Irish Water Discussion {MERGE}

ligertigon

ligertigon wrote: »

lol, "there is no other side to this debate"
classic line, do you mind if i use it at a stand up some time:p

I've read your other posts in this thread, you don't need my help being a comedian.

Johnboy1951

Five Lamps wrote: »

All they are doing is updating the meter to a standard used by everyone. This is not duplication. The real duplication is that we have 26+ councils running their own water systems.

The meters already fitted are the 'standard' if you wish to go down that road ....... everyone else do not have meters!

As far as I am aware they are not 'upgrading' the meters, although this has yet to be finally determined I suppose, but adding their own meters.

Five Lamps

kneemos wrote: »

It would need to be readable remotely and capable of being restricted in case of non payment I would imagine.

I had a look in my meter. Can't see how the meter device could restrict the flow into a premises. To have a valve that closes would require an electrical source to power it and there is none. There is a plastic flow restrictor next to the meter but anybody could turn that on/off.

Also having a look at the specs of the metering system, the transmitter attached to the meter is unidirectional - there's no 2-way communication with it. So what it does is tell the reader on the street all the data it's recording every 8 seconds. The operator can't communicate with the meter and execute functionality such as close a valve.

I presume that to limit flow into a premises they will need to come out and insert some other device to restrict the flow. But it seems that they'll have to come to your house and lift the lid on the meter to do that.

Five Lamps

Five Lamps wrote: »

I had a look in my meter. Can't see how the meter device could restrict the flow into a premises. To have a valve that closes would require an electrical source to power it and there is none. There is a plastic flow restrictor next to the meter but anybody could turn that on/off.

Also having a look at the specs of the metering system, the transmitter attached to the meter is unidirectional - there's no 2-way communication with it. So what it does is tell the reader on the street all the data it's recording every 8 seconds. The operator can't communicate with the meter and execute functionality such as close a valve.

I presume that to limit flow into a premises they will need to come out and insert some other device to restrict the flow. But it seems that they'll have to come to your house and lift the lid on the meter to do that.

There are 2 stop cocks or valves. One the householder can adjust, the other he can't. This is the one they can alter to reduce the flow to the individual house.

Victor

Losty Dublin wrote: »

OT but on what basis have you got a water meter outside of the new billing system?

Many properties built over the last 20 years have meters fitted already. However, I suspect they are dependent on manual reading.

Johnboy1951

Victor wrote: »

Many properties built over the last 20 years have meters fitted already. However, I suspect they are dependent on manual reading.

Any (not IW installs) I have seen need manual reading.

ligertigon

Deleted User wrote: »

I've read your other posts in this thread, you don't need my help being a comedian.

keep an eye on post #62:) its got to be the funniest

Victor

ligertigon wrote: »

I believe they require access to your property to install meter? And in many cases you own road frontage (its on your folio map). Silence on your behalf, is taken as implying right of access by them. Hence the site notices that many put up.

You will no doubt be aware that the road is in the charge of the council and / or they have easement for the water pipe.

They could of course position the meter a few hundred meters down the road and you can pay for any leakage and repairs in between.

And repair 'your' road.

ligertigon

your probably right victor

ZENER

Now I understand the whole point of anal bleaching . . . how nice that the EU can see our government screw its citizens in to submission. I can only imagine that the PRO water charge people here are too young or too indoctrinated to realise that we have to pay taxation in excess of other countries for a resource that we already pay for through taxation. Other countries pay a council charge for refuse, sewage and water. Us ? We pay a household tax, NPPR, pay separately for refuse, are being gradually forced towards health insurance and are having our dental and health services eroded to pay back money to the banks and forced to pay PRSI, the USC is no longer a temporary charge and now we are asked, no, ordered to pay a water charge that is dwarfed by countries like Spain and Portugal where water charges are comparitivly minute given the amount of water they have, where duty and taxes on goods are way less than what we are expected to pay. The poor infrastructure is not the consumers fault, it's the fault of successive governments who we paid taxes to who failed to address the problems.

