Water charges for excessive usage

James Brown · 13-11-2019 2:52pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I really don’t care what FG think.

I have set out why I believe water charges are a good idea - for conservation. So address the issue rather than the usual strawman nonsense. It doesn’t matter if it is a quango, it doesn’t matter if it only breaks even, if consumption is reduced, water charges are a good idea.

But isn't consumption not a problem? And what about 50% of the water being lost due to mains leakage, so lets meter houses and get billing sorted first?

blanch152 wrote: »

It is amazing how so many law-abiding, tax-paying, cash-avoiding citizens don’t like the government having the ability Through PPS numbers to link up their house with their income tax payments (or their social welfare) but at the same time they will tell google and Facebook everything about their whole life.

FG or a pal would have likely sold them on to marketing entities in an err that would costs millions to research and die slowly in a tribunal, kinda like the investigation into the Noonan/O'Brien Siteserv deal is doing.

Conserving water is a great idea. That's not what Irish Water was about.

James Brown · 13-11-2019 2:54pm

charlie14 wrote: »

...

My question was quite simple.

Seeing as the fairies are not going to do all that work for free, what will be the average household charge required to cover that outlay just to break even.

....

Magic money tree?

charlie14 · 13-11-2019 3:11pm

blanch152 wrote: »

For a start, the 1 billion is fantasy stuff, even O'Dowd in the link I provided put the set-up costs at €200m. With €70m coming in, the set-up costs would have been paid back in three years, as the Irish Water Business Plan in the other link I provided backed up..

You really are an outrageous chancher.
Happy out to quote O`Dowd on set up costs based on him being the junior minister in charge while ignoring he was convinced there were "forces" determined to privatise Irish Water.:D

Also picking out the odd tree while ignoring the forest it seems.
Two quite simple items show how far out you are in the cost to the taxpayer.
As early as March 2014 the estimated cost of metering alone had risen to 539 M. from the original estimate of 431M. and the "water conservation grant" alone ended up at close as makes no difference at 200M.
Throw in O`Dowd`s set up cost of 200M plus, nice knock down deal on Siteserv, bonuses, laughing yoga etc. and at the end of the day 1 Billion is probably a conservative estimate.

charlie14 · 13-11-2019 3:12pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Magic money tree?

Doubt if just one would cover it.

charlie14 · 13-11-2019 3:33pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Another of the urban myths being perpetuated once again. The CSO never said that.

Just keep saying that and one day you may even convince yourself.

Dealt with here and numerous other threads.

You already know that so not interested in playing your down the rabbit hole game yet again.

blanch152 · 13-11-2019 3:50pm

charlie14 wrote: »

Still running away when asked to back up your airy fairy nonsense with bluster I see. Same as your claim on Dáil Standing Orders on another thread that were none existent when you were asked to back them up in fact.
On your latest nonsense.

We know that with 50% of households metered the 260 euro household charge if everyone had paid would have resulted in Irish Water breaking even without a cent going to water services.
You now want all the remaining households metered plus all the apartments, again at a break even where nothing will go to water services for nothing other than conservation where 50% of water is lost through mains leaks.

My question was quite simple.

Seeing as the fairies are not going to do all that work for free, what will be the average household charge required to cover that outlay just to break even.

Answer that and we will move on to the rest of your nonsense.
And btw, if you doubt we are one of the lowest users of domestic water in the O.E.C.D. then either look it up yourself, or just take a look at the quango you are such a champion off, Irish Water`s on figure for mean household consumption.

You don't seem to get it. I don't really care what the charge ends up at. I don't really care what it costs to put the meters in place.

Water charges will reduce consumption. Reduction in consumption is a good thing. End of.

McMurphy · 13-11-2019 4:04pm

blanch152 wrote: »

You don't seem to get it. I don't really care what the charge ends up at. I don't really care what it costs to put the meters in place.

Water charges will reduce consumption. Reduction in consumption is a good thing. End of.

Shut up and take my money you fools.

blanch152 · 13-11-2019 4:15pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Shut up and take my money you fools.

A real right-wing libertarian intervention from yourself.

