Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Irish Water Discussion {MERGE}

Options
1…1415171920…27

Comments

  • Options
    #482
    Alan_P
    Registered Users Posts: 264 ✭✭Alan_P


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Direct Democracy Ireland member. Stood in local elections.

    And won a stunning mandate, securing 1.75% of the vote.

    http://electionsireland.org/candidate.cfm?ID=10240

    That certainly entitles her to overturn legislation enacted by our national parliament. Truly, Direct Democracy in action.


  • Options
    #483
    Slozer
    Registered Users Posts: 200 ✭✭Slozer


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It's a charge for use. If you use the water you are obliged to pay for it. Simple as that.

    You are not obligated to pay for a charge you do not agree to or some service you have not signed up for. You are only obliged to pay tax imposed by the government.

    If this is the case what is to stop the government building air purifiers and then charging for use of air?


  • Options
    #484
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,404 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Slozer wrote: »
    Its not a tax, its a charge for a service imposed on the people against their will. Since it is not a tax, the people are under no obligation to pay the charge.
    Is this from the Shoplifters Charter?
    Slozer wrote: »
    If this is the case what is to stop the government building air purifiers and then charging for use of air?
    Nothing. But you are engaging in whataboutery.
    Slozer wrote: »
    We still are paying for Irish water through our taxes.
    The taxes we have paid has only paid for a leaky, polluted system.
    Slozer wrote: »
    I do pay for my license for my TV but what I don't do is pay a tax for my license and a fee for my tv license.
    Actually, the TV Licence is in the form of a duty (like of alcohol, tobacco and fuels), so it is a tax.


  • Options
    #485
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Slozer wrote: »
    You are not obligated to pay for a charge you do not agree to or some service you have not signed up for. You are only obliged to pay tax imposed by the government.

    If this is the case what is to stop the government building air purifiers and then charging for use of air?

    You are not obliged to pay for a charge where you have not used the service. If you don't want to pay the charge then install a private well or secure your water by some other means. But if you turn on that tap then you have to pay for it.

    The second sentence of your post is just utter nonsense.


  • Options
    #486
    Hogzy
    Registered Users Posts: 7,544 ✭✭✭Hogzy


    Slozer wrote: »
    We still are paying for Irish water through our taxes. We paid for setting it up and we are paying the wages of the people who are working there, water meter installation etc. I certainly don't want to pay a charge which is already covered by my tax. You are right, people will pay for the service, but the point is they already are.
    If the government want more money to cover their failed policies they should come up with better ideas than introducing an extra charge on the poor people of Ireland.

    It was explained perfectly above. Yes our taxes used to cover the cost of piping water to every home in the Country however given the fact the country has a huge debt burden that we are all responsible for (unfortunately) those taxes are now going to be used to pay off debt. We must now start paying to cover the cost of water.

    Yeah water charges are an absolute balls, nobody wants to pay them but the country is broke. It always makes me laugh how you have all these protesters saying they love their country and they would do anything for Ireland yet will do anything to get out of paying tax and claim every bloody social welfare entitlement under the sun. All take take take and give nothing back to their beloved 'Ireland'. Such a bunch of hypocrites.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #487
    Slozer
    Registered Users Posts: 200 ✭✭Slozer


    Victor wrote: »
    Is this from the Shoplifters Charter?

    Not sure what you mean by this!
    Victor wrote: »
    Nothing. But you are engaging in whataboutery.

    Same principle.
    Victor wrote: »
    Actually, the TV Licence is in the form of a duty (like of alcohol, tobacco and fuels), so it is a tax.


    The point I was making is that I don't pay a double charge or tax for my TV.


  • Options
    #488
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Slozer wrote: »
    Same principle.

    No, it's not.

    We've always paid for water. Now we are gonna pay for it in a different manner. We have never paid for air.


  • Options
    #489
    malinheader
    Registered Users Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭malinheader


    My Water comes through an asbestos mains water pipe. On a half mile stretch of this main pipe there has been 31 bursts in where a new connection is made. the pipe is cut with a stihl saw and all the asbestos dust is flushed down the pipe. Do you think this would pass the EU regulations they are always on about.I buy all my drinking water and I will not pay until this is rectified. Disgrace.


  • Options
    #490
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Slozer wrote: »
    Same principle.

    The point I was making is that I don't pay a double charge or tax for my TV.
    Using the same logic you do pay a "double charge". RTÉ gets whatever percentage of the revenue raised through the TV Licence. You also fund them indirectly by buying products from companies who pay RTÉ to advertise.