Anal bleaching should be available throughout the health service (but only for those with health insurance probably), that way Enda and Co won't be offended when we offer up our arses to be screwed by them over and over again. Not to mention the fact that IW will have what no other utility company will have access to, your PPS number which they can pass on to whom ever takes over from them when inevitably the water service is privatised for a tidy sum to whatever minister is sacked from office only to be appointed to some future quango that is invented to further screw us into submission - oh wait . . .

Now the councils, who decided that refuse collection was too expensive to perform, are taking back some of the contracts they gave away to the likes of Greyhound etc. and will be providing those services again from next year to householder at a charge. What does our tax actually pay for ? Who gets the 50 odd percent tax I pay on anything above what will give me a reasonable lifestyle or give me some pleasure from the wage I earn for the work I do ?

Cop on people !! When is enough enough ?!

Que ridicule by those on those oh so high horses . . .

Ken

Pro Hoc Vice

ZENER wrote: »

Now I understand the whole point of anal bleaching . . . how nice that the EU can see our government screw its citizens in to submission. I can only imagine that the PRO water charge people here are too young or too indoctrinated to realise that we have to pay taxation in excess of other countries for a resource that we already pay for through taxation. Other countries pay a council charge for refuse, sewage and water. Us ? We pay a household tax, NPPR, pay separately for refuse, are being gradually forced towards health insurance and are having our dental and health services eroded to pay back money to the banks and forced to pay PRSI, the USC is no longer a temporary charge and now we are asked, no, ordered to pay a water charge that is dwarfed by countries like Spain and Portugal where water charges are comparitivly minute given the amount of water they have, where duty and taxes on goods are way less than what we are expected to pay. The poor infrastructure is not the consumers fault, it's the fault of successive governments who we paid taxes to who failed to address the problems.

Anal bleaching should be available throughout the health service (but only for those with health insurance probably), that way Enda and Co won't be offended when we offer up our arses to be screwed by them over and over again. Not to mention the fact that IW will have what no other utility company will have access to, your PPS number which they can pass on to whom ever takes over from them when inevitably the water service is privatised for a tidy sum to whatever minister is sacked from office only to be appointed to some future quango that is invented to further screw us into submission - oh wait . . .

Now the councils, who decided that refuse collection was too expensive to perform, are taking back some of the contracts they gave away to the likes of Greyhound etc. and will be providing those services again from next year to householder at a charge. What does our tax actually pay for ? Who gets the 50 odd percent tax I pay on anything above what will give me a reasonable lifestyle or give me some pleasure from the wage I earn for the work I do ?

Cop on people !! When is enough enough ?!

Que ridicule by those on those oh so high horses . . .

Ken

The UK homes pay council tax in excess of £1000 a year there is also a charge to a separate water company for water which is made up of two charges a price for each litre of water in (either estimated or metered no allowances) plus a charge for each litre in to cover waste.

For example in Wales standing charge for both water and waste £112.96 per year cost per 1000 litre £3.03. In ireland no standing charge and a cost per 1000 litre if both water and waste €4.88. Add to that as said an average of council tax of in fact €1,500.00 per year.

Carawaystick

Ogham wrote: »

Irish Water is a state owned public utility company - a subsidiary of Ervia (new name for Bord Gais Eireann) which is a statutory body . It is not a private company .

Yes - Irish Water have to say they are a "Private Company Limited by Shares" - but those shares (2 of them) are owned by the Dept of Environment and Dept of Finance. It is not like Centrica (who now own Bord Gais Energy)

How is it a subidiary when the owners aren't Ervia?
How is a private company limited by shares, not a private company?

The planning board, the hse, the information commissioner, They'e not private companies, providing public goods/services.

Ogham wrote: »

When Bord Gais was originally set up it was set up in the same way as a "private company limited by shares". This is the same set up.

When a company is set up it is either private (shares not available to public) or public (PLC) with shares available to the public.
Maybe if it was called Bord Uiscce people would have accepted it more easily?

Where were all these protesters when BordGais Energy was sold to Centrica.?

