No refund for families who have paid water charges

oscarBravo

RealJohn wrote: »

They wanted to bring in a law that the vast majority of the country didn't want and was already forbidden by the existing law.

You're still betraying a misunderstanding of the core principle that no government can be bound by decisions of its predecessors. A law can't be forbidden by an existing law if the new law explicitly repeals the old law.

As for what the public want, that's not how our system of government works. The people elect the government, and the government make the laws. If the public don't like the laws the government makes, then the public elects a different government.

The idea that it's somehow "unlawful" for a government to enact an unpopular law is rooted in a complete lack of understanding of how the system works.

RealJohn

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're still betraying a misunderstanding of the core principle that no government can be bound by decisions of its predecessors. A law can't be forbidden by an existing law if the new law explicitly repeals the old law.

As for what the public want, that's not how our system of government works. The people elect the government, and the government make the laws. If the public don't like the laws the government makes, then the public elects a different government.

The idea that it's somehow "unlawful" for a government to enact an unpopular law is rooted in a complete lack of understanding of how the system works.

I might have phrased myself poorly in my last post but I think you knew what I meant (and you were very quick to 'interpret' what I said in previous posts so I'm not sure why you were so unwilling to read between the lines there). What I meant was that what the new law brought in was explicitly forbidden by the law it was replacing, not that the law itself was forbidden.

And again, you're right in that we elect the government and then the government enact laws but that doesn't mean that they should enact laws that they know are opposed by the majority of the country. I also never said that it was unlawful to do so but it's clearly overstepping their mandate to do so and it was clearly an unjust law from the start so it was completely justified to 'break' it, in the same way it would be justified to 'break' any other unjust law.

oscarBravo

RealJohn wrote: »

What I meant was that what the new law brought in was explicitly forbidden by the law it was replacing, not that the law itself was forbidden.

Well, yes. That's a pretty standard thing for laws to do: to allow things that previous laws prohibited.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that the government wanted to legalise cannabis. They'd have to introduce a law that would allow something that was explicitly forbidden by (for example) the 1984 Misuse of Drugs Act.

In the same way, because the government wanted to allow direct billing for water, they had to repeal the law that said that couldn't be done. This isn't some esoteric loophole they've exploited - almost every Act of the Oireachtas amends previous Acts.

And again, you're right in that we elect the government and then the government enact laws but that doesn't mean that they should enact laws that they know are opposed by the majority of the country. I also never said that it was unlawful to do so but it's clearly overstepping their mandate to do so...

Charging for water was in Fine Gael's election manifesto.

...and it was clearly an unjust law from the start so it was completely justified to 'break' it, in the same way it would be justified to 'break' any other unjust law.

Why is this the only country in the developed world where charging for water is unjust? Or is it unjust everywhere, but only the Irish have noticed?

Jack Killian

Going Forward wrote: »

The legal position is that the previous water services legislation prohibited water service providers charging for domestic/household water.

That section of the previous act was just repealed by one line in the current legislation, which also defines customers of Irish Water.

This gives IW legal authority to at least attempt to charge households for water.


http://www.water.ie/help-centre/questions-and-answers/does-ireland-have-an-exem/

Which line of the legislation clearly and expressly repealed it ?

Because after IW was set up a lot of TDs claimed that it was news to them that water was paid for via VAT and Motor Tax.

If they'd read and debated the legislation properly, and the legislation clearly repealed that, then it couldn't have been unknown to them.

Which is it ?

Chips Lovell

This is interesting. Report in the Irish Times this morning says legal opinion sought by Irish Water concludes the state can't abandon water charges now that they've been implemented.

The introduction of water charges by the last government means the State can no longer avail of a “very limited” exemption in the EU water directive, they say.

“The benefit of the derogation has been lost for all time, and cannot be revived by seeking to reverse the decision to introduce charges,” the legal opinion states.