    I know I could very easily find out myself, but anyone know is it landlords or tenants who deal directly with Irish Water? Moving to a new house next week and I want to get it sorted from the start.

    Edit: actually I might leave that question for the A&P thread.


  • Options
    #491
    N8
    Registered Users Posts: 458 ✭✭N8


    Deleted User wrote: »
    No, it's not.

    We've always paid for water. Now we are gonna pay for it in a different manner.

    You mean now we are going to pay for it in a an additional manner.

    Then as a privat ecompany that IW is it will be sold off along with all our personal details and those of our children.

    Deleted User wrote: »
    We have never paid for air.

    Its coming - like fluoride - we didn't ask for chemtrailing of the air we breathe


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #492
    Bepolite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,737 ✭✭✭Bepolite


    malinheader wrote: »
    My Water comes through an asbestos mains water pipe. On a half mile stretch of this main pipe there has been 31 bursts in where a new connection is made. the pipe is cut with a stihl saw and all the asbestos dust is flushed down the pipe. Do you think this would pass the EU regulations they are always on about.I buy all my drinking water and I will not pay until this is rectified. Disgrace.

    Fair enough as long as you don't use the water for anything else such as washing or cleaning and you're not using the sewage system.
    N8 wrote: »
    You mean now we are going to pay for it in a an additional manner.

    Then as a privat ecompany that IW is it will be sold off along with all our personal details and those of our children.

    Children, won't someone think of the children! There's legislation that is about to come in on building one of the most draconian DNA databases outside of the US and you're worried about their PPS number?

    That aside it can't be sold there is no legislative framework to allow for that. If that legislation comes in it will be because we've elected people to do that. At that point protesting would seem like the right thing to do, but it's premature.
    N8 wrote: »
    Its coming - like fluoride - we didn't ask for chemtrailing of the air we breathe

    Credibility before this statement 40%, credibility after 0%.


  • Options
    #493
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Slozer wrote: »
    Its not a tax, its a charge for a service imposed on the people against their will. Since it is not a tax, the people are under no obligation to pay the charge.
    Slozer wrote: »
    You are not obligated to pay for a charge you do not agree to or some service you have not signed up for.

    You agree to it by accessing the water and sewer mains.
    N8 wrote: »
    You mean now we are going to pay for it in a an additional manner.
    No, tax revenue going to the local authority is no longer being applied to the provision of water/waste services.
    N8 wrote: »
    Its coming - like fluoride - we didn't ask for chemtrailing of the air we breathe
    You're getting an infraction for this - it's ridiculous and it isn't for the Legal Discussion forum; the only reason I could think of for posting this is to troll other users into engaging.


  • Options
    #494
    Slozer
    Registered Users Posts: 200 ✭✭Slozer


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    You agree to it by accessing the water and sewer mains.


    I don't think so. Your agreement/contract comes into effect when you send back your signed form with your pps number. Water was piped to houses and paid through current taxation. All this was done by councils so the accessing of water has been paid for by the tax payers already.
    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    No, tax revenue going to the local authority is no longer being applied to the provision of water/waste services.

    So how are Irish Water currently being funded? I think you will find that our taxes are being applied to Irish Water. Whether the money is being borrowed or not, ultimately the tax payer is bearing the cost.


  • Options
    #495
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Slozer wrote: »
    I don't think so. Your agreement/contract comes into effect when you send back your signed form with your pps number.

    Would it be correct to assume you have no facts to back that statement up?


  • Options
    #496
    Slozer
    Registered Users Posts: 200 ✭✭Slozer


    Deleted User wrote: »
    No, it's not.

    We've always paid for water. Now we are gonna pay for it in a different manner. We have never paid for air.

    We have not always paid for water, but I take your point and I understand that the service has to be paid for. The service charge is being introduced to cover the costs of providing water to the Irish public because the tax we are paying for that service is now being used to service current borrowing costs which were born from the bail out and our current spending.

    I am not saying we shouldn't pay for the service. I am saying we shouldn't pay twice for it.

    The air analogy was just to emphases what our government could do to a resource which is require to keep us alive. Albeit highly improbable but not impossible.


  • Options
    #497
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Slozer wrote: »
    I don't think so. Your agreement/contract comes into effect when you send back your signed form with your pps number. Water was piped to houses and paid through current taxation. All this was done by councils so the accessing of water has been paid for by the tax payers already.



