Water Charge Quotas

Banjo String

zenno wrote: »

A whole new realisation of flushing animal faeces E.coli into the toilet. Sh!t into sh!t. It's all a load of sh!t. The country is gone to sh!t, sure a lot of folk wash in sh!t now with no choice. Ah sure, lets sprinkle it on our rice crispies ffs, sure why not it's only more sh!t. I'm sick of this sh!t, I'm out of here.

I'm sick of all this shıt too.


Let's go on the pıss.

Capt'n Midnight

Diego Simeone wrote: »

I'm in favour of water charges. The Tragedy of the Commons is a well established phenomenon and it absolutely applies to water usage. The quotas and fair usage limits are the key here though. The purpose of water charges should be to take some contribution to cover the cost of water provision as well as a punitive fee to punish negative externalities.

The Tragedy of the commons is that they were enclosed by powerful land owners and the commoners were dispossessed. Commanage was a right only held by some people, not everyone. And if Fred had too many sheep the other rights holders would be upset with Fred and probably have a frank and honest discussion with him.


The problem with water is that we already paid for it through indirect taxation. If this was like replacing the TV licence with an electric charge where the overall out lay hasn't gone up and you've cut out a middle man then at least there is some semblance of fairness.

Remind us exactly how much businesses will have their rates cut by ?? And how much of that would get passed to the consumer, because they didn't pass the VAT reduction on.

The numbers being floated around for average water costs are about the same as a weeks wages for someone on the minimum wage. (€375 - taxes , levies, transport). The "tragedy of the commons" is that someone with a lot of disposable income would pay exactly the same for the same usage.

zenno

More water meter protests, this time in Dublin. I had to laugh at the placard that says... You can stick your water meters up your arse!

Source: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/anti-water-meter-protests-spread-to-dublin-1.1771005

Amirani

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The problem with water is that we already paid for it through indirect taxation. If this was like replacing the TV licence with an electric charge where the overall out lay hasn't gone up and you've cut out a middle man then at least there is some semblance of fairness.

Remind us exactly how much businesses will have their rates cut by ?? And how much of that would get passed to the consumer, because they didn't pass the VAT reduction on.

The numbers being floated around for average water costs are about the same as a weeks wages for someone on the minimum wage. (€375 - taxes , levies, transport). The "tragedy of the commons" is that someone with a lot of disposable income would pay exactly the same for the same usage.

The costs associated with water provision are ongoing. The water system isn't "finished" and won't ever be.

The point in moving from indirect taxation to direct taxation should be to reduce wastage at user level. This will undoubtedly do that. My own personal view is that standing charges shouldn't apply and that there should be decent allowance available free of charge.

Busted Flat.

Diego Simeone wrote: »

The costs associated with water provision are ongoing. The water system isn't "finished" and won't ever be.

The point in moving from indirect taxation to direct taxation should be to reduce wastage at user level. This will undoubtedly do that. My own personal view is that standing charges shouldn't apply and that there should be decent allowance available free of charge.

As big Phil pointed out if you do not use enough water to support the water board he will raise the rate to compensate. How is that going to save water ?.

Phoebas

Busted Flat. wrote: »

As big Phil pointed out if you do not use enough water to support the water board he will raise the rate to compensate. How is that going to save water ?.

Phil Hogan never said that.

Busted Flat.

Phoebas wrote: »

Phil Hogan never said that.

Check the bill he may not have said it but its in the bill, a reporter asked him a question about the water board finances. Sorry but I have no link, but if you are so sure you must have a copy of the bill.

darkpagandeath

Farmers are already out looking for Price reduction.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/elections/farmers-demand-cut-in-water-charges-30209705.html

Phoebas

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Check the bill he may not have said it but its in the bill, a reporter asked him a question about the water board finances. Sorry but I have no link, but if you are so sure you must have a copy of the bill.

It isn't in any bill and Hogan didn't say it.

Busted Flat.

Phoebas wrote: »

It isn't in any bill and Hogan didn't say it.

