***ALL THINGS IRISH WATER/WATER CHARGE RELATED POST HERE***

Bang_Bang

papu wrote: »

Crystal ball or mutant psychic powers?
I'd love to know how you're so certain about this.

That's it eyes closed and fingers in the ears. Do you even keep up with what's actually going on in this country?

EazyD

papu wrote: »

Crystal ball or mutant psychic powers?
I'd love to know how you're so certain about this.

Just wow, you make a "factual" statement yet it's quite obvious you havnt a notion. Go onto IW website, scroll to bottom of page, what does it say?



*Irish Water. Private Company Limited by Shares. Registered Office Colvill House, 24-26 Talbot Street, Dublin 1. Registered in Ireland. Registered No. 530363

EazyD

Bang_Bang wrote: »

That's it eyes closed an fingers in the ears. Do you even keep up with what's actually going on in this country?

Na, some people just love to feign their expertise on such.

Cantona's Collars

papu wrote: »

Crystal ball or mutant psychic powers?
I'd love to know how you're so certain about this.

Matt Cooper asked this question the other day on The Last Word,all he got in reply was the typical political answer."We are currently a semi state body": She couldn't even answer the question properly,Currently - the devil is in the detail.

As soon as IW collect enough tax to stand on their own feet then they'll be privatised,anyone who thinks otherwise is seriously naive or deluded.

Little CuChulainn

Hijpo wrote: »

I edited my original reply to add your comment and reply to it instead of double posting, yes. I dont see what your issue is. Did i alter something from my original post ie: anything above your quote?

I couldn't tell you. In any case, it's redundant. Walking very slowly in the road would also come under the legislation as wilful obstruction.

gladrags wrote: »

So does this mean that the drivers of vehicles who block and restrict pedestrians,on a daily basis,should be fined?

And particularly the majority of vehicles with driver only?

Realistically, this is the real issue, particularly in high populated areas.

Vehicles "parked" on footpaths,huge noise and stress level, etc

Still not getting your point. Are you trying to imply that Irish Water workers are breaking this law? Because they have both lawful authority under the Irish Water Act and reasonable excuse (to access the water network).

gladrags

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I couldn't tell you. In any case, it's redundant. Walking very slowly in the road would also come under the legislation as wilful obstruction.



Still not getting your point. Are you trying to imply that Irish Water workers are breaking this law? Because they have both lawful authority under the Irish Water Act and reasonable excuse (to access the water network).

It's OK, I was replying to another poster,not sure what happened.

Have no delete option.

Fr. Ned

papu wrote: »

Both the Taoiseach and the Managing Director of Irish Water have said that for non payers the flow will be put down to ""Only the very basic amount for human consumption".

They'll hopefully find a way.

They can turn down the stopcock.
When they drive off, one just turns it back up.

Fr. Ned

zerks wrote: »

You have the same answer as them - you don't know,yet you seem a bit too happy that they would try to do it.

As I said,there is no way to reduce a single dwellings water supply.Are you familiar with water supply? I am and the meter cannot reduce the flow,the only other mechanism in the pot where the meter is located is a tap to turn the supply on or off.

Scare tactics from IW,they learned well from the LPT scare campaign.

Only this time they don't have the revenue boot boys to help them.
We need to constantly counter these scare tactics/lies.

Fr. Ned

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I think the real problem with the current protestors and the general "no contract" people is their understanding of the law.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0009.html#sec9

9.—Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, wilfully prevents or interrupts the free passage of any person or vehicle in any public place shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200

People protesting have a 'reasonable excuse' though.

Good luck with that one. LOL!

Banjo String

In Dubai at a works awards ceremony.... The locals are laughing their heads off, they reckon a water tax in Ireland would be like a sand tax here lol.

I hear then 'rebels' from Edenmore got discharged yesterday from court. Any one any update on that?

Fr. Ned

papu wrote: »

Crystal ball or mutant psychic powers?
I'd love to know how you're so certain about this.

The memorandum of understanding that Ireland has with the ECB refers to the selling of state assets to pay down debt.
Do you think that the water quango isn't a state asset?
It will be sold, maybe not the infrastructure, but the money gouging end of it will be sold. Most lightly to 'tax non dom' himself if the current pattern continues.

