IW/Anything Water Related-Warning in OP

Daith

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Actually, thinking about it, if this is true it would be better just to keep the water bill in the LLs name, and increase the rent by that amount now that it is a fixed charge

That would probably make sense but then each household would get a €100 rebate. If the tenants are paying this should go back to them but if it's in the LLs name they've no right to claim it.

Geuze

Streetwalker wrote: »

I already pay for water so I think it must have been someone trying to scam me.

This has been explained repeatedly.

Yes, the 1bn + costs of water were paid out of general taxation plus borrowing.

The plan now is to reduce Govt spending on water and replace it with direct charges to pay some of the 1bn+ costs.

This means less Govt borrowing.

Note: it does not mean lower taxes, unfortunately, as we are running a large fiscal deficit.

So, to clarify, the introduction of water charges does not mean other taxes will be reduced, as we are still borrowing 5bn+ pa.

The introduction of water charges means people paying to help reduce public borrowing.

keithclancy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

mmmm ? maybe .......but do you not think that all kinda changed over the last few years with teeth whitening, braces etc. Irish people used to have awful teeth, yellow and gaps all over the place but you rarely see that nowadays

Its way OT but

I had braces 20 years ago paid for by the tax payer whilst in primary school. Orthodontics and dental care have been around for a really long time, just a lot of people never availed of it.

Many people would only address a problem when they see a problem.

These days you just pay directly for corrective treatment but the checkup is paid for by the taxpayer and the maintenance is cheap.

The mentality hasn't changed much. The German way, people are only covered on dental insurance when they have yearly checkups and cleanings, otherwise they have to pay for corrective treatment themselves.

Its all about policy influencing human behaviour.

The same ethos is applied to a pay as you use scheme I.E. water meters.

Tony EH

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

If that is the case then I think we could find that the compliance rate shoots up pretty sharpish!

I don't want to rely on keeping a deposit. I would look to make water payment a condition of a tenancy agreement, and look for the tenant to provide proof.

Actually, thinking about it, if this is true it would be better just to keep the water bill in the LLs name, and increase the rent by that amount now that it is a fixed charge

Government getting LLs to enforce this

In my experience the majority of landlords keep peoples "deposits" (or bulk thereof) anyway, so it's not going to make that much difference.

keithclancy

Tony EH wrote: »

In my experience the majority of landlords keep peoples "deposits" (or bulk thereof) anyway, so it's not going to make that much difference.

In my experience I had 3 in 11 landlords try to dispute over the Deposit, with only 1 out of the 3 blatantly trying to take it for no good reason (I'll send it by check)

Even then we got that back because we refused to leave the house until I got the deposit back in the form I paid it in (Cash)

The majority of Landlords are fine, its just 10 people will complain for every 1 bad experience and 1 person will praise every 10 good experiences.

Tony EH

Well, in fairness, my renting days stretch back over a decade ago and bar one old couple, most LL's I, and everyone I knew encountered, were little more than pricks, who would fight tooth and nail over a deposit.

Maybe things have "improved", but I don't doubt there's still a LOT of them about. The couple next door to us had a ridiculous fiasco trying to get their deposit back a couple of years ago.

Made me glad not to have to go through the nonsense that is renting in this country any more.

Banjo String

Daith wrote: »

Yes that's exactly it. It was even specified that landlords could take money from a deposit if it wasn't paid.

These plans have already been put on hold as they're looking difficult to implement.

I already asked, who here as a landlord would be willing to withhold a months rent (as a deposit) or even part of it, due to an unpaid bill by a tenant, that's not even in their name (assuming they don't register with iw)

I know I wouldn't be comfortable with that knowing that the tenant had the keys to my property (personally)

Breffnigolfer

Streetwalker wrote: »

.......

I already pay for water so I think it must have been someone trying to scam me.

You're not paying enough. It's time for you to man up and pay your fair share. Why should you get your water supply subsidised and others not?

Caliden

How is Irish Water different from other utilities (UPC, electricity, gas) ?

If that change is brought in, then these other companies could be within their rights to claim the same treatment.

AboutaWeekAgo

Breffnigolfer wrote: »

You're not paying enough. It's time for you to man up and pay your fair share. Why should you get your water supply subsidised and others not?

And what about the people who can't afford to "man up and pay their fair share"?

Breffnigolfer

AboutaWeekAgo wrote: »

And what about the people who can't afford to "man up and pay their fair share"?

Who, exactly, cannot afford €160 per year? €3 per week?
How are those people currently paying for other essentials, like heat, light, clothing, food?
Are you saying these people are not spending €3 per week on something than is superfluous to their needs?

keithclancy

Tony EH wrote: »

Well, in fairness, my renting days stretch back over a decade ago and bar one old couple, most LL's I, and everyone I knew encountered, were little more than pricks, who would fight tooth and nail over a deposit.