This is my memory of the question. He was asked if the consumption of water did not meet its financial targets will there be a price hike, he answered there is provision in the bill for that. As I say that is from memory, maybe there is someone on Boards that seen him make that comment.
Water consumption down = price hike, how does that conserve water, it only fills the pockets of the politically appointed Quango members.

zenno

Just don't pay a cent for this, they cannot cut your water supply off for health and safety reasons.
They would not cut you off as that would be a human rights issue. The only problem is, if they do take money directly (Illegally IMO) from your wages/pension then a person has to find a way to combat this in some way.

Phoebas

Busted Flat. wrote: »

This is my memory of the question. He was asked if the consumption of water did not meet its financial targets will there be a price hike, he answered there is provision in the bill for that. As I say that is from memory, maybe there is someone on Boards that seen him make that comment.
Water consumption down = price hike, how does that conserve water, it only fills the pockets of the politically appointed Quango members.

Your memory is faulty perhaps?
Why don't you read the bill or Google what you think Hogan is reported to have said?

From my own, often faulty, memory, there was some speculation (not from Hogan) about the possibility of price increases if consumption was too low to meet the funding targets. This seems to have been replaced in recent times by other speculation that there would be a standing charge instead. Its all speculation, because this is a matter for the CER, not the minister, and they haven't come to a decision yet.

Phoebas

zenno wrote: »

Just don't pay a cent for this, they cannot cut your water supply off for health and safety reasons.
They would not cut you off as that would be a human rights issue. The only problem is, if they do take money directly (Illegally IMO) from your wages/pension then a person has to find a way to combat this in some way.

They can reduce it to a trickle which, if memory serves me correctly, is what they have said they would do.

zenno

Phoebas wrote: »

They can reduce it to a trickle which, if memory serves me correctly, is what they have said they would do.

Well not really, because I have studied these particular water meters, and how they work.

All you have to do is purchase a small copper pipe and connect it to each part of where the meter is connected, take out the meter and screw in the new pipe for the main connection, very simple really and you have your supply back full.

I am not telling folk to do this, but this is what I would do, or will do if it comes to it.

Then I'd just sell the water meter on E-Bay . They won't be clamping my water supply.

Phoebas

zenno wrote: »

Well not really, because I have studied these particular water meters, and how they work.

All you have to do is purchase a small copper pipe and connect it to each part of where the meter is connected, take out the meter and screw in the new pipe for the main connection, very simple really and you have your supply back full.

I am not telling folk to do this, but this is what I would do, or will do if it comes to it.

No doubt its possible to tamper with the meter. I'm not sure, but since the meter is the property of Irish Water, that would probably be an offence.

zenno

Phoebas wrote: »

No doubt its possible to tamper with the meter. I'm not sure, but since the meter is the property of Irish Water, that would probably be an offence.

EDIT: It is an offence in my eye's to force a person to pay for something they already pay for.

Phoebas

zenno wrote: »

It is an offence in my eye's to force me to pay for something I already pay for.

Yeah, but that offence isn't backed by the rule of law.

zenno

Phoebas wrote: »

Yeah, but that offence isn't backed by the rule of law.

Yes, but the rule of an unjust law.

Busted Flat.

Phoebas wrote: »

Yeah, but that offence isn't backed by the rule of law.

There is quiet a few staff in the water quango on over €100,000 a year plus expenses. Nice number, if your in the circle. Just an observation.

zenno

@Journal.ie

Domestic water charges will apply from October of this year, with the first bills to be issued in January 2015.
It’s planned customers with a meter will be charged on the basis of use while those without a meter will receive an estimated bill.

How can they give an estimated bill when not knowing the water usage being used, this is crazy. They are just making stuff up as they go, they haven't a clue, they are taking the piss on a big-time scale.

darkpagandeath

zenno wrote: »

@Journal.ie



How can they give an estimated bill when not knowing the water usage being used, this is crazy. They are just making stuff up as they go, they haven't a clue, they are taking the piss on a big-time scale.

Will they be using the census to calculate how many people in apartments for example and not charge a 6 person family the same as a 2 person one.

