Irish Water Discussion {MERGE}

Johnboy1951

Phoebas wrote: »

During the financial collapse there has been a massive reduction in general taxation - many many billions of Euros. This pushed the ratio of water funding away from taxation and towards borrowings.

The introduction of charges will mainly effect the proportion that comes from borrowings, but we might also see some taxation decreases in the budget.

I believe you mean in tax revenue/receipts ...... I was referring to tax rates.

I am not expecting any reduction in tax rates based on balancing the direct tax on water, in the upcoming budget ..... but maybe they will surprise me

Victor

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

But would that not imply there should be a reduction in general taxation to balance the direct water charge? ..... cause I haven't heard of such a reduction ... or is there a quantifiable reduction in government borrowings equal to the collected water charges?

Water is only a small part of government expenditure (1-2%). Charging for water means a reduction in the amount of money we need to borrow for the day to day running of the country.

For the first 9 months of the year, it cost €42,088,944,000 to run the country, but we only had an income of €36,127,956,000, a deficit of €5,960,987,000.

Victor

Victor wrote: »

For the first 9 months of the year, it cost €42,088,944,000 to run the country, but we only had an income of €36,127,956,000, a deficit of €5,960,987,000.

That is what people need to focus on. We HAVE to reduce this borrowing. Asking EVERYONE to pay their own way is only fair.

seamus

I'm curious of the situation with landlords and tenants at present.

If neither the landlord nor the tenant fill out the form, IW say that the landlord is liable for the costs, however this can't be the case. The landlord is not the consumer of the water, the tenant is. So IW have to pursue the tenant. Right?

Surely this is a well-trodden path with other utilities. Can anyone shed any light on this?

Losty Dublin

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=868731076472644&id=246143775398047

More social media output of "peaceful protests" and supposed heavy handed policing, this time courtesy of Eirigi. Worth watching alone for a peaceful protestor aggressively calling Gardaí "free state *****"

Losty Dublin

Losty Dublin wrote: »

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=868731076472644&id=246143775398047

More social media output of "peaceful protests" and supposed heavy handed policing, this time courtesy of Eirigi. Worth watching alone for a peaceful protestor aggressively calling Gardaí "free state *****"

How many Garda hours are wasted on this type of sh1te?

byrneg28

Losty Dublin wrote: »

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=868731076472644&id=246143775398047

More social media output of "peaceful protests" and supposed heavy handed policing, this time courtesy of Eirigi. Worth watching alone for a peaceful protestor aggressively calling Gardaí "free state *****"

Eirigi are the most ignorant ''political party'' in the world, I went to school with a guy who know is a part of Eirigi and used to write ''**** the brits'' on his foundation Irish papers

Losty Dublin

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How many Garda hours are wasted on this type of sh1te?

There's from 10-20 Gardai a day in attendance at the work sites. They need to come from somewhere so it's either 10-20 less Gards on patrol for normal duties or they may be called up from special duties elsewhere or else it's made up as overtime for Gards. It's costing tens of thousands a week either way.

On Liveline now. The protesters are not coming off too good!

Victor

byrneg28 wrote: »

I went to school with a guy who ... used to write ''**** the brits'' on his foundation Irish papers

As Gaeilge?

seamus wrote: »

If neither the landlord nor the tenant fill out the form, IW say that the landlord is liable for the costs, however this can't be the case. The landlord is not the consumer of the water, the tenant is. So IW have to pursue the tenant. Right?

If there is nobody registered, the landlord is deemed to be the occupier.

Otherwise, landlords would be inventing tenants.

Paulw

All the landlord has to do is fill in the form, putting the name of the tenant, and address on the form, and marking that the name of the person to appear on the bill is a tenant.

The PPS number is only required for the water allowance. If the tenant doesn't wish to provide their PPS for this, then they get no allowance, and pay for the full usage amount.

rameire

Ive got a feeling that the Water Meter installers are going to contract in more workers for Saturday, and they are going to have their best day yet, as all the protesters will be in Dublin City.

mrsbyrne

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That is what people need to focus on. We HAVE to reduce this borrowing. Asking EVERYONE to pay their own way is only fair.

This is what people don't understand.

Losty Dublin

Deleted User wrote: »

On Liveline now. The protesters are not coming off too good!

For those who missed it today.

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/liveline/podcasts/

Carawaystick

Paulw wrote: »

All the landlord has to do is fill in the form, putting the name of the tenant, and address on the form, and marking that the name of the person to appear on the bill is a tenant.

Has the tenant given their data to the landlord for that reason? Have they given informed consent for the data to be shared in this way?

Victor

Carawaystick wrote: »

Has the tenant given their data to the landlord for that reason? Have they given informed consent for the data to be shared in this way?

I'm not sure if it applies. A person's name is part of the public record, so not protected by data protection legislation. Name + address might be another matter.

