Water protest discussion and demos

Irishgoatman

Webbs wrote: »

If the water tax is not implemented then surely we would continue with the status quo. Currently the Water that is provided to those on the mains is paid for through taxes collected be it PAYE, VAT etc.

So no problem with those not on a public system paying twice, once to the water scheme and again through their taxes, VAT etc. ?.

Irishgoatman

antoobrien wrote: »

Private schemes are not currently part of Iirsh Water's remit in any case, so Status quo ante.

My point exactly. If Status quo remains they continue to pay twice.

Webbs

Irishgoatman wrote: »

So no problem with those not on a public system paying twice, once to the water scheme and again through their taxes, VAT etc. ?.

Thats why I think that a water tax is a more equitable system. Its just as usual the Irish govt/Irish Water have gone about it in the most complicated ill thought out manner possible.
Irish people have been paying for their water through taxes presumably since the state was formed. The lack of foresight in allowing so much one off housing and not providing adequate mains water to areas is historical and cant be changed now - demonstrations should have been over these things decades ago, stable doors and horses bolting comes to mind.

Creative Juices

Taken from the Boycott Irish Water page on Facebook:

"Hubert Kearns was Sligo County Manager for 17 years and when he retired in 2013 he received a lump sum of 270,000 and a pension of 68,000 per year. His time as Sligo manager was controversial and he left behind a County debt of 80 million. "It's not the end of the world, nobody died," he said about the council's financial woes. At one stage he refused to attend council meetings in a dispute with an independent Councillor and spent more than €50,000 council money hiring HR consultant Declan Naughton to monitor meetings. Asked to comment on reports that his own pay as Sligo Manager, at €136,000, was €30,000 more than that of the Spanish prime minister, Mr Kearns said his salary was fixed by Government. “I am surprised that the Spanish prime minister earns so little.”
So after retiring from Sligo he has his pockets full, thanks to the taxpayer - that's YOU and ME, So, has Mr Kearns taken up fishing? No, Hubert has apparently found gainful employment with Irish Water.
Irish Water, home to retired Council managers, headed up by retired Dublin Manager John Tierney (salary 200,000 Eur). But apparently Irish Water managers (like Hubert?) would have to get by on a measly 100,000. Hopefully though they might be able to survive once the expenses and free cars are factored in.
So you can see good people why it's going to take 20 years to fix all those rusty old water pipes!""

renegademaster

Creative Juices wrote: »

Taken from the Boycott Irish Water page on Facebook:

"Hubert Kearns was Sligo County Manager for 17 years and when he retired in 2013 he received a lump sum of 270,000 and a pension of 68,000 per year. His time as Sligo manager was controversial and he left behind a County debt of 80 million. "It's not the end of the world, nobody died," he said about the council's financial woes. At one stage he refused to attend council meetings in a dispute with an independent Councillor and spent more than €50,000 council money hiring HR consultant Declan Naughton to monitor meetings. Asked to comment on reports that his own pay as Sligo Manager, at €136,000, was €30,000 more than that of the Spanish prime minister, Mr Kearns said his salary was fixed by Government. “I am surprised that the Spanish prime minister earns so little.”
So after retiring from Sligo he has his pockets full, thanks to the taxpayer - that's YOU and ME, So, has Mr Kearns taken up fishing? No, Hubert has apparently found gainful employment with Irish Water.
Irish Water, home to retired Council managers, headed up by retired Dublin Manager John Tierney (salary 200,000 Eur). But apparently Irish Water managers (like Hubert?) would have to get by on a measly 100,000. Hopefully though they might be able to survive once the expenses and free cars are factored in.
So you can see good people why it's going to take 20 years to fix all those rusty old water pipes!""

Tierney was Galway city manager too!! off with their heads!!

Bobeagleburger

Irishgoatman wrote: »

My point exactly. If Status quo remains they continue to pay twice.

Exactly.

This point seems lost in the whole debate. Why? Because people in private scheme are in the minority, and it doesn't affect Dublin and large urban areas.

A tax credit for people in private water schemes could be a work around

Irishgoatman

I was hoping that both sides in this debate would respond to my post re Private Water Schemes because it's always important to know just where people stand on all relevant issues. Very disappointing that only one side appears to have done so.

That, to my mind, speaks volumes.

spiritcrusher

I think there can be no catch-all solution for private water schemes as there are a few different set ups of them. I presume in a lot of cases you're technically paying twice already as you're paying for consumption on top of the pre-existing taxes. However where I'm from the average residential home pays nothing as the free allowance is so huge but instead it's paid for by the farmers and businesses who initially set it up to ensure large quantities of high quality water. I think at the beginning everyone paid a charge for a few years but as costs were paid off there wasn't the need any more. So weirdly because of the private scheme voluntarily set up 20 years ago, and now mostly paid off, people out here now seem to be largely insulated from the Irish Water chaos. Unless they go sticking their oar into private schemes that is (I think there may be a grant given to the operators by the council which may give them a reason to poke around).

joeKel73

Irishgoatman wrote: »

I was hoping that both sides in this debate would respond to my post re Private Water Schemes because it's always important to know just where people stand on all relevant issues. Very disappointing that only one side appears to have done so.