Phoebas

zenno wrote: »

@Journal.ie



How can they give an estimated bill when not knowing the water usage being used, this is crazy. They are just making stuff up as they go, they haven't a clue, they are taking the piss on a big-time scale.

If they knew what the actual usage was then they wouldn't have to issue an estimated bill, would they?
They will have the benefit of having hundreds of thousands of actual readings to go on, so the estimated usage should be reasonably accurate.

Banjo String

zenno wrote: »

@Journal.ie



How can they give an estimated bill when not knowing the water usage being used, this is crazy. They are just making stuff up as they go, they haven't a clue, they are taking the piss on a big-time scale.

Couldn't even make it up tbh. I pray to fcuk the public have woken up and seen the ineptitude of this Govt.

They are in for one hell of a bloody nose in the locals. Still haven't seen an FG councillor at my front door yet, plenty of leaflets and posters. I've had a visit from a labour member (the councillor himself) but that's it so far.

I'm almost praying for a visit at this stage.

Busted Flat.

Phoebas wrote: »

If they knew what the actual usage was then they wouldn't have to issue an estimated bill, would they?
They will have the benefit of having hundreds of thousands of actual readings to go on, so the estimated usage should be reasonably accurate.

What planet are you on, trusting that lot,we were promised honesty and transparency, did we get either ?. and now you are expecting accuracy, there is no hope for this country.

emo72

Phoebas wrote: »

Yeah, but that offence isn't backed by the rule of law.

hi phoebas, do you work for the water company, or perhaps employed by the government?

zenno

Phoebas wrote: »

If they knew what the actual usage was then they wouldn't have to issue an estimated bill, would they?
They will have the benefit of having hundreds of thousands of actual readings to go on, so the estimated usage should be reasonably accurate.

It's just an inaccurate way of doing it, and is a mickey mouse way to charge folk on an unstable platform of estimation.

As was said before, you could have 5/6 people living in a home with no meter using way more water, and then you have 1 person living alone paying the same as this lot, so much for estimation.

zenno

Busted Flat. wrote: »

What planet are you on, trusting that lot,we were promised honesty and transparency, did we get either ?. and now you are expecting accuracy, there is no hope for this country.

This is my point exactly.

Banjo String

Phoebas wrote: »

If they knew what the actual usage was then they wouldn't have to issue an estimated bill, would they?
They will have the benefit of having hundreds of thousands of actual readings to go on, so the estimated usage should be reasonably accurate.

How will they know if they undercharged or overcharged a house without an actual meter reading to compare?

What if a home owner has not been living in his house for 6 months/a year (therefore not using any water)? How can you estimate his 'no usage' without a meter?

What if a home is selling bottled water from a tap thousands of litres per week, ala Del boy and Rodney,?

Phoebas

zenno wrote: »

It's just an inaccurate way of doing it, and is a mickey mouse way to charge folk on an unstable platform of estimation.

What more accurate way would you propose they charge people who don't have water meters?

13505

I find water charges a repulsive thought. Tax anything you want, you meddling Michaels and I'll probably pay it, for the good of society. But stay the f*ck away from water! You sick, abhorent Angelas!

Anything but the one substance that keeps us and everything that's ever been alive. You disgusting Declans! Free water for all beings. Tax everything else if you want, but not water you sick simmering slugheads!!!

zenno

Phoebas wrote: »

What more accurate way would you propose they charge people who don't have water meters?

A more accurate way would be to not charge them until the government have their act together, and until water meters are installed in all places, this would be a gesture of fairness. The way they are doing it now is akin to letting 6 year old children to manage it.

darkpagandeath

zenno wrote: »

A more accurate way would be to not charge them until they have their act together, and until water meters are installed in all places, this would be a gesture of fairness. The way they are doing it now is akin to letting 6 year old children to manage it.

I will never have a meter same with a lot of people I live in an Apartment. That's what gets me. Estimated for life.

emo72

what do utility companies like electric ireland or bord gais do if you have no metre? do they charge? do they ****.

water is already paid well paid for with an extra few percent on vat and motor tax. we already pay. they want us to pay again because the general taxation goes to pay our very dodgy euro debts. and when its up and running they will sell it off and watch the bills shoot up.

