Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 3] *Poll Reset*

bgrizzley

Bullseye1 wrote: »

This is lost on the yes side:p

i have one esb bill that i use very little power on. so, not happy with the standing charges, ESB are now charging me a low usage charge. its now at the stage that it would be well worth it to disconnect the power and buy a cheap jenny and use that whenever i need power.

if anyone thinks this isnt going to happen with water, ive a nice bridge for sale!

tayto lover

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Already planned ahead - purchased and installed a rain barrell out the back garden, to offset the proposed water charges.

You will still be charged. The rain barrel will just provide a bit of extra water and may reduce the cost a little but the main cost of 370e will still be charged.

tayto lover

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Absolutely, much better to plan ahead, budget, and be prepared, instead of whinging and moaning online about bank taxes and bondholders ;-)

I'd say some people wet themselves with glee when they heard about the new water charges of 370 euro. I can visualize a new happy queue forming very early outside the Council offices waiting to pay the charge. All of course wearing their wee FG stickers.

Now I might start selling tents and sleeping bags and pictures of Enda and Phil as a wee sideline. I can predict a big market.

Ghandee

donalg1 wrote: »

Do you have a link for this? And what is to stop them from amending the current legislation when introducing the water charges. As they will need to draw up some new act to govern the charges I would imagine it would be straight forward enough to put a line in it dealing with non payment of the charges and consequences of this.

No link, but I've read it online somewhere that they, under law can only reduce your pressure.

jprboy

Ghandee wrote: »

No link, but I've read it online somewhere that they, under law can only reduce your pressure.

..... to zero !

donalg1

Ghandee wrote: »

No link, but I've read it online somewhere that they, under law can only reduce your pressure.

So in theory they could reduce to a non existant level i.e. a level that takes four hours to fill a cup with water?

Anyway there is nothing stopping them from inserting a line in the new legislation giving the Minister the powers to cut off supply as a consequence of non payment.

tayto lover

donalg1 wrote: »

So in theory they could reduce to a non existant level i.e. a level that takes four hours to fill a cup with water?

Anyway there is nothing stopping them from inserting a line in the new legislation giving the Minister the powers to cut off supply as a consequence of non payment.

If the Minister had to do it himself they would have some fun looking for him in all the posh hotel all over the world and he there at our expense.

Ghandee

donalg1 wrote: »

So in theory they could reduce to a non existant level i.e. a level that takes four hours to fill a cup with water?

Anyway there is nothing stopping them from inserting a line in the new legislation giving the Minister the powers to cut off supply as a consequence of non payment.

Nothing stopping anyone getting it turned back on either.

Chips Lovell

It's off topic I know, but like Ghandee I was under the impression that it was illegal to cut off someone's water supply. However, on doing a bit of googling I discovered that, at least when water rates were last in force, in the 1970s, it was legal to cut off supply in the event of non-payment of rates.

donalg1

tayto lover wrote: »

If the Minister had to do it himself they would have some fun looking for him in all the posh hotel all over the world and he there at our expense.

Well obviously the Minister wouldnt be out doing it himself, the legislation would delegate the powers on the Minister to do it, and in turn the Minister would delegate the powers to whoever is actually going to flip the switch.

donalg1

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It's off topic I know, but like Ghandee I was under the impression that it was illegal to cut off someone's water supply. However, on doing a bit of googling I discovered that, at least when water rates were last in force, in the 1970s, it was legal to cut off supply in the event of non-payment of rates.

Thats what I would have thought too, there may be something that says each citizen is to be provided with water (human rights or something similiar) so by providing the homeowner with water the Council are covered. And it is then up to the homeowner to decide whether or not to avail of said service by paying for it.

donalg1

Ghandee wrote: »

Nothing stopping anyone getting it turned back on either.

Nope nothing at all, they would simply just have to pay for it.

Ghandee

donalg1 wrote: »

Nope nothing at all, they would simply just have to pay for it.

Or call a plumber?


It's only a valve/meter, not open heart surgery.

Might not be 'legal' but with not paying a property tax, nor registering for it, may as well be in for a penny and all that.

Chips Lovell

Further Googling reveals that it's also legal to cut off someone's water if they fail to comply with water conservation regulations.

Anyway, I'm sure we'll get a definitive answer when water charges are introduced. Like the Property Tax, you'd expect someone to challenge it.

Bullseye1

Charging for water is like putting VAT on food.

donalg1

Ghandee wrote: »

Or call a plumber?


It's only a valve/meter, not open heart surgery.

Might not be 'legal' but with not paying a property tax, nor registering for it, may as well be in for a penny and all that.

Ah yes the old break the law advise again!!

