Water charges for excessive usage

odyssey06 · 18-07-2019 2:43pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Make no mistake, money will have to be spent to fix the pipes and leaks etc. Whether its through IW or the Local authority or whatever. Those who contribute more to the Govt. coffers (i.e. those with a job) will end up paying more than the rest. It is as simple as that.
People call it a stealth tax now. What if they just upped income tax by 1% across the board and used that to fund it?

Probably they'd be paying for it largely one way or another, whether through general taxation directly going to Irish Water OR in welfare payments & pension payments to people who then have to pay an Irish Water bill.

They could also consider...
What if they said this year there's no €5 increase in welfare or pension?
Or, increase the payout with a €5 levy for water services?

They could also consider...
Which is a higher priority?
€3 billion for the National Broadband plan or water services?
We have windfall gains from surge in corporation tax payments, seems like a creaking water service infrastructure should be higher priority for those funds.

In France I wouldn't have a problem paying Aqua Francaise or whatever.
In Ireland, a government with a massive majority had a chance to setup a water services company and gain popular support for it.
They failed spectacularly through gombeenism and feather bedding.

So yeah, politically it will have to be funded through general taxation.

18-07-2019 2:44pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

No issue with that. Good idea actually.

See, that's where you and I differ. I'm appalled with the way IW was handled from the get go. Couldn't even take the day off work to protest, couldn't afford it. Two of my unemployed neighbours were out at the lights holding a placard on a few occasions as I was coming home from work, fair play to them.

Last winter, with all the snow, I overheard the two of them having a chat about leaving the taps running overnight so that the pipes didn't freeze. Why in the name of Christ should I and the rest of people with jobs have to subsidise that kind of crap?

MacDanger · 18-07-2019 2:44pm

I agree that IW was poorly planned and setup (for a start, it should have been located outside Dublin).

However, the reality is that water needs to be paid for, be it out of general taxation or charges. The infastructure also needs to be upgraded and in fairness IW are progressing with this - way less raw sewerage going into the sea than in years gone by but still a lot more to be done with it. Less people on boil notices also.

To those who won't pay water charges on the basis that IW is a wasteful quango, etc. - surely you should be protesting that this wastefulness is still ongoing? Or is it just that because you don't have a bill to pay that you think that waste is no longer happening? Or is it that you actually don't give a sh*t about the wastefulness and you'd just rather not pay regardless?

suicide_circus · 18-07-2019 2:45pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I seem to remember over a billion being invested in the set up of IW including the metering programme. Cart before the horse and all that. I billion would have fixed alot of pipes.

agreed. 100% correct. but that money is gone. the pipes still need to be fixed. what's the use in pointing out the obvious mistakes made? Irish Water, that exspensive sh1tshow of a quango, is here now and its tasked with investing in and maintaining our water infrastructure. it needs money to do this. existing taxes wont cut it. whats your solution?

James Brown · 18-07-2019 2:50pm

markodaly wrote: »

I find this funny. Some of the posters in another thread about crappy public services and taxation are here giving out about this fee.

Couldn't make it up, to be honest.

I'll explain the irony of your comment.

Water maintenance and supply was/is funded through general taxation. However, the service was let go so crappy, (see where this is going?) rather than tackling it they created a quango with crony appointments and a still under investigation Sitserv deal.

IW is FG/Lab's answer to how to deal with...are you ready?.....a crappy public service our taxes pay for.

It's 'the fix' people have issue with, not improving poor service.

MacDanger wrote: »

..

To those who won't pay water charges on the basis that IW is a wasteful quango, etc. - surely you should be protesting that this wastefulness is still ongoing? Or is it just that because you don't have a bill to pay that you think that waste is no longer happening? Or is it that you actually don't give a sh*t about the wastefulness and you'd just rather not pay regardless?

It's both for me. It is funded by tax, therefore we already pay. The issue is it was under funded for decades and left on the back burner. It needed more attention and resources. Raise taxes or preferably learn how to manage money, (see inappropriate Noonan and children's hospital over run).
The quango used water supply as the cover for crony appointments and sweet deals for friends, the environment talk was blarney. So I wouldn't pay a cent to IW personally, given the option.