Of course opinion is just that. Informed opinion, but opinion nonetheless. However this is going to set the cat among the pigeons in terms of the future of Irish Water.

Signals from FF are that they want Irish Water gone as a condition of support of an FG minority government. Then again, this could be the fig leaf they need to support a government with Irish Water staying in place.

Jack Killian

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

This is interesting. Report in the Irish Times this morning says legal opinion sought by Irish Water concludes the state can't abandon water charges now that they've been implemented.



Of course opinion is just that. Informed opinion, but opinion nonetheless. However this is going to set the cat among the pigeons in terms of the future of Irish Water.

Signals from FF are that they want Irish Water gone as a condition of support of an FG minority government. Then again, this could be the fig leaf they need to support a government with Irish Water staying in place.

Note that the legal opinion in question was commissioned by Irish Water.

Going Forward

Jack Killian wrote: »

Which line of the legislation clearly and expressly repealed it ?

Because after IW was set up a lot of TDs claimed that it was news to them that water was paid for via VAT and Motor Tax.

If they'd read and debated the legislation properly, and the legislation clearly repealed that, then it couldn't have been unknown to them.

Which is it ?

I'll preface this by saying I haven't look at it lately, but IIRC:

The current legislation didn't repeal anything to do with motor tax or vat, it only repealed a provision in the 2007 act which prevented water suppliers charging for domestic water.

(Anything about motor tax, vat etc IF it's there at all, would be in older legislation, and again, I could be completely wrong on this particular point, there are better brains than mine here, the policy of using motor tax and vat was just a policy, a habitual practice, rather than something in statute.)

Suryavarman

Jack Killian wrote: »

Note that the legal opinion in question was commissioned by Irish Water.

And your point is? The Journal did a piece on this same topic a month ago. They also came to the conclusion that abolishing water charges would probably be illegal.

Jack Killian

Suryavarman wrote: »

And your point is? The Journal did a piece on this same topic a month ago. They also came to the conclusion that abolishing water charges would probably be illegal.

Nothing remotely definite then ?

Godge

RealJohn wrote: »

I might have phrased myself poorly in my last post but I think you knew what I meant (and you were very quick to 'interpret' what I said in previous posts so I'm not sure why you were so unwilling to read between the lines there). What I meant was that what the new law brought in was explicitly forbidden by the law it was replacing, not that the law itself was forbidden.

And again, you're right in that we elect the government and then the government enact laws but that doesn't mean that they should enact laws that they know are opposed by the majority of the country. I also never said that it was unlawful to do so but it's clearly overstepping their mandate to do so and it was clearly an unjust law from the start so it was completely justified to 'break' it, in the same way it would be justified to 'break' any other unjust law.

Some laws are mandated by outside agencies such as the UN, the EU and other international treaties (or in exceptional economic circumstances, the IMF or the Troika).

In those cases, the Government has no alternative but to introduce a law no matter whether that law is popular or not. As we have seen today with the legal advice in the Irish Times, it may be illegal to abolish water charges even though the Dail could attempt to pass such legislation.

Unpopularity is not a reason to break a law. In the case of water, the legislation may be unpopular but it is certainly not "unjust law" in the common understanding of such law.

greendom

Suryavarman wrote: »

And your point is? The Journal did a piece on this same topic a month ago. They also came to the conclusion that abolishing water charges would probably be illegal.

Is it not possible for the government (when it is finally formed) to change the law ?

I thought that was their job ?

Suryavarman

Jack Killian wrote: »

Nothing remotely definte then ?

Things will only become definite when a court of law decides on the matter. Until then all we have are probablys and likelys.

greendom wrote: »

Is it not possible for the government (when it is finally formed) to change the law ?

I thought that was their job ?

It's an EU law.

greendom

Suryavarman wrote: »

Things will only become definite when a court of law decides on the matter. Until then all we have are probablys and likelys.



It's an EU law.

That makes it trickier, but should give whoever's in charge the opportunity to exercise their diplomatic skills.

