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

SaveOurLyric

So, the move to IW will :
- reduce the amount we really pay for water
- provide a link between usage and amount paid
- promote more careful use and less wastage of water
- improve the states financial books

Everyone's a winner.

dxhound2005

Fr. Ned wrote: »

The same way this quango are going to be borrowing on the markets in years to come?

Did you ever check the definition of a quango?

dxhound2005

bladespin wrote: »

Ok but weren't our taxes paying for our borrowings, at least up to 2008-IMF etc etc

So they couldn't have been paying for water? Agreed?

Mr_Red

The prices they are quoting per 1000ltrs, Is that price including VAT on the final bill?

Fr. Ned

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Did you ever check the definition of a quango?

Answer the question.
Is your precious 'Irish Water' going to be borrowing on the markets in years to come?

dxhound2005

Mr_Red wrote: »

The prices they are quoting per 1000ltrs, Is that price including VAT on the final bill?

Includes VAT at zero rate.

eeepaulo

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Seamus told us earlier. The money was borrowed, something like €1 billion a year in recent times. After SW, Health and Education are paid for all the taxes are used up. We have to borrow for everything else.

Thats what countries do, you borrow at a reasonable interest rate to fund capital projects.

The new childrens hospital for instance, we arent paying for it, we will borrow against and (hopefully) end up with an excellent asset.

Countries run at deficits, there is nothing wrong with that.

We are paying off a private debt at an extortionate rate, while spending 700 million setting up what is essentially a billing system, there is nothing to benefit anyone in ireland.

dxhound2005

eeepaulo wrote: »

Thats what countries do, you borrow at a reasonable interest rate to fund capital projects.

The new childrens hospital for instance, we arent paying for it, we will borrow against and (hopefully) end up with an excellent asset.

Countries run at deficits, there is nothing wrong with that.

We are paying off a private debt at an extortionate rate, while spending 700 million setting up what is essentially a billing system, there is nothing to benefit anyone in ireland.

Our borrowings were for day to day spending. Hence the Troika.

Fr. Ned

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Did you ever check the definition of a quango?

The term "quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation" was created in 1967 by the Carnegie Foundation's Alan Pifer in an essay on independence and accountability in public-funded bodies incorporated in the private sector. This term was shortened to "quango" by Anthony Barker, a British participant during a follow-up conference on the subject.

It describes an ostensibly non-governmental organisation performing governmental functions, often in receipt of funding or other support from government, while mainstream NGOs mostly get their donations or funds from the public and other organisations that support their cause. Numerous quangos were created from the 1980s onwards. Examples in the United Kingdom include those engaged in the regulation of various commercial and service sectors, such as the Water Services Regulation Authority.

An essential feature of a quango in the original definition was that it should not be a formal part of the state structure. The term was then extended to apply to a range of organisations, such as executive agencies providing (from 1988) health, education and other services. Particularly in the UK, this occurred in a polemical atmosphere in which it was alleged that proliferation of such bodies was undesirable and should be reversed.

bladespin

dxhound2005 wrote: »

So they couldn't have been paying for water? Agreed?

Not at all.

dxhound2005

bladespin wrote: »

Not at all.

So can you prove where the €1 billion spent on water last year came from?

Fr. Ned

bladespin wrote: »

Not at all.

The guy is trolling you. Ignore it.
He seems to think that when we borrow money we don't pay it back.
Something like that anyway.

Smidge

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Thee forms IW are sending out are not contracts and a signature is not required. If you don't answer the questions and return the form you will still get a bill but you won't get any allowances which means you'll pay more. If you don't pay the bill it will be the same as if didn't pay any bill, you'll eventually end up in court.

