cerastes wrote: » Is it ringfenced really, like the LPT was to provide local services
Barely There wrote: » Very easy to change the collection responsibility over to revenue as was done with the HHC and Property Tax. Most tax-compliant members of society are very supportive of measures which stop freeloaders and bludgers from trying to parasite off the rest of us.
Little CuChulainn wrote: » It is because it is collected by a company and goes onto their books.
awec wrote: » It's absolutely nothing to do with that. "Disgusting core of society" is just hyperbole and tripe. I think people who get screwed over on tax time and time again are sick to the back teeth of certain sections of society moaning every time they have to pay for something. There is absolutely no way this would be as big a deal if the charge was aimed only at middle and higher income earners through a tax increase. Forget all this whining about the low income families getting screwed over. Middle income families have been screwed over for years, the difference is they are all to busy working to protest about it.
tayto lover wrote: » I am a middle income worker and I was on the marches. Not too many middle income workers working on Saturdays. I was protesting not just for myself but for my sons and daughter who are already pushed to the pin of their collars trying to pay their mortgages and other charges and bills. As a father and grandfather I feel I have a duty to protest on their behalf and side by side with them. I firmly believe that there was no need for setting up IW. They should have trusted the councils and made sure they did the work but chose to let their cronies set up yet another quango to serve themselves.
branie2 wrote: » is there anyone here who supports the water charges?
awec wrote: » Good for you. I am not arguing against that, you are protesting with your family who you see to be affected. If lower income people were not hit with this charge they would not be protesting. The entire thing would be a non-event, a minor little squabble that would soon be over. It is the fact that they will also be expected to pay has turned this into the issue it is. So I have no time for people who pretend to be holier than thou with this "what a shame we don't care about lower earners" crap. Lower earners would not give two fcuks if the higher bracket was raised and they got out of paying. Middle income families have been fcuked over for years on taxes and it's not as if anyone else has come to fight their corner. People are happy so long as someone else is paying. "The people won't accept any more" etc that gets trotted out a lot is just clichéd bollocks. There is no collective hive mind of "the people". They don't all fall under this one big umbrella where one person cares about every other person.
listermint wrote: » Complete tosh. I'd classify myself as upper middle income .I protested at last two marches Im sick to the teeth of my money being misspent. The whole thing is a shady crony organization bereft with self serving idiots. Explain why I should subsidise that
awec wrote: » I think you don't really understand what I said at all. I did not say that you would not be protesting. You would still be protesting but on much emptier streets if the water charge went away and the 43% bracket went up a few %.
listermint wrote: » I couldn't give a jot who is beside me on the street as long as it puts a spotlight on the crap that goes on at government level. That'd the key. And I won't look down on others for not having the money to pay either
awec wrote: » All well and good, but this would be a complete non-event if that is what happened. All I am taking issue with here is this perceived "lack of giving a fcuk" of those on lower incomes from those on middle incomes. The exact same happens the other way around, no question at all.
listermint wrote: » I think that is your own perception, and appears to be an attempt to polarize the opposition to IW. I can see through it . There is a term in business coined investment in ethics. We are being asked to invest in its complete polar opposite
awec wrote: » What? :pac: I call it reality. You can try and fluff it out to something else if you want.
listermint wrote: » I see you have completely ignored the rest of my post which pretty much backs up what I said about your attempt.
awec wrote: » There was no rest of your post. It was just bloviated waffle.
Irish Steve wrote: » I hope that the following suggestion covers the feelings of enough people that it might represent the start of a petition campaign that needs to be sent to every TD and minister in the country. If enough of us send it, there is a chance that they might start to listen, as it's clear that some of them are disregarding the planned marches today, and those marches don't represent what I want to happen, as water charges as such, properly managed and structured are appropriate for the future of a secure water system in Ireland. Yes, it's long, and detailed, so that they get the message clearly. If you agree with the sentiment I've outlined, please send a copy to your local TDs, or ministers as appropriate. If enough people send it, maybe, just maybe, things will be changed going forward. We can but hope. Dear Minister. (OR TD as appropriate) I wish to place on record my dissatisfaction and concern that the systems being put in place for charging for water have been set up with a considerable lack of public consultation and acceptance, and with less than adequate political debate and engagement in the process. At the outset, I need to state clearly that I accept that is is necessary to take water and waste water services out of the control and inappropriate influence of stroke politics. I also need to be clear that I also accept that the metering of water use is appropriate, and needed to ensure that water is not wasted, and that charges made for water reflect the usage of the resources. The introduction of a new management body for water and waste services is appropriate and necessary, as it is clear that there has been significant and inappropriate political manipulation of the management of water services for nearly 3 decades, and a crippling lack of appropriate investment in the infrastructure of water and waste water as a result. However, that is where I must now disagree with the method that the Government has been using to deal with the problem of charging for water. Irish Water has been created as a super quango that is a new management structure that will be in addition to the already significant and in some cases ineffective structure that has been in place within the local authorities and local councils that have been providing the services over the last period of time. In specific terms, I have the following problems with the Irish Water structure, management and operational plans. The present CEO, Mr Tierney has a considerably less than spectacular record as a senior manager in a semi state organisation, and his appointment to the role at IW is inappropriate, and offensive to many tax payers. The entire structure of the previous water