ThisRegard

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Only this time they don't have the revenue boot boys to help them.

Comments like this is telling of your attitude. Revenue are required to keep the state running, but you apparently have a problem with paying money to anyone for a service.

Little CuChulainn

Fr. Ned wrote: »

People protesting have a 'reasonable excuse' though.

Good luck with that one. LOL!

No they don't. The right to assembly is subject to public order laws.

Fr. Ned

ThisRegard wrote: »

Comments like this is telling of your attitude. Revenue are required to keep the state running, but you apparently have a problem with paying money to anyone for a service.

I pay for this service already.
End of story.

BTW, I get on very well with revenue, on first name terms with many I deal with there. My books are up to date, my taxes are paid (ahead of schedule), have a TCC for the next 12 months in my files.
If you can't take the point of my post without getting personal, maybe you shouldn't be posting here.

Fr. Ned

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

No they don't. The right to assembly is subject to public order laws.

I won't get into you on this, it's against the board rules to be offering legal advice I'm told.

ThisRegard

Fr. Ned wrote: »

I pay for this service already.
End of story.

But you don't, have been explained many times to you.

Fr. Ned

ThisRegard wrote: »

But you don't, have been explained many times to you.

But I do, has been explained many times to you.:rolleyes:
I win!!!

Daith

ThisRegard wrote: »

But you don't, have been explained many times to you.

He did pay for it as long as he paid tax. The charge is now going up and more transparent and for metered stuff yes more fairer now though.

Fr. Ned

Anyway, some of us have a business to run and can't spend all our day on a forum like this. Must be great to be semi-state/PS.
Best get back to it. Later.

ThisRegard

Daith wrote: »

He did pay for it as long as he paid tax. The charge is now going up and more transparent and for metered stuff yes more fairer now though.

Not necessarily, he just paid tax which is then put to use wherever. It can just as much be claimed that none of his tax paid for water as it's paying for social services, and our borrowings have been paying for water services.

Little CuChulainn

Fr. Ned wrote: »

I won't get into you on this, it's against the board rules to be offering legal advice I'm told.

Legal discussion is perfectly acceptable. Fill your boots.

ThisRegard

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Anyway, some of us have a business to run and can't spend all our day on a forum like this. Must be great to be semi-state/PS.
Best get back to it. Later.

Again with the insinuations because it doesn't suit you to believe we're not all government stooges.

Daith

ThisRegard wrote: »

Not necessarily, he just paid tax which is then put to use wherever. It can just as much be claimed that none of his tax paid for water as it's paying for social services, and our borrowings have been paying for water services.

Except that's wrong.

“…at the moment Irish taxpayers are paying about 1..2 billion euros for the cost of water, water is not free at the moment…”

Simon Coveney

Claiming the Irish tax payer has never paid for water is the same as the "no contact, no consent" crowd. As I said it's more transparent now though.

ThisRegard

Daith wrote: »

Claiming the Irish tax payer has never paid for water is the same as the "no contact, no consent" crowd. As I said it's more transparent now though.

I never said they never paid ever. I'm saying a portion of your tax is not specifically designated for separate outgoings.

The Irish tax payer is not currently paying for all the services we use, there's a shortfall and we have to borrow to pay.

The Irish tax payers pay to service those loans and debts we have as a result, as well as what we can for the day to day running of the stage.

seamus

General musing for those in the "paying for it twice" camp:

I presume you're equally protesting so that all of those people who don't use the public mains or sewage systems can claim back a rebate on all of the income tax they've paid since 1977? After all, if water is paid for as you would describe, then surely those people are entitled to deduct the cost of water from their tax bill?

Ormus

So let me get this straight and then someone tell me where I'm going wrong:

The government came out and said they were going to start metering the water consumption of houses etc, so that we all pay for whatever water we use. Free water is to be a thing of the past, was the message, or at least that seems to be how most people interpreted it.

Then everybody seemed to be complaining about having to pay for water. It seemed to take ages before anyone noticed that water has always costs money, ergo the cost up to now had been paid by the State, through our taxes.

Personally I was delighted that the cost of water was to be shifted from general taxation to pay as you go. I'm not a farmer and I spend about 3 minutes in the shower, so was looking forward to having more money in my pocket.

