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

BoJack Horseman

listermint wrote: »

Have i satirised your argument enough ? :rolleyes:

If teenage girl level sarcasm is all you can bring, your doing yourself no favours

You have the opportunity to argue your point & back yourself.

You chose abuse & snide comments instead.

Poor effort Lister.

listermint

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

If teenage girl level sarcasm is all you can bring, your doing yourself no favours

Im not here to do myself favours, Just here to reiterate the name calling and the stereotyping generalizing aspersions you have spent the last 3 weeks fleeting in and out of here.

None of which have been shown to have much substance.

listermint

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

If teenage girl level sarcasm is all you can bring, your doing yourself no favours

You have the opportunity to argue your point & back yourself.

You chose abuse & snide comments instead.

Poor effort Lister.

Claps slowly....



for some time.

TheChizler

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Metering is the fairest system because everyone pays for what they use.low usage users are jot subsidising high usage users.

There's no incentive to bother having leaks fixed, sure your not paying for it.

Also having meters at the end points of the distribution system will allow supply leaks to be identified and located more easily.

BoJack Horseman

listermint wrote: »

Im not here to do myself favours,

Telling us that you want more money spent.... But you haven't a notion who will pay for it, is a waste of everyone's time & wins no argument. (Abstracts like "Waste & broken promises" impress no one).

The Shinners & the Socialists told us how they would pay for it.....
Why can't you?

listermint

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Telling us that you want more money spent.... But you haven't a notion who will pay for it, is a waste of everyone's time & wins no argument. (Abstracts like "Waste & broken promises" impress no one).

The Shinners & the Socialists told us how they would pay for it.....
Why can't you?

Because BoJack, You know well i have already outlined exactly what i would do. Youve been in this thread long enough. So off you tod there and find out.

Im not in the habit of repeating myself to you over and over. Because ive outlined it already. But perhaps you forgot because you have been busy attacking everyone in here for being a lefty and with no real back bone or substance to tackle the things that need to be done. You know, like those real go getters in government.




- Woo waves FG flag ferociously.

PropJoe10

Leroy42 wrote: »

A much simplier solution but not exactly fair. People would protest that the less well off are paying the same as the wealthy, so more % of their income. It would also be said that those not using much water were paying the same as those with little regard for it.

Of course the counter to this is to charge for usage, but that has met with resistance as well. In this things you cannot keep everyone happy.

However, what you can do if be clear as to the purpose, be seen to be avoiding unnecesary cots, deliver on costs reductions so as to minimise the consumer cost. If IW had laid out what their plans for savings, how they were going to reduce the waste from having so many different authorities, how a centralised system would lead to better service, then it would have shown something to Joe Public,

instead, what we seen to have got is a business whose primary concern seems to be generating revenue. All the money spent on consultants, IT, staff etc seems to be directed solely at generating revenue

Fair points, thanks for your input. It seems to me that Irish Water has been one of the biggest PR disasters in the last 30-40 years. They had an opportunity to do this right and have completely thrown that opportunity away with their reckless spending and total arrogance. A standing charge obviously wouldnt have been ideal but at least they would've been making money to put into the water infrastructure, which as far as I'm aware, is the main cause of the wasting of water due to leaking pipes. Its going to be interesting to see what happens!

Banjo String

So workers in the DSP are even doubtful on the legality of handing over pps numbers now too

Staff in the Department of Social Protection are expressing serious concerns about Irish Water being given people's PPS numbers.

The utility company is controversially telling customers they must provide their Personal Public Service (PPS) number to get their free water allowance.

However, the Irish Independent has learned that officials in the government department responsible for issuing PPS numbers are doubtful about the legal basis of Irish Water checking numbers and are uneasy over the conflict with their own duty to protect members of the public .

The comments are contained in internal communications and come as opposition is growing to Irish Water's demands for PPS numbers. Some staff at the Department of Social Protection have expressed personal doubt about giving Irish Water their own numbers and they are also annoyed at the tight deadline for people to make such a decision.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/water/department-staff-fear-giving-pps-numbers-to-irish-water-30701370.html

Sign me up though!!!!