From a green socialist perspective, the good of society is served by a reduction in water consumption. That this costs money to achieve is ok.

James Brown · 13-11-2019 4:28pm

blanch152 wrote: »

A real right-wing libertarian intervention from yourself.

From a green socialist perspective, the good of society is served by a reduction in water consumption. That this costs money to achieve is ok.

TBF, metering won't have any effect on consumption. We're under any proposed cap. The metering money and consultants etc. could be better spent on conserving the water we are losing through mains leakage IMO.
The market won't fix this, likely why it'll be let fester for a time longer.

13-11-2019 4:36pm

charlie14 wrote: »

Still running away when asked to back up your airy fairy nonsense with bluster I see. Same as your claim on Dáil Standing Orders on another thread that were none existent when you were asked to back them up in fact.
On your latest nonsense.

We know that with 50% of households metered the 260 euro household charge if everyone had paid would have resulted in Irish Water breaking even without a cent going to water services.
You now want all the remaining households metered plus all the apartments, again at a break even where nothing will go to water services for nothing other than conservation where 50% of water is lost through mains leaks.

My question was quite simple.

Seeing as the fairies are not going to do all that work for free, what will be the average household charge required to cover that outlay just to break even.

Answer that and we will move on to the rest of your nonsense.
And btw, if you doubt we are one of the lowest users of domestic water in the O.E.C.D. then either look it up yourself, or just take a look at the quango you are such a champion off, Irish Water`s on figure for mean household consumption.

Another myth.

James Brown · 13-11-2019 4:45pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Another myth.

You must have myth the many many posts regarding the debt of Irish Water.

Benedict · 13-11-2019 5:17pm

blanch152 wrote: »

You don't seem to get it. I don't really care what the charge ends up at. I don't really care what it costs to put the meters in place.

Water charges will reduce consumption. Reduction in consumption is a good thing. End of.

All reasonable people would agree that reduction in unnecessary usage would be good. The point is, IW will not achieve reduction by introducing a system which is fatally flawed because it will be held in contempt.

You have to accept that it is human nature to rebel against a system which says to the Blogs family "You'll adhere to a quota or pay the price while the Biggs family can use what they please with no penalties".

You would accept this system - but most wouldn't. That is how the world works whether you like it or not.

Many decent people would be happy to pay if they go over the quota - but they won't be made fools of by paying paying a fine for over-using the power-shower while the family next door have their lawn sprinkler going 24/7 without a care in the world.

charlie14 · 13-11-2019 5:47pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Another myth.

Another poster refusing to face reality...... but then you could always post your own figures.

But then we have been through this so many times with you and Blanch I`m not exactly going to be holding my breath waiting on figures to back up both your ramblings anytime soon.

McMurphy · 13-11-2019 5:50pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Another myth.

I taught you had gone off in a huff, after having to be informed of the annual subsistence payment you were sure was only a myth a few days ago.

Wouldn't mind only I'm sure that's about the 8th time you were made aware of it.

charlie14 · 13-11-2019 5:53pm

blanch152 wrote: »

You don't seem to get it. I don't really care what the charge ends up at. I don't really care what it costs to put the meters in place.

Water charges will reduce consumption. Reduction in consumption is a good thing. End of.

For someone who was so fond of reminding us all there was no magic money tree, you seem to have found at least a few.

One would never cover what you are proposing.

charlie14 · 13-11-2019 6:07pm

blanch152 wrote: »

From a green socialist perspective,

I`m expecting Brendan along anytime soon to lift up your slates (thatch or whatever is the preferred green roofing material of the day) to expose you to the Feds.

blanch152 · 13-11-2019 6:32pm

Benedict wrote: »

All reasonable people would agree that reduction in unnecessary usage would be good. The point is, IW will not achieve reduction by introducing a system which is fatally flawed because it will be held in contempt.

You have to accept that it is human nature to rebel against a system which says to the Blogs family "You'll adhere to a quota or pay the price while the Biggs family can use what they please with no penalties".

You would accept this system - but most wouldn't. That is how the world works whether you like it or not.

