Water - where do you stand?

ninty9er

There were many different reasons given on the airwaves last week for participation in weekend protests.

I myself don't have any great issue with water charges but have concerns over the management of the company tasked with provision.

Where do people stand?

Saipanne

Love the stuff. Can't live without it.

Silentcorner

ninty9er wrote: »

There were many different reasons given on the airwaves last week for participation in weekend protests.

I myself don't have any great issue with water charges but have concerns over the management of the company tasked with provision.

Where do people stand?

This is the big problem for the establishment, this has become something much bigger than just water charges. The establishment is currently trying to backtrack seemingly oblivious to the fact that it will do as much damage as ploughing on, the protests may well dissipate but this was not the sort of reform voters signed up to, this is not the "world class" public service Ministers have promised...they have just apologised to the nation but we know that words mean nothing, no one will face any consequences for any incompetence.

There is a strong wiff of incompetence, a potential wiff of corruption, wastage, premium wages, cronyism, undeserved bonus structures...this stinks of FF, who we collectively booted out of office unceremoniously in 2011...whose participation in the protests is pathetic.

This has been a serious boot into the establishment, and I include the traditional media who completely ignored these protests until it was no longer possible to do so.

I believe we should pay for water, I accept water charges, but I am really enjoying what is happening to the political establishment at the moment, and I would love if this was just the spark required to begin the process of real change.

Manach

While I'd hold water is already been paid for via income tax and should be continued to be paid for as such in that method, my understanding that only Jesus could make any stand on water?

hatrickpatrick

Why can't we see results?
For me it's a combination of the principle of metered charges causing people to cut back on hygeine, the fact that so much money has been taken out of the economy already, the fact that the government is increasing the financial burden on ordinary people without properly tackling waste and extravagance in bodies like the HSE, and finally the fact that Irish Water is so bloated, its senior staff are so overpaid, and all the cronyism shenanigans surrounding it.

BoJack Horseman

Every option in the poll is opposition?

samdavis

I lived in Italy for many years, you pay for water there......you pay approx. 10 euro per month (our bills were on average 27 euro every 3 months) We bought bottled water to drink and used tap water for showers, washing machine, dishwasher etc. This figure is acceptable (to me) Bin charges were 76 euro per year (bins were emptied every day from a communal bin at the end of the street) I understand the edict from the European Union saying we must pay for water, but it should be on a par with European charges. Adding up bin charges and water charges here is a joke. I am willing to pay for a service, but looking at rates for services in Ireland is a complete joke......

ninty9er

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Every option in the poll is opposition?

I've asked a mod to add "I'm happy to pay as it is" and "I already pay for my water supply" and reset the poll

Tesco TripleChicken

Im actually in favour of the water charges. Up until now Ireland has been one of the only countries to provide free water to the public, people need to stop feeling so entitled and remember that clean drinking water is a privilege not a given "right".
They do however need to fix old leaky pipes and remove all the crap (flouride etc.) from our water.
Edit: I also chose option 3 in the poll
And if you want free water then by all means take advantage of all the rain we get in Ireland, maybe then you won't always be complaining about it

curioser

Against water charges "ever", option 1.

Public policy since the foundation of the State was that citizens did not pay directly for water.

Until 1977 water was paid for through domestic rates which funded the local authorities.

Post 1977, the funding was replaced by a grant from the Exchequer i.e. from taxation.

The creation of Irish Water and charging the ciitizen directly for water has reversed over 90 years of public policy.

Senior Cabinet figures must have done a major face palm when they saw Brendan Ogle taking a front and centre role in the anti camp. The permanent Government must have thought they had neutralised him by giving him the handy job orchestrating the group of unions in the ESB. (Inside the tent p1ssing out rather than outside the tent p1ssing in.) Now he's outside the tent! BO resembled God on Saturday, appearing in several places at once. There's going to be fun, boys and girls!

alastair

curioser wrote: »

Against water charges "ever", option 1.

Public policy since the foundation of the State was that citizens did not pay directly for water.

Are business owners not citizens?
Are domestic users on group schemes not citizens?

Because this supposed policy seems a bit leaky to me.

BoJack Horseman

curioser wrote: »

The creation of Irish Water and charging the ciitizen directly for water has reversed over 90 years of public policy.

You can tax me for having a car, a dog, a TV, an ATM card, even an insurance policy..... I wont bat an eye.

Just never, ever ask me to pay for an expensive & vital utility!

twowheelsonly

Not against the principle of it but most certainly against the way it's being implemented here.
We have to pay it to keep the Troika/our Overlords happy apparently.
I doubt that they insisted that we have one of the highest charges in Europe if not the world!!