DavyD_83

So where are we with it all now really?
I've been paying my Water Charges, as we were told were legally required to.

Has everybody now cancelled their direct debits on the basis that it will be scrapped eventually, and at that point we may/may not be required to pay any outstanding charges?

I get that this is not a concern for those who boycotted from the start; but for those of us who have been paying (and continue to pay?), what now?

pc7

DavyD_83 wrote: »

I get that this is not a concern for those who boycotted from the start; but for those of us who have been paying (and continue to pay?), what now?

Like you I've paid from the start, I won't be paying any further bills now due to all the uncertainty, feel like a right gilly for paying.

Zubeneschamali

Jack Killian wrote: »

Nothing remotely definite then ?

There is no way to get a definite ruling on legal matters without having a court rule and then appealing all the way to the highest court possible.

In this case, you could abolish water charges and wait and see if the Commission would go to the ECJ to try and enforce a directive, then wait for the court to rule, then appeal and see how it goes. The problem with trying this is that it is risky - we could get slapped with serious fines.

Without going all the way to the last appeal, you'll never have anything definite - just legal opinion like the one cited earlier.

Suryavarman

greendom wrote: »

That makes it trickier, but should give whoever's in charge the opportunity to exercise their diplomatic skills.

It would give someone a chance to waste a lot of political capital. There's no way the EU parliament is going to amend that law just to keep a minority of Irish voters happy.

Godge

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There is no way to get a definite ruling on legal matters without having a court rule and then appealing all the way to the highest court possible.

In this case, you could abolish water charges and wait and see if the Commission would go to the ECJ to try and enforce a directive, then wait for the court to rule, then appeal and see how it goes. The problem with trying this is that it is risky - we could get slapped with serious fines.

Without going all the way to the last appeal, you'll never have anything definite - just legal opinion like the one cited earlier.

I think one of the key things to note is the absence of a countervailing legal opinion. We haven't seen anything from a leading lawyer on this suggesting that Ireland could just abolish water charges at the stroke of a pen as people like Paul Murphy suggest.

Normally, if there is considerable legal doubt on a major public issue (divorce, abortion etc.), you will see different senior lawyers offering different reasoned legal opinions. In this case, there hasn't been a single lawyer come out with a detailed reasoned argument as to how water charges could be legally abolished. That says more than anything.

Jack Killian

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There is no way to get a definite ruling on legal matters without having a court rule and then appealing all the way to the highest court possible.

In this case, you could abolish water charges and wait and see if the Commission would go to the ECJ to try and enforce a directive, then wait for the court to rule, then appeal and see how it goes. The problem with trying this is that it is risky - we could get slapped with serious fines.

Without going all the way to the last appeal, you'll never have anything definite - just legal opinion like the one cited earlier.

And yet some pros claim that we definitely would be in breach - strange that.

Jack Killian

Suryavarman wrote: »

It would give someone a chance to waste a lot of political capital. There's no way the EU parliament is going to amend that law just to keep a minority of Irish voters happy.

There's no proof that they would have to amend it.

FreudianSlippers

1) Calling not paying water bills "civil disobedience" is probably one of the most immature things I've ever seen written on a "serious" politics website.

2) If one actually reads the WFD, it's highly unlikely that once water charges are implemented it would be possible to abolish them without showing exactly where the money is coming from to replace same (which seems unlikely at best).

3) No party other than AAA/PBP (who I remind you believe that all profit is immoral and advocate effective communism) and SF (who I remind you have zero stated and factual economic policy) have stated that they will (a) abolish water charges or (b) require people not to pay sums owed to Irish Water to date.

Phoebas

If abolishing water charges ever becomes a serious proposal, we're bound to get a legal opinion from the AG on this.

We don't need (and can't get) anything definite. It the AG advises that we would be in breach of EU law, then abolishing water charges will be out.

Suryavarman

Jack Killian wrote: »

There's no proof that they would have to amend it.