In any case, IW could probably obtain the same data from the PRTB.

Johnboy1951

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

What is the situation for those people who received no correspondence from IW?

Are they expected to take the initiative and contact IW or wait or .... ?

To answer my own question ....... I heard an ad this morning on radio advising those who have not received a letter with PIN etc that they should contact IW by telephone .... number given in ad.

listermint

Can a landlord issue such a dictum as below. Legally speaking is this threading on deep water / legally grey or is it factual ?

' As with other utility accounts, if these charges are found to be unpaid, the costs may be deducted from the tenant’s security deposit. Added to that, failure to pay these water charges will be noted on a tenant’s tenancy history for future reference. Domestic water charges are completely separate to rent payments and your rent must continue to be paid in full as normal'

FreudianSlippers

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

But would that not imply there should be a reduction in general taxation to balance the direct water charge? ..... cause I haven't heard of such a reduction ... or is there a quantifiable reduction in government borrowings equal to the collected water charges?

I am rather confused about this issue also, as is apparent

Firstly, we believe there will be a reduction in general taxation (in some form) in the budget next week.

Secondly, even if there wasn't, it doesn't necessarily follow that reduction in spending on water would result in surplus money; think of the following example:

You make €500 a week - €200 goes to rent, €150 goes to a car payment and insurance, €100 goes to electricity and you spend €50 on groceries. You're now out of money but you still need to pay for water at €7 a week.

You have 2 choices: 1) Spend a bit less on one of the other areas; 2) Borrow money (i.e. credit card) to pay the extra €7.

Now, if someone said you no longer have to pay for water, you still don't have surplus cash, you're simply either: 1) able to reallocate that money to somewhere else you need it, or; 2) borrowing less.

listermint wrote: »

Can a landlord issue such a dictum as below. Legally speaking is this threading on deep water / legally grey or is it factual ?

' As with other utility accounts, if these charges are found to be unpaid, the costs may be deducted from the tenant’s security deposit. Added to that, failure to pay these water charges will be noted on a tenant’s tenancy history for future reference. Domestic water charges are completely separate to rent payments and your rent must continue to be paid in full as normal'

I was under the impression that the landlord wouldn't be financially liable for the tenant failing to pay, but if they were, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to make such a threat.

listermint

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Firstly, we believe there will be a reduction in general taxation (in some form) in the budget next week.

Secondly, even if there wasn't, it doesn't necessarily follow that reduction in spending on water would result in surplus money; think of the following example:

You make €500 a week - €200 goes to rent, €150 goes to a car payment and insurance, €100 goes to electricity and you spend €50 on groceries. You're now out of money but you still need to pay for water at €7 a week.

You have 2 choices: 1) Spend a bit less on one of the other areas; 2) Borrow money (i.e. credit card) to pay the extra €7.

Now, if someone said you no longer have to pay for water, you still don't have surplus cash, you're simply either: 1) able to reallocate that money to somewhere else you need it, or; 2) borrowing less.



I was under the impression that the landlord wouldn't be financially liable for the tenant failing to pay, but if they were, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to make such a threat.

This is the part that i dont think is clear, which is why such a threat appears to be toothless?

Little CuChulainn

If there isn't a reduction in taxation next week, there will likely be one next year. I do expect a small reduction next week though. Even 1% of the USC would be nice. But even if there isn't, the water charges will still free up local councils budgets a bit and give them more to work with so you should hopefully notice an improvement on local stuff.

listermint

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Firstly, we believe there will be a reduction in general taxation (in some form) in the budget next week.

Secondly, even if there wasn't, it doesn't necessarily follow that reduction in spending on water would result in surplus money; think of the following example:

You make €500 a week - €200 goes to rent, €150 goes to a car payment and insurance, €100 goes to electricity and you spend €50 on groceries. You're now out of money but you still need to pay for water at €7 a week.

You have 2 choices: 1) Spend a bit less on one of the other areas; 2) Borrow money (i.e. credit card) to pay the extra €7.

Now, if someone said you no longer have to pay for water, you still don't have surplus cash, you're simply either: 1) able to reallocate that money to somewhere else you need it, or; 2) borrowing less.

.

Your options are quite simplistic to be brutally honest. Growth is what will get you out of a recession not taxation. That has been proven time and time again. You will not achieve growth in the economy by taking money out of peoples pockets.

I am sure you can agree that things were just starting to pick up. Look around you in the citys during the week people are spending money and going out. This drives the economy this drives employment. Another hap hazard money grab back into the same pockets that were just about feeling slightly okay about things is not the way to achieve this.

And please dont point to the budget next week as some shining light. We have no idea what is coming in it. Most people are requesting USC to be tackled but from all previous discussions on that it appears to be a non runner.