Natural gas supply wasn't a monopoly a setup, nor is it now. People could easily use Calor/flo/er-gas lpg for gas cooking & heating, or use kerosene or gas-oil or turf or timber for cooking&heating, or even electricity.

There is no such freedom of choice for water services. Sure someone with a freehold and some ground could drill a well and implement a wwtp, but these are capital intensive and nowhere near as simple a choice as coking/heating choices.

Cooking and heating hasn't been free for the last 2 decades either..... which might have somethin to do with the auld givin out....

Victor

Carawaystick wrote: »

Natural gas supply wasn't a monopoly a setup, nor is it now. People could easily use Calor/flo/er-gas lpg for gas cooking & heating, or use kerosene or gas-oil or turf or timber for cooking&heating, or even electricity.

There is no such freedom of choice for water services. Sure someone with a freehold and some ground could drill a well and implement a wwtp, but these are capital intensive and nowhere near as simple a choice as coking/heating choices.

Cooking and heating hasn't been free for the last 2 decades either..... which might have somethin to do with the auld givin out....

But there is no monopoly on water - aside from wells, you can go to Dunnes and Tesco and buy as much as you like.

Esel

Victor wrote: »

But there is no monopoly on water - aside from wells, you can go to Dunnes and Tesco and buy as much as you like.

You won't be able to buy it there for €5 (?) per cubic metre though... :pac:

Essien

Is it correct to say that we're not actually paying for water, we're paying for the infrastructure required for the maintenance, treatment and provision of water and that the price is based on the volume we use? Which would mean that if people want 'free water' they're more than welcome to opt out, then go down to a river and have a drink for free.

rameire

Maybe they should say to people that if you do not want a water meter or do not want to "Contract" with Irish Water, they stop your supply at the footpath and give you one of these.

Essien

rameire wrote: »

Maybe they should say to people that if you do not want a water meter or do not want to "Contract" with Irish Water, they stop your supply at the footpath and give you one of these.

Even getting it from the river to the footpath for free would be generous. Pay for the facilities or drink from the river imo.

Victor

Essien wrote: »

Is it correct to say that we're not actually paying for water, we're paying for the infrastructure required for the maintenance, treatment and provision of water and that the price is based on the volume we use? Which would mean that if people want 'free water' they're more than welcome to opt out, then go down to a river and have a drink for free.

The infrastructure (initial construction + renewal) is a huge part of the cost. I don't know the exact breakdown though.

The future cost of infrastructure is somewhat linked to demand - if demand can be limited, less new infrastructure will be needed

EDIT: This link gives some insight into how councils spent money on water in 2013. http://www.environ.ie/en/LGFinance/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,32678,en.pdf

It indicates current (excluding capital) budgeted expenditure of €711,315,277 on water / sewage with an income of €248,762,542.

This dopcument: http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Water/WaterServices/WaterServicesInvestmentProgramme/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,22735,en.pdf suggests a planned expenditure of €1.8 billion in 2010-2012, i.e. €600 million per year.

€1.77 billion is required for the 2014-2016 capital programme. http://www.water.ie/news/proposed-capital-investme/Proposed-Capital-Investment-Plan-2014-2016.pdf

Johnboy1951

I wonder how differently those still on Group Water Schemes will be treated?

My reading of the paperwork received is that they are(will?) not customers of IW and thus will not have to pay IW.

Of course I expect the LA to levy a fee that will bring those people up to a similar contribution level ......... but I have not read very much about this.

That will be an interesting one to watch ...... some schemes might now be regretting they handed over to the LA .....

ligertigon

ZENER wrote: »

Now I understand the whole point of anal bleaching . . . how nice that the EU can see our government screw its citizens in to submission. I can only imagine that the PRO water charge people here are too young or too indoctrinated to realise that we have to pay taxation in excess of other countries for a resource that we already pay for through taxation. Other countries pay a council charge for refuse, sewage and water. Us ? We pay a household tax, NPPR, pay separately for refuse, are being gradually forced towards health insurance and are having our dental and health services eroded to pay back money to the banks and forced to pay PRSI, the USC is no longer a temporary charge and now we are asked, no, ordered to pay a water charge that is dwarfed by countries like Spain and Portugal where water charges are comparitivly minute given the amount of water they have, where duty and taxes on goods are way less than what we are expected to pay. The poor infrastructure is not the consumers fault, it's the fault of successive governments who we paid taxes to who failed to address the problems.