IW is a joke in my opinion and yet another slap in the face from the Government who promised to end cronyism and promised transparency and accountability, none of which we seem to be getting.
One of my biggest gripes is when I do the sums...
The top 29 people in IW will earn over 100k. Taking a low guesstimate at 125k each, pre perks and bonuses, that means that approximately 14,000 houses paying a flat rate will be required just to pay their basic wages. Include cars, perks and bonuses and that figure will get scary - for 29 people!!

Macha

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

You can tax me for having a car, a dog, a TV, an ATM card, even an insurance policy..... I wont bat an eye.

Just never, ever ask me to pay for an expensive & vital utility!

You mean like electricity or gas?

Phoebas

twowheelsonly wrote: »

I doubt that they insisted that we have one of the highest charges in Europe if not the world!!

This is a fallacy.
Our m3 rate is amongst the most expensive, but when you factor in the free allowances and the tax credit etc, we drop right down the list.

_Brian

Were already paying for our water by having our own well. And sewage through our own system.

Our taxes are going to subsidise water/sewage for others.

People need to get over themselves and pay for the services they receive.

The government should have tagged this charge into the same system as the LPT right from the beginning where people would have no option but pay or have the money stopped.

The fact still remains that were borrowing north if €6bn a year to run the state. More revenue is required, water charges or increased taxes.
My preference is for water charges as it both raises revenue and collects paent from people other than PAYE workers.

Ken Tucky

_Brian wrote: »

Were already paying for our water by having our own well. And sewage through our own system.

Our taxes are going to subsidise water/sewage for others.

People need to get over themselves and pay for the services they receive.

The government should have tagged this charge into the same system as the LPT right from the beginning where people would have no option but pay or have the money stopped.

The fact still remains that were borrowing north if €6bn a year to run the state. More revenue is required, water charges or increased taxes.
My preference is for water charges as it both raises revenue and collects paent from people other than PAYE workers.

Where do you live that you have to have your own well? Was it your choice to live in such a home. Im just curious, not trying to get at you. Thanks

marketty

I'm not against water charges in principle, and I WAS fully prepared to register and pay my fair share...however...it looks like refusal to pay the charges is growing and it seems like there may be very little consequences for those who don't pay. For this reason and the more I think about it, I'm sick of being one of the 'coping classes' who pays for everything in this country without question, if the people living either side of me can avoid paying and get away with it, why the hell should I stump up again?
If the government is going to back pedal and give more allowances, tax credits etc to ease the burden that's great, but will they have the balls to enforce compliance? I doubt it. So my water rates will probably go up every year to pay for my neighbours who get to enjoy it without paying for it.
The same thing happens in the housing market, no repossessions/consequences for those who won't pay, the cost of which is passed onto dopes like me who will.

Again I think paying for water according to usage is fair and absolutely encourages conservation etc. but if everyone has to pay then everyone has to pay, bar the very genuine cases

Riva10

Phoebas wrote: »

This is a fallacy.
Our m3 rate is amongst the most expensive, but when you factor in the free allowances and the tax credit etc, we drop right down the list.

Please explain your reasoning for the above statement and use figures from other countries

spuddy

When this started, I asked myself two questions.

Do I think it's right to encourage water conservation?
Yes, and to do that there needs to be a mechanism to tell me how much water I'm using, therefore I'm in favour of metering.

Do I think the existing water system needs to be improved?
That's a harder one, water comes out of my tap when I turn it on, and I can't assess the status of the network which supplies it. However there are a couple of things weighing on my mind.

Reports of people with boil water notices, for extended periods of time isn't a sign of a well run system. Also if I stand back for a moment, I'd never consider splitting the electricity network up between 30-odd local authorities, so why split the water network? That inefficiency has a hidden cost which has to paid, plus interest, by the state, and then by me anyway.

So Yes, I think the system needs to be improved, and therefore, whatever the teething difficulties in establishing Irish water, it will tell us how much it actually costs to run the water system, and in the long term put pressure to make it more efficient, and therefore I'm in favour of it over maintaining the status quo.

I can't be the only one out there who thinks like this?

mikemac1

I don't understand all the outrage over water and none of this over USC

Most workers will pay vastly more in the next 12 months in USC then they'll ever pay in water charges.

