Water meter charge

Professey Chin

Hearing phrases like "A regulator will be put in place", "A new body will be established" and "An enquiry was demanded" geniunely terrify me since I know for the most part theyll be overbloated messes of red tape

insight_man

Merch wrote: »

how in the hell can you pay for the meter and for it to not be yours?
If You pay for it, so its yours, then how can they justify charging a rental also??

Either its paid for and there is no rental
or
You dont pay and there is rental,

Either way how are they planning on connecting it into the existing shut off valve that is commonly at the end of drives? without bringing the piping up to a level where it will be subject to freezing?

Personally, Im not against paying for water,as I think it costs money to treat and deliver, I still think it would represent better value than buying it off a shop shelf. I never really stated I would be happy to pay such a service till now, as I knew they would make a total fcuk of the implementation, which is what they seem to be doing now.

I do think they should be encouraging people to tap existing sources, ie their roofs for flushing toilets, gardening and anything else.

Apart from the wastage in the system, some people are complete fckin idiots about wasting the stuff, its bad enough we flush our toilets with drinking water, but some idiots near me insist on doing their drive ups and multiple vehicles with power washes every week, not to mention tapping into the mains.

And how in the fcuk are they costing so much, as people have mentioned already, they obviously dont have a clue if you buy in bulk the price goes down per unit and for the overall installation, its a fckin joke.

Not a joke, a rip off as always. Money going to gambler bankers, speculators and the rest of them. They take a gamble and loose, we pay extra taxes for years to bail them out.

Sully

You pay for your telephone line and you don't own it. You pay for your mobile phone network, and you don't own the network. You pay for your electricity meters, and you don't own it. The meter is to serve you - determine your correct usage and bill you correctly. You will pay to have this facility, as its in your interest, and this will be maintained by Irish Water.

This money is for the water system. If it was used elsewhere we would know, people would be very angry and the government would basically have committed fraud and be booted out of the Dail.

Water charges are not knew for many people in the country. B&Bs, even in Waterford, pay the council for water rates and have a meter outside the gates.

Merch

Sully wrote: »

You pay for your telephone line and you don't own it. You pay for your mobile phone network, and you don't own the network. You pay for your electricity meters, and you don't own it. The meter is to serve you - determine your correct usage and bill you correctly. You will pay to have this facility, as its in your interest, and this will be maintained by Irish Water.

This money is for the water system. If it was used elsewhere we would know, people would be very angry and the government would basically have committed fraud and be booted out of the Dail.

Water charges are not knew for many people in the country. B&Bs, even in Waterford, pay the council for water rates and have a meter outside the gates.

Yes, you do pay a rental on gas/electric meters, but you dont own it and I was never charged for its purchase.
We are being expected to buy/pay for the thing and its install and pay rental too.
I dont mind renting it off them, its up to them to maintain a functioning device, thats preferable to me owning it and having to maintain it.
Having said that, I dont think there is much maintenance associated with it.
The thing with the householder paying for and owning it is the worse for them and the better for whoever runs the service, they still get to charge a rental and we will probably be expected to pay additional costs regarding any replacement if its required.
I'm interested to know what the allowance per household is and how this will be calculated/allocated.
How do you stop someone saying x,y and z are living at a said address, just to up any allowed usage before payment? when z may live elsewhere, do they propose taking pps numbers to verify i wonder?

letsbet

Sully wrote: »

This money is for the water system. If it was used elsewhere we would know, people would be very angry and the government would basically have committed fraud and be booted out of the Dail.

The government have lied about numerous things and they haven't been booted out of the Dail. Why would this be any different? Plus, it'll be a different govenment by the time this is up and running and we'll hear the same old excuses about inheriting a problem or promise. Your trust in politicians and the voting public is quite amusing. The last government ruined the country but this crowd have broken the most election promises that I can remember and the excuses that are put forward to defend them are laughable.

mike65

What the government should have done was simply announce that water would be treated like and paid for as any other utility - with an ongoing standing charge. Rather than get enmeshed in this business of "buying" the meter over X years.

Nypd

mike65 wrote: »

What the government should have done was simply announce that water would be treated like and paid for as any other utility - with an ongoing standing charge. Rather than get enmeshed in this business of "buying" the meter over X years.

That's my biggest problem with the whole saga,
They are borrowing Irish people's money, and we have to pay ourselves back.
This will be a profitable organisation and I have no doubt their will be fat salaries associated with running it.
Why can't it be set up as any other business is, witha working capital and future profits paying back the set up fees.
This government is just heaping debt on an already over burdend society.