Maybe things have "improved", but I don't doubt there's still a LOT of them about. The couple next door to us had a ridiculous fiasco trying to get their deposit back a couple of years ago.

Made me glad not to have to go through the nonsense that is renting in this country any more.

OT again ...

Mine goes back over 10 years also in Dublin, Cork, The Hague and Dusseldorf.

There wasn't really a difference between them except

Ireland - Almost everything was fully furnished, unfurnished was very rare.

Netherlands -
Fully furnished is available but expensive, basically you are renting the furniture with the place.
Unfurnished means no furniture, but there's a floor, light switches, light sockets and a kitchen/bathroom/toilet, no appliances such as a washing machine.

Germany - Fully Furnished is also very expensive
Unfurnished means no kitchen, no floor, no light fixtures, no appliances, but a bathroom/toilet is always there.

IMO there is no difference in how bad / good the landlords are in each as long as you leave the place how it was when you moved in, in Germany this would mean re-painting the walls and removing any and all defects from the walls/skirting boards/existing fittings.

Only had the Negative experiences in Ireland/Netherlands, Germany I only rented once for a year, but have colleagues that have similar problems as Netherlands/Ireland.

As I said, Landlords are for the majority fine in my experience.

Back on Topic

AboutaWeekAgo

Breffnigolfer wrote: »

Who, exactly, cannot afford €160 per year? €3 per week?
How are those people currently paying for other essentials, like heat, light, clothing, food?
Are you saying these people are not spending €3 per week on something than is superfluous to their needs?

I can't and I'm sure there's a hell of a lot of other people in the same boat. I had a choice this morning to get some dog food or a small bag of coal to heat the house with the last of my wages, I went for the dog food. Means I'll be freezing my ass off until I get paid again on Friday. It's the same story every week having to pick something to put off till I get paid again. I could have done with that €3 today.

Breffnigolfer

AboutaWeekAgo wrote: »

I can't and I'm sure there's a hell of a lot of other people in the same boat. I had a choice this morning to get some dog food or a small bag of coal to heat the house with the last of my wages, I went for the dog food. Means I'll be freezing my ass off until I get paid again on Friday. It's the same story every week having to pick something to put off till I get paid again. I could have done with that €3 today.

You are joking?

If things are that tight then you cannot afford to have a dog.

Your story is exactly proving my point. You have elected for a luxury over an essential.

AboutaWeekAgo

Breffnigolfer wrote: »

You are joking?

If things are that tight then you cannot afford to have a dog.

Your story is exactly proving my point. You have elected for a luxury over an essential.

You know what, you're right! I'm going to take ol' four legs out back and take a shovel to his head.

ROCKMAN

Breffnigolfer wrote: »

Who, exactly, cannot afford €160 per year? €3 per week?
How are those people currently paying for other essentials, like heat, light, clothing, food?
Are you saying these people are not spending €3 per week on something than is superfluous to their needs?

Yes people are paying for all the essentials you have listed plus many other things like Water ,Petrol ,Rent or Mortgage etc etc and believe it or not an extra €3 a week ,€12 a month is a stretch for some in society.
But for a lot its the understandable believe that these flat rates will soar once the caps are lifted and that in 3 to 4 years these bills will be what sinks them.
They are others protesting who can afford these charges but have drawn a line in the sand and are refusing to pay on principle. Enough is enough.

This issue in all honesty has grown beyond a simple money matter for a lot of people.

sammy37

Breffnigolfer wrote: »

You are joking?

If things are that tight then you cannot afford to have a dog.

Your story is exactly proving my point. You have elected for a luxury over an essential.

Yeah damn him for having a dog and imagine he even fed the wretched thing when he could have handed that money over to the super quango that is IW and all its overpaid managers. consultants. lawyers etc etc. Hang that dog from the nearest tree i say and dont be wasting any more of your money on it.

Breffnigolfer

AboutaWeekAgo wrote: »

You know what, you're right! I'm going to take ol' four legs out back and take a shovel to his head.

Well may you be flippant but you cannot afford to have the dog yet you choose to do so. You cannot claim the poor-mouth and continue to spend money on a pet.

Breffnigolfer

sammy37 wrote: »

Yeah damn him for having a dog and imagine he even fed the wretched thing when he could have handed that money over to the super quango that is IW and all its overpaid managers. consultants. lawyers etc etc. Hang that dog from the nearest tree i say and dont be wasting any more of your money on it.

Are you trying for stupid post of the year?

The man said he chose to feed the pet over heating himself. There is no bill for IW this week, as you well know.

gladrags

Phoebas wrote: »

Also that a 'survey for the Irish Dental Association' couldn't possibly be biased.
Maybe the dentists should lower their prices to get people in through their doors. You'd hardly get a check up, clean and a filling for the price of a years water.