Introduced in 2011 and supposed to be "temporary"

Sorry for going off topic OP, I just don't see why it's been forgotten and ignored by the public and by the people before profit and those politicians

Do water protesters not work and also don't pay USC? I guess most of them work and are in the same situation as me

Phoebas

Riva10 wrote: »

Please explain your reasoning for the above statement and use figures from other countries

Most other countries don't have a free water allowance or tax breaks.

There was an analysis of this done on primetime last night comparing a group of OECD countries. We were second from the top on m3 rates alone, but down in the bottom half of the list when allowances were taken into account. It should be up on the RTE player.

Kaizersoze81

Phoebas wrote: »

Most other countries don't have a free water allowance or tax breaks.

There was an analysis of this done on primetime last night comparing a group of OECD countries. We were second from the top on m3 rates alone, but down in the bottom half of the list when allowances were taken into account. It should be up on the RTE player.

Yeah and how long do you think it will be before this "free allowance" and tax credit are scrapped. Not very long is the answer. Then we're paying among the highest rare for water , and the highest rate for electricity in Europe. What a country

Phoebas

Kaizersoze81 wrote: »

Yeah and how long do you think it will be before this "free allowance" and tax credit are scrapped. Not very long is the answer. Then we're paying among the highest rare for water , and the highest rate for electricity in Europe. What a country

I can't see into the future the way you can, but, yeah, as it stands we don't have the highest charges, but if/when they increase them in the future we might have.

alastair

Kaizersoze81 wrote: »

Yeah and how long do you think it will be before this "free allowance" and tax credit are scrapped. Not very long is the answer. Then we're paying among the highest rare for water , and the highest rate for electricity in Europe. What a country

We're not paying the highest price for electricity in Europe, and you've no evidence that the basic water allowance is ever going to change, let alone be removed. So dealing with the facts, the distributed list of water charges is incorrect. The London price for instance, is only the fresh water charge - it also needs to have the waste charge applied, plus a monthly standing charge, and they don't have any initial allowance as part of their set-up.

Gosub

Phoebas wrote: »

Most other countries don't have a free water allowance or tax breaks.

There was an analysis of this done on primetime last night comparing a group of OECD countries. We were second from the top on m3 rates alone, but down in the bottom half of the list when allowances were taken into account. It should be up on the RTE player.

This is all grand. Allowances have been put in place to soften the blow of high usage rates. But what happens when these allowances and tax breaks are removed and we're left with the high rates?

I would much rather have no allowance and lower rates. Then it's a harder job for them to raise the rates.

Phoebas

Gosub wrote: »

This is all grand. Allowances have been put in place to soften the blow of high usage rates. But what happens when these allowances and tax breaks are removed and we're left with the high rates?

I would much rather have no allowance and lower rates. Then it's a harder job for them to raise the rates.

Why is it harder to raise the rates than remove the allowances?

The rates can be changed by the regulator, who provides political cover to the government. Can you imagine how foolhardy a government would need to be to remove the allowances given the public backlash we've seen over the past month?

CarrickMcJoe

Manach wrote: »

While I'd hold water is already been paid for via income tax and should be continued to be paid for as such in that method, my understanding that only Jesus could make any stand on water?

Don't forget BONO..

munchkin_utd

Phoebas wrote: »

This is a fallacy.
Our m3 rate is amongst the most expensive, but when you factor in the free allowances and the tax credit etc, we drop right down the list.

also,
other countries have standing charges and meter rental, so the actual water portion of the bill is cheap.

it was said a few months back when folks were clambering to not have a standing charge, that the result would be higher charge per litre of water.

funny and ironic that the political solution now may be a flat charge for everyone!

alastair

Gosub wrote: »

I would much rather have no allowance and lower rates. Then it's a harder job for them to raise the rates.

Why would the absence of an allowance make it any harder to raise the rates?

Gosub

Phoebas wrote: »

Why is it harder to raise the rates than remove the allowances?

The rates can be changed by the regulator, who provides political cover to the government. Can you imagine how foolhardy a government would need to be to remove the allowances given the public backlash we've seen over the past month?

Your thinking seems to be very short term. The government thinks longer term with an eye to trying to look good today. Today they wouldn't do away with the allowances, but you can bet it's in their long-term plan. These people aren't politicians by accident. They know how to work the 'ordinary' people. The more we forgive them for this, the more we deserve to be treated like brainless turnips.