Sully

Merch wrote: »

Yes, you do pay a rental on gas/electric meters, but you dont own it and I was never charged for its purchase.
We are being expected to buy/pay for the thing and its install and pay rental too.
I dont mind renting it off them, its up to them to maintain a functioning device, thats preferable to me owning it and having to maintain it.
Having said that, I dont think there is much maintenance associated with it.
The thing with the householder paying for and owning it is the worse for them and the better for whoever runs the service, they still get to charge a rental and we will probably be expected to pay additional costs regarding any replacement if its required.
I'm interested to know what the allowance per household is and how this will be calculated/allocated.
How do you stop someone saying x,y and z are living at a said address, just to up any allowed usage before payment? when z may live elsewhere, do they propose taking pps numbers to verify i wonder?

Some would say this way is easier because as soon as you pay the cost of the meter, its done. Unlike others - you have to keep paying. If your phone line gets damaged - despite paying for it every month or so - the cost is on you to fix it. As for maintenance, probably not a huge amount but I understand there is with the private companies so there probably would be with public.

As for the allowance - I assume its the same perhouse hold rather than based on how many are living there and if that was the case, I am sure they need some sort of proof.

letsbet wrote: »

The government have lied about numerous things and they haven't been booted out of the Dail. Why would this be any different? Plus, it'll be a different govenment by the time this is up and running and we'll hear the same old excuses about inheriting a problem or promise. Your trust in politicians and the voting public is quite amusing. The last government ruined the country but this crowd have broken the most election promises that I can remember and the excuses that are put forward to defend them are laughable.

The previous government you mean, and they were booted out. It depends on the type of lie before people get annoyed enough. People look at both party pledges and assume they will be able to implement them once in government and because they didn't they are this and that. Firstly, its a coalition. The pledges went out the window and they had to come with a plan where both parties came to an agreement meaning a lot had to be left aside to get into government. This is common across the world. Secondly, there was a lot of misleading statements by some in the election such as Labour on Water charges - spoke out against it during the election but we all knew that they would have no choice to implement it in government because its in the agreement with the EU/IMF set before the current government.

mike65 wrote: »

What the government should have done was simply announce that water would be treated like and paid for as any other utility - with an ongoing standing charge. Rather than get enmeshed in this business of "buying" the meter over X years.

Was it not the media going on about buying over X years anyway? I don't recall a government minister saying that but I could be wrong.

Nypd wrote: »

That's my biggest problem with the whole saga,
They are borrowing Irish people's money, and we have to pay ourselves back.
This will be a profitable organisation and I have no doubt their will be fat salaries associated with running it.
Why can't it be set up as any other business is, witha working capital and future profits paying back the set up fees.
This government is just heaping debt on an already over burdend society.

Well yeah, we cant just borrow money from the pension pot and not pay it back. Its better than asking the EU/IMF to fund it. As for it being a profitable organisation - who knows, but its not going to turn any profit for a longtime anyway. My understanding was that these fees have to be based on the actual expenses that Irish Water are occurring and they need to prove that they need to raise it etc.

Its not heaping debt, as such. Water charges is not uncommon in Ireland, and is across Europe anyway. Its going to save us money in the long run and provide a better service. Borrowing from ourselves is better than anybody else.

Nypd

How can it not be seen as heaping more debt onto ourselves ?
The country is broke from paying off the greedy bankers and bondholders then everytime we turn around we are being hit with another tax or charge.
Our last government were wreck less gangsters and our current seem more clueless by the day.
I understand sully you are a member or supportor of FG and I wonder do you genuinely buy into the FG spin, or are you like the vast majority of us who are putting on a brave face but fear for the future of our country.

edit: FG not FF

letsbet

Sully wrote: »

The previous government you mean

Not sure what this means?

Sully wrote: »

and they were booted out. It depends on the type of lie before people get annoyed enough. People look at both party pledges and assume they will be able to implement them once in government and because they didn't they are this and that. Firstly, its a coalition. The pledges went out the window and they had to come with a plan where both parties came to an agreement meaning a lot had to be left aside to get into government. This is common across the world. Secondly, there was a lot of misleading statements by some in the election such as Labour on Water charges - spoke out against it during the election but we all knew that they would have no choice to implement it in government because its in the agreement with the EU/IMF set before the current government.

What a load of rubbish. So the whole election campaigns of the two parties were null and void because all the voters knew that the new governments hand were tied by the bailout terms and that in the event of a coalition all bets were off. Funny how they didn't mention any of that and tried to convince the public that they would make drastic changes. So effectively they have carte blanche to break every as many promises as they want (even on the ones that they were agreed on). Brilliant!

Am Chile

Water is already paid for from central taxation. It was never 'free', so talk of a free allocation is nonsense. To add insult to injury, the government will shove the costs of charging on top of the householder at an inflated rate.

