. For what it's worth I agree with there being a water charge. What saddens me is the total balls up that has been made in the implementation of what I believe is the single most important resource that the country has. What's madness is the lack of funding that has been given to our water supply ever since the infrastructure was built by the British. The sad truth is that without Irish Water we will continue to lose nearly 50% of our supply through leakage, people will have to continue live with boil notices and raw Sewage will be continued to be pumped off shore. While I believe in the need for water charges any effort to privatise it in the future would be unexceptable.

twowheelsgood

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Ah, good old FEAR. I forgot that we have to have FEAR along with the Nazis, apartheid and slavery.

Threats! That's another one.