No refund for families who have paid water charges

Jack Killian

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You literally just said that the initial allowances would result in the fees not passing the WFD.

So... what are you talking about exactly?

WFD = Polluter pays.

WFD = User supposedly directly responsible for the costs associated with their usage.

Initial allowance = first person in any house (possibly the only person) does not pay anything directly

What part of that are you having problems with ?

FreudianSlippers

Jack Killian wrote: »

My point is that those who are claiming (rightly or wrongly) that the WFD requires full cost recoup now were saying nothing when IW wasn't full polluter cost recoup, and are merely being opportunist and jumping on the latest of a series of unsubstantiated twists in order to defend their favourite quango.

That's also not correct. Commission has been quite clear that recoupment can from various sources. It's not 100% recoupment of domestic from domestic; 100% of commercial from commercial; etc.

FS confused "polluter pays" with "self-sustaining", and while one implemented fully implies the other, they're not the same thing and it's disingenuous as dismissive to imply that someone cannot make the distinction.

I said nothing of the sort actually.

But I guess people wouldn't need lawyers of these things weren't written vaguely so "legal opinion" could supersede facts and - in many cases - put someone off seeing justice done (a regular DOB tactic)

I won't even start to try to understand what this means...

FreudianSlippers

Jack Killian wrote: »

WFD = Polluter pays.

WFD = User supposedly directly responsible for the costs associated with their usage.

Initial allowance = first person in any house (possibly the only person) does not pay anything directly

What part of that are you having problems with ?

Sigh. You haven't read the WFD have you? Be honest.

Jack Killian

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I said nothing of the sort actually.

You did actually. You seemed incapable of correctly reading the point I made and you actually claimed that I was referring to one when I referred to the other.

FreudianSlippers

Jack Killian wrote: »

You did actually. You seemed incapable of correctly reading the point I made and you actually claimed that I was referring to one when I referred to the other.

I've quoted and linked your post 3 times now. You have no evidence to support your "counter-argument".

Jack Killian

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Sigh. You haven't read the WFD have you? Be honest.

I have. And I disagree. However that is the claim being made by the pros. Hence the "supposedly". Take it up with them.

Jack Killian

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's also not correct. Commission has been quite clear that recoupment can from various sources. It's not 100% recoupment of domestic from domestic; 100% of commercial from commercial; etc.

Right.

So only charging actual wasters would cover the WFD ? No general bills for everyone required ? Glad we agree.

Redbishop

Jack Killian wrote: »

Right.

So only charging actual wasters would cover the WFD ? No general bills for everyone required ? Glad we agree.

Not too sure? Polluters pays means all users I would assume?

Jack Killian

Jack Killian wrote: »

...

you are not gladrags, and your questions don't answer the questions asked of him nor have anything whatsoever to do with what we were talking about.

Jack Killian

Redbishop wrote: »

Not too sure? Polluters pays means all users I would assume?

Hence the question marks.

That's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of, particularly when that's what pros are using to dictate that we have to put up with IW because of the WFD.

I'm not going to claim to know, as as far as I can see it's wide open to interpretation, but IW, FG, or even FF if they try to use it as an excuse to renege, hiding behind it as an irrefutable fact when it's merely an opinion isn't acceptable to me.

Redbishop

Jack Killian wrote: »

Hence the question marks.

That's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of, particularly when that's what pros are using to dictate that we have to put up with IW because of the WFD.

I'm not going to claim to know, as as far as I can see it's wide open to interpretation, but IW, FG, or even FF if they try to use it as an excuse to renege, hiding behind it as an irrefutable fact when it's merely an opinion isn't acceptable to me.

Ok, but unless there is a case brought then you have to base your decisions on legal opinion of what needs or not to be implemented.

Zubeneschamali

Jack Killian wrote: »

Mine would be that they were well aware that they wouldn't have a majority or even sufficient influence.

Yours is wrong - they plan all sorts of stuff in much stronger language which would only be possible with a Labour-led Government, which the manifesto states is the objective.

As you would know if you had ever read it. But please, do continue to post your guesses based on nothing at all.

Jack Killian

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yours is wrong - they plan all sorts of stuff in much stronger language which would only be possible with a Labour-led Government, which the manifesto states is the objective.