Many decent people would be happy to pay if they go over the quota - but they won't be made fools of by paying paying a fine for over-using the power-shower while the family next door have their lawn sprinkler going 24/7 without a care in the world.

Well, from my perspective, that would only increase the pressure to install meters for everyone, so I'm good with that.

charlie14 wrote: »

Another poster refusing to face reality...... but then you could always post your own figures.

But then we have been through this so many times with you and Blanch I`m not exactly going to be holding my breath waiting on figures to back up both your ramblings anytime soon.

I don't think I have ever seen you post a single credible figure or link in my time on boards. I could be mixing you up with someone else, but I don't think so.

James Brown · 13-11-2019 7:02pm

There's me thinking the pro meter/earner for dinny/quango lobby had in the least taken on board the realities that metering wasn't going to cover the admin of the quango.
Anyone genuinely concerned about the water supply would have put infrastructure above the rush to meter and bill and as one commentator said regarding metering, "That this costs money to achieve is ok".
We'd be left with a bill but a working leak free infrastructure. Money well spent for a change.

charlie14 · 13-11-2019 7:03pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't think I have ever seen you post a single credible figure or link in my time on boards. I could be mixing you up with someone else, but I don't think so.

From somebody that has been caught out bluffing so often over so many threads with you then running away, that is delicious comedy.

Your recent post on O`Dowd`s 200M. and my reply just one example that you and credible figures inhabit different universes....... That and those magic money trees you found.

13-11-2019 7:32pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

There's me thinking the pro meter/earner for dinny/quango lobby had in the least taken on board the realities that metering wasn't going to cover the admin of the quango.
Anyone genuinely concerned about the water supply would have put infrastructure above the rush to meter and bill and as one commentator said regarding metering, "That this costs money to achieve is ok".
We'd be left with a bill but a working leak free infrastructure. Money well spent for a change.

More rot. This tosh was disproved many times before. Some think set up costs are recurring ones.

James Brown · 13-11-2019 8:02pm

Deleted User wrote: »

More rot. This tosh was disproved many times before. Some think set up costs are recurring ones.

So here's the recent costing for the infrastructure;

Irish Water has identified projects that require capital expenditure of €5.5bn up to the end of 2021 and some €13bn over the next 20 years. Here’s just a sample of some of the bigger plans and budgets involved.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/paying-for-water-services-billions-required-for-essential-projects-across-the-country-460566.html

Here's why many had issue with the quango;

Irish Water spends €100k a day on new water meters
€29.7m cost of installation in just nine months.

New financial records reveal that over a nine-month period 51,700 metres were installed — costing the taxpayer €29.7m.

In March, Irish Water staff were paid bonuses averaging just under €5,000 — or €3.2m in total — despite the fact that the utility has not collected any payments from domestic water users or issued any bills for almost a year.

The company insisted the payments were allowable only for people who achieved “predetermined” company targets, and stressed it was also part of an agreed remuneration structure.

However, the company has now refused to provide a breakdown of the top individual ‘performance related awards’ payments as this would involve “the disclosure of personal information”.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irish-water-spends-100k-a-day-on-new-water-meters-35786844.html

Cost of water meters underestimated by €107 million

The initial estimate provided to the department was arrived upon following work carried out by Bord Gáis employees working alongside external consultants.
https://www.thejournal.ie/water-meter-cost-estimation-1795521-Nov2014/

Lets say the metering brings in just shy of 300m a year, with 100% compliance based on this:

Almost two-thirds of liable households (64%, or 975,000 people) paid domestic water charges in 2015.

The total amount collected over the year was €144m which was 53% of the total income due from domestic charges during 2015.
https://www.thejournal.ie/irish-water-4-2860469-Jul2016/

But...

The State gave Irish Water €678m and €621m in 2014 and 2015 respectively in operating subventions and capital contributions, bringing the total cost to €2.143bn over the past three years.

In 2014, the State provided a €439m operating subvention and €239m in capital contributions or equity. Last year, its operating subvention dropped to €399m and capital contributions came in at €222m.