The actual law suggests very strongly that it would need to be amended for any country in the EU to get rid of water charges.

FreudianSlippers

IMO on any reading of the WFD, we can no longer avail of the now ironically named “Irish Exemption”. However, I believe most opining on same in discussions on this thread as to the legality of reversing water charges have probably not read the WFD.

Godge

Suryavarman wrote: »

The actual law suggests very strongly that it would need to be amended for any country in the EU to get rid of water charges.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

IMO on any reading of the WFD, we can no longer avail of the now ironically named “Irish Exemption”. However, I believe most opining on same in discussions on this thread as to the legality of reversing water charges have probably not read the WFD.

A lot of the "pros" on these boards have been saying the same thing for months - the Directive doesn't allow you to reverse water charges once introduced.

Yes, before introducing them (or promising to introduce them, which we did in 2010), there was the possibility (but only a possibility) of an exemption if we could demonstrate that the alternative helped us reach the objectives of the Directive. Nobody anywhere (either here or outside these boards) has credibly put forward an explanation of how this might be achieved.

The legal opinion, as reported today in the Irish Times, is not in the least surprising to me. It accords with any reasonable reading of the provisions of the Directive.

What would make this interesting if, (instead of desperately attacking those who procured the legal opinion or those who post it here), those who believe the legal opinion to be wrong could produce a different legal opinion. By that, I mean something from a reputable legal source (as the two named SC are) and makes a coherent reasoned argument, rather than the normal freeman-type nonsense seen on anti-water charges Facebook pages.

Jack Killian

Suryavarman wrote: »

The actual law suggests very strongly that it would need to be amended for any country in the EU to get rid of water charges.

As I said, no proof.

Evidence could "suggest" that I murdered someone, but because I haven't I have nothing to worry about.

Jack Killian

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

IMO on any reading of the WFD, we can no longer avail of the now ironically named “Irish Exemption”. However, I believe most opining on same in discussions on this thread as to the legality of reversing water charges have probably not read the WFD.

IMO = "in your opinion", right ?

Not sure how your opinion overarches "any" reading of it, unless you're the legal counsel for absolutely everyone reading it ?

FreudianSlippers

Jack Killian wrote: »

As I said, no proof.

Evidence could "suggest" that I murdered someone, but because I haven't I have nothing to worry about.

You're looking for people to prove a negative. Very poor debating standard.

Jack Killian wrote: »

IMO = "in your opinion", right ?

Not sure how your opinion overarches "any" reading of it, unless you're the legal counsel for absolutely everyone reading it ?

Yeah, in my opinion... with a bunch of law degrees and experience as a practising lawyer (and not the mom-and-pop corner wills and probate type either - although there is nothing wrong with that!). Oh, and having actually read the WFD. Oh, and that you haven't offered a single example or suggestion as to how said opinion isn't correct (other than, as I said, requesting people prove a negative).

Suryavarman

Jack Killian wrote: »

As I said, no proof.

Evidence could "suggest" that I murdered someone, but because I haven't I have nothing to worry about.

Have you even read the law? Or have you read an opinion of the law that finds that abolition of the water charges would be legal? If so, could you provide a link to that opinion please?

Godge

Suryavarman wrote: »

Have you even read the law? Or have you read an opinion of the law that finds that abolition of the water charges would be legal? If so, could you provide a link to that opinion please?

There isn't a legal position out there that supports the anti-water charges position on the Directive, hence you are unlikely to get such a response to your post.

I predicted only a few short posts ago that the general reaction from the antis to this legal opinion would be to desperately attack those who procured the legal opinion or those who post it here. Sadly, it seems like another prediction that I am getting right.

Jack Killian

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You're looking for people to prove a negative. Very poor debating standard.


Yeah, in my opinion... with a bunch of law degrees and experience as a practising lawyer (and not the mom-and-pop corner wills and probate type either - although there is nothing wrong with that!). Oh, and having actually read the WFD. Oh, and that you haven't offered a single example or suggestion as to how said opinion isn't correct (other than, as I said, requesting people prove a negative).