Anyway I am sure the Councils are a little bit more sophisticated these days compared to the 1970's technology wise, and would be able to track down the tamperers a bit more easily.

Say there is a road with 20 houses and they have every house metered and 19 of the 20 have paid their water charges and house no. 20 that hasnt has their water cut off then the council I am sure wouldnt have much of a problem seeing that the amount of water being used is more than the amoung being paid for by the 19 houses.

So either there is a leak somewhere or house no. 20 is using some, given that they were able to find a leak under my Dad's patio for him using a machine that basically x-rayed his pipes through the patio and earth I would imagine it would be easy enough to rule out the possibility of a leak somewhere.

Bruthal

donalg1 wrote: »

So in theory they could reduce to a non existant level i.e. a level that takes four hours to fill a cup with water?
.

They wouldn`t have to have it that low, just low enough that it is below a pressure of a 5 meter head of water. It wont fill the attic tank then, unless your in a bungalow:).

Bullseye1

I wonder if the Ministers can write off the property tax and water charges as unvouched expenses.

Ghandee

donalg1 wrote: »

Ah yes the old break the law advise again!!

Anyway I am sure the Councils are a little bit more sophisticated these days compared to the 1970's technology wise, and would be able to track down the tamperers a bit more easily.

Say there is a road with 20 houses and they have every house metered and 19 of the 20 have paid their water charges and house no. 20 that hasnt has their water cut off then the council I am sure wouldnt have much of a problem seeing that the amount of water being used is more than the amoung being paid for by the 19 houses.

So either there is a leak somewhere or house no. 20 is using some, given that they were able to find a leak under my Dad's patio for him using a machine that basically x-rayed his pipes through the patio and earth I would imagine it would be easy enough to rule out the possibility of a leak somewhere.

Break the law? Me officer?

Sure I don't know, one day the taps weren't working, next day that were.

I'm no plumber! I thought maybe the water company had a change of heart.



Prepared speech, hope I don't need it lol :pac:

Chips Lovell

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I wonder if the Ministers can write off the property tax and water charges as unvouched expenses.

Probably not, since they were abolished at the Budget.

Bruthal

donalg1 wrote: »

using a machine that basically x-rayed his pipes

I had my pipes x-ray`d last year a few times. No leaks found, only some fractures

Hijpo

52% of people surveyed in 'What's Left' the credit union study, had less than €100 left at the end of a month after paying basic bills - where will this money come from? 15% of working people having NOTHING at all. Social Justice Ireland: 700,000 people are at risk of poverty - 200,000 children in constant poverty.

Slick50

donalg1 wrote: »

Given that I bought my house two years ago I have a pretty good indication of the value, and the fact I paid an amount that is close to the bottom of one of the bands they will have to up their value by over €40k to make me pay more than what I believe I should be paying. So no not too worried about that.

"Given that I bought my house two years ago..." I'm sure this speaks oceans for your attitude to the property tax. If you had bought a few years prior to that, and paid C.€20-€30k in stamp duty, you would be feeling considerably different.

donalg1 wrote: »

Well it is utterly stupid asking Revenue to value properties as this isnt something they will have done before, hence my assumption that they will provide broad guidelines for us to decide how much its worth, guidelines like area, sq foot, bedrooms, bathrooms, land area and whatever else.

Simples.??? Untill you have to do it 800,000 + times.

donalg1 wrote: »

I havent given it much thought as it will be pretty simple for them to value my house, its on the property price register and I am in receipt of TRS so they can get the purchase price of my property from the register and they can get the mortgage amount using the TRS.

And, you have paid your registration fee, and given them all the information they need... you will definitely be getting a personalised bill, congrats.

donalg1 wrote: »

Not to mention the fact that whoever takes power after the next election wont just sign off on scrapping a massive stream of income.

This is going to raise about €500million, which is now a massive ammount. But when it suits, this kind of figure is described as insignificant, or not worth while when it comes to justifying not taking others steps to raise these sort of sums. But I'd say it is going to be a massive revenue stream when/if it gets to full implementation.

The only reason it is being kept so low now, is the ammount of resistance it has been met with.

donalg1 wrote: »

The only reason they would do such a thing would be to win votes but hey if they are in power they hardly need to win votes now do they!

Which is something that needs to be changed. If they state their policies, and are elected on the strength of their declared policies, there should be consequences for them for scrapping/changing these.

ASIDE...

Bruthal wrote: »

They wouldn`t have to have it that low, just low enough that it is below a pressure of a 5 meter head of water. It wont fill the attic tank then, unless your in a bungalow:).

I don't think you can change the pressure at the meter, just the flow rate.

