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

DamagedTrax

Padraig Mor wrote: »

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.

never knew that. so who were the amercians involved?

Padraig Mor

DamagedTrax wrote: »

never knew that. so who were the amercians involved?

Timothy Geithner, then head of.... eh.... something in the financial side of the US government.

Why? Because, despite popular opinion, British and American banks were the main bondholders bailed out (not French and German).

Iwasfrozen

Irish Aris wrote: »

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.

The government is in deficit, one of the reasons for IW is to remove the burden of paying for water from revenue.

Also general taxation won't encourage water conservation. While meters will.

DamagedTrax

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Timothy Geithner, then head of.... eh.... something in the financial side of the US government.

Why? Because, despite popular opinion, British and American banks were the main bondholders bailed out (not French and German).

had to be geithner really.

Iwasfrozen

Creative Juices wrote: »

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.

Why should I trust you? Are you qualified to make statements like that? Do you have access to revenue figures?

If it were possible to cut waste a politically savy party like FG would be all over it like a rash. The truth is the majority of waste was cut during the first two austerity budgets. People don't like to hear that though.

Irish Steve

The total cost of water treatment and distribution is not going to be paid purely by domestic users, there is a massive charge already being made to commercial business users and that revenue stream is not suddenly about to dry up or go away, and will be a significant percentage of the funding needed by IW.

There's no argument that the funding model needs to be changed, but that change does not mean that the domestic customer has to pay for the total cost of supply.

As a starting point, €2 per week per adult is probably not unreasonable, and not far off the sorts of figures that are already being suggested.

That said, the domestic customer needs to pay more of the cost of that supply, and directly, to the organisation that is responsible for the supply, as due to political ineptitude, the idea that water was free has abounded. It never was, and the biggest hurdle right now is to overcome the perception that so many have about free water.

DamagedTrax

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The government is in deficit, one of the reasons for IW is to remove the burden of paying for water from revenue.

Also general taxation won't encourage water conservation. While meters will.

well then they need to stop all this IW BS and look at the real reason they're in deficit. its not because of me or you.

and the country going broke is a better alternative to privatisation of resources. at least then we could start again and try getting it right.

Iwasfrozen

DamagedTrax wrote: »

well then they need to stop all this IW BS and look at the real reason they're in deficit. its not because of me or you.

and the country going broke is a better alternative to privatisation of resources. at least then we could start again and try getting it right.

Not when the infrastructure is decaying and needs capital investment the government can't provide.

This discussion is moot anyway, IW is here to stay.

Irish Aris

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The government is in deficit, one of the reasons for IW is to remove the burden of paying for water from revenue.

Also general taxation won't encourage water conservation. While meters will.

OK, I get your point.
I still think, though, that the general taxation should cover for these services up to a certain point.
Citizens can contribute to that, but to ask from your people to cover all costs, to me shows a country/government that doesn't really care about them.

DamagedTrax

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not when the infrastructure is decaying and needs capital investment the government can't provide.

so we start applying socialist ideas that were previously scoffed at.

we double the SW payment to people prepared to work hard at rebuilding infrastructure instead of offering an extra few quid for an internship that goes nowhere.

thats just one idea that will generate income to spend in the economy and solve our deacying infrastructure problem.

lets not pretend we're the only country with debt. every country is in debt that will never be paid back. why should certain debts be paid back and not others? is it because they can conveniently be put on the citzen while others cannot?

DamagedTrax

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This discussion is moot anyway, IW is here to stay.

well one county council says they dont want it for now. what if more follow. IW is no more here to stay than the current cabinet.

Iwasfrozen

Irish Aris wrote: »

OK, I get your point.
I still think, though, that the general taxation should cover for these services up to a certain point.
Citizens can contribute to that, but to ask from your people to cover all costs, to me shows a country/government that doesn't really care about them.

It's not a matter of caring, we have to make the book balance. Caring can come later.

DamagedTrax wrote: »

so we start applying socialist ideas that were previously scoffed at.

we double the SW payment to people prepared to work hard at rebuilding infrastructure instead of offering and extra few quid for an internship that goes nowhere.

I'm sorry I don't follow?

lets not pretend we're the only country with debt. every country is in debt that will never be paid back. why should certain debts be paid back and not others? is it because they can conveniently be put on the citzen while others cannot?

There's a difference between closing the deficit and paying off the debt, first we have to close the deficit. We can worry about our debt after.

Creative Juices

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why should I trust you? Are you qualified to make statements like that? Do you have access to revenue figures?

If it were possible to cut waste a politically savy party like FG would be all over it like a rash. The truth is the majority of waste was cut during the first two austerity budgets. People don't like to hear that though.

The truth is?

Yes I do have visibility on public spending in one local authority and previously in a government department. And yes I am aware about those austerity budgets but there is still incredible waste within the system. Budgets get spent whether the spending is beneficial or not. The abuse of expenses is widespread across the whole system. It is certainly harder to abuse the system but the culture is there and Irish people are clever.

