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

DamagedTrax

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why is it disgusting that an investment company owns the company that provides water? I just don't understand the mindset at play here...

because a ltd company is legally bound to provide continuous profits for its shareholders at the cost of everything else.

and i cant understand the mindset of people that think that that is ok.

everything else forsaken to profit. as if the world isnt in enough of a mess thanks to corporate law and international trade treaty.

is that the kind of set up you want managing something we need to live?

this isnt about property, this isnt about non essential luxuries... its about the very thing that is needed for ANYTHING on this planet to live. and now its a commodity to be traded?

i will stand against this till i physically cant anymore and i suspect a lot more are beginning to think like me.

FREETV

Some people have more money than sense if they will pay Irish Water a cent for something they already pay for.
There is no logic in that.
Cut their wages in half in the Dail and stop the paying of bonuses across the board for a start.

FREETV

FREETV wrote: »

I have never voted before

Then YOU have NO voice. Your opinions count for NOTHING.

DamagedTrax

Deleted User wrote: »

Then YOU have NO voice. Your opinions count for NOTHING.

in fairness while i dont agree with not voting, having the right to vote also means having the right to abstain (just as sometimes politicians choose to abstain in governmental voting). its as much a statement as giving your vote is, so i would say his opinion is as valid as anybody elses.

FREETV

FREETV wrote: »

Some people have more money than sense if they will pay Irish Water a cent for something they already pay for.
There is no logic in that.
Cut their wages in half in the Dail and stop the paying of bonuses across the board for a start.

Says he who has never voted!

Iwasfrozen

DamagedTrax wrote: »

because a ltd company is legally bound to provide continuous profits for its shareholders at the cost of everything else.

and i cant understand the mindset of people that think that that is ok.

everything else forsaken to profit. as if the world isnt in enough of a mess thanks to corporate law and international trade treaty.

is that the kind of set up you want managing something we need to live?

this isnt about property, this isnt about non essential luxuries... its about the very thing that is needed for ANYTHING on this planet to live. and now its a commodity to be traded?

i will stand against this till i physically cant anymore and i suspect a lot more are beginning to think like me.

The company provides me water in exchange for money, since this trade is continuous and since the company always wants money it is in the companies interests to always provide me with water. What's the problem?

Should the system break or suffer excessive leaks the companies shareholders, fearful of losing profit will pressure the directors of the company to fix the faulty infrastructure.

DamagedTrax

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The company provides me water in exchange for money, since this trade is continuous and since the company always wants money it is in the companies interests to always provide me with water. What's the problem?

Should the system break or suffer excessive leaks the companies shareholders, fearful of losing profit will pressure the directors of the company to fix the faulty infrastructure.

or since there's no competition and since we need water to live, the company will run a shell of a service with little regard to public safety or social situations, as is the case in so many similiar situations (chile as an example).

_Kaiser_

Deleted User wrote: »

Says he who has never voted!

I've voted before, but I've come to realise that "democracy" in this country is a broken concept..

- FF & FG have proven just as bad as each other (in fact FG are worse as at least with FF you know what you're getting!)

- LAB, Greens, PDs and so on are all parties that betray their supposed ideals the minute they shack up with one of the above and are usually annihilated at the next GE anyway

- SF have some good individuals, but Gerry is a serious liability and regardless , you'll have a significant portion of the Irish people who wouldn't vote for them no matter what happened - kinda funny really as it conveniently forgets the history of some of the other parties I've mentioned, and these same people will no doubt be out celebrating their "republicanism" a little over a year from now :rolleyes:

- The far left are equally unelectable, mostly because they are one-issue parties with no idea how to run a country

- Ditto most of the Independents and "new" parties which are usually just FF/FG cast-offs "in disguise"

.. So tell me now again why voting for any of the lot we have to choose from is a good thing??

Iwasfrozen

DamagedTrax wrote: »

or since there's no competition and since we need water to live, the company will run a shell of a service with little regard to public safety or social situations, as is the case in so many similiar situations (chile as an example).

If the infrastructure falls into disrepair shareholders, fearful of losing profits will pressure the director of the company to fix the infrastructure to prevent leaks. Leaks cost the company money regardless of the absence of competition.

The way you're presenting your argument is disingenuous. Yes we need water to live, but that water doesn't need to come from IW. There are natural limits to the amount a private IW can charge for even an inelastic product like water before profits begin to fall.