As you would know if you had ever read it. But please, do continue to post your guesses based on nothing at all.

Stronger language = rule out power "sharing" with FG, as we've seen.

I stand over my personal opinion / assessment that it was at least a factor.

Unless you can provide proof that yours is less of an opinion, by linking to where Labour discussed what you suggested and decided to phrase it based on that ?

Jack Killian

Redbishop wrote: »

Ok, but unless there is a case brought then you have to base your decisions on legal opinion of what needs or not to be implemented.

In my professional experience tenders have to get 3 quotes to ensure there is zero bias and shenanigans. If and when I see 3 unbiased sources advising same - and not vague "could", but actual warnings - I'll consider whether they override the advice to the contrary.

Likewise I'll factor in any agenda that Willie might have when considering how much weight to put behind his.

It's what people who want the facts do.

FreudianSlippers

Jack Killian wrote: »

Right.

So only charging actual wasters would cover the WFD ? No general bills for everyone required ? Glad we agree.

I'm fed up having this discussion with you if you're going to continue to be obtuse with regard to this point. It has passed devil's advocate now and is bordering on something else.

Going Forward

Suryavarman wrote: »

That doesn't internalise costs.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's also not correct. Commission has been quite clear that recoupment can from various sources. It's not 100% recoupment of domestic from domestic; 100% of commercial from commercial; etc.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Internalising the costs means that the cost is borne specifically by whatever entity creates the cost.

Perhaps you'd like some time to confer. And clarify.

Zubeneschamali

Jack Killian wrote: »

Stronger language = rule out power "sharing" with FG, as we've seen.

I stand over my personal opinion / assessment that it was at least a factor.

Unless you can provide proof that yours is less of an opinion, by linking to where Labour discussed what you suggested and decided to phrase it based on that ?

Guesses and opinions can be right or wrong. I state that my opinion is a guess because I know I cannot prove it is true.

Your guess is wrong, as a read of the manifesto I linked earlier shows, not that you care. The manifesto includes things which Labour could never do except in a Labour led Government, like:

Labour’s fiscal strategy provides for a €500 million Jobs Fund to finance a series of pro-jobs initiatives that involve elements of current expenditure.


So we know for a fact that they did not avoid putting things in the manifesto because they were aware they wouldn't have a majority or influence.

They had some other reason for that weak statement about water charging.

Jack Killian

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm fed up having this discussion with you if you're going to continue to be obtuse with regard to this point. It has passed devil's advocate now and is bordering on something else.

On the contrary. I posted earlier and you didn't discuss any of the points and merely made a cheap and false assumption re my not reading the WFD:

Jack Killian wrote: »

WFD = Polluter pays.

WFD = User supposedly directly responsible for the costs associated with their usage.

Initial allowance = first person in any house (possibly the only person) does not pay anything directly

What part of that are you having problems with ?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Sigh. You haven't read the WFD have you? Be honest.

If you want to discuss, fine. If you don't, equally fine.

Your statement was

Commission has been quite clear that recoupment can from various sources. It's not 100% recoupment of domestic from domestic; 100% of commercial from commercial; etc.

....which should debunk quite a few pro claims.

Zubeneschamali

Jack Killian wrote: »

Stronger language = rule out power "sharing" with FG, as we've seen.

Upthread, you were claiming that politicians broke promises, and shouldn't promise anything they can't deliver.

Now you are saying Labour carefully avoided promising anything on Water charges because they had a mind to negotiations with FG.

Wasn't that exactly what you wanted earlier?

Great job, Labour!

Jack Killian

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Upthread, you were claiming that politicians broke promises, and shouldn't promise anything they can't deliver.

Now you are saying Labour carefully avoided promising anything on Water charges because they had a mind to negotiations with FG.

Wasn't that exactly what you wanted earlier?

Great job, Labour!

Errr.....

Jack Killian wrote: »

I was thinking more of the bigger and more important promises of honesty, integrity and transparency, to be honest.

Zubeneschamali

Jack Killian wrote: »

Errr.....

Sorry, I should have said "Great job on Irish Water and Water charges, the subject of this feckin thread, Labour!"