Plumbthedepths · 18-07-2019 3:04pm

suicide_circus wrote:

. whats your solution?

Public ownership of the resource and the network. Flat charge of prehaps 200 euro per annum no exception collected by Revenue. Money ringfenced for water infrastructure and borrow from the EIB. Yours?

James Brown · 18-07-2019 3:08pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Public ownership of the resource and the network. Flat charge of prehaps 200 euro per annum no exception collected by Revenue. Money ringfenced for water infrastructure and borrow from the EIB. Yours?

I'd prefer we got in people who are good at sums to watch over government spending. We've no magic wand tree fix for some things and bottomless pockets for others.

suicide_circus · 18-07-2019 3:10pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Public ownership of the resource and the network. Flat charge of prehaps 200 euro per annum no exception collected by Revenue. Money ringfenced for water infrastructure and borrow from the EIB. Yours?

Public Ownership. Pay by usage with no exemptions collected by the body appointed to administer and maintain the network.

James Brown · 18-07-2019 3:13pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

Public Ownership. Pay by usage with no exemptions collected by the body appointed to administer and maintain the network.

If you're unemployed or sick you get Hogan's trickle?

Plumbthedepths · 18-07-2019 3:16pm

suicide_circus wrote:

Public Ownership. Pay by usage with no exemptions collected by the body appointed to administer and maintain the network.

I don't agree with the pay by usage element as there are several in society due to medical reasons that require large volumes of water. However private pools should be dealt with separately. Lastly Revenue are far more effective at collecting money and this collection method ensures public ownership.

suicide_circus · 18-07-2019 3:17pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If you're unemployed or sick you get Hogan's trickle?

who am i kidding. look at the rent arrears in council housing. perhaps a public well in the town square?

suicide_circus · 18-07-2019 3:21pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I don't agree with the pay by usage element as there are several in society due to medical reasons that require large volumes of water. However private pools should be dealt with separately. Lastly Revenue are far more effective at collecting money and this collection method ensures public ownership.

Yes i could concede the Revenue point perhaps. Although they told RTE where to go re the tv licence.

James Brown · 18-07-2019 3:23pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

who am i kidding. look at the rent arrears in council housing. perhaps a public well in the town square?

If I put all my money in bonds and the market crashes and/or I'm several years in arrears on my 5.2M house, will I get that money back off the tax payer and allowed stay in the house while it goes through the courts? Probably.

One has nothing to do with the other. If you are on low/no income and not paying rent to the council you should be evicted or have your welfare garnished at source IMO.
Paying to line Dinny's pockets at a loss to the tax payer? No ta.

James Brown · 18-07-2019 3:25pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

Yes i could concede the Revenue point perhaps. Although they told RTE where to go re the tv licence.

Again, different issue. RTE is a playground for a particular gene pool at the expense of the public under the guise of a public service. Given the choice I wouldn't pay them a cent either. Let Lottie Ryan go out and get a f***ing job.

NuttyMcNutty · 18-07-2019 3:44pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

No issue with that. Good idea actually.

Isn't our Pascal talking about lowering the tax rate over the coming years?

Plumbthedepths · 18-07-2019 3:48pm

NuttyMcNutty wrote:

Isn't our Pascal talking about lowering the tax rate over the coming years?

He is, there's also an election on the horizon. ;-)

Boggles · 18-07-2019 4:11pm

Why are people saying if they start charging per use they will fix the network.

Has someone seen a plan I haven't?

I see proposed folly in 170 km piplines. No concrete costed plan in actually fixing the leaks.

glomar · 18-07-2019 4:12pm

deathtocaptcha wrote: »

NO CONSENT, NO CONTRACT

If you share this text on Facebook, the Irish government legally cannot charge you for water under The Water Act of 1568, section 7:G :pac:

but ireland wasnt a country in 1568 it was a colony

BarryD2 · 18-07-2019 4:15pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Public ownership of the resource and the network. Flat charge of prehaps 200 euro per annum no exception collected by Revenue. Money ringfenced for water infrastructure and borrow from the EIB. Yours?

suicide_circus wrote: »

Public Ownership. Pay by usage with no exemptions collected by the body appointed to administer and maintain the network.