DamagedTrax

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If the infrastructure falls into disrepair shareholders, fearful of losing profits will pressure the director of the company to fix the infrastructure to prevent leaks. Leaks cost the company money regardless of the absence of competition.

The way you're presenting your argument is disingenuous. Yes we need water to live, but that water doesn't need to come from IW.

nothing disingenuous at all about it. i never said IW will end life on earth should they somehow survive all this and control our water supply, my point is that a company clearly set up for future privatisation shouldnt have any business being involved with a resource so precious, that it is a building block of life itself.

and please let me know your thoughts on the chile situation. its been mentioned many times but no pro IW commentator has anything to say on the matter. and chile is only one example of many.

Iwasfrozen

DamagedTrax wrote: »

nothing disingenuous at all about it. i never said IW will end life on earth should they somehow survive all this and control our water supply, my point is that a company clearly set up for future privatisation shouldnt have any business being involved with a resource so precious, that it is a building block of life itself.

and please let me know your thoughts on the chile situation. its been mentioned many times but no pro IW commentator has anything to say on the matter. and chile is only one example of many.

I disagree, water is essential to life but water treatment and piping costs money, someone has to pay for that so why not delegate the administration to a private company. As I've said before it's not as if IW can charge 100 euro for a bottle of water there are natural limits within the market as to the amount a private company can charge for even an inelastic product like water before profits begin to fall.

I will not comment on the Chile situation because this is not Chile and to apply their situation to Ireland would be to assume privatisation would take place in the same form and it's far too early to do so.

DamagedTrax

im quite clear that im not arguing non payment long term.

a flat 100 per annum, payable weekly at post office (if your situation needs it), would be perfectly acceptable to me and a lot more people BUT only if IW is kept as a national asset.

privatisation needs to be binned and heads need to roll to get the councils up to standard. if they cant do it hire in new workers that can and cut the drift wood. there's a lot of skilled workers out of work in this country.. but i suppose nationalised job creation for the good of the country is looked on as being commie since cowboy Regan all but sold the planet to corporations in the 80s?

Larbre34

Crikey lads, where are ye going with the "who will pay?"

The 52% marginal tax rate on PAYE workers should give you a hint - ye are all already paying!

My household paid €46,000 in direct and indirect taxes and charges last year; pardon me for not feeling guilty about refusing to pay any more.

DamagedTrax

Larbre34 wrote: »

Crikey lads, where are ye going with the "who will pay?"

The 52% marginal tax rate on PAYE workers should give you a hint - ye are all already paying!

My household paid €46,000 in direct and indirect taxes and charges last year; pardon me for not feeling guilty about refusing to pay any more.

your household paid more tax than most people make in a year.. yet they want more.

FG manifesto: Pander to the wealthy, placate the middle classes with trinkets, ignore the rest of the scum.

Iwasfrozen

DamagedTrax wrote: »

im quite clear that im not arguing non payment long term.

a flat 100 per annum, payable weekly at post office (if your situation needs it), would be perfectly acceptable to me and a lot more people BUT only if IW is kept as a national asset.

privatisation needs to be binned and heads need to roll to get the councils up to standard. if they cant do it hire in new workers that can and cut the drift wood. there's a lot of skilled workers out of work in this country.. but i suppose nationalised job creation for the good of the country is looked on as being commie since cowboy Regan all but sold the planet to corporations in the 80s?

Per house or per person? If per house then it's not enough.

Nationalised job creation won't work because the government can't afford to pay them, the government is already in deficit. Private job creation is the only game in town.

DamagedTrax

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Per house or per person? If per house then it's not enough.

Nationalised job creation won't work because the government can't afford to pay them, the government is already in deficit. Private job creation is the only game in town.

per adult.

if a good model is brought forward that guarantees clean water for all in a timeframe and creates paid work for people, then only the craziest of crazies could argue 2 euro a week into the post office, or taken from their wage.

but it needs to be a model thats made bulletproof. one that benefits no-one but the citizens of the country and the country itself.

the drift wood is just cut, new people brought in. no need to pay extra wages.


i realise its very idealist but we're really at the bottom of the barrell now. the ideas being brought to fruition are made by greedy self serving sociopaths. we NEED idealism or they'll just keep going and going.