In this post you replied to a poster saying the forms DO NOT form a contract with Irish water. You said I'm late to the party and I'm uniformed.
You do know that its possible to follow a thread without commenting until you choose to do so. If I was so late "to the party" how was I able to reply to this post of yours and tell you that the details from IW concerning the above was posted and discussed in detail that the signing of these forms according to IW forms a contract? You consider yourself better informed than me on the issue and also someone who has been on this thread since early.
Only two possibilities to this:

1. Either you purposely misinformed the poster you replied to or
2. You haven't followed the thread as closely as you claim

You then responded to my post which pulled you up on the above post you with...

mrsbyrne wrote: »

IW are aiming to.make a profit.I understand that to be one of the objectives of any business. Whats your point? Also, if you have been connected to the public water mains and sewage until now then you could say you had a "contract" with the LA. That is, they supplied you with clean water and took away your dirty water. There was no charge for this. Now IW have taken over the contract and they will be charging.
Im not saying that its either right or fair but it's happening in 7 minutes and that's it. People need to stop pointless fist shaking.

Tut tut, mrsbyrne.
The above post of yours is incredibly disingenuous.
No-one had a "contract" with a LA for water.
As you are well aware, water through the LA's was funded through the receipt of tax.
No charge? Seriously?

Also, you are surely aware that a private utility company who as you say are "out to make a profit" and a government department, namely that LA'S are two completely different things and to try to classify them as the same entity, well quite frankly, I can't believe you thought anyone would believe that.
Do you really think we are all stupid or do you just assume we are?
Genuine question btw.

Considering your reply to one of my posts below, I reckon you think the majority of the people who disagree with IW, and you, are just the great unwashed.

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Sorry I don't see any contradiction at all. You seem to have arrived to the thread pretty uninformed and a bit confused, no offence intended. Do you want to point out the contradiction?

dxhound2005

Fr. Ned wrote: »

The guy is trolling you. Ignore it.
He seems to think that when we borrow money we don't pay it back.
Something like that anyway.

Report me.

bladespin

dxhound2005 wrote: »

So can you prove where the €1 billion spent on water last year came from?

Not for me to prove, I'm only asking the question you're so determined to answer, can you prove then that the water bill was paid only from borrowings and that SW, Health and Education etc were all funded adequately from revenue? And that a recovering economy couldn't have come back in line to cover this?

Fr. Ned

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Report me.

Na, you're not worth it.
What is it with all you lads anyway? That's 3 or 4 of ya's now going 'report me report me'...
I'm just waiting for the 'na na na na na'.

eeepaulo

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Our borrowings were for day to day spending. Hence the Troika.

Total nonsense.

http://www.independent.ie/business/i...-30448386.html

Quote:
At 4.99pc of €22.5bn, the interest bill is €1.12bn
Quote:
The State can borrow seven-year debt for 1.2pc per year. The IMF loan has an average maturity of about seven years.At 1.2pc, the interest bill on €22.5bn would be €270m.
Quote:
Paying back the IMF early would trigger automatic repayment of a share of the bigger, and less onerous, EU portion of the bailout.
Any repayment by Ireland of loans from either the EU or IMF would trigger automatic repayment of an equal portion of the other bailout debts.
The estimated interest rates on the EU share of the loans from the European Financial Stability Facility and European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism range from about 2.3pc to just over 3pc.
Fianna Fail’s finance spokesman Michael McGrath, who obtained this information via a parliamentary question, said a strong case needs to be made to the troika to lift the restrictions on paying the IMF debt early.
That is only the imf part, the eu part is about 45 billion.

None of this debt was sovereign debt but lets pay another flat rate tax instead.

dxhound2005

bladespin wrote: »

Not for me to prove, I'm only asking the question you're so determined to answer, can you prove then that the water bill was paid only from borrowings and that SW, Health and Education etc were all funded adequately from revenue?

OK, say taxes brought in €40 billion and expenditure was €57 billion are you saying that €1 billion of taxes is ringfenced to pay for water?

eeepaulo

dxhound2005 wrote: »

So can you prove where the €1 billion spent on water last year came from?

Where is next years 1 biilion coming from?

SaveOurLyric

Fr. Ned wrote: »

I'm just waiting for the 'na na na na na'.

Looks like you started it.

dxhound2005

eeepaulo wrote: »

Where is next years 1 biilion coming from?