Tony EH

listermint wrote: »

Im sitting here shaking my head as to anyone with some sanity can give credence to this organisation.

On here, I'd say it's vested interests of some description, being afraid to roll back on misguided views or just FG mouthpieces.

The vast majority of people I've talked to, of all political colours are appalled at IW.

I know of at least two lifetime FG voters who are marching next Saturday.

TheChizler

Tony EH wrote: »

On here, I'd say it's vested interests of some description, being afraid to roll back on misguided views or just FG mouthpieces.

Or, you know, maybe they've thought thoroughly about it and it's the opinion they've come to?

Guy:Incognito

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Fair points, thanks for your input. It seems to me that Irish Water has been one of the biggest PR disasters in the last 30-40 years. They had an opportunity to do this right and have completely thrown that opportunity away with their reckless spending and total arrogance. A standing charge obviously wouldnt have been ideal but at least they would've been making money to put into the water infrastructure, which as far as I'm aware, is the main cause of the wasting of water due to leaking pipes. Its going to be interesting to see what happens!

A standing charge was also tried 20 years ago but people complained and the political will wasn't there to push it through.

The problem is people already get the water and getting them to pay for it without the ability to shut it off will always create a resistance.

It should be treated like any other utility.

emo72

When even senior government ministers are making statements saying it was done wrong, why are IW supporters still supporting?

Banjo String

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

A standing charge was also tried 20 years ago but people complained and the political will wasn't there to push it through.

The problem is people already get the water and getting them to pay for it without the ability to shut it off will always create a resistance.

It should be treated like any other utility.

Which other utility was funded from income tax, vat or motor tax?

And I don't see much sign of Vat or motor tax being reduced.

Guy:Incognito

Banjo String wrote: »

Which other utility was funded from income tax, vat or motor tax?

And I don't see much sign of Vat or motor tax being reduced.

You really need to move on from this.

Should we drop social welfare rates back to what they were on the late nineties? Pensions? Ps pay? Stop paying for anything that was added since? Then feel free to take the increases away.

While your there, get the rest of the details of the future spending of governments so they don't have to bother with budgets each year. One more, get the everything right and leave it be forever more.

Once the government are not paying a penny towards water start lobbying them to drop tax rates. We could call the whole process a Catchy name like "broadening the tax Base"

Has the income from those increases covered the cost of water since then? What if there's been a shortfall, would you be OK with them shutting down the treatment plants for December every year and say "sorry folks, water will be back on in January"

Guy:Incognito

emo72 wrote: »

When even senior government ministers are making statements saying it was done wrong, why are IW supporters still supporting?

Just as well this was their first ever mistake....


If we're going down the route of abolishing things instead of fixing might not have any systems left in place at all.



.

listermint

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You really need to move on from this.

Should we drop social welfare rates back to what they were on the late nineties? Pensions? Ps pay? Stop paying for anything that was added since? Then feel free to take the increases away.

While your there, get the rest of the details of the future spending of governments so they don't have to bother with budgets each year. One more, get the everything right and leave it be forever more.

Once the government are not paying a penny towards water start lobbying them to drop tax rates. We could call the whole process a Catchy name like "broadening the tax Base"

No but we are entitled to ask questions. You appear to be the type that would be happy to see and increase and continuation of the USC, you know 'just because' .

Should we be all good little puppies and take our medicine.

I am entitled to know how badly my tax money is being spent in the case of IW its being spent badly in epic proportions.

The writings on the wall.

emo72

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Just as well this was their first ever mistake....


If we're going down the route of abolishing things instead of fixing might not have any systems left in place at all.



.

You could have just answered the question I asked.

listermint

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Just as well this was their first ever mistake....


If we're going down the route of abolishing things instead of fixing might not have any systems left in place at all.



.

There is nothing demonstrated in around 10 months of its inception to demonstrate anything will be 'fixed' they have done so badly so far should we just keep pissing money on to the fire?