Phoebas

zenno wrote: »

A more accurate way would be to not charge them until they have their act together, and until water meters are installed in all places, this would be a gesture of fairness. The way they are doing it now is akin to letting 6 year old children to manage it.

I can't imagine how you figured out that charging nil is more accurate than making an estimated charge based on actual usage from a large user base.

Nor would it be more fair, because if these water consumers aren't paying anything, then the rest of the population, who will already be paying their water bills, will have to pay more to subsidise them.

darkpagandeath

Phoebas wrote: »

I can't imagine how you figured out that charging nil is more accurate than making an estimated charge based on actual usage from a large user base.

Nor would it be more fair, because if these water consumers aren't paying anything, then the rest of the population, who will already be paying their water bills, will have to pay more to subsidise them.

You could argue that about commercial water. They have always had to pay. So there should be no issue billing the people unlucky enough to have a meter and wait for the others to be installed.

Phoebas

emo72 wrote: »

what do utility companies like electric ireland or bord gais do if you have no metre? do they charge? do they ****.

If you don't have a gas meter, you wont be supplied with gas.
Electric Ireland will provide you with an electricity supply, but if you live somewhere where its expensive for them to get the supply to you, you'll pay the full cost of that infrastructure.

Phoebas

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You could argue that about commercial water. They have always had to pay. So there should be no issue billing the people unlucky enough to have a meter and wait for the others to be installed.

I suppose they could continue the current unfairness for longer.

zenno

Phoebas wrote: »

I can't imagine how you figured out that charging nil is more accurate than making an estimated charge based on actual usage from a large user base.

Nor would it be more fair, because if these water consumers aren't paying anything, then the rest of the population, who will already be paying their water bills, will have to pay more to subsidise them.

You are missing the point Phoebas The folk with no meters shouldn't be charged until they are installed. Why should you be charged for something when it cannot be monitored as to the usage you are using. Estimation is unfair and worthless.

They need to have the meters installed to make an accurate account of how much you use. You asked me a question and I have answered it fairly. No-one without a meter should be charged until they have a monitoring meter installed. Even then they shouldn't be charged, because every-one has, and is already paying for water out of their taxes. Why pay twice, it makes no sense.

Phoebas

zenno wrote: »

You are missing the point Phoebas The folk with no meters shouldn't be charged until they are installed. Why should you be charged for something when it cannot be monitored as to the usage you are using. Estimation is unfair and worthless.

I understood the point; I just disagree with it.

That_Girl_ Is_ A_Cowboy

My biggest gripe about water charges is that it's going to increase sickness and illness. Remember swine flu some years ago? The best way to contain that was with regular handwashing. There will be people who won't be able to afford this new bill and they'll have to watch every time they turn on the tap. Not to mention those who are suffering from cystic fibrosis and their families. The common cold can kill them.

Another problem I have is the free daily water allowance. I believe the water allowance is much more in the uk. When you first turn on the shower tap it can take a little bit for the water to run warm/hot. What are you expected to do? Stand in the cold shower? That would have been ok last summer during our heatwave but we don't get heat like that very often.

Another problem I have is that so many people were hit badly with unemployment, underemployment, wage cuts, higher taxes. Basically less income. And we have more bills. The government implementing these policies have shielded themselves from the effects of the recession and they haven't a ****ing clue what it's like for us beneath them.

zenno

Phoebas wrote: »

I understood the point; I just disagree with it.

No problem at all, I don't expect every-one to agree with it, as we all have our own ideas regarding it. I just think the way it is at the moment is really very badly integrated to the consumer and should have been done more professionally. It's a big mess at the moment that's for sure Imo.

Busted Flat.

emo72 wrote: »

hi phoebas, do you work for the water company, or perhaps employed by the government?

Up to post 192 no answer to your question.

cloudatlas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainwater_tank

Busted Flat.

Just seen this on google.