Anal bleaching should be available throughout the health service (but only for those with health insurance probably), that way Enda and Co won't be offended when we offer up our arses to be screwed by them over and over again. Not to mention the fact that IW will have what no other utility company will have access to, your PPS number which they can pass on to whom ever takes over from them when inevitably the water service is privatised for a tidy sum to whatever minister is sacked from office only to be appointed to some future quango that is invented to further screw us into submission - oh wait . . .

Now the councils, who decided that refuse collection was too expensive to perform, are taking back some of the contracts they gave away to the likes of Greyhound etc. and will be providing those services again from next year to householder at a charge. What does our tax actually pay for ? Who gets the 50 odd percent tax I pay on anything above what will give me a reasonable lifestyle or give me some pleasure from the wage I earn for the work I do ?

Cop on people !! When is enough enough ?!

Que ridicule by those on those oh so high horses . . .

Ken

Your wasting your time with the majority on here, they are either well under 40, or are part of the ever increasing part of government, that post in discussion forums to cause spin.
When you get a letter that says "dear householder", do not open it. Anyway, its illegal to open a letter that's not in your name!

Sully

ligertigon wrote: »

Your wasting your time with the majority on here, they are either well under 40, or are part of the ever increasing part of government, that post in discussion forums to cause spin.
When you get a letter that says "dear householder", do not open it. Anyway, its illegal to open a letter that's not in your name!

Considering the vast majority of people engaging on Boards in these discussions have been long term posters, that's a load of rubbish and you know it. It's a sad state of affairs when the anti-everything brigade fail in their debates and have to resort to conspiracy theories. Same was said on the Property Tax and the whole 'No Contract'. 94% compliance - must all be government supporters so!

Victor

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I wonder how differently those still on Group Water Schemes will be treated?

If it was in the charge of a council, in is now with Irish Water.

If it is still private between a group of neighbours, they will continue to pay. If the scheme gets some water from Irish Water, that is likely to be metered.

ligertigon wrote: »

When you get a letter that says "dear householder", do not open it. Anyway, its illegal to open a letter that's not in your name!

No. It is an offence to open post addressed to someone else (without their consent). That is not the situation here, as it is quite clearly addressed to the householder..

hullaballoo

ligertigon wrote: »

Your wasting your time with the majority on here, they are either well under 40, or are part of the ever increasing part of government, that post in discussion forums to cause spin.
When you get a letter that says "dear householder", do not open it. Anyway, its illegal to open a letter that's not in your name!

ligertigon, the majority of people here and anywhere else for that matter would prefer to keep our taxes and bills as low as possible. It's just that most people understand that these things are inevitable.

A certain amount of money needs to go into the exchequer to cover the expenses of running the State. You might not always agree with how those expenses have come about, I know I don't. But part of having the privilege of living in civilised society is the responsibility on participants (civilians/citizens) to contribute to the maintenance of that society.

Since the very earliest of civilisations, that has been the way of it. Whether you're part of a tribe with 150 members or a dictatorship with 1bn+ members, you have to contribute.

I don't think this is the only website where people understand these fundamental principles either, so I don't understand that part of your comment. If you believe the majority of people in the country are government/State apologists or yes-men, I don't think you've gotten that bit right either.

My own personal view is that we do not pay too much tax. We pay just about the average in tax when compared to other similar nations in terms of GDP/GNP and as many other economic comparators as you like. The problem, in my view, is with how successive governments have spent exchequer funds.

No one ever really gets into the nitty gritty of how exchequer funds are dispersed here. We get headline figures at best. There is only one TD I have ever witnessed doing any sort of in-depth analysis of the sums but he's an independent and, unfortunately, he's a lone voice of reason in this regard.