As I said, 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.

DamagedTrax

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's not a matter of caring, we have to make the book balance. Caring can come later.


I'm sorry I don't follow?

the books never balance, the 2nd biggest economy in the world is in a debt freefall.

we need the infrastructure repaired. why do we contract out this job instead of training people to do it? the materials alone would cost a fortune, why do we need the extra cost of so many contractors when we could set up proper state agencies to provide the work force at less than the contractors cost? we are the government hading the financial benefits to someone else? i reckon it's because it's easy and they dont want the hassle. sure why would they bother, they're probably in the best paid politician in the world. they just sit back, strip our country and then claim we needed the butt fcuking they just gave us.

we have 400 odd thousand out of work. ill bet at least half of them would jump at the chance of a new start.

again, these are very idealist ideas and im aware its not quite that simple but this current government is fracturing society more than any previous government has and that includes the previous FF government, they may have been the cause but kenny's lot are the engineers, there's no doubt about that.

we need a new way of doing things and we need it asap.

Banjo String

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The government is in deficit, one of the reasons for IW is to remove the burden of paying for water from revenue.

Also general taxation won't encourage water conservation. While meters will.

There aren't many countries in the world that aren't operating at deficit.

We're far from unique.

Iwasfrozen

DamagedTrax wrote: »

we need the infrastructure repaired. why do we contract out this job instead of training people to do it? the materials alone would cost a fortune, why do we need the extra cost of so many contractors when we could set up proper state agencies to provide the work force at less than the contractors cost? we are the government hading the financial benefits to someone else? i reckon it's because it's easy and they dont want the hassle. sure why would they bother, they're probably in the best paid politician in the world. they just sit back, strip our country and then claim we needed the butt fcuking they just gave us.

we have 400 odd thousand out of work. ill bet at least half of them would jump at the chance of a new start.

again, these are very idealist ideas and im aware its not quite that simple but this current government is fracturing society more than any previous government has and that includes the previous FF government, they may have been the cause but kenny's lot are the engineers, there's no doubt about that.

we need a new way of doing things and we need it asap.

We use contractors on public works because contractors have the expertise, the equipment, can be taken on for the duration of a single project and have to compete on cost against other contractors.

DamagedTrax

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

We use contractors on public works because contractors have the expertise, the equipment, can be taken on for the duration of a single project and have to compete on cost against other contractors.

we have 400,000 unemployed. what is wrong with giving them a chance to gain expertise rather than using, often overseas, contractors? im pretty sure the water system will not be sorted in the time it takes to train people up to that level. if we need experts then we find a few higher level experts from outside, avoiding that is an impossibility i understand.. but hiring in entire crews is more waste.

homegrown job creation is the best way out of the mess this country is in, not just doing things the old way. the old ways got us an overpriced luas and a state telecoms company that basically turned into a ponzai scheme with the citizen at the bottom.

why not focus on building a future instead of patching up an already dead dog?

Iwasfrozen

DamagedTrax wrote: »

we have 400,000 unemployed. what is wrong with giving them a chance to gain expertise rather than using, often overseas, contractors? im pretty sure the water system will not be sorted in the time it takes to train people up to that level. if we need experts then we find a few higher level experts from outside, avoiding that is an impossibility i understand.. but hiring in entire crews is more waste.

why not focus on building a future instead of patching up an already dead dog?

How do we pay them? How do we pay for equipment? What do we do with the equipment after the project is complete? How do we fire the people we've taken on? I don't think you've thought this through.

Essentially we get the same job done for waaaay more money. Money that would have to be paid back with interest.

RobertKK

DamagedTrax wrote: »

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.

Yeah the user pays is the fairest, at the moment some have to pay for water, others think they shouldn't pay.

Wurly

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

How do we pay them? How do we pay for equipment? What do we do with the equipment after the project is complete? How do we fire the people we've taken on? I don't think you've thought this through.

Well where are we finding the money to fund Irish Water?

DamagedTrax

those consultants werent free you know!

Irish Steve

harsh reality time.

Contractors (Irish or overseas) ARE (considerably) cheaper than using state employed labour to do the work, because the total cost of state employed labour is massively higher, when things like index linked defined benefit pensions and other factors (like crazy expenses and allowances just for doing the job) are taken into consideration, and as mentioned earlier, the state employment agencies do not have a good record where things like productivity and sick days and other related factors are taken into consideration.

It's been tried, the local authorities were supposedly responsible for the water infrastructure and maintenance of it for the last goodness knows how many years, and their "success" is the reason why water has to be taken out of the political arena.

Our state services and political system have utterly and completely failed us in the areas like water, partly through under funding, and partly through appalling mis management, and partly through the jobs for life culture and absence of accountability, so the dead wood never gets pruned out, and slowly but surely rises to the top, and dead wood at the top is a recipe for all manner of wrongdoing and mistakes, as has been so clearly demonstrated over recent times.