Regarding raising the rates. If your electricity provider decided to raise their rates by, say, 20% you might notice and kick up a stink. You might even look to move to another provider. Same with your broadband supplier. You won't have this option with your water supplier.

lazybones32

I have no problem paying for a clear and pollution-free supply but IW is just a another tax. I am strongly against paying for a poisoned supply of water and the reasons supplied by the Govt. regarding IW show they have little respect for their employers and our intelligence.

alastair

Gosub wrote: »

Regarding raising the rates. If your electricity provider decided to raise their rates by, say, 20% you might notice and kick up a stink. You might even look to move to another provider. Same with your broadband supplier. You won't have this option with your water supplier.

That's still no explanation of why a rate increase is easier with an allowance?

alastair

lazybones32 wrote: »

I have no problem paying for a clear and pollution-free supply but IW is just a another tax. I am strongly against paying for a poisoned supply of water and the reasons supplied by the Govt. regarding IW show they have little respect for their employers and our intelligence.

So, your problem is with your water being poisoned? Shouldn't you inform IW?

Red Kev

First of all, in principle I've no problem paying for water as a utility, but not the way its being done here.

We've been paying for water for decades, however successive governments have failed to invest our taxes in a proper water supply and it has degenerated over decades, the blame here is solely at the door of politicians: after all its easier to give a tax reduction in a budget as an election sweetener rather than investing in something that can be put on the long finger.

The problem with the IW charge is that it isn't going to be ringfenced, so we've no idea of knowing if 10% or 100% of money raised will actually be used to fix the buggered system, going on experience it will be thrown into the big pot and used for tax breaks for people likely to vote for whatever party is in power at that time.

Having said that, water charges should only have been introduced when an equivalent tax was reduced or removed so as to balance it out over time.

I also have little or no confidence in some of the people associated with Irish Water: I've no problem paying 100K and more if thats the going rate for a particular professional, but the whole thing stinks of cronyism so far.

I also don't agree with free allowances depending on your income, it only encourages waste and irresponsible use.

I live in Roscommon, we have had a boil water notice for the past year, and for about 2.5 of the past 5 years. This is mostly down to septic tanks and slurry being thrown onto fields at all times of the year, never heard of anybody checking this or anybody being fined for it. Some of it is also down to a poorly maintained treatment system.

I think some of the revenue generated should be used to assist in houses rainwater harvesting but my main impression is that IW is being run so incompetently that active measures like this will never happen.

For most of the above reasons I won't be paying the charge.

Phoebas

Gosub wrote: »

Your thinking seems to be very short term. The government thinks longer term with an eye to trying to look good today.

If only that were true.

meglome

There is a lot of 'if only (insert reason) was changed then I'd be happy to pay'. Stinks of looking for excuses. This set up was never going to be perfect and it will take years for it to be straightened out. Not saying we should be happy with that but that was always going to be inevitable. Waiting for whatever number of years to address every gripe is just not feasible and would be worse than steaming ahead and correcting as we go.

mrbrianj

alastair wrote: »

So, your problem is with your water being poisoned? Shouldn't you inform IW?

I informed IW that the water supply to my mothers home in Shankill was off, and there was water flowing down the public roadway. They told me not to worry - they were fixing a leak in Santry and the water would be back on when it was finished!!!

I politely explained where Santry and Shankill were located - I was told this did not matter. (It does - for those not familiar with Dublin or water supply)

Since then I have heard many first hand stories of similar happenings throughout the country. So informing IW may not be as successful as you'd think

alastair

Red Kev wrote: »

The problem with the IW charge is that it isn't going to be ringfenced, so we've no idea of knowing if 10% or 100% of money raised will actually be used to fix the buggered system, going on experience it will be thrown into the big pot and used for tax breaks for people likely to vote for whatever party is in power at that time.

How would you imagine that'll happen? IW don't collect taxes. They issue bills, and then spend the money on IW operations. The only money going back to the government is the VAT intake on bills.

_Brian

Ken Tucky wrote: »

Where do you live that you have to have your own well? Was it your choice to live in such a home. Im just curious, not trying to get at you. Thanks

I live in Cavan.
Rural about 4 miles from nearest piped supply.

Was it my choice , I'm not sure how to answer that, we have a farm so we live in the country. However my well/sewrage is private and not associated with the farm.

We laid a Levi when building for "services", we both pay PAYE and yet we pay for our water and services, more so when it breaks or blocks it's my responsibility to repair, at my own cost.

So no sympathy here regarding water charges.

More revenue needs to be generated nationally.

I was looking a the photos from the march in our local town and from what I could see the majority were unemployed, some I'd recognise as being serial unemployed. They know full well if this charge is blocked then the PAYE worker will shoulder their portion of the charge.