I'll be voting for him again next time around. That's the power we have over it. It's not writing NO CONSENT on an envelope.


Also, FYI, the offence is opening a letter that is not addressed to you - there's no need for your name to be on it. If a letter is sent to "the householder" and you are the householder, that letter is for you.

Johnboy1951

Victor wrote: »

If it was in the charge of a council, in is now with Irish Water.

If it is still private between a group of neighbours, they will continue to pay. If the scheme gets some water from Irish Water, that is likely to be metered.

As I understand it, householders on such schemes (which have not been taken over by LAs) have an allowance of some 225 cu. mtrs. per annum ...... not certain of the actual figure now. They are not customers of IW.

Yes such schemes are already metered.

That is a far cry from the allowance for IW customers.

It will be an interesting aside to see what happens there ....

ligertigon

hullaballoo wrote: »

ligertigon, the majority of people here and anywhere else for that matter would prefer to keep our taxes and bills as low as possible. It's just that most people understand that these things are inevitable.

A certain amount of money needs to go into the exchequer to cover the expenses of running the State. You might not always agree with how those expenses have come about, I know I don't. But part of having the privilege of living in civilised society is the responsibility on participants (civilians/citizens) to contribute to the maintenance of that society.

Since the very earliest of civilisations, that has been the way of it. Whether you're part of a tribe with 150 members or a dictatorship with 1bn+ members, you have to contribute.

I don't think this is the only website where people understand these fundamental principles either, so I don't understand that part of your comment. If you believe the majority of people in the country are government/State apologists or yes-men, I don't think you've gotten that bit right either.

My own personal view is that we do not pay too much tax. We pay just about the average in tax when compared to other similar nations in terms of GDP/GNP and as many other economic comparators as you like. The problem, in my view, is with how successive governments have spent exchequer funds.

No one ever really gets into the nitty gritty of how exchequer funds are dispersed here. We get headline figures at best. There is only one TD I have ever witnessed doing any sort of in-depth analysis of the sums but he's an independent and, unfortunately, he's a lone voice of reason in this regard.

I'll be voting for him again next time around. That's the power we have over it. It's not writing NO CONSENT on an envelope.


Also, FYI, the offence is opening a letter that is not addressed to you - there's no need for your name to be on it. If a letter is sent to "the householder" and you are the householder, that letter is for you.

Perhaps I am being naive, but the discussion here on this thread is hardly balanced, contributor/opinion wise.
The problem with tax in this country as you mentioned, is not the amount, its the unidentified pot it all goes into. for example, carbon tax increased this summer on fossil fuels, how much of this goes to environmental issues? car tax goes where? vrt goes where? Most taxes should have specific sources, and related destinations for spending.
I can tell you one thing for sure, the pensions for all the current and pending public service workers, is funded by such sources as an example. Not from the contributions over the years via superannuation. This is going to be a huge issue very soon.
So in esscence, when another tax arrives and is tarted up to look like something else, someone has to at least protest and send a message that the system needs overhaul and not just accept a shot at more low hanging fruit!
And if the attempt at protest seems futile and petty to many on here, people still have the right to protest for what they believe in.

Ironically, I shouldn't give a crap about all of this anyway as I have a well, and my pump just packed in today with a €260 repair bill..lol

Bepolite

ZENER wrote: »

Cop on people !! When is enough enough ?!

Ken

When the books balance.

Victor

ligertigon wrote: »

Perhaps I am being naive, but the discussion here on this thread is hardly balanced, contributor/opinion wise.

For me, those opposing water charges come across as paranoid, somewhat delusional and clutching at straws as opposed to any coherent argument. Joe Duffy winding people up has a lot to answer for. Some of the claims are exactly the same as the ones that tax-evading landlords and other ne'er-do-wells would make.

The problem with tax in this country as you mentioned, is not the amount, its the unidentified pot it all goes into.

The budget and out-turns are published every year and are available on the Department of Finance website.

for example, carbon tax increased this summer on fossil fuels, how much of this goes to environmental issues?