Part of it is coming from your house when you get your bill. We are being put on a normal economic footing. No other country ever abolished local taxation and put the burden on to income tax.

bladespin

dxhound2005 wrote: »

OK, say taxes brought in €40 billion and expenditure was €57 billion are you saying that €1 billion of taxes is ringfenced to pay for water?

Nope, nothing of the sort, another claiming I've said something that I haven't, please stop that and just answer the question, you were very eager to answer a couple of posts back, why try dodge now? Can you prove the items listed could be paid for from revenue and that water was specifically paid for by borrowing? As you claimed.

Fr. Ned

bladespin wrote: »

Nope, nothing of the sort, another claiming I've said something that I haven't, please stop that and just answer the question, you were very eager to answer a couple of posts back, why try dodge now? Can you prove the items listed could be paid for from revenue and that water was specifically paid for by borrowing? As you claimed.

Cue 'report me report me'......

seamus

eeepaulo wrote: »

The new childrens hospital for instance, we arent paying for it, we will borrow against and (hopefully) end up with an excellent asset.

Countries run at deficits, there is nothing wrong with that.

Agreed. Where you hit problems is when you're borrowing money for day-to-day spending. It's effectively using your credit card to pay your electricity bills every month. Unless you change your financial model you drop into a debt spiral very quickly.

bladespin wrote:

Between 1978 and September 2014, cannot figure out how it was paid for if it wasn't free and our taxes weren't paying for it

Well I'm sure our taxes were paying for it while we were in the black. But they're not anymore.

Think of it this way - a landlord has four tenants and they all agree that rather than an equal split, each tenant will pay rent will be based on their income, which the landlords uses to pay all of the bills. One guy pay €2k, another pays €1k and the other two pay €500 each.
Everything ticks along nicely.
Then the guy paying €2k loses his job and suddenly he can only afford €500.
The landlord discovers he's €1500 down and has to borrow now to cover the bills.
The bills are still being covered, but not by the rental income, even though the other 3 tenants have seen no change in how much rent they're paying.

Obviously then when the landlord tells them they're going to have to cover the bills themselves, they get pissey because their costs have gone up and their rent hasn't gone down. Even though it's perfectly clear why.

eeepaulo

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Part of it is coming from your house when you get your bill. We are being put on a normal economic footing. No other country ever abolished local taxation and put the burden on to income tax.

In 9 months time people will receive a capped bill

It will be about 300 millon.

That covers about 1/2 the cost of the billing system.

There is no more money, we will continue to pay through general taxation

dxhound2005

bladespin wrote: »

Nope, nothing of the sort, another claiming I've said something that I haven't, please stop that and just answer the question, you were very eager to answer a couple of posts back, why try dodge now, can you prove the items listed could be paid for from revenue and that water was specifically paid for by borrowing? As you claimed.

OK for the sake of peace I'll agree with you. Income tax paid for €1 billion to provide water. An extra €1 billion was borrowed to pay for Social Welfare. But it doesn't have to be like that. People can pay for part of the cost of water directly. It's hardly rocket science, lots of countries are doing it.

MRnotlob606

Irish water Unjustice

Fr. Ned

eeepaulo wrote: »

In 9 months time people will receive a capped bill

It will be about 300 millon.

That covers about 1/2 the cost of the billing system.

There is no more money, we will continue to pay through general taxation

The super quango will borrow on the markets and increase their rates to suit.

dxhound2005

This fine body of men are leading the "protests" in housing estates in Dundalk. The local gardai on the scene will be well familiar with some of them.

http://www.republicanunity.org/rnu-archive-2/commemorations/rnu-easter-commemoration-dundalk-2014/

Fr. Ned

dxhound2005 wrote: »

OK for the sake of peace I'll agree with you. Income tax paid for €1 billion to provide water. An extra €1 billion was borrowed to pay for Social Welfare. But it doesn't have to be like that. People can pay for part of the cost of water directly.

Or social welfare and wages paid to state/semi state employees could be cut by €5 billion.
No votes in that though even though it's quite obvious that's what should happen.