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

66ad

papu wrote: »

In my opinion yes.
I dunno, what if they came and chopped your hands off for stealing water.

Didn't my taxes already pay for water? Maybe the Irish people should go and chop the
hands of these Irish Water cronies for trying to steal from the the Irish people for something
they already pay for.

dxhound2005

Take Your Pants Off wrote: »

Surely they cannot turn off the water.
Water is a need.
Aint nobody got time to pay 200E. What was the reason to introduce the water charges in the first place ?

You can type the € symbol by holding down the Alt Gr key and pressing the 4/$/€ key. Ain't nobody got time for this E nonsense after 14 years.

_Kaiser_

More attempts to buy off the public...

Every home in Ireland is reportedly due to get €100 off their water bill, according to new plans from the Government.

The Irish Independent reports the tax relief may be extended to try to ease mounting pressure over the water charges, with more than 80 rallies planned against the fees tomorrow.

It is understood that everyone may qualify for the discount, regardless of the size of their bill.

But er.. is that not just the same tax credit shyte they announced in the budget regurgitated?

Streetwalker

They can't turn the water off and even if they do you could just turn it back on in a matter of a minute. Good luck with them taking 2/3rd's of the population to court also that should be fun. IW is finished all that's left now is if the government can survive and at present they look like they can't.

TippRebel1

a natural source from the earth should not be something we have to pay a bill for

_Kaiser_

Streetwalker wrote: »

all that's left now is if the government can survive and at present they look like they can't.

Dear Santa, all I want for Christmas is..

Phoebas

TippRebel1 wrote: »

a natural source from the earth should not be something we have to pay a bill for

Here - take my oil, coal, food, gold...

Curly Judge

TippRebel1 wrote: »

a natural source from the earth should not be something we have to pay a bill for

The water you get when you turn on your tap is not a natural resource!
It is a manufactured product, same as gas, oil and electricity.
If you think otherwise, just go out and dig a hole in your back garden and see how you get on.
It has to be captured, pumped and treated and that costs money.
Someone who thinks otherwise is either a fool or a freeloader!

ROCKMAN

Quick Few Questions

IF you do not return the application pack ,Will the bills when they start arriving have your name on them or will it just have The Occupier on them ?

IF They do have your name on the bills and you have not returned the packs/registered ,How have they gotten your details ?
Does this mean IW always had your details and they were just verifying the facts ?
or
Was it a case getting PPS numbers to add some sort of value to the company at some future date ?

And One last question

IF the bill when it arrives just has "The Occupier " on it are you still obliged /legally required to pay the bill ?

VinLieger

TippRebel1 wrote: »

a natural source from the earth should not be something we have to pay a bill for

We need to pay for the reservoirs, filtering and cleaning, pipes and maintenance of all of that, of course it's something we should pay for.

There really is no hope for the nation in the long term if this is the average thought process of the protestors

SIPTU won't be protesting. They believe that by not metering water and having water charges, the Tax payer will end up paying multiples IW's expected charge for water.
Listening to RBB of PBP on Morning Ireland, imagine the arrogance of him. Comparing himself to Gandhi and Mandela! RTE have obvioulsy changed tack and decided that rather than ignoring the water protests, they'd invite them on to news programmes and let them show the country how ridiculous their anti water charge mutterings really are.

Phoebas

ROCKMAN wrote: »

IF you do not return the application pack ,Will the bills when they start arriving have your name on them or will it just have Occupier on them ?

That probably depends on what details were on the application pack. If your name was on the pack, your name will be on the bill.

ROCKMAN wrote: »

IF They do have your name on the bills and you have not returned the packs/registered ,How have they gotten your details ?
Does this mean IW always had your details and they were just verifying the facts ?

They could have gotten your details from a range of different databases that they have access to.

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Was it a case getting PPS numbers to add some sort of value to the company at some future date ?

The PPS number came into play when it was decided to give 'free' allowances. These allowances are actually paid for by the state who will pay the money to Irish Water. Irish Water will use the PPS number to verify with the Department of Social Protection that you are entitled to an allowance.
The specific purposes the IW can use the PPS number for are described here.

ROCKMAN wrote: »

IF the bill when it arrives just has "The Occupier " on it are you still obliged /legally required to pay the bill ?

Yes. If you are connected to the public system and you use the water then you are legally obliged to pay for it.

Barely There

TippRebel1 wrote: »

a natural source from the earth should not be something we have to pay a bill for

Next time your in your local LIDL you can explain to them why your not going to pay for you bag of carrots.

I think it's more than reasonable to assume anyone who comes out with guff like this is poorly educated on the matter and their opinions can safely be ignored.

Also, anyone who uses the phrase 'human right' to describe water is an idiot.

TippRebel1

Barely There wrote: »

Next time your in your local LIDL you can explain to them why your not going to pay for you bag of carrots.

I think it's more than reasonable to assume anyone who comes out with guff like this is poorly educated on the matter and their opinions can safely be ignored.

Also, anyone who uses the phrase 'human right' to describe water is an idiot.

whatever you say!! Plenty would disagree with you

where was the word " human right " used in my sentence by the way? it wasnt. but yes its a human right to have water without having to pay for it...
if people want to pay for water, bottled water is an alternative. i sometimes buy bottled water and have no problem doing so. the objection is to having a bill on tap water in homes... just to pay off a debt the govt created.

of course you are of the type who calls anybody who disagrees with your opinion, an idiot.. at least on the internet anyway.

Tough guy.

TippRebel1

VinLieger wrote: »

We need to pay for the reservoirs, filtering and cleaning, pipes and maintenance of all of that, of course it's something we should pay for.