Iwasfrozen

DamagedTrax wrote: »

per adult.

if a good model is brought forward that guarantees clean water for all in a timeframe and creates paid work for people, then only the craziest of crazies could argue 2 euro a week into the post office, or taken from their wage.

but it needs to be a model thats made bulletproof. one that benefits no-one but the citizens of the country and the country itself.

the drift wood is just cut, new people brought in. no need to pay extra wages.


i realise its very idealist but we're really at the bottom of the barrell now. the ideas being brought to fruition are made by greedy slef serving sociopaths. we NEED idealism or they'll just keep going and going.

Sorry I read that wrong, 100 euro per adult per annum isn't enough.

There are 3,638,662 adults living in Ireland, charging them all 100 euro will raise 363,866,200 source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Age_structure, while it costs 1.2 billion euro to only manage infrastructure, excluding the tens of billions needed to upgrade it. source: http://www.water.ie/why-value-water/

If it was 400 euro per adult per annum we'd just about be breaking even but the infrastructure would continue to decay.

DamagedTrax

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Sorry I read that wrong, 100 euro per adult per annum isn't enough.

There are 3,638,662 adults living in Ireland, charging them all 100 euro will raise 363,866,200 source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Age_structure, while it costs 1.2 billion euro to only manage infrastructure, excluding the tens of billions needed to upgrade it. source: http://www.water.ie/why-value-water/

so add in what we currently pay thru taxation.

there's a lot of fat in this country that can be trimmed. the current goverment like to trim the skinny people to feed the fat. the recent budget proved that much.

also there's the little matter of the bailout money. this isnt a place for arguing the rights and wrongs of defaulting.. but it would certainly put a stop to all this BS and most likely a lot more of our financial woes..

maybe someone should point out to the IMF that we recently handed the very bondholders we werent allowed burn, a huge chunk of nama properties at knock down prices. maybe we should stop financing these people and start financing our own people?

RobertKK

Larbre34 wrote: »

Crikey lads, where are ye going with the "who will pay?"

The 52% marginal tax rate on PAYE workers should give you a hint - ye are all already paying!

My household paid €46,000 in direct and indirect taxes and charges last year; pardon me for not feeling guilty about refusing to pay any more.

Some people pay tax and have always paid for water.

Some people pay tax and have got water for free.

Irish Steve

Larbre34 wrote: »

Crikey lads, where are ye going with the "who will pay?"

The 52% marginal tax rate on PAYE workers should give you a hint - ye are all already paying!

My household paid €46,000 in direct and indirect taxes and charges last year; pardon me for not feeling guilty about refusing to pay any more.

I wish my family were in the position to be having to pay that much tax.

While the poster I have quoted has not done so as such, I also wish that people would get their facts straight.

We have been paying for water for years, just not directly. We will in future be paying an increasing percentage of the direct cost of water directly to what every organisation ends up being responsible for it.

The one advantage of meters is that it will for the first time make it possible to more accurately monitor leakage at a local level. There will for the first time be an incentive for people to repair leaking taps, or overflowing toilets, and other such issues that at present are in too many cases just ignored, and it will also enable a better leak management system, as local metering will provide better information of usage by area, which should make finding leaks on the distribution system easier to localise.

On the financial side, whatever percentage is paid direct to the water organisation will no longer need to be paid by central government out of other taxation streams.

The only increase in the total cost of water has come about as a result of the ineptitude of the politicians in the manner in which they have created the super quango that is at present IW.

IW should not have been set up with the people that it has, or with the structure that it has, and it most definitely does not justify any form of bonus structure at this stage of the development of the organisation.

Things could change, hopefully, they will, although I am not optimistic that the right answers will be found by the people that are at present in power.

We will be paying directly for water going forward, it HAS to be taken out of the sphere of inappropriate political influence, the problems we are seeing now with water are the result of 2 decades or more of political abuse, where visible vote winning schemes electoral bribes have been preferred to the proper funding and management of an essential part of the infrastructure of the country by politicians that were only interested in their own re election, rather than the wider interest of the community they were supposed to be serving.

A properly structured and funded IW is essential to the future success of Ireland as a country, as IW is also tasked with delivering acceptable quantities and quality of water to the many large business users that depend on the supply of water to trade.

RobertKK

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Sorry I read that wrong, 100 euro per adult per annum isn't enough.

There are 3,638,662 adults living in Ireland, charging them all 100 euro will raise 363,866,200 source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Age_structure, while it costs 1.2 billion euro to only manage infrastructure, excluding the tens of billions needed to upgrade it. source: http://www.water.ie/why-value-water/

If it was 400 euro per adult per annum we'd just about be breaking even but the infrastructure would continue to decay.