The only purpose in setting up Irish Water is to pave the way for the eventual privatisation of water - a bonanza to be handed over to a private operator to profiteer from a vital resource. Otherwise, the government would leave water in control of local authorities.

"This is yet another natural resource that would be handed to the private sector, charging residents at will, as we have seen with waste collection companies.

For anyone who might of being too young to remember the last anti water charges campaign.

Sully

Nypd wrote: »

How can it not be seen as heaping more debt onto ourselves ?
The country is broke from paying off the greedy bankers and bondholders then everytime we turn around we are being hit with another tax or charge.
Our last government were wreck less gangsters and our current seem more clueless by the day.
I understand sully you are a member or supportor of FG and I wonder do you genuinely buy into the FG spin, or are you like the vast majority of us who are putting on a brave face but fear for the future of our country.

edit: FG not FF

Because this is a charge on the table for years, its not an uncommon tax in Ireland or abroad, and its a tax that most of us will admit we need. I can only think of two new taxes introduced since the formation of the government - a household tax and a water charge. Plus its a tax that wont be brought in until at least 2014.

While I support FG, I do have my own views which don't always go with the flow There are positive signs coming from our economy and jobs wise, probably the best news in recent years.

letsbet wrote: »

Not sure what this means?

The previous government, Fianna Fail, have been elected a long time. They lied, got booted out. The current government are in there barley a year, haven't lied or mislead us to an extreme (unlike the previous government).

What a load of rubbish. So the whole election campaigns of the two parties were null and void because all the voters knew that the new governments hand were tied by the bailout terms and that in the event of a coalition all bets were off. Funny how they didn't mention any of that and tried to convince the public that they would make drastic changes. So effectively they have carte blanche to break every as many promises as they want (even on the ones that they were agreed on). Brilliant!

The parties were campaigning to be elected as a whole, not a coalition. They were presenting their views on what they would do if elected alone. Many commentators/media asked both parties would they not put together a manifesto if they both went into coalition but they refused. So it was well known, before and after the formation of this government, that both manifestos would change if they merged. Likewise, that they were tied into agreements by the previous government - well known, despite some parties suggesting otherwise (even to this day).

That's not to say that parties mislead the public in their campaigns, that some of what they "propose" they probably never would implement anyway or the plan was far to ambitious (Fine Gael health care plan being a prime example) to be achieved. But we will never get rid of this - it happens everywhere. If its an election for an organisations committee, residential association, students union, youth politics etc. Is it right? Nope. Funnily, in a student union election a few years ago the most honest candidate got the least amount of votes.

Am Chile wrote: »

Water is already paid for from central taxation. It was never 'free', so talk of a free allocation is nonsense. To add insult to injury, the government will shove the costs of charging on top of the householder at an inflated rate.

If we are all in agreement that we were being taxed for this anyway, why the drama over the tax being made more direct?

The only purpose in setting up Irish Water is to pave the way for the eventual privatisation of water - a bonanza to be handed over to a private operator to profiteer from a vital resource. Otherwise, the government would leave water in control of local authorities.

"This is yet another natural resource that would be handed to the private sector, charging residents at will, as we have seen with waste collection companies.

For anyone who might of being too young to remember the last anti water charges campaign.

Well I suppose even with legislation being brought in to prevent its sale / privatisation (as being done by current government) - it can be changed by a future government. Cant all state assets be at risk to be privatised? Including water.

insight_man

letsbet wrote: »

The government have lied about numerous things and they haven't been booted out of the Dail. Why would this be any different? Plus, it'll be a different govenment by the time this is up and running and we'll hear the same old excuses about inheriting a problem or promise. Your trust in politicians and the voting public is quite amusing. The last government ruined the country but this crowd have broken the most election promises that I can remember and the excuses that are put forward to defend them are laughable.

Standard proceedure, Politics 101 from FG,Lab, FF, Greens. I can't understand how so many people are fooled by these cowboys.

insight_man

Sully wrote: »

Because this is a charge on the table for years, its not an uncommon tax in Ireland or abroad, and its a tax that most of us will admit we need. I can only think of two new taxes introduced since the formation of the government - a household tax and a water charge. Plus its a tax that wont be brought in until at least 2014.

While I support FG, I do have my own views which don't always go with the flow There are positive signs coming from our economy and jobs wise, probably the best news in recent years.



The previous government, Fianna Fail, have been elected a long time. They lied, got booted out. The current government are in there barley a year, haven't lied or mislead us to an extreme (unlike the previous government).



The parties were campaigning to be elected as a whole, not a coalition. They were presenting their views on what they would do if elected alone. Many commentators/media asked both parties would they not put together a manifesto if they both went into coalition but they refused. So it was well known, before and after the formation of this government, that both manifestos would change if they merged. Likewise, that they were tied into agreements by the previous government - well known, despite some parties suggesting otherwise (even to this day).