There really is no hope for the nation in the long term if this is the average thought process of the protestors

feel better? good man. you have your opinion and i have mine... many would disagree with you.

Little CuChulainn

Streetwalker wrote: »

They can't turn the water off and even if they do you could just turn it back on in a matter of a minute. Good luck with them taking 2/3rd's of the population to court also that should be fun. IW is finished all that's left now is if the government can survive and at present they look like they can't.

2/3s of the population? Where's that figure from?

TippRebel1 wrote: »

a natural source from the earth should not be something we have to pay a bill for

If you want to fill up a bucket from a stream there is no charge. If you want water filtered, treated and piped to your door it costs money. Imagine that.

twowheelsgood

TippRebel1 wrote: »

... many would disagree with you.

Almost no one disagrees with him. Practically everyone accepts that a water service has to be paid for by the tax payer. The debate is about how it should be paid.

TippRebel1

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Almost no one disagrees with him. Practically everyone accepts that a water service has to be paid for by the tax payer. The debate is about how it should be paid.

what planet are you living in? most of the country disagrees with being billed for water in their homes. hence the many people protesting it

TippRebel1

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

2/3s of the population? Where's that figure from?



If you want to fill up a bucket from a stream there is no charge. If you want water filtered, treated and piped to your door it costs money. Imagine that.

the thing about people like you is, you probably are just disagreeing for the sake of disagreement to start an argument online, like most of the others disagreeing too, and calling names to anybody who opposes this abuse of power by the govt.

most of the country disagrees. But do go on and be some kind of internet rebel if that takes your fancy

VinLieger

TippRebel1 wrote: »

what planet are you living in? most of the country disagrees with being billed for water in their homes. hence the many people protesting it

So how do we pay for water then? Does everything just magically flow through the pipes?
The system loses 40% of what flows through it WE NEED to pay to fix this simply refusing to believe this is gonna lead our water infrastructure to ruin in the longterm.

Barely There

TippRebel1 wrote: »

but yes its a human right to have water without having to pay for it...

Only scroungers believe they should be entitled to free provision of a service which costs the rest of society a lot of money to provide.

twowheelsgood

TippRebel1 wrote: »

what planet are you living in? most of the country disagrees with being billed for water in their homes. hence the many people protesting it

There are many who object to a pay by usage model. But I though everyone accepts that it has to be paid for by the taxpayer, one way or another?

the groutch

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

More attempts to buy off the public...

But er.. is that not just the same tax credit shyte they announced in the budget regurgitated?

people are not stupid anyway, they see past one-off "golden carrots" being dangled in front of them to get them to sign up, because they know that unlike the property tax there is little or no measures in place to stop them charging whatever they want in future years.

Banjo String

Barely There wrote: »

Also, anyone who uses the phrase 'human right' to describe water is an idiot.

on 28 July 2010, through Resolution 64/292, the United Nations General Assembly explicitly recognized the human right to water and sanitation and acknowledged that clean drinking water and sanitation are essential to the realisation of all human rights. The Resolution calls upon States and international organisations to provide financial resources, help capacity-building and technology transfer to help countries, in particular developing countries, to provide safe, clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation for all.

http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/human_right_to_water.shtml

I blame the 'idiots' in the United nations.

Troll harder FB.

yipeeeee

Banjo String wrote: »

http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/human_right_to_water.shtml

I blame the 'idiots' in the United nations.

Troll harder FB.

Should really show most of Europe and america this, they won't be happy they have had to pay for water.

Daith

yipeeeee wrote: »

Should really show most of Europe and america this, they won't be happy they have had to pay for water.

And Ireland. We have been paying for water too!

gandalf

FFS I read this thread and I nearly want to smack my head off the desk here.

We have always paid for water.

It is funded from our income tax.

It is funded from Motor Tax (wtf!!!)

It is funded from the Property Tax.

Now they want to fund it from another tax on top of these?

I don't have a problem with a consumption tax, but I do have a problem with tax being taken in multiple different ways without a clear reduction in those other tax streams. I do have a problem with a consumption tax where the charge could go up when people are actually conserving water at a better rate than the Utility expects. I do have a problem as an apartment owner with being forced to pay a static charge.

I'm marching tomorrow because of this and also because I do not agree with handing a necessary infrastructure over to a private monopoly. I have an extreme problem providing sensitive personal information to a private company that has a proven lack of ability with its data management (over the very short period of their existence!). I have a problem with their stated data policy of leaving open basing our data outside the jurisdiction of the EU leaving our information open to lesser standards of Data Protection and remediation.

VinLieger

Banjo String wrote: »

http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/human_right_to_water.shtml

I blame the 'idiots' in the United nations.

Troll harder FB.

Yeah it mentions nothing about not being allowed to charge for it, it just says access is a human right, which we have are you saying we shouldn't have to pay for water at all?

Daith

gandalf wrote: »

Now they want to fund it from another tax on top of these?

No, they want to broaden the tax base but are doing an amazingly ****ty job getting that message across. The creation of Irish Water gets debt of the Government books. It also allows them to give back money. How many people marching tomorrow will still pick up their xmas "bonus"? Or be happy they can get a refund of dirt for 1st time buying a house?

twowheelsgood

gandalf wrote: »

I don't have a problem with a consumption tax, but I do have a problem with tax being taken in multiple different ways without a clear reduction in those other tax streams.

I would agree that it is not clear that if and when you pay for water via IW the taxes you have paid that would be used to provide water will be used for something else (at present, plugging our deficit.) But it is so.