I understand all, but it isn't a matter I have studied.

car tax goes where?

The Local Government Fund.

vrt goes where?

The Central Fund.

Most taxes should have specific sources, and related destinations for spending.

Other factors aside, I'm not sure the Irish economy is big enough for this. It is much easier for, say, Germany or the USA to do this as tax income under various headings is likely to vary less than it does here. Regardless, they have 'big pots' also.

So in esscence, when another tax arrives and is tarted up to look like something else,

Not quite. This is a user charge. You pay for water, you get water. If you don't use Irish Water, you don't have to pay. Indeed, it complies with your standard in the last point (related charges and spending) very well. Importantly, while it can be seen as regressive (rich and poor will effectively pay the same), it is also useful for anti-avoidance / anti-evasion purposes.

someone has to at least protest and send a message that the system needs overhaul and not just accept a shot at more low hanging fruit!

But this is part of the overhaul. We had a system that had too many loopholes, misguided tax breaks, mis-allocated spending and free services. A broad, but not overly complicated revenue is much better than one that targets only certain activities, but that certain people can circumvent.

And if the attempt at protest seems futile and petty to many on here, people still have the right to protest for what they believe in.

Sure, but you also have to accept that people will counter your arguments if they are seen to be questionable. How about making sensible arguments?

Victor

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

As I understand it, householders on such schemes (which have not been taken over by LAs) have an allowance of some 225 cu. mtrs. per annum ...... not certain of the actual figure now. They are not customers of IW.

Yes such schemes are already metered.

That is a far cry from the allowance for IW customers.

It will be an interesting aside to see what happens there ....

While they may have a large allowance, they are paying for it elsewhere - there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Esel

Bepolite wrote: »

When the books balance.

Heretic! Burn him!

The apple-cart would be very upset if books did this, especially when the apple buy/sell spread is put under threat.

It might well be a good thing to have a balanced book in a small (non-national) enterprise, but when the 'markets' are involved, Peter and Paul become very, very interested. They talk in real-time, well before the news.

It is all about the difference between a lend and a loan. Knick-knack, paddy-whack and all that.

Just be very, very careful taking that bone away from 'your dog'.

Back OT: To quote Short Round: You gotta pay!

ligertigon

Victor wrote: »

For me, those opposing water charges come across as paranoid, somewhat delusional and clutching at straws as opposed to any coherent argument. Joe Duffy winding people up has a lot to answer for. Some of the claims are exactly the same as the ones that tax-evading landlords and other ne'er-do-wells would make.

The budget and out-turns are published every year and are available on the Department of Finance website.

I understand all, but it isn't a matter I have studied.

The Local Government Fund.

The Central Fund.

Other factors aside, I'm not sure the Irish economy is big enough for this. It is much easier for, say, Germany or the USA to do this as tax income under various headings is likely to vary less than it does here. Regardless, they have 'big pots' also.

Not quite. This is a user charge. You pay for water, you get water. If you don't use Irish Water, you don't have to pay. Indeed, it complies with your standard in the last point (related charges and spending) very well. Importantly, while it can be seen as regressive (rich and poor will effectively pay the same), it is also useful for anti-avoidance / anti-evasion purposes.

But this is part of the overhaul. We had a system that had too many loopholes, misguided tax breaks, mis-allocated spending and free services. A broad, but not overly complicated revenue is much better than one that targets only certain activities, but that certain people can circumvent.

Sure, but you also have to accept that people will counter your arguments if they are seen to be questionable. How about making sensible arguments?

I think you need to go to bed earlier dude 2:30am worrying about this stuff?, anyhow you are the one that chose the blue pill, because you have not woken up to the simple reality that we are being taxed unfairly, ie as you mentioned the "central fund" aka bad management.

I have no problem with tax, and I pay a hefty amount each year. My gripe is yet more NEW taxes yet no NEW services. And finally for the last time, we already pay for water, right now!
I'm off now to my cat, dog, well water and quiet life, and not spending anymore time consuming myself on this ****e! lol
have a nice day