That's because as with pharmacies,and other essential medical services, dentist charges went through the roof,and still are.

No accountability,a bit like IW and Kenny before the protests.

sammy37

Breffnigolfer wrote: »

Are you trying for stupid post of the year?

The man said he chose to feed the pet over heating himself. There is no bill for IW this week, as you well know.

Maybe but you sure as hell are giving me a good run for my money by saying its only 3 euro a week for IW and everyone should be able to afford that when in reality that is far from the case.

Breffnigolfer

sammy37 wrote: »

Maybe but you sure as hell are giving me a good run for my money by saying its only 3 euro a week for IW and everyone should be able to afford that when in reality that is far from the case.

Show me how €3 per week is affordable?

What do you suggest should be done by those people not connected to Public water and have to pay for their supply? There are 600,000 people in this bracket.

Why should only those people connected to Public water supply have to pay nothing?

Banjo String

Breffnigolfer wrote: »

Well may you be flippant but you cannot afford to have the dog yet you choose to do so. You cannot claim the poor-mouth and continue to spend money on a pet.

This state can't afford another quango, but guess what.......

ROCKMAN

Breffnigolfer wrote: »

Show me how €3 per week is affordable?

What do you suggest should be done by those people not connected to Public water and have to pay for their supply? There are 600,000 people in this bracket.

Why should only those people connected to Public water supply have to pay nothing?

Maybe join the protests ,Fight for change and don't just except things as they are. Who knows maybe these people can get the government to look at their situations ,Get them to look at the existing grant levels and current subsidies ,

_Kaiser_

Breffnigolfer wrote: »

You're not paying enough. It's time for you to man up and pay your fair share. Why should you get your water supply subsidised and others not?

Ah this rubbish again eh?

Everyone in this country has been paying for water through general taxation for decades. You can argue "it wasn't enough" as much as you like but the reality is that we have ridiculous levels of waste in the councils that were (and still will, albeit with shiny IW logos on the vans) looking after it to-date. Setting up an expensive crony-filled incompetent quango won't solve any of that.

As for the subsidising others bit - I assume this refers to those rural dwellers who CHOOSE to live in a field in the middle of nowhere and so have to pay for their own well. They should console themselves that their choice may mean they pay separately/again for water, but against that they get a far bigger house, for a lot less than their urban counterparts pay for something half the size, in a quiet area with little to no traffic, with a bit of land to boot.

The idea that such people should be entitled to the same level of public (and other) services is nonsense. Look up what "economies of scale" means, or do you think maybe we should run a LUAS line to every one-off build as well?

yipeeeee

On another thread we have people calling for houses to be built for 5000 families to live in.

This costs money which the public has to be prepared to help give. Its just an endless cycle unless we get this money from somewhere.

Yes we may have paid for water through taxes, we now need that money to be spent on other areas such as homelessness etc.

But nobody wants to do anything to help, only give out.

No one has any solutions.

AboutaWeekAgo

yipeeeee wrote: »

On another thread we have people calling for houses to be built for 5000 families to live in.

This costs money which the public has to be prepared to help give. Its just an endless cycle unless we get this money from somewhere.

Yes we may have paid for water through taxes, we now need that money to be spent on other areas such as homelessness etc.

But nobody wants to do anything to help, only give out.

No one has any solutions.

I'm sure the consultant fee that was spent for IW could have helped out many many many homeless people, but of course the boys wouldn't be getting their nice pay checks if that happened.

yipeeeee

yipeeeee wrote: »

On another thread we have people calling for houses to be built for 5000 families to live in.

This costs money which the public has to be prepared to help give. Its just an endless cycle unless we get this money from somewhere.

Yes we may have paid for water through taxes, we now need that money to be spent on other areas such as homelessness etc.

But nobody wants to do anything to help, only give out.

No one has any solutions.

There is a solution offered by the Government. That is for everyone to pay for the water they use, freeing up tax payers money to improve other services required, eg houses for the homeless.

Royal Tara

Its good to see we are tops in Europe for foreign aid, we look after the people of Africa not just by keeping them here but by sinding millions in foreign aid, and to Syria and several countries, What about "charity begins at home". What point are we trying to prove by giving more than other european countries. Why not just give our fair share and look after those at home on the streets etc. We are building homes for other nations while we have hundreds of homeless people here in need of shelter. I am probably going to be slammed for this but it is what a lot of people are saying and thinking. Yesterdays google news was full of how generous the Irish are with their foreign aid and how we keep on giving despite a recession and now that the recession is over (lol) we should go back to 2008 donations and increase our foreign aid. Anyone else have an imput on this one?

yipeeeee

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There is a solution offered by the Government. That is for everyone to pay for the water they use, freeing up tax payers money to improve other services required, eg houses for the homeless.

Unfortunately everyone is only out for themselves in these protests