Either model would be a solution - the thing people need to get their heads around is that public users of water will need to contribute above and beyond the mantra of 'general taxation'.

Pay by usage (with allowances for those that need it) would be fairer - plenty of well heeled households with multiple en suite bathrooms and large gardens to water who should be paying for their excesses.

18-07-2019 4:21pm

Boggles wrote: »

Why are people saying if they start charging per use they will fix the network.

Nobody is saying that. People are saying that in order to fix the network, money needs to be sourced from somewhere. The fairest way, in my opinion, is charging by use (above and beyond a very generous allowance).

liatroimabu · 18-07-2019 4:23pm

Why is it that people in this country expect everything for nothing? Water, oh no should be free, Tv licence, oh no RTE is muck, motor tax, why should i pay , my lane in the back end of nowhere isn't any good, etc. etc.

Also on the subject of water, those of us on private group schemes or with wells have been paying for water for years and paying tax that in turn pays for the water of those who get it for free. The water charges would've been so miniscule in this country compared to others that some people need to wise up and stop expecting handouts.

James Brown · 18-07-2019 4:24pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody is saying that. People are saying that in order to fix the network, money needs to be sourced from somewhere. The fairest way, in my opinion, is charging by use (above and beyond a very generous allowance).

They've no interest in solutions. If you can come up with an earner, that helps solve the problem, or doesn't, they're all over it.
That's why people are reluctant to sign up to anything.

is_that_so · 18-07-2019 4:26pm

daheff wrote: »

How soon does excessive usage drop so that everyday use becomes excess? How soon does the usage fee increase to be sky high and that we end up pay as you go?

In Germany at the moment. Town I’m in has just had a 5k per home bill sent out to every dwelling in the town just to pay for necessary works on their water supply.

The limit is set under legislation so until that's amended no change.

Utter Consternation · 18-07-2019 4:26pm

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Great news. A charge for consumption of this precious commodity is much needed. Irish Water is no different than the ESB or Gas Networks Ireland. A charge will ensure that monies are raised to allow for continued investment in our water infrastructure, and that it doesn’t become the first thing to be cut from the general taxation wish list as it's ‘out of sight, and out of mind’ infrastructure.

Well said, Johnny. The sense of entitlement from some people who expect everything for nothing is breathtaking sometimes.

It's always net contributors who feel the burden of other peoples entitlements too.

zimmermania · 18-07-2019 4:26pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody is saying that. People are saying that in order to fix the network, money needs to be sourced from somewhere. The fairest way, in my opinion, is charging by use (above and beyond a very generous allowance).

What about all the apartment dwellers who do not have meters?

odyssey06 · 18-07-2019 4:26pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody is saying that. People are saying that in order to fix the network, money needs to be sourced from somewhere. The fairest way, in my opinion, is charging by use (above and beyond a very generous allowance).

That source of money would quickly dry up, if you'll forgive the pun, if you are talking about domestic users. If the reason why the domestic user is waay over the generous allowance is a leak, then it's a matter of time before leak is fixed.
If you exclude the leaks, what % of domestic users will therefore be exceeding the very generous allowance? I don't see much revenue there.

Irish Water isn't entirely dependent on general taxation, commercial users are metered per use and account for 40%-60% of all water use.
So if you are talking about domestic water users without leaks who exceed a very generous allowance, I think we are talking single digit of overall water use there.

is_that_so · 18-07-2019 4:28pm

NuttyMcNutty wrote: »

Isn't our Pascal talking about lowering the tax rate over the coming years?

DOF has raised some flags on that. Very slowly if he does.

James Brown · 18-07-2019 4:28pm

Utter Consternation wrote: »

Well said, Johnny. The sense of entitlement from some people who expect everything for nothing is breathtaking sometimes.

It's always net contributors who feel the burden of other peoples entitlements too.

When I pay my taxes I do feel entitled to water supply. That's just me now. Do they expect free money?

18-07-2019 4:29pm

I've a neighbour whose overflow in the attic is leaking for a year. His solution put a bin at the bottom of the house on the path to stop it splattering on his concrete. I kid you not, it's also a rental so he cares less about it, told him he can easily stop it by either replacing ball cock or even trying to bend the handle downwards.