However, 2016 has proven to be the costliest year to date. While capital contributions dropped to a low of €184m, the operating subvention rose to a high of €479m.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/irish-water-has-cost-state-2bn-768178.html

So even being generous and considering full compliance, IW was never going to come close to paying it's way and carrying out the infrastructure upgrade on 300ml a year.
But you knew all this. I expect to need post this stuff again no doubt...

Here's the real reason for IW and very successful it was too;

The company installing Irish Water meters has racked up multimillion-euro profits
https://www.thejournal.ie/irish-water-meter-installer-profit-2-3528775-Aug2017/

charlie14 · 13-11-2019 8:09pm

Deleted User wrote: »

More rot. This tosh was disproved many times before. Some think set up costs are recurring ones.

You and others have been spinning that yarn without a single figure to back it up as long as there has been threads here relating to the metering fiasco.

Way past time to either put up or shut up.

The only contradiction from Irish Water on Stephen Donnelly`s figures was based on meters lifespan being greater than that stated by the manufacturer
Even at that the money left if 100% of households paid, after all Irish Water`s overheads were taken into account the amount left for water services were so minuscule as makes no difference.

Some here think the cost didn`t include the price of meters

blanch152 · 13-11-2019 9:33pm

charlie14 wrote: »

From somebody that has been caught out bluffing so often over so many threads with you then running away, that is delicious comedy.

Your recent post on O`Dowd`s 200M. and my reply just one example that you and credible figures inhabit different universes....... That and those magic money trees you found.

I had a link to back up what I said. No need for more.

blanch152 · 13-11-2019 9:36pm

charlie14 wrote: »

You and others have been spinning that yarn without a single figure to back it up as long as there has been threads here relating to the metering fiasco.

Way past time to either put up or shut up.

The only contradiction from Irish Water on Stephen Donnelly`s figures was based on meters lifespan being greater than that stated by the manufacturer
Even at that the money left if 100% of households paid, after all Irish Water`s overheads were taken into account the amount left for water services were so minuscule as makes no difference.

Some here think the cost didn`t include the price of meters

Donnelly himself admitted his figures were not accurate.

charlie14 · 13-11-2019 9:56pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I had a link to back up what I said. No need for more.

Seems you missed my post on how ridiculous your efforts to use that link to back up your claim was.
That 200M. would have barely covered the cost of the "conservation grant" let alone the price of meters, their installation, consultants, bonuses, laughing yoga classes etc. etc.

But then you probably believe those magic money trees of yours covered all that..

charlie14 · 13-11-2019 10:29pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Donnelly himself admitted his figures were not accurate.

When it comes to you and figures, (if only from your recent posts alone), it`s clear that not just the basic laws of economics but basic mathematics and you are many worlds removed.
You carry on in your world. I have better for doing in the real one.

blanch152 · 13-11-2019 10:51pm

charlie14 wrote: »

When it comes to you and figures, (if only from your recent posts alone), it`s clear that not just the basic laws of economics but basic mathematics and you are many worlds removed.
You carry on in your world. I have better for doing in the real one.

It really bothers you, doesn’t it, that there is someone like me who believes in ideas rather than slogans and politics.

charlie14 · 13-11-2019 11:33pm

blanch152 wrote: »

It really bothers you, doesn’t it, that there is someone like me who believes in ideas rather than slogans and politics.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.

I could care less what you believe in, but please spare me the "in ideas rather than politics".
Anyone with even the vaguest knowledge of your posting history knows that for the hyperbole it is.

Brendan Bendar · 14-11-2019 6:00am

charlie14 wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.

I could care less what you believe in, but please spare me the "in ideas rather than politics".
Anyone with even the vaguest knowledge of your posting history knows that for the hyperbole it is.

Bit harsh there my friend, no need.

Benedict · 14-11-2019 9:28am

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, from my perspective, that would only increase the pressure to install meters for everyone, so I'm good with that.

What's this "pressure" you speak of? You're forgetting that IW walked off the job themselves so that even homes willing to accept meters with open arms were left without them?

Water charges for excessive usage

Comments