I'm no expert, but would I be right in asserting that both sides in every law case have "law degrees and experience", and yet one of them is proven wrong by the end of the case ?

I'm not "looking for anyone to prove a negative"; I'm looking for them to prove that it requires a change in law, as was asserted earlier; in response I got a wishy-washy "suggestion". It's fairly bad going for a practising lawyer to falsely claim that I'm doing so, albeit only in an online forum that has no relevance in the real world.

It is up to those asserting that it requires a change in law to prove it.

Zubeneschamali

Jack Killian wrote: »

I'm no expert, but would be right in asserting that both sides in every law case have "law degrees and experience", and yet one of them is proven wrong by the end of the case ?

Yes, that's what Godge is pointing out is unusual in this case. Usually, we see legal opinions for and against in high-profile cases. But here only one side has offered a legal opinion, which (upthread) says there is no going back.

Your side has nothing so far, except "I am not an expert, but" opinion.

FreudianSlippers

Jack Killian wrote: »

I'm no expert, but would be right in asserting that both sides in every law case have "law degrees and experience", and yet one of them is proven wrong by the end of the case ?

No, you'd be very wrong if you thought that litigation was about proving anyone wrong.

In fact, this is so cut-and-dry that:

1) There isn't a case;
2) Nobody has made a coherent counter-argument.

Your argument never gets near a courtroom.

I'm not "looking for anyone to prove a negative"; I'm looking for them to prove that it requires a change in law, as was asserted earlier; in response I got a wishy-washy "suggestion".

You are in effect. It's a Russell's teapot situation.

We can tell you with certainty that the law says 3 distinct things:

1) Recovery of costs must be in accordance with ‘established principles’;
2) The decision vis-a-vis recovery must not be contrary to the scope of the directive;
3) A decision not to apply recovery provisions must be reported in river basin management plans.

Not one of those conditions is fulfilled by Ireland.

It's fairly bad going for a practising lawyer to falsely claim that I'm doing so, albeit only in an online forum that has no relevance in the real world.

It is up to those asserting that it requires a change in law to prove it.

No, it isn't actually. The non-compliance with the WFD looks clear and obvious and you have not provided any evidence or argument to suggest otherwise.

Jack Killian

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, that's what Godge is pointing out is unusual in this case. Usually, we see legal opinions for and against in high-profile cases. But here only one side has offered a legal opinion, which (upthread) says there is no going back.

Your side has nothing so far, except "I am not an expert, but" opinion.

Firstly, I think calling it "your side" is horrendously blinkered and dismissive as it conveniently links me to the likes of Murphy and deliberately hides a preference I would have for charging for wastage.

Secondly, the news today said that IW were asked to release the full report, rather than a convenient press release; given their penchant for twisting facts to make themselves look good, I reckon that it would be prudent for anyone objective to wait for the full release rather than the spin.

Thirdly, my point was in response to someone who claimed that it would require a change in the law; that too is merely an opinion, as is the one in the report, as is anyone's opinion of the article / summary of the report or the WFD itself.

There is enough caveat in the WFD re other factors, and enough vague phrasing too, to justify a discussion about it, rather than an "I'm a lawyer so let's pretend that lawyers don't get things wrong and lose and take my word for it" attempt to shut down discussion.

All posts here are opinions. Some more considered and less biased than others.

Jack Killian

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No, you'd be very wrong if you thought that litigation was about proving anyone wrong.

So justice doesn't come into it in any shape or form ? Good to know.

In fact, this is so cut-and-dry that:

1) There isn't a case;
2) Nobody has made a coherent counter-argument.

Your argument never gets near a courtroom.


You are in effect. It's a Russell's teapot situation.