    So how are Irish Water currently being funded? I think you will find that our taxes are being applied to Irish Water. Whether the money is being borrowed or not, ultimately the tax payer is bearing the cost.

    It is a long accepted fact in contract law that in many cases there is no requirement for an exchange of documents for a contract to exist. If I offer you a service at a set price and you decide to use that service then you have accepted the contract its that simple.

    If anyone does not wish to enter into a contract with IW then its simple don't take the water and don't give them your waste.


  • Options
    #498
    Slozer
    Registered Users Posts: 200 ✭✭Slozer


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Using the same logic you do pay a "double charge". RTÉ gets whatever percentage of the revenue raised through the TV Licence. You also fund them indirectly by buying products from companies who pay RTÉ to advertise.

    In many cases we even pay triple taxation. Since if we buy a TV we are paying VAT + Duty.


  • Options
    #499
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Slozer wrote: »
    We have not always paid for water, but I take your point and I understand that the service has to be paid for. The service charge is being introduced to cover the costs of providing water to the Irish public because the tax we are paying for that service is now being used to service current borrowing costs which were born from the bail out and our current spending.

    I am not saying we shouldn't pay for the service. I am saying we shouldn't pay twice for it.

    The air analogy was just to emphases what our government could do to a resource which is require to keep us alive. Albeit highly improbable but not impossible.

    From the setting up the water system under old English legislation water has been paid for under the local rate in many cases set up so as to ensure a sanitary supply of water locally. Until the early 1970's in Ireland water was paid for by imposition of the local residential rate. In fact most business have continued to pay for all services by paying the commercial rate. From the early 1970's under the then FF government elected on a promise to get rid of the private rate LA's have had a very restricted level of local funding, in many cases forcing up the commercial rate.

    I was speaking to a friend at the weekend he would happily pay for water through IW as he has always been on a well system and septic tank, the annual running costs for both are about €1,000. So why in gods name do some people under your system get free sanitary services while others so not.

    The total income tax bill collected by the state is some 15 billion, (rough figure) the cost of providing "free water" and "free waste treatment" is 1.2 billion. It is something used by people and should therefore be paid. If you dont like it tough all the rubbish spouted on this thread does not get away from the fact that while water is free treated water and waste is not, never has been and will never be.


  • Options
    #500
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Slozer wrote: »
    In many cases we even pay triple taxation. Since if we buy a TV we are paying VAT + Duty.

    And what happens with tax income, serious what happens with all the money collected, who pays for the schools, the hospitals, the AGS, the OAP, the blind pension I can go on, i would rather a no tax system and let everyone else fend for themselves, I would do very well, but then I would be living in a very unequal society, so I for one believe that tax is fair and a system that looks after all in society most importantly the people who cant look after themselves. Paying for water is a good thing and I for one fully support it and will pay my fair share for a service. And will also complain very loudly if the service is not up to scratch.


  • Options
    #501
    Slozer
    Registered Users Posts: 200 ✭✭Slozer


    Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »
    It is a long accepted fact in contract law that in many cases there is no requirement for an exchange of documents for a contract to exist. If I offer you a service at a set price and you decide to use that service then you have accepted the contract its that simple.

    If anyone does not wish to enter into a contract with IW then its simple don't take the water and don't give them your waste.

    If an agreement is not made by both parties there is no contract. Saying that if you use the service you are under contact is a grey area in my opinion in this scenario. Since water is piped to most houses in this country and the users cannot do anything but turn on their taps or flush their loos. I feel that this charge is being imposed on the people against their will.

    Water is vital and the Irish government cannot deny water to its citizens. To say you are using the water is a form of contract is grey as you can turn around and say you don't want to but you have to to stay alive.

    I am sure as this progresses we will see court cases of people putting up arguments like this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #502
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Slozer wrote: »
    If an agreement is not made by both parties there is no contract. Saying that if you use the service you are under contact is a grey area in my opinion in this scenario. Since water is piped to most houses in this country and the users cannot do anything but turn on their taps or flush their loos. I feel that this charge is being imposed on the people against their will.

    Water is vital and the Irish government cannot deny water to its citizens. To say you are using the water is a form of contract is grey as you can turn around and say you don't want to but you have to to stay alive.

    I am sure as this progresses we will see court cases of people putting up arguments like this.

    Then don't turn the tap or flush the loo. Its that simple I don't see why 1.2 billion tax money should be spent to provide sanitary services to people who in most cases can fully afford to pay. I want free electricity and Gas and while we are at it free mobile service, the airways are free, electrons are free, gas is free, by your logic I should have all those utilities free. But its not free is it it is paid for from the central purse. The costs of clean water and waste is the same as running the police force. I would rater we free up central funds to lower the deficit, its simple and tough if people don't want to pay IW. I don't want to pay my eircom bill, a company set up with tax payers money.