So again enda is trying to buy votes by reducing the top rate of tax , by what ? for what end? This water charge hits everyone and thus hits the actual economy. It is a fallacy to say that they charges are there to reduce the debt burden. The debt burden will only be reduced by getting our unemployment down from 11.9 % or whatever the current rate stands at today.

listermint

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

If there isn't a reduction in taxation next week, there will likely be one next year. I do expect a small reduction next week though. Even 1% of the USC would be nice. But even if there isn't, the water charges will still free up local councils budgets a bit and give them more to work with so you should hopefully notice an improvement on local stuff.

I do not see this occuring, the sole reason is past record. And visibility. What i mean by this is take a look around you. In my locality the grass verge cutting was non existent for pretty much most of the year. If not split between 3-6 months rather than every 2-3 for example. They were hoarding.

And right now if you go out I am seeing visible signs of SDCC splurging on works, paths, roads signage. They are literally pouring money left right and centre, which i am sure is for fear of their budget being altered next year due to savings.

That to me signals bad planning and bad management, if they cannot balance works and a budget throughout the entire fiscal year with some obvious overflow for such things as road salting for weather conditions.

This is the norm as far as i can see for most local authoritys, but that does not mean it is right. Drip feeding required works throughout the entire year ? It makes no sense.

Graham

listermint wrote: »

Can a landlord issue such a dictum as below. Legally speaking is this threading on deep water / legally grey or is it factual ?

' As with other utility accounts, if these charges are found to be unpaid, the costs may be deducted from the tenant’s security deposit. Added to that, failure to pay these water charges will be noted on a tenant’s tenancy history for future reference. Domestic water charges are completely separate to rent payments and your rent must continue to be paid in full as normal'

According to citizens information:

Deposits
As a landlord, you may withhold a deposit (or part of a deposit) only if:
The tenant has not given you proper notice when leaving
You have been left with outstanding bills (for electricity, gas etc.) or rent
The tenant has caused damage beyond normal wear and tear

Source: http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en...ligations.html

Little CuChulainn

listermint wrote: »

I do not see this occuring, the sole reason is past record. And visibility. What i mean by this is take a look around you. In my locality the grass verge cutting was non existent for pretty much most of the year. If not split between 3-6 months rather than every 2-3 for example. They were hoarding.

And right now if you go out I am seeing visible signs of SDCC splurging on works, paths, roads signage. They are literally pouring money left right and centre, which i am sure is for fear of their budget being altered next year due to savings.

That to me signals bad planning and bad management, if they cannot balance works and a budget throughout the entire fiscal year with some obvious overflow for such things as road salting for weather conditions.

This is the norm as far as i can see for most local authoritys, but that does not mean it is right. Drip feeding required works throughout the entire year ? It makes no sense.

Yeah that is a problem amongst a lot of government bodies. You also have to realise that "protest votes" in local elections have made for some pretty useless and fractured local representation which causes issues when it comes to funding allocation.

FreudianSlippers

listermint wrote: »

Your options are quite simplistic to be brutally honest.

I was purposely providing a "simplistic" example. But prey tell, what are our options wise one?

Paulw

Carawaystick wrote: »

Has the tenant given their data to the landlord for that reason? Have they given informed consent for the data to be shared in this way?

All you need fill in is the name, and tick the box saying it's a tenant. The address is already on the document.

I doubt that the information requires consent to be used that way.

listermint

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I was purposely providing a "simplistic" example. But prey tell, what are our options wise one?

To be quite Frank, I think the National Pension reserve fund should have been used for either of the two scenarios.

A) actually fix the system and perform some form of lower fixed charge, with a transparent setup of Irish Water with a valid CEO with a clean track record. Not install meters and not dish out our national pension reserve fund to contractors with labour from outside the country, Hence keeping much of the funds inside this economy.


Use the national pension reserve fund to implement appropriate Broadband structure for an economy that is reliant on 'digital knowledge'

Victor

listermint wrote: »

Can a landlord issue such a dictum as below. Legally speaking is this threading on deep water / legally grey or is it factual ?

' As with other utility accounts, if these charges are found to be unpaid, the costs may be deducted from the tenant’s security deposit. Added to that, failure to pay these water charges will be noted on a tenant’s tenancy history for future reference. Domestic water charges are completely separate to rent payments and your rent must continue to be paid in full as normal'

Most leases state that you are responsible to the landlord for paying utilities.

Landlords don't want a bad payment history attached to their property.

listermint

Victor wrote: »

Most leases state that you are responsible to the landlord for paying utilities.

Landlords don't want a bad payment history attached to their property.

So legally speaking no one really has all the details then?


If for example you own your own home you are entitled to not pay and take this matter to court for example. But in a tenancy agreement you will be strong armed by the landlord to pay thus being pressured by multiple entities.

FYI im not suggesting the landlord pays anything, (i dont think anyone would suggest that)