Add to that the endemic (brown envelope) corruption and graft that's been only touched on over recent years in the courts, and it's no surprise that we are in the mess that we are.

Iwasfrozen

Wurly wrote: »

Well where are we finding the money to fund Irish Water?

A fraction of the cost it would take to fix our infrastructure never mind what the other poster is suggesting.

Going Forward

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's not a matter of caring, we have to make the book balance. Caring can come later.
.

Making the books balance is not a priority by any stretch.
Its given as one of the reasons for setting up IW.
During our economic meltdown when there was talk of ATM machines not working we borrowed E3.6bn from the troika to distribute to needy countries over the past six years.

You must look long term, prospects will change, possibly cyclically, the books will balance sometimes, sometimes they won't.

The fact that Irish Water will take around 10% off the current deficit still leaves 90%.
This will not change the country's fortune.

As for conservation, EU environmental data will confirm that our location and climate can allay any fears of water shortages.

DamagedTrax

Irish Steve wrote: »

harsh reality time.

Contractors (Irish or overseas) ARE (considerably) cheaper than using state employed labour to do the work, because the total cost of state employed labour is massively higher, when things like index linked defined benefit pensions and other factors (like crazy expenses and allowances just for doing the job) are taken into consideration, and as mentioned earlier, the state employment agencies do not have a good record where things like productivity and sick days and other related factors are taken into consideration.

It's been tried, the local authorities were supposedly responsible for the water infrastructure and maintenance of it for the last goodness knows how many years, and their "success" is the reason why water has to be taken out of the political arena.

Our state services and political system have utterly and completely failed us in the areas like water, partly through under funding, and partly through appalling mis management, and partly through the jobs for life culture and absence of accountability, so the dead wood never gets pruned out, and slowly but surely rises to the top, and dead wood at the top is a recipe for all manner of wrongdoing and mistakes, as has been so clearly demonstrated over recent times.

Add to that the endemic (brown envelope) corruption and graft that's been only touched on over recent years in the courts, and it's no surprise that we are in the mess that we are.

im talking about completely changing the way the sytem works. start again. screw the old systems and ways of doing things.

im not talking about a band aid job thats gonna turn crusty and fall off after a shortwhile.

also, keep the harsh realities out of my idealist ranting

Wurly

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

A fraction of the cost it would take to fix our infrastructure never mind what the other poster is suggesting.

If you're going to make claims like that, you'll need to back it up with figures.

Banjo String

Wurly wrote: »

Well where are we finding the money to fund Irish Water?

Not only that, but if (as is being suggested) the Govt will be capping bills for the next 2 years, where's the incentive to conserve water?

What was the point in establishing a new quango to rival the hse, if they were just gonna operate on an assessed charge, with no incentive to conserve?

I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking the Govt just (wrongly) assumed the unwashed plebs would roll over on this one.

Concession after concession, loads of carrots on sticks to get people to register, and by the way, if the electorate fall for the propaganda (from John Tierney lol) that 747,000 have signed up, they truly deserve the gouging they'll receive.

Personally, I think they might have added a zero to that figure (by mistake obviously)

The deadline has been pushed back twice now. I'm sure just for the craic.

adrian92

Why, and how, has this matter causing such division among our people?

We have always had water, paid for - why this need , resulting, as we can all see one citizen at another.


I would urge all. Each and all of us to stand back.
Perhaps for a while to take time and ponder why such decision, where none existed before, that we embrace.

I have seen such hard words here to so may ones, so needlessly.

We , yes we, all of us do not need to embrace some recent view which, we all know is not good for our well being and for our society.

There was no need for such decisive measures in our history.

We worked well, in this matter, in the past; without the need for such (in so many ways) the introduction of such a socially decisive needless unthoughtful action.

DamagedTrax

adrian92 wrote: »

Why, and how, has this matter causing such division among our people?

.

we have a government that drives division. its probably their greatest weapon against us and its worked for many years.

Cantona's Collars

Banjo String wrote: »

Not only that, but if (as is being suggested) the Govt will be capping bills for the next 2 years, where's the incentive to conserve water?

What was the point in establishing a new quango to rival the hse, if they were just gonna operate on an assessed charge, with no incentive to conserve?

I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking the Govt just (wrongly) assumed the unwashed plebs would roll over on this one.

Concession after concession, loads of carrots on sticks to get people to register, and by the way, if the electorate fall for the propaganda (from John Tierney lol) that 747,000 have signed up, they truly deserve the gouging they'll receive.

Personally, I think they might have added a zero to that figure (by mistake obviously)

The deadline has been pushed back twice now. I'm sure just for the craic.

Regarding water conservation,didn't IW reserve the right to raise bills if "customers" didn't use enough water?

On the subject of 747,000 signing up,that was actually the number who contacted them,not signed up- how many of those contacts were made by people who declared that they are exempt & have their own wells/group schemes? Creative use of figures by IW.