  • Options
    #503
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Slozer wrote: »
    If an agreement is not made by both parties there is no contract. Saying that if you use the service you are under contact is a grey area in my opinion in this scenario.
    This is the Legal Discussion forum. If you make a statement contrary to hundreds of years of established law, you're going to need a source. I expect you to back up this statement or retract it before you post in this thread again
    Since water is piped to most houses in this country and the users cannot do anything but turn on their taps or flush their loos. I feel that this charge is being imposed on the people against their will.

    Water is vital and the Irish government cannot deny water to its citizens. To say you are using the water is a form of contract is grey as you can turn around and say you don't want to but you have to to stay alive.

    I am sure as this progresses we will see court cases of people putting up arguments like this.
    You are free to request disconnection from the service.


  • Options
    #504
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Slozer wrote: »
    Its not a tax, its a charge for a service imposed on the people against their will. Since it is not a tax, the people are under no obligation to pay the charge.
    Not correct.


  • Options
    #505
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Slozer wrote: »
    If an agreement is not made by both parties there is no contract. Saying that if you use the service you are under contact is a grey area in my opinion in this scenario. Since water is piped to most houses in this country and the users cannot do anything but turn on their taps or flush their loos. I feel that this charge is being imposed on the people against their will.

    Water is vital and the Irish government cannot deny water to its citizens. To say you are using the water is a form of contract is grey as you can turn around and say you don't want to but you have to to stay alive..
    Imagine McDonalds suddenly start charging 10c for ketchup, would you continue to take it without paying because no formal agreement was made. Would you be in the right? Ketchup is a type of food, food is necessary to live, should it be free?


  • Options
    #506
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,404 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Slozer wrote: »
    Its not a tax, its a charge for a service imposed on the people against their will. Since it is not a tax, the people are under no obligation to pay the charge.
    Is this from the Shoplifters Charter?
    Slozer wrote: »
    Not sure what you mean by this!
    You are happy to take the goods, but not pay the legally imposed charge.

    Would you go into a supermarket with you own container and take water from a water bottle and wander off, leaving the empty supermarket bottle behind? It much the same as you are proposing.


  • Options
    #507
    jimennis7048
    Registered Users Posts: 5 ✭jimennis7048


    Hi ,i hope you can help and answer my question . During a peaceful protest on the installing of water meters the garda are arresting people under section 12 of the water act 2007 my question ,is this an arrestable offence as the maximum imprisonment cannot exceed 5 years and can the garda arrest them take them to the station and then send a file to the DPP or has a warrent to be issued first by a judge?


    "12.— (1) A person who obstructs or interferes with—

    (a) the exercise by a water services authority or any other prescribed person of powers vested in it or him or her under, or by virtue of, this Act, or

    (b) the compliance by any person, including the owner or occupier of a premises, with the provisions of this Act or of any notice, direction or order issued under it,

    commits an offence."

    The penelties are on summary conviction a fine or 3 months imprisonment or on indictment a fine and not exceeding 5 years imprisonment


  • Options
    #508
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    5 years is an arrestable offence. You've quoted the penalty right there.


  • Options
    #509
    Slozer
    Registered Users Posts: 200 ✭✭Slozer


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    This is the Legal Discussion forum. If you make a statement contrary to hundreds of years of established law, you're going to need a source. I expect you to back up this statement or retract it before you post in this thread again

    You are free to request disconnection from the service.

    I worded that badly. If you use the service you are contracted to pay. But if you explicitly tell Irish water you do not want to be one of their customers how can they still charge you?

    Basically what I would be asking is if you don't want the service are you legally obliged to pay for it?

    My reference to the grey area should have been if you say you do not want the service can Irish water chase you for the money considering that they cannot cut supply?


  • Options
    #510
    Slozer
    Registered Users Posts: 200 ✭✭Slozer


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Not correct.

    Should have said - provided they say they don't want to be an Irish Water customer or refuse the service.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #511
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Slozer wrote: »
    Should have said - provided they say they don't want to be an Irish Water customer or refuse the service.

    By refuse the service do you mean cut themselves off from the mains and sewerage system? If so then I'm sure that'd be fine.

    EDIT: once they comply with regulations in regard to disposing of waste.


Advertisement