We can tell you with certainty that the law says 3 distinct things:

1) Recovery of costs must be in accordance with ‘established principles’;
2) The decision vis-a-vis recovery must not be contrary to the scope of the directive;
3) A decision not to apply recovery provisions must be reported in river basin management plans.

Not one of those conditions is fulfilled by Ireland.

No, it isn't actually. The non-compliance with the WFD looks clear and obvious and you have not provided any evidence or argument to suggest otherwise.

Not "is clear and obvious", then ?

FreudianSlippers

Jack Killian wrote: »

There is enough caveat in the WFD re other factors, and enough vague phrasing too, to justify a discussion about it,

That's the whole argument isn't it? If such factors exist, then why haven't you raised any of them?

Jack Killian

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's the whole argument isn't it? If such factors exist, then why haven't you raised any of them?

Because they've been repeatedly raised and no-one has showed where anything has changed.

All that has happened is that some legal advisors paid by a particular outfit have issued a self-serving press release.

Some lawyers for DOB tried that stunt a few months back and were exposed.

FreudianSlippers

Jack Killian wrote: »

Because they've been repeatedly raised and no-one has showed where anything has changed.

Where? Once - show me one example of this.

Jack Killian

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Where? Once - show me one example of this.

Are you new to boards ? Because apparently there's been multiple threads on the multiple issues, including this one.

FreudianSlippers

Jack Killian wrote: »

Are you new to boards ? Because apparently there's been multiple threads on the multiple issues, including this one.

So you can't. Fair enough.

Jack Killian

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So you can't. Fair enough.

I thought you were a lawyer ? Jumping to an incorrect, pre-prejudiced conclusion is surely at odds with your experience and law degrees ?

Godge

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Where? Once - show me one example of this.

There hasn't been an argument like that put forward in this particular forum.

Bob24

Jack Killian wrote: »

I thought you were a lawyer ? Jumping to an incorrect, pre-prejudiced conclusion is surely at odds with your experience and law degrees ?

Well you haven't quoted any sample factors yet - so until now you are proving his assertion to be right. If you can quote examples, very easy or you to prove him wrong.

Jack Killian

Godge wrote: »

There hasn't been an argument like that put forward in this particular forum.

Nice caveat.

http://nessachilders.ie/2014/12/09/childers-welcomes-clarification-from-european-commission-that-ireland-does-not-need-to-apply-domestic-water-charges-under-eu-law/

http://www.iiea.com/ftp/environmentnexus_faqs/panels-Water-FAQ.html

Ireland has eight River Basin Districts – three cross border (Shannon, Neagh Bann and North Western), four within the Republic of Ireland (Eastern, South Eastern, South Western and Western) and one wholly within Northern Ireland (North Eastern). To date, management plans have been prepared for all River Basin Districts.

Currently, 54% of rivers and canals have reached good or high status. The aim is to improve this to 68% by 2015. Similarly, Ireland aims to reach good or high status in 84% of its lakes by 2015 from current levels of 65%.

RealJohn

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let's say, for argument's sake, that the government wanted to legalise cannabis. They'd have to introduce a law that would allow something that was explicitly forbidden by (for example) the 1984 Misuse of Drugs Act.

You're right and they wouldn't do it without giving a good reason for doing so or three would be widespread protest to that too as there is a good reason that it is currently prohibited.

oscarBravo wrote: »

In the same way, because the government wanted to allow direct billing for water, they had to repeal the law that said that couldn't be done. This isn't some esoteric loophole they've exploited - almost every Act of the Oireachtas amends previous Acts. Charging for water was in Fine Gael's election manifesto. Why is this the only country in the developed world where charging for water is unjust? Or is it unjust everywhere, but only the Irish have noticed?

Once again, you're making out that I'm saying something I'm not. That seems to be your standard tactic. Not very honest of you.
It is unjust in Ireland because we were already paying for our water through general taxation. There was no reduction in taxation in line with the introduction of water charges. That is why it's unjust.
I'm not opposed to water charges. I think I've already said that in this thread. I'm opposed to paying twice - once through general taxation and once directly - and I'm opposed to being lied to about how and why I'm being charged.