What have the supporters of water meters have to say about this.

A smart meter produces microwave non-ionizing radiation that penetrates the walls of your home and into your home 24/7, 365 days. The utility companies argue that because the radiation being emitted is non-ionizing that it’s safe.

It’s not safe. Numerous studies point to the adverse biological effects associated with the non-ionizing radiation used by smart meters.

- See more at: http://www.electricsense.com/2431/smart-meter-shielding-tips/#sthash.qu620gH1.dpuf

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFAQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.electricsense.com%2F2431%2Fsmart-meter-shielding-tips%2F&ei=xkBYU4HOFaWv7Abj74GgBA&usg=AFQjCNGcto_8GONkounkgrSAr3vHfn2IOg&bvm=bv.65177938,d.ZGU

Phoebas

^^^ Oh. Good. God.

Hotblack Desiato

emo72 wrote: »

hi phoebas, do you work for the water company, or perhaps employed by the government?

I really don't like the implication of this question, especially the second part, do you think that public servants should be silenced, or forced to out themselves on boards or anywhere else? or are mindless government shills, or something?

Hotale.com

turnikett1 wrote: »

Isn't that the point of it? I do agree though. I have no problem paying for this on principle but only if it will improve the quality of water. I'm sick of having this murky bad tasting water from my taps here. Water shouldnt have a taste! I remember being at a mates in the country once and the tap water they had was phenomenal - crystal clear, as cold as ice and a pleasure to drink and touch. I'm ok with paying Irish Water if they can deliver that level of quality.

However, this being Ireland and all, I'm ready to expect far less

Water should have a taste - if you live in a limestone area there'll be lime in it, giving it taste. You can't expect them to get pure water for everyone, that would be so expensive and, to be honest, utterly pointless.

Also, I have a friend who lives in the countryside who needs a water desalinator (I think that's what it is anyway) because their water destroys their kettles etc. You seem to be expecting a perfect system which is absolutely impossible to realise no matter what happens.

Busted Flat.

ninja900 wrote: »

I really don't like the implication of this question, especially the second part, do you think that public servants should be silenced, or forced to out themselves on boards or anywhere else? or are mindless government shills, or something?

I agree they should not be silenced, but if they are putting out government propaganda, then they should declare their hand. At least posters would know who were dealing with.

Hotale.com

13505 wrote: »

I find water charges a repulsive thought. Tax anything you want, you meddling Michaels and I'll probably pay it, for the good of society. But stay the f*ck away from water! You sick, abhorent Angelas!

Anything but the one substance that keeps us and everything that's ever been alive. You disgusting Declans! Free water for all beings. Tax everything else if you want, but not water you sick simmering slugheads!!!

Ignore the fact that it may be a tax, and take it at face value - imagine it is a "water charge".

You wouldn't be paying for water, you'd be paying for the treatment of water, which costs hundreds of millions each year. Go down to the stream if you want water, go to your tap if you want the expensive treated water.

Of course ideally we wouldn't want to be paying for anything, but someone has to pay for it, and the fact is that our government (no matter how much of a mess they've made through bailouts etc.) can't afford it (which they really can't unless they start charging us or another boom happens).

Hotale.com

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Just seen this on google.

What have the supporters of water meters have to say about this.

A smart meter produces microwave non-ionizing radiation that penetrates the walls of your home and into your home 24/7, 365 days. The utility companies argue that because the radiation being emitted is non-ionizing that it’s safe.

It’s not safe. Numerous studies point to the adverse biological effects associated with the non-ionizing radiation used by smart meters.

There's radiation from everything, gamma radiation is the only kind that could penetrate your walls, and this is exceedingly rare in the home and, no matter how bad you think the government are, would never be allowed to be attached to every house in the country.

Also, d'you know those smoke alarms you should have in every room in your house? They work due to the presence of a radioactive substance, americium-241, and guess what? It's completely safe. So is your microwave, it won't give you cancer, and your laptop won't make you infertile.

The tiniest bit of knowledge would be enough to dismiss any of these claims regarding radiation dangers.