No interest in fixing it, pure laziness.

Plumbthedepths · 18-07-2019 4:29pm

BarryD2 wrote:

Pay by usage (with allowances for those that need it) would be fairer - plenty of well heeled households with multiple en suite bathrooms and large gardens to water who should be paying for their excesses.

What's has multiple ensuites got to do with anything?

Utter Consternation · 18-07-2019 4:30pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

When I pay my taxes I do feel entitled to water supply. That's just me now. Do they expect free money?

When you pay your taxes? Do you only pay tax occasionally?

Boggles · 18-07-2019 4:30pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody is saying that. People are saying that in order to fix the network, money needs to be sourced from somewhere. The fairest way, in my opinion, is charging by use (above and beyond a very generous allowance).

This line keeps getting banged out., it's hilarious because there is nothing to back it up.

What's the cost in fixing the network to an acceptable level?

What's the savings?

What's the time scale, how can this be sped up?

We got meters in the ground faster than any other country has ever had in the history of metering.

Why not the same gusto for fixing the network?

Plumbthedepths · 18-07-2019 4:31pm

liatroimabu wrote:

Also on the subject of water, those of us on private group schemes or with wells have been paying for water for years and paying tax that in turn pays for the water of those who get it for free. The water charges would've been so miniscule in this country compared to others that some people need to wise up and stop expecting handouts.

So your group scheme doesn't avail of grants?

liatroimabu · 18-07-2019 4:31pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

When I pay my taxes I do feel entitled to water supply. That's just me now. Do they expect free money?

No they expect you to pay for a service the same as you would in every single other EU country.

is_that_so · 18-07-2019 4:32pm

zimmermania wrote: »

What about all the apartment dwellers who do not have meters?

Allowance is 213,000L per household average of four people. That's 146L a day but apparently we only use 133L on average. There's also 25000L per extra person in a household. As others have pointed out IW will be able to get data on what's flowing into locations.

liatroimabu · 18-07-2019 4:34pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So your group scheme doesn't avail of grants?

I personally have a well so do not know the ins and outs of the local group scheme but it is still people paying for water.

The same as I had to install a filtration system, salt etc. all out of my own pocket just to have drinkable water.

Why should some have to pay for water and others not? At the end of the day the charge would've been the 3rd lowest in the EU, not exactly bank breaking even by PBP standards

Plumbthedepths · 18-07-2019 4:35pm

Deleted User wrote:

I've a neighbour whose overflow in the attic is leaking for a year. His solution put a bin at the bottom of the house on the path to stop it splattering on his concrete. I kid you not, it's also a rental so he cares less about it, told him he can easily stop it by either replacing ball cock or even trying to bend the handle downwards.

Bet he had two pints in his hands as you were chatting to him. ;-)

Boggles · 18-07-2019 4:36pm

liatroimabu wrote: »

I personally have a well so do not know the ins and outs of the local group scheme but it is still people paying for water.

The same as I had to install a filtration system, salt etc. all out of my own pocket just to have drinkable water.

So you built or bought your house in a "rural" location?

Plumbthedepths · 18-07-2019 4:38pm

liatroimabu wrote:

I personally have a well so do not know the ins and outs of the local group scheme but it is still people paying for water.

Grant available for private well also.

liatroimabu · 18-07-2019 4:39pm

Boggles wrote: »

So you built or bought your house in a "rural" location?

No I didn't , my great grandfather built a house in a rural location that is still the family home as our livelihood is agriculture.

The geography of where I live shouldn't have anything to do with some paying for water and others not. Everyone should have to pay, if you live out of the way in a remote area where more pipes are running and need maintenance and are specifically for you and one or two other homes, you pay more.

Nobody should be entitled to it for free as is the case at the minute however.

liatroimabu · 18-07-2019 4:40pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Grant available for private well also.

Yes a grant which covers 75% of cost (with max cost permitted being over 2 grand) , so yes I am still paying for my water.

Tommy Kelly · 18-07-2019 4:41pm

I call to houses every day where there is a constant flow of water being measured flowing through their water meter 24/7

9 times out of 10 it is a simple fix like replacing a ball cock in a cistern or in the water storage tank in the attic etc.