However I see this weak government buckling under their own incompetence and giving huge consessions to get them past the next election, buying votes.

alastair

mrbrianj wrote: »

I informed IW that the water supply to my mothers home in Shankill was off, and there was water flowing down the public roadway. They told me not to worry - they were fixing a leak in Santry and the water would be back on when it was finished!!!

I politely explained where Santry and Shankill were located - I was told this did not matter. (It does - for those not familiar with Dublin or water supply)

Since then I have heard many first hand stories of similar happenings throughout the country. So informing IW may not be as successful as you'd think

I'm missing the part of the story with the poisoned water?*

How long before your Ma's water was back on?

* Edit - just noticed you're not the poster with the 'poisoned water'.

meglome

mrbrianj wrote: »

I informed IW that the water supply to my mothers home in Shankill was off, and there was water flowing down the public roadway. They told me not to worry - they were fixing a leak in Santry and the water would be back on when it was finished!!!

I politely explained where Santry and Shankill were located - I was told this did not matter. (It does - for those not familiar with Dublin or water supply)

Since then I have heard many first hand stories of similar happenings throughout the country. So informing IW may not be as successful as you'd think

So your story has nothing to do with your any or anybody else's water being poisoned. The only thing that I find surprising is that you expect everyone in this new company to be an expert in the first weeks/months. There will be a lot more stories like that too I'd imagine before it settles down.

walshb

alastair wrote: »

How long before your Ma's water was back on?

'.

It's his mother's.

Banjo String

To try to imply the majority of people protesting are unemployed or self-employed is rubbish tbh.

The majority of the protesters are the aptly described hard pressed middle earners, who you've rightly acknowledged shoulder the most already.

FG tend to have a high proportion of farmers as supporters, luckily enough for them the property tax didn't include the value of their land.

Will any of the farming community be pressing the Govt to introduce such charges, as recommended by the EU, seeing as we need to raise Revenue?

mrbrianj

We do need metering, we do need some form of charge to encourage conservation.

We need a secure, clean supply of water everywhere - this we should have already. We are taxed for water services, business pay water rates - the government (dail and local)has been in office a while now -its their incompetence the system is so bad.

Did they fix it, did they sack anybody for failing to look after the water system? No they spent 100million on consultants and hired all the existing "experts"! Is that going to give us clean water?

Clarity on the issue due next week!! Enda WTF! set up this quango to spend billions and charge us whatever and you dont have the answers before now? did he not asked the questions before they set up.

a 100 million on consultants and they cant even get communicate with their costumers- bizarre.

Michael Noonan saying if we did not have to pay for electricity, we'd leave the lights on all night???? who leaves their taps on at the moment? seriously do they really think we are that stupid.

The Government could be getting credit for managing the exit from the bail out, but they are shooting themselves in the foot by turning into FF lite and treating us like fools. I do think the public have just had enough of the stroke politics, and IW is the last stroke

Dan_Solo

None of the above. Will pay but not happy about it.
If you don't like Irish Water and the other Fine Gall extra taxes, just vote for somebody else next time out. That's democracy.

alastair

Banjo String wrote: »

FG tend to have a high proportion of farmers as supporters, luckily enough for them the property tax didn't include the value of their land.

Given that it's a residential property tax, that's not remotely surprising.

Alf Veedersane

As an aside, when my father rang about a leak across thje road from our house, the response was quicker and the work was finished better than the council ever managed.

PeterBrown1415

- I'm opposed to my money being taken from me and given to Bond Holders., under the guise of 'Water Charges'

Water charges, USC, household charge, Income Levy, Property Tax - These are all bond holder taxes.

alastair

PeterBrown1415 wrote: »

- I'm opposed to my money being taken from me and given to Bond Holders., under the guise of 'Water Charges'

Water charges, USC, household charge, Income Levy, Property Tax - These are all bond holder taxes.

As previously explained, they're all (bar water charges) taxes that contribute to our nations running costs. Those running costs are 97% to do with costs that have nothing to do with bank bailouts, and of the 3% of tax spend that does have to do with the bank bailouts, some 15% of that 3% (0.0045%) is to cover costs associated with bond holders (that we were obliged to pay, as a condition of getting the loans to keep the country running).

Gosub

alastair wrote: »

That's still no explanation of why a rate increase is easier with an allowance?

I didn't say that a rate increase would be easier with the allowance, just that it would be politically easier to reduce/do away with the allowance than it would be to increase the rate.

Phoebas wrote: »

If only that were true.

Sadly the long term view only extends to their skullduggery. They know that people forget, over time. You only have to look at the level of support for FF, and they sold the country to their mates!