It doesnt make sense. Abolish it, put the residual money DIRECT into infrastructure via local authorities and once a stepped change in the infrastructure is up and running and visible discuss charges then.

Anything else is pure waste.

Banjo String

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You really need to move on from this.

Should we drop social welfare rates back to what they were on the late nineties? Pensions? Ps pay? Stop paying for anything that was added since? Then feel free to take the increases away.

While your there, get the rest of the details of the future spending of governments so they don't have to bother with budgets each year. One more, get the everything right and leave it be forever more.

Once the government are not paying a penny towards water start lobbying them to drop tax rates. We could call the whole process a Catchy name like "broadening the tax Base"

And you don't seem to be able to move away from comparing water taxes to any other utility.

It was a simple enough question, one which you could have just replied truthfully that none are or have been paid for from general taxation.

Guy:Incognito

Banjo String wrote: »

And you don't seem to be able to move away from comparing water taxes to any other utility.

It was a simple enough question, one which you could have just replied truthfully that none are or have been paid for from general taxation.

Why should water be different from any other utility? I've asked that a few times now.


Taxes were raised, more stuff needs paying for. That's how these things work. I don't see how talking about other costs isn't relevant.

I added it above but do you know if those extras on tax have covered every cent spent on water since plus money for infrastructure improvements?

VinLieger

emo72 wrote: »

When even senior government ministers are making statements saying it was done wrong, why are IW supporters still supporting?

Because Water is a vital resource and we should pay for what we use and not a flat rate, yes IW is a shambles and PR disaster but scrapping it now will cost WAY more in the longterm but of course in Ireland nobody ever is able of thinking more than a year into the future when infrastructure is concerned

hju6

I see RTE are now describing Saturdays protests as 'water marches'

Grandpa Hassan

listermint wrote: »

The writings on the wall.

Do you honestly believe that marches will result in the elimination of water charges? Not just the shambles that is IW, but the whole concept of water charges themselves?

Banjo String

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Why should water be different from any other utility? I've asked that a few times now.

Well if you want to treat it the same as any other utility bill, we'll start with this question.

What other utility company operates a two tiered pricing structure, one price for people who blindly hand over their PPS number, and another pricing tier that punishes those for refusing to hand it over, even though the legality of them actually asking for it is even being doubted by the DSP?

gladrags

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Just as well this was their first ever mistake....

If we're going down the route of abolishing things instead of fixing might not have any systems left in place at all.
.

I would imagine that the first priority in fixing things, it that the fixers are not quangos, which in the case of IW, appears to be the case.

The HSE is a quango, and beyond control, hence it causes more damage.

The lesson is, quangos are primarlily self serving, and that's the fix.

BoJack Horseman

Banjo String wrote: »

What other utility company operates a two tiered pricing structure

All of them.

The ESB customer who gives that utility full access to their bank account pays a lower rate than the one who chooses not to.

Ditto for emailed invoices vs posted etc.

hju6

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that marches will result in the elimination of water charges? Not just the shambles that is IW, but the whole concept of water charges themselves?

After this debacle no one is going to be elected or re-elected by going any where near water charges.

listermint

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that marches will result in the elimination of water charges? Not just the shambles that is IW, but the whole concept of water charges themselves?

Heres what i believe.


FG and Labour had a mandate to end all this back room nonsense and funky smelling appointments and from the off in their tenure nothing has changed.

That is what i know.

What i believe is people have had enough of being conned. The IW fiasco is the thin edge it. Many Cons perpetrated in the last few years. People are just fed up of the lies and misdirection.

hju6

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

All of them.

The ESB customer who gives that utility full access to their bank account pays a lower rate than the one who chooses not to.

Ditto for emailed invoices vs posted etc.

No one gives 'full access' to their bank account to a utility company

fxotoole

hju6 wrote: »

No one gives 'full access' to their bank account to a utility company

Direct debits are full access, as you have no control over how much the utility can take out of your account.