Not all adults will be paying Irish water for water.
Some have paid and continue to pay via private wells and water schemes, think it might be under 3 million adults.

Iwasfrozen

DamagedTrax wrote: »

so add in what we currently pay thru taxation.

The country is deficit, we need to make cuts to balance the budget, if not here then we have to cut something else.

Also we need a single body single body to oversea the upgrading of the water infrastructure, if not IW then who?

DamagedTrax wrote: »

there's a lot of fat in this country that can be trimmed. the current goverment like to trim the skinny people to feed the fat. the recent budget proved that much.

If it were possible to "cut fat" in sufficient amounts to render water charges unnecessary don't you think a party as savy as Fine Gael would have jumped on it? It would have saved them a hell of a lot of votes.

Iwasfrozen

RobertKK wrote: »

Not all adults will be paying Irish water for water.
Some have paid and continue to pay via private wells and water schemes, think it might be under 3 million adults.

Well I was replying to a poster who suggested instead of water charges we charge every adult a flat rate of 100 euro a year.

DamagedTrax

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The country is deficit, we need to make cuts to balance the budget, if not here then we have to cut something else.

Also we need a single body single body to oversea the upgrading of the water infrastructure, if not IW then who?


If it were possible to "cut fat" in sufficient amounts to render water charges unnecessary don't you think a party as savy as Fine Gael would have jumped on it? It would have saved them a hell of a lot of votes.

i edited this into last post.

also there's the little matter of the bailout money. this isnt a place for arguing the rights and wrongs of defaulting.. but it would certainly put a stop to all this BS and most likely a lot more of our financial woes..

also maybe someone should point out to the IMF that we recently handed the very bondholders we werent allowed burn, a huge chunk of nama properties at knock down prices. maybe we should stop financing these people and start financing our own people?

RobertKK

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well I was replying to a poster who suggested instead of water charges we charge every adult a flat rate of 100 euro a year.

Sorry, I started at the end of this thread and that suggestion is ridiculous, given what I posted earlier.

DamagedTrax

RobertKK wrote: »

Sorry, I started at the end of this thread and that suggestion is ridiculous, given what I posted earlier.

it might sound ridiculous but we obviously have different situations. whats ridiculous for me, isnt for you and vice versa.. and that kind of discussion should have been going on at the set up of irish water. instead they sorted their own pockets and now appear to be inept at running what they get paid to run.

unfortunately IW doesnt cater for any situations except their own financial one. thats my point, we need another way that works fairly for everyone. IW doesnt.

Irish Aris

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Sorry I read that wrong, 100 euro per adult per annum isn't enough.

There are 3,638,662 adults living in Ireland, charging them all 100 euro will raise 363,866,200 source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Age_structure, while it costs 1.2 billion euro to only manage infrastructure, excluding the tens of billions needed to upgrade it. source: http://www.water.ie/why-value-water/

If it was 400 euro per adult per annum we'd just about be breaking even but the infrastructure would continue to decay.

But surely water is a merit good?
Ok, let's pay, but to the extend of covering all costs?
That's what taxation is for. They can use the money they will collect from the people and also allocate part of the revenue income for the water infrastructure.

hju6

Quote:
Originally Posted by FREETV View Post
I have never voted before

Deleted User wrote: »

Then YOU have NO voice. Your opinions count for NOTHING.

If a right to vote exists, it follows that a right not to vote is perfectly acceptable.

Voting for the sake of it, for incompetent candidates, is worse than not voting.

And it could be said that by voting for incompetant candidates, you and other voters who vote the same clowns in time after time, are responsible for the state the country is in.

Creative Juices

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The country is deficit, we need to make cuts to balance the budget, if not here then we have to cut something else.

Trust me, there is a lot of ridiculous and wasteful public spending that could be cut. The government has failed to tackle that waste but seem intent on sustaining it at our expense.

I don't think people mind paying taxes once they know their taxes aren't being wasted.

Padraig Mor

DamagedTrax wrote: »

maybe someone should point out to the IMF that we recently handed the very bondholders we werent allowed burn, a huge chunk of nama properties at knock down prices. maybe we should stop financing these people and start financing our own people?

Believe it or not, the IMF wanted Ireland to burn bondholders (to the tune of 30 billion IIRC) but the EU, ECB and - get this - IRELAND said no. The IMF insisted, but in the end the Americans put a stop to it.