Then I heard that there was to be no reduction in tax whatsoever. That meant to me that we would be paying twice.

Now people on Boards have pointed out that the annual cost of water is somewhere in the region of €1.2billion, whereas IW will only be raising approx €500,000. So it follows that it wasn't simply a case of taking all water costs out of the tax bill. But you would still have hoped the tax bill would be reduced by the 0.5m or whatever.

Then it was pointed out that this country is operating at a deficit, so the 0.5m must be going towards reducing this deficit.

If this is true, my question is, why did the government not say this in the first place? Why not just come out and say listen guys, we need to reduce the deficit, so we're gonna meter all water usage but taxes will not be reduced accordingly, as we need to reduce the deficit?

Why have they effectively lied to us by framing this as an introduction of water charges, when anyone with half a brain knows we already pay for water through our taxes?

Everyone seems to be confused now. Some people are still angry that water is no longer gonna be free. Others have moved on and are angry that we are paying for it twice. And still others are angry at the dishonesty of the government in all of this.

If I'm way off on any of this, sorry.

Idbatterim

what do the anti water chargers have to say on the below from the economics forum? Of course we would all prefer if they didn't have to raise taxes or cut spending. But they can f**k right off with any income tax increases, let everyone including the pensioners who have taken the least of a hit, according to a report out today, "share the pain"... because it certainly hasn't been dished out in equal doses!

Metered charges is the best way because it discourages wasting water and promotes water conservation. This will help control demand which will limit the cost of providing water over the long term compared to the current situation. Demand for water should decrease with people being more sensible with their use of it, repairing leaks and harvesting rainwater for non-potable uses which means less treatment and storage capacity required, less chemicals needed for treatment and less energy costs for pumping it around the network.

Non-metered charges would just see the cost of providing water continue to spiral because people want to get their moneys worth and so would be less concerned about reducing usage.

+1

I also believe that UÉ is the correct way to deal with the provision of water/sewerage services. It's clear that the previous system of allocating nebulous funds to the local authorities and having no clear oversight into how those funds were spent was shambolic and resulted in an antiquated and dilapidated infrastructure. We now, hopefully, have an accountable body who will receive funds and directly apply those funds to the provision of the services for which they were established.

fxotoole

Ormus wrote: »

So let me get this straight and then someone tell me where I'm going wrong:

The government came out and said they were going to start metering the water consumption of houses etc, so that we all pay for whatever water we use. Free water is to be a thing of the past, was the message, or at least that seems to be how most people interpreted it.

Then everybody seemed to be complaining about having to pay for water. It seemed to take ages before anyone noticed that water has always costs money, ergo the cost up to now had been paid by the State, through our taxes.

Personally I was delighted that the cost of water was to be shifted from general taxation to pay as you go. I'm not a farmer and I spend about 3 minutes in the shower, so was looking forward to having more money in my pocket.

Then I heard that there was to be no reduction in tax whatsoever. That meant to me that we would be paying twice.

Now people on Boards have pointed out that the annual cost of water is somewhere in the region of €1.2billion, whereas IW will only be raising approx €500,000. So it follows that it wasn't simply a case of taking all water costs out of the tax bill. But you would still have hoped the tax bill would be reduced by the 0.5m or whatever.

Then it was pointed out that this country is operating at a deficit, so the 0.5m must be going towards reducing this deficit.

If this is true, my question is, why did the government not say this in the first place? Why not just come out and say listen guys, we need to reduce the deficit, so we're gonna meter all water usage but taxes will not be reduced accordingly, as we need to reduce the deficit?

Why have they effectively lied to us by framing this as an introduction of water charges, when anyone with half a brain knows we already pay for water through our taxes?

Everyone seems to be confused now. Some people are still angry that water is no longer gonna be free. Others have moved on and are angry that we are paying for it twice. And still others are angry at the dishonesty of the government in all of this.

If I'm way off on any of this, sorry.

Apology accepted.

Phoebas

Ormus wrote: »

Then I heard that there was to be no reduction in tax whatsoever.

There has been a massive reduction in tax during the economic collapse.

no money honey

Of course the guards are all over this rather than clean up the cesspit that is Dublin City. They just get the easy targets.