That, to my mind, speaks volumes.

Is it any more relevant now though? People on private schemes aren't affected by the new charges.

Irishgoatman wrote: »

So no problem with those not on a public system paying twice, once to the water scheme and again through their taxes, VAT etc. ?.

I don't think it's as unfair as you're making it out. People have to pay into general taxation to provide for general national infrastructure. My taxes pay for traffic lights and fly-overs in Dublin, but if I don't use that should I not pay?

With extra funding and a more unified approach to the water network hopefully areas currently not serviced will be more likely to have the network developed into their area. If someone decides to build a one-off house on the top of a hill I don't think there should be a requirement on the state to pay for a pump and mains to their property.

Irishgoatman

J o e wrote: »

Is it any more relevant now though? People on private schemes aren't affected by the new charges.



I don't think it's as unfair as you're making it out. People have to pay into general taxation to provide for general national infrastructure. My taxes pay for traffic lights and fly-overs in Dublin, but if I don't use that should I not pay?

With extra funding and a more unified approach to the water network hopefully areas currently not serviced will be more likely to have the network developed into their area. If someone decides to build a one-off house on the top of a hill I don't think there should be a requirement on the state to pay for a pump and mains to their property.

You appear to have missed the point that if water continues to be paid for out of general taxes then people on private schemes will continue to subsidise, through the taxes they pay, water that they are not getting. My question, basically, was is that fair?. imo no it isn't but I'm not saying that I know what the answer could be if the status quo remains.

As I said, I was hoping for comments from both sides. Without any input from the people strongly against water charges I, and others, must assume that they see no problem with their water being subsidised in this way.

Your point regarding roads etc in Dublin is besides the point as you can use them if you wish. Not the same with people on schemes.

joeKel73

Irishgoatman wrote: »

You appear to have missed the point that if water continues to be paid for out of general taxes then people on private schemes will continue to subsidise, through the taxes they pay, water that they are not getting. My question, basically, was is that fair?

I didn't miss your point - my response what that they're paying into national infrastructure. I think it is fair.

Everyone pays into a national fund but not everyone can claim every benefit from that fund. You can't claim tax credits back for every benefit you couldn't claim.

Irishgoatman wrote: »

Your point regarding roads etc in Dublin is besides the point as you can use them if you wish. Not the same with people on schemes.

The point is valid.

Another example so - l pay into the fund that's used to pay out child benefit. But I can't make use of this fund as I don't have children. Saying I could go and have a child is the same as saying someone living off the water network could move onto it.

Bobeagleburger

J o e wrote: »

Is it any more relevant now though? People on private schemes aren't affected by the new charges.



I don't think it's as unfair as you're making it out. People have to pay into general taxation to provide for general national infrastructure. My taxes pay for traffic lights and fly-overs in Dublin, but if I don't use that should I not pay?

With extra funding and a more unified approach to the water network hopefully areas currently not serviced will be more likely to have the network developed into their area. If someone decides to build a one-off house on the top of a hill I don't think there should be a requirement on the state to pay for a pump and mains to their property.

What about the whole paying twice argument?

If people on private schemes are paying twice then surely they are entitled to a rebate.

joeKel73

rarnes1 wrote: »

What about the whole paying twice argument?

If people on private schemes are paying twice then surely they are entitled to a rebate.

You mean the previous scenario where people off the network were paying for their group scheme privately and also paying tax?

Then no I don't think they'd be entitled to a rebate - as I said above not everyone is able to claim every benefit from the national fund we pay into.

I'm paying private rent but I'm also paying into the fund from which people are claiming rent relief. Should I get a rebate for the rent relief that I can't claim? I don't think so...

Irishgoatman

J o e wrote: »

You mean the previous scenario where people off the network were paying for their group scheme privately and also paying tax?

Then no I don't think they'd be entitled to a rebate - as I said above not everyone is able to claim every benefit from the national fund we pay into.

I'm paying private rent but I'm also paying into the fund from which people are claiming rent relief. Should I get a rebate for the rent relief that I can't claim? I don't think so...

Please don't get too distracted, we're talking about a specific item here, namely water.
If you believe that water should be "free" then surely it should be "free" to everyone and not just those who are lucky enough to be connected to a public water supply.

joeKel73

Irishgoatman wrote: »

Please don't get too distracted, we're talking about a specific item here, namely water.
If you believe that water should be "free" then surely it should be "free" to everyone and not just those who are lucky enough to be connected to a public water supply.

Water hasn't been free. We've previously been paying for it through general taxation. Paying for water isn't new.

We've been paying too much for it, as our outgoing system is inefficient and leaking our tax money out through cracks. We're also at near capacity in a lot of locations (Dublin) so major intervention was needed.

I agree with charging for it seperately as it is a fairer approach (those who use more pay more) and also encouraging conservation.

I'm not trying to add distraction - I'm pointing out that not everyone gets a return on every benefit from the € they pay into the tax system. We need to contribute to a national infrastructure. Water metering is good news for those on private schemes, but I think the previous system is also reasonable as they're contributing to a general infrastructure (even if it doesn't yet have 100% coverage).