People won't replace them though for whatever reason.

It's worth noting that a cistern that's constantly filling can waste up to 5 to 6 hundred litres of treated water per day.

People can't seem to grasp that this is what's causing the over usage or the real waste of water and it's this that IW is trying to highlight or sort out.

Plumbthedepths · 18-07-2019 4:42pm

liatroimabu wrote:

Yes a grant which covers 75% of cost (with max cost permitted being over 2 grand) , so yes I am still paying for my water.

So free money, the irony. lol.

liatroimabu · 18-07-2019 4:44pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So free money, the irony. lol.

I still had to pay 25%, yes its fantastic to have such a grant scheme in place to cover a substantial amount of the cost but regardless of its existence I would be paying anyway.

Also the 25% I paid is directly for water, I know that is a tough thing to understand for some people but while I got government assistance, I still had to pay for a service, something most people in this country dont want to do.

Boggles · 18-07-2019 4:45pm

Farmer lecturing to people about free money.

Fúck me, that's enough internet today.

liatroimabu · 18-07-2019 4:46pm

Boggles wrote: »

Farmer lecturing to people about free money.

Fúck me, that's enough internet today.

Probably for the best, who knows, your broadband company might actually charge you for going over your usage allowance, imagine that, being charged for a service. The horror.

blackcard · 18-07-2019 4:47pm

Boggles wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody is saying that. People are saying that in order to fix the network, money needs to be sourced from somewhere. The fairest way, in my opinion, is charging by use (above and beyond a very generous allowance).

This line keeps getting banged out., it's hilarious because there is nothing to back it up.

What's the cost in fixing the network to an acceptable level?

What's the savings?

What's the time scale, how can this be sped up?

We got meters in the ground faster than any other country has ever had in the history of metering.

Why not the same gusto for fixing the network?

I think you would be looking at something in the region of 40 billion to bring the network up to scratch or to "fix the leaky pipes" as some people call it. That excludes the cost of disruption to businesses and the general public as the roads are dug up in our cities and towns.

Plumbthedepths · 18-07-2019 4:51pm

liatroimabu wrote:

I still had to pay 25%, yes its fantastic to have such a grant scheme in place to cover a substantial amount of the cost but regardless of its existence I would be paying anyway.

So you need to spend 2 k the state gives you 1.5k in the form of a grant and you are claiming others are looking for stuff for free.....ha ha ha. Up the yard lad.

Benedict · 18-07-2019 4:51pm

Some people are missing the point completely. I would be okay with paying for excessive usage if the rule applied to all IW customers equally. But it doesn't! For example, there are huge apartments with multiple en suites and power showers and many occupants. The power showers could be going all day and because they are apartments, not one cent is due while the eejit down the road living on his or her own in a small cottage who maybe uses a bit over the quota is hammered. Is that fair?

Look, car-tax is fair. But what if we were told that those with blue cars had to pay tax and people with red cars didn't - and you had a blue car. would you be happy to pay? Cos I wouldn't!

The people who stood outside their gates and prevented installation of meters are laughing at those who didn't.

IW will end up in court if they try to fine anyone.

The whole thing is a bluff.

blackcard · 18-07-2019 4:53pm

blackcard wrote: »

Boggles wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody is saying that. People are saying that in order to fix the network, money needs to be sourced from somewhere. The fairest way, in my opinion, is charging by use (above and beyond a very generous allowance).

This line keeps getting banged out., it's hilarious because there is nothing to back it up.

What's the cost in fixing the network to an acceptable level?

What's the savings?

What's the time scale, how can this be sped up?

We got meters in the ground faster than any other country has ever had in the history of metering.

Why not the same gusto for fixing the network?

I think you would be looking at something in the region of 40 billion to bring the network up to scratch or to "fix the leaky pipes" as some people call it. That excludes the cost of disruption to businesses and the general public as the roads are dug up in our cities and towns.

To add to this, the time frame for doing the work would be around 20 years. This is bearing in mind the construction expertise in this country and trying to get value for money. You would then be spending approximately 1 billion a year afterwards on maintaining the network afterwards

Water charges for excessive usage

Comments