That's not to say that parties mislead the public in their campaigns, that some of what they "propose" they probably never would implement anyway or the plan was far to ambitious (Fine Gael health care plan being a prime example) to be achieved. But we will never get rid of this - it happens everywhere. If its an election for an organisations committee, residential association, students union, youth politics etc. Is it right? Nope. Funnily, in a student union election a few years ago the most honest candidate got the least amount of votes.




If we are all in agreement that we were being taxed for this anyway, why the drama over the tax being made more direct?



Well I suppose even with legislation being brought in to prevent its sale / privatisation (as being done by current government) - it can be changed by a future government. Cant all state assets be at risk to be privatised? Including water.

Great clip from the last anti water rates campaign. Hilllview in Waterford featured with a private water crew trapped for over 9 hours. More of the same on the way I think

Nypd

The commercial properties that have the meters fitted already, any idea who paid for the installation of the meter ?

wellboytoo

Its a planning requirement for the last few years the builder must fit them.so the user pays.

rasper

wellboytoo wrote: »

Its a planning requirement for the last few years the builder must fit them.so the user pays.

User pays twice you mean

wellboytoo

rasper wrote: »

User pays twice you mean

No I don't, explain yourself?

rasper

wellboytoo wrote: »

rasper wrote: »

User pays twice you mean

No I don't, explain yourself?

Didn't think I'd have to but right now today I'm paying for my water , next year I'll pay twice

wellboytoo

Different water next year

jayboi

wellboytoo wrote: »

Different water next year

Were gettin the good stuff next year boi

kleefarr

Ok, so they are going to use the money from the pension fund, but why not get the best deal available??

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/siemens-cheaper-water-meter-offer-snubbed-by-minister-hogan-3088254.html

rasper

kleefarr wrote: »

Ok, so they are going to use the money from the pension fund, but why not get the best deal available??

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/siemens-cheaper-water-meter-offer-snubbed-by-minister-hogan-3088254.html

Our political masters don't do cheap. , at least not with tax payers cash

Nypd

kleefarr wrote: »

Ok, so they are going to use the money from the pension fund, but why not get the best deal available??

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/siemens-cheaper-water-meter-offer-snubbed-by-minister-hogan-3088254.html

It's rediculous that this option wasn't explored.

insight_man

Nypd wrote: »

It's rediculous that this option wasn't explored.

This gvernment doesen't want to hear about options. It wants to ram all it's ideas down everyone's throat until they choke us all. Its time to hit back. Vote no to austerity treaty

Max Powers

insight_man wrote: »

This gvernment doesen't want to hear about options. It wants to ram all it's ideas down everyone's throat until they choke us all. Its time to hit back. Vote no to austerity treaty

Christ almighty!......the fiscal compact treaty has nothing to do with our govt bringing-in extra taxes for us or the austerity happening across the globe.

Nypd

Watching on the telly last night on RTE, that up to a third of dwellings cannot be metered i.e apartments.
It's one water source that feeds the whole block.
David Norris raised a point also that his house was in a similar situation, the mains connected his house and a factory behind him.
The factory is not being atm, but I'm sure there will be cases like this popping up all over the place.

insight_man

Max Powers wrote: »

Christ almighty!......the fiscal compact treaty has nothing to do with our govt bringing-in extra taxes for us or the austerity happening across the globe.

Thats where you are soooo wrong. It all hangs together. Household charges the €180M taken away from local government, in order to put towards bond holders. Then you try force the people to pick up the tab. Plain and simple. Water charges follow the ecact same logic of cutbacks and more taxes on people who cant afford them.

The Austerity Traety copper fastens austerity, with more and more cut backs, endless increases in charges and ongoing contraction of the domestic economy, more job losses, bigger cuts and so it goes on. A vicious cycle...get the picture.

It all hangs together. The so called treaty better called the 'eternal straight jacket' needs to be defeated if we are to have any chance of survival as a country and goes to the heart of what kind of society we want. Just look at the cuts to the children with special needs on the news yesterday. The parents, cares etc marched to the dail over it yesterday. Their stories are heartbreaking. We have to put a stop to it now before we totally lose our country.

Then again, maybe people want to be a province of Germany...a lot of people are used to bending the knee, must be our past.

Kracken

I saw a meter freshly installed and the concrete around it just dried on upper yellow road when I was walking home, so something is happening already

Nypd

Kracken wrote: »

I saw a meter freshly installed and the concrete around it just dried on upper yellow road when I was walking home, so something is happening already

Attack it with a Hurley