RealJohn

Godge wrote: »

Some laws are mandated by outside agencies such as the UN, the EU and other international treaties (or in exceptional economic circumstances, the IMF or the Troika).

In those cases, the Government has no alternative but to introduce a law no matter whether that law is popular or not. As we have seen today with the legal advice in the Irish Times, it may be illegal to abolish water charges even though the Dail could attempt to pass such legislation.

Unpopularity is not a reason to break a law. In the case of water, the legislation may be unpopular but it is certainly not "unjust law" in the common understanding of such law.

I've explained above why it's an unjust law.
The rest of what I said is irrelevant because none of it applied to Ireland when the law was introduced. I agree that it might be illegal to repeal the law now (although is it not Irish Water themselves who have made that claim - they're not exactly unbiased, are they?) but it should be challenged on whether it should have been introduced in the first place, not to mention the fact that such widespread non-compliance raises the question of whether it has actually been instituted at all in reality.

Godge

RealJohn wrote: »

Once again, you're making out that I'm saying something I'm not. That seems to be your standard tactic. Not very honest of you.
It is unjust in Ireland because we were already paying for our water through general taxation. There was no reduction in taxation in line with the introduction of water charges. That is why it's unjust.
I'm not opposed to water charges. I think I've already said that in this thread. I'm opposed to paying twice - once through general taxation and once directly - and I'm opposed to being lied to about how and why I'm being charged.

That is a moral argument, not a legal argument. I thought you were arguing that water charges were illegal.

You are also factually wrong about the reduction in taxation. Budget 2015 saw a reduction in €642m in income tax and USC, far outweighing the contribution from water charges.

http://www.budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2015/2015.aspx

The document, Summary of 2015 Budget Tax Measures will explain all.

RealJohn

RealJohn wrote: »

You're right and they wouldn't do it without giving a good reason for doing so or three would be widespread protest to that too as there is a good reason that it is currently prohibited.

Once again, you're making out that I'm saying something I'm not. That seems to be your standard tactic. Not very honest of you.
It is unjust in Ireland because we were already paying for our water through general taxation. There was no reduction in taxation in line with the introduction of water charges. That is why it's unjust.
I'm not opposed to water charges. I think I've already said that in this thread. I'm opposed to paying twice - once through general taxation and once directly - and I'm opposed to being lied to about how and why I'm being charged.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/budget-2015-top-income-tax-rate-cut-usc-rates-changed-1.1962809?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fbudget-2015-top-income-tax-rate-cut-usc-rates-changed-1.1962809

well....

Suryavarman

RealJohn wrote: »

You're right and they wouldn't do it without giving a good reason for doing so or three would be widespread protest to that too as there is a good reason that it is currently prohibited.

Once again, you're making out that I'm saying something I'm not. That seems to be your standard tactic. Not very honest of you.
It is unjust in Ireland because we were already paying for our water through general taxation. There was no reduction in taxation in line with the introduction of water charges. That is why it's unjust.
I'm not opposed to water charges. I think I've already said that in this thread. I'm opposed to paying twice - once through general taxation and once directly - and I'm opposed to being lied to about how and why I'm being charged.

You are only paying for water once. There was no reduction in taxation because there is a budget deficit. Also, most of the country are opposed to tax cuts judging by the result of the recent election.

Jack Killian

Suryavarman wrote: »

You are only paying for water once. There was no reduction in taxation because there is a budget deficit. Also, most of the country are opposed to tax cuts judging by the result of the recent election.

Untrue. The claim for the setup of IW was "pay for what you use", and the LGF / LPT was given to Irish Water in addition to the bills.

Not only that, but those of us with our own systems had contributed to that fund.

So I'd be paying at least twice (not including motor tax/LPT which makes it almost 3 times) what they claimed would be the "most any household will have to pay".