Bruthal

Slick50 wrote: »

ASIDE...
I don't think you can change the pressure at the meter, just the flow rate.

It was a joke really.

But the pressure can be reduced to areas. But to be reduced to individual houses would need regulating valves on each supply line.

donalg1

Slick50 wrote: »

"Given that I bought my house two years ago..." I'm sure this speaks oceans for your attitude to the property tax. If you had bought a few years prior to that, and paid C.€20-€30k in stamp duty, you would be feeling considerably different.

I'm sure I would feel differently if I had paid stamp duty however I would still feel obliged to pay the property tax same way as I would have felt obliged to pay stamp duty. Fact is I didnt buy when stamp duty was applicable I bought in the window between the two lots of stamp duty so I got lucky, if I had bought when stamp duty was applicable it wouldnt do much good moaning about the fact now as I would have known when buying that I would have to pay stamp duty and would have bought anyway.

And, you have paid your registration fee, and given them all the information they need... you will definitely be getting a personalised bill, congrats.

My point wasnt that they would be able to find me and send me a bill, it was that it would be very easy for them or me to value my property, and that there were at least two easy ways for Revenue to do this that I could think of straight off.

This is going to raise about €500million, which is now a massive ammount. But when it suits, this kind of figure is described as insignificant, or not worth while when it comes to justifying not taking others steps to raise these sort of sums. But I'd say it is going to be a massive revenue stream when/if it gets to full implementation.

The only reason it is being kept so low now, is the ammount of resistance it has been met with.

Well it is staying at current levels until 2016 so we know what it will be for the next few years anyway.

Which is something that needs to be changed. If they state their policies, and are elected on the strength of their declared policies, there should be consequences for them for scrapping/changing these.

And who is going to enforce these consequences, I think we all know at this stage that no politician is ever going to deliver on all their pre election promises to think otherwise would be to be very naive. What we have and would have is politicians saying "if I get elected I will aim to .....", meaning if they dont deliver they would simply say "I only said I will aim to do ...., and never said I would definitely do ..."

Aquarius34

Ghandee wrote: »

I'm just thinking of not paying for water twice, as far as I'm concerned income tax already pays for it.

Let them cut whatever they expect it to generate from the new cpa.


Legally they can't cut your water off.

If they cut your water off, that's basically saying we will kill you if you don't give us money.

Besides they put fluoride in it, which is toxic waste. i don't drink tap water. so I don't pay for it. Even if I did drink the water, I wouldn't pay for it. Water is free and no one own's it and no one has the right to make us pay for something that is free and plentiful.

DoesNotCompute

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Besides they put fluoride in it, which is toxic waste. i don't drink tap water. so I don't pay for it. Even if I did drink the water, I wouldn't pay for it. Water is free and no one own's it and no one has the right to make us pay for something that is free and plentiful.

But it costs money to treat it/distribute it/maintain the distibution network. You're more than welcome to drink the free, plentiful, flouride-free water that falls from the sky though. No-one's stopping you.

Slick50

donalg1 wrote: »

I'm sure I would feel differently if I had paid stamp duty however I would still feel obliged to pay the property tax.... ...if I had bought when stamp duty was applicable it wouldnt do much good moaning about the fact now as I would have known when buying that I would have to pay stamp duty and would have bought anyway.

Well if enough people "moan" about our governments decisions, it will do good. They are our representatives, and are supposed to be influenced by public opinion.

donalg1 wrote: »

My point wasnt that they would be able to find me and send me a bill, it was that it would be very easy for them or me to value my property, and that there were at least two easy ways for Revenue to do this that I could think of straight off.

And my point was you will be getting a personalised bill, with your name and address.

donalg1 wrote: »

Well it is staying at current levels until 2016 so we know what it will be for the next few years anyway.

No it won't, not when it is handed over to local councils. What about when the market begins to improve, and house prices rise... but your income has remained the same or deteriorated. Besides, "legislators are there to legislate. "Once established it can change anytime.

donalg1 wrote: »

And who is going to enforce these consequences, I think we all know at this stage that no politician is ever going to deliver on all their pre election promises to think otherwise would be to be very naive. What we have and would have is politicians saying "if I get elected I will aim to .....", meaning if they dont deliver they would simply say "I only said I will aim to do ...., and never said I would definitely do ..."

So, like bad law, you just accept this, and hold no hope of ever changing it. Some people truly do deserve the government they get.

dvpower

Aquarius34 wrote: »

If they cut your water off, that's basically saying we will kill you if you don't give us money.

That's basically what I said to those bastards down at Tesco :rolleyes:

Micky Dolenz

Mod

Hi Folks, we seem to be veering off topic here. If you wish to discuss water meters, please do so here.

Thanks