Irishgoatman

J o e wrote: »

I agree with charging for it seperately as it is a fairer approach (those who use more pay more) and also encouraging conservation.

Although we don't quite see eye to eye the above is one thing that we do seem to agree on.:)

When I used the word free in a previous post I did put speech marks " " around the word. Had we been talking face to face I would have waved 2 fingers from each hand in the air like a pair of rabbit ears (god I hate it when people do that:mad:).

Just in case anyone is wondering, no I'm not on a water scheme although I was some years ago.

Unless somebody aims a post directly at me I probably won't be posting anything else as this has given me a little more insight into how people think and feel, although I would have liked to have heard from the hardliners.

Thanks.

Mrs OBumble

fyi, this post is on Merlin Wood's Primary School's Facebook page this evening:

We note the intention of Galway Against Water Charges to protest at the official opening of Merlin Woods Primary School and Merlin College when An Taoiseach visits next Monday. While we respect the right of public protest on any issue, we remind everyone that this is a school event, where very young children will be present and also participating in the occasion. The safety and well-being of our children is absolutely paramount and we therefore strongly request that any protests take place away from the school premises and its immediate surrounds. The children, parents, staff and local community have worked very hard to get these schools for our area and are looking forward to sharing this achievement with our guests. We would sincerely appreciate all cooperation and support in this regard.

renegademaster

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

fyi, this post is on Merlin Wood's Primary School's Facebook page this evening:

there's no protest happening at the school now, the group that said they were planning it will now greet enda in the city centre at 2pm, and then go onto the council meeting for further protest later that eve

wp_rathead

renegademaster wrote: »

there's no protest happening at the school now, the group that said they were planning it will now greet enda in the city centre at 2pm, and then go onto the council meeting for further protest later that eve

Fair play- Good decision

Tugboats

I'm thinking of taking up protesting full time. Who do I contact and whats the rate of pay?

zarquon

Tugboats wrote: »

I'm thinking of taking up protesting full time. Who do I contact and whats the rate of pay?

Rate for serial protesters is €188 per week plus bonus subsidies

Creative Juices

The 4 reasons why I have completely changed my mind on water charges and Irish Water

1. Because I naively believed the "New Politics". Then I learned more about Hubert Kearns, David O'Connor, Denis O'Brien
2. Because of the way underutilised local authority staff have been dumped into Irish Water to make it another bureaucracy similar to that other shocking organisation, the HSE
3. Because of the utter arrogance and duplicity of the government and IW managers in relation to charges, customer service and infrastructure renewal.
4. Because of the unbelievable bias by the Irish media primarily RTE and the Indo.

Now I want Irish Water abolished and this inept government to collapse in a heap.

WallyGUFC

Creative Juices wrote: »

The 4 reasons why I have completely changed my mind on water charges and Irish Water

1. Because I naively believed the "New Politics". Then I learned more about Hubert Kearns, David O'Connor, Denis O'Brien
2. Because of the way underutilised local authority staff have been dumped into Irish Water to make it another bureaucracy similar to that other shocking organisation, the HSE
3. Because of the utter arrogance and duplicity of the government and IW managers in relation to charges, customer service and infrastructure renewal.
4. Because of the unbelievable bias by the Irish media primarily RTE and the Indo.

Now I want Irish Water abolished and this inept government to collapse in a heap.

The bit that always gets me. Who would you like to replace them? Surely not FF? Surely not SF?

Creative Juices

WallyGUFC wrote: »

The bit that always gets me. Who would you like to replace them? Surely not FF? Surely not SF?

Are you saying we should put up with points 1,2,3 & 4 because there is no political alternative?

I personally think it's high time for a new party. Not a Healy-Screams or Creighton "inspired" new party but a new political party with new people without legacy baggage. A party who say they are going to implement "new politics" and actually mean it. The only other choice at the moment seems to be IND or SF.

WallyGUFC

Creative Juices wrote: »

Are you saying we should out up with points 1,2,3 & 4 because there is no political alternative?

I personally think it's high time for a new party. Not a Healy-Screams or Creighton "inspired" new party but a new political party with new people without legacy baggage. A party who say they are going to implement "new politics" and actually mean it. The only other choice at the moment seems to be IND or SF.

I agree. Fat chance of that happening before the next election though. Too many Independents would be extremely messy though. And SF have very obvious legacy issues as long as Adams is still there.

Creative Juices

WallyGUFC wrote: »

I agree. Fat chance of that happening before the next election though. Too many Independents would be extremely messy though. And SF have very obvious legacy issues as long as Adams is still there.

Yeah you're probably right but the IW protests send a huge message to the next government, clean up the system or move aside. I expect SF will get into power after the nest GE and then they will have to put their money where their mouth is.

Tugboats

Did the 188ers brave the weather today?

TerrorFirmer

Tugboats wrote: »

Did the 188ers brave the weather today?

There was a pretty big and vocal crowd there.

Tugboats

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

There was a pretty big and vocal crowd there.

rte news reporting a hundred people http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1110/658291-water-charges/

TerrorFirmer

Padraic Conneely nearly got more abuse than Enda Kenny did entering the Radisson.