service providers has been moved to Irish Water with no review or reduction in the numbers of people moved across, regardless of skills, experience, suitability or duplication of roles. The ESRI has stated on the record that the number employed by Irish Water is excessive, by probably as many as 2000 people. Significant numbers of new management personnel have also been recruited directly into Irish Water, with many of them coming from semi state backgrounds, and at significantly inflated payment scales. We were promised significant change in public service by the Government when they were elected, one of those changes being the need to make State services fit for purpose, and employing over 2000 extra people in Irish Water is a failure to make Irish Water an acceptable and appropriate body to deal with the transition to non political control of Water services. The "old" state concept of entitlement, and permanent lifetime job positions regardless of skills and experience is inappropriate to a company that will be changing significantly and rapidly over the next 10 years, Irish Water needs to be primarily customer focussed, and the track record of semi state bodies in this area is less than encouraging. The perceived public emphasis on revenue, and registration has not been balanced with any information on the plans of Irish Water to deal with the huge backlog of network issues that are resulting in the loss of over 40% of treated water. Spending significant sums on things like Staff Gyms is inappropriate to the work that Irish Water has to fulfil, and gives a completely wrong impression of the focus and emphasis of the work of Irish Water. Irish Water needs to be completely accountable to the political systems of the country, and open to examination of operations by the committees of the Government. Irish Water needs to be structured in such a way that it cannot be privatised or otherwise sold to the private sector without the specific and constitutional approval of the people of the country. The "bonus" culture and perks concept as presently being revealed is offensive to most tax payers, and inappropriate at this stage of the development of a new company. The management of Irish Water needs to engage with its customers in accordance with the terms that were outlined on their web site. At present, this is manifestly not happening. Where water is supplied that is not of an acceptable quality, recognition of this must be made in the level of charges. Where water is supplied that is potable, but causes significant and expensive damage to the fittings and services of the consumer (as a result of excessive hardness for example) this needs to be recognised in the charging structure, and if local treatment such as softening is required to prevent damage, the allowances given need to recognise this extra requirement and usage. We are repeatedly being told that the recovery is happening. At present, it is not all embracing, and there are many sections of the community that are not participating in that recovery, and they do not have the resources to be able to make new extra contributions to the national pot, and will not benefit from the recent tax reductions, as their circumstances are such that they are not paying income tax, as they have no income, or are on very much reduced income due to the changed circumstances they found themselves in. There is a massive problem with an increasing disconnect between the "political structure", and the people serving that structure, and the rest of the community. We have seen corruption, cronyism, inappropriate payments being made out of charitable funding, inflated and inappropriate allowances and expense claims, and many other issues that have demonstrated that "the system" is no longer serving the people,. but is serving as a vehicle that allows the select few to benefit in ways that are not open or accessible to the majority. We were promised that this was going to change, but it has not, in some areas, it has become worse. That is no longer acceptable, as the people who are paying directly for these abuses have no control or influence over how that money is being spent. I look forward to hearing from you Yours sincerely.
Banjo String wrote: » Today's word of the day will be "par-a-site". Same as yesterday's, and the day before that and the day before that too. :pac:
dxhound2005 wrote: » It's good to see that the court has granted the injunction to set up a 20 metre exclusion zone around meter installation. Protestors will still be able to protest and shout their abuse, but they won't be able to shove their cameras into the faces of the workers. I expect there will be a demand for long lens cameras and shotgun microphones to keep up the stream of videos.http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/high-court-orders-exclusion-zone-around-water-meter-installation-649918.htmlThe High Court has granted an order setting up a 20 metre exclusion zone around a water meter installation in Dublin's north east. The application was made by GMC Sierra and Irish Water today.
dxhound2005 wrote: » It's good to see that the court has granted the injunction to set up a 20 metre exclusion zone around meter installation. Protestors will still be able to protest and shout their abuse, but they won't be able to shove their cameras into the faces of the workers. I expect there will be a demand for long lens cameras and shotgun microphones to keep up the stream of videos. [/I]
Wurly wrote: » Taken from the Boycott Irish Water page on Facebook: "Hubert Kearns was Sligo County Manager for 17 years and when he retired in 2013 he received a lump sum of 270,000 and a pension of 68,000 per year. His time as Sligo manager was controversial and he left behind a County debt of 80 million. "It's not the end of the world, nobody died," he said about the council's financial woes. At one stage he refused to attend council meetings in a dispute with an independent Councillor and spent more than €50,000 council money hiring HR consultant Declan Naughton to monitor meetings. Asked to comment on reports that his own pay as Sligo Manager, at €136,000, was €30,000 more than that of the Spanish prime minister, Mr Kearns said his salary was fixed by Government. “I am surprised that the Spanish prime minister earns so little.” So after retiring from Sligo he has his pockets full, thanks to the taxpayer - that's YOU and ME, So, has Mr Kearns taken up fishing? No, Hubert has apparently found gainful employment with Irish Water. Irish Water, home to retired Council managers, headed up by retired Dublin Manager John Tierney (salary 200,000 Eur). But apparently Irish Water managers (like Hubert?) would have to get by on a measly 100,000. Hopefully though they might be able to survive once the expenses and free cars are factored in. So you can see good people why it's going to take 20 years to fix all those rusty old water pipes!""
Creative Juices wrote: » Did this guy really get a job in Irish Water and if so, what is his role?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f054c80ff399c4eba8d719c617220a57.svg)