Jack Killian

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Sorry, I should have said "Great job on Irish Water and Water charges, the subject of this feckin thread, Labour!"

Irish Water = "honesty", "transparency", "integrity" ?

Noonan having to be asked 18 times about the Siteserv deal ?

Guillotined, rushed legislation ?

Kelly lying about a link between the grant and paying bills ?

Crony appointments of known wasters ?

Seriously ?

If you believe anything to do with IW involves even ONE of those three words then I'm at a loss for words.

Zubeneschamali

Jack Killian wrote: »

If you believe anything to do with IW involves even ONE of those three words then I'm at a loss for words.

I'll believe that when I see it.

Jack Killian

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'll believe that when I see it.

Care to comment on the points raised ? I said "if you believe", and you haven't indicated yet whether or not you do.

K-9

Mod:

Stay on topic please, which is Irish Water, not Siteserve, guillotined legislation and other failings of the last Government.

Jack Killian

K-9 wrote: »

Mod:

Stay on topic please, which is Irish Water, not Siteserve, guillotined legislation and other failings of the last Government.

The Irish Water legislation was what was guillotined, though - surely that's relevant ?

Not arguing the point, just wondering where the dividing line lies ?

K-9

Guillotine is a separate issue, keep it to IW, there's plenty to discuss about it. Any questions you can pm me.

Zubeneschamali

Jack Killian wrote: »

Care to comment on the points raised ? I said "if you believe", and you haven't indicated yet whether or not you do.

According to you, Labour carefully avoided promises on water charges in their 2011 manifesto because they were not sure they could deliver on them.

That was honest, transparent and showed integrity vs. promising no water charges and then breaking their promise, as various people have alleged.

Suryavarman

Going Forward wrote: »

Perhaps you'd like some time to confer. And clarify.

You do realise that you've quoted two different posters don't you? We are allowed to have different opinions.

Regardless, myself and FreudianSlippers state things that are broadly in line I believe. Some cost has to borne in the form water charges. The entire cost cannot be covered by general taxation.

Going Forward

Suryavarman wrote: »

You do realise that you've quoted two different posters don't you? We are allowed to have different opinions.

We're all allowed different opinions, but in the instance I've provided, someone's opinion is wrong.

Unless both are right.

Which is it?

Jack Killian

Suryavarman wrote: »

You do realise that you've quoted two different posters don't you? We are allowed to have different opinions.

Regardless, myself and FreudianSlippers state things that are broadly in line I believe. Some cost has to borne in the form water charges. The entire cost cannot be covered by general taxation.

Nor should it be, if some domestic users are wasting or if some commercial users are making profits without contributing.

But that doesn't answer the question of what ratio / "polluter pays" / whatever other solution would satisfy the WFD.

There's no problem if someone says WFD says X but we're going X+1 because the country needs money, or because we need to take the burden off householders who are currently paying both bills and via LPT / LGF.

But charging both and hiding behind the WFD should not be tolerated.

Redbishop

Jack Killian wrote: »

Nor should it be, if some domestic users are wasting or if some commercial users are making profits without contributing.

But that doesn't answer the question of what ratio / "polluter pays" / whatever other solution would satisfy the WFD.

There's no problem if someone says WFD says X but we're going X+1 because the country needs money, or because we need to take the burden off householders who are currently paying both bills and via LPT / LGF.

But charging both and hiding behind the WFD should not be tolerated.

But not all households are contributing the same via either mentioned or other tax contribution measures.
In fact it is quite possible that the less contributory households are paying the least while using the most water.
Now I ve no gripe about tax bands and contributions but at least metered charging levels the playing field after subvention.

gladrags

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If your son tells you "I will go to school tomorrow", but in between saying it and the following morning he gets a terrible cold, would you force him to go to school or would you keep him home because it was the right thing to do?

Would you forever hold it against him that he was unable to go to school if he did in fact stay at home? Remember, he had told you "I will go to school tomorrow" but he didn't!

Please do actually answer the questions, they're not rhetorical.

Cannot see the rationale behind your "son" analogy.

We are talking about governments past and present,who are elected based on clear commitments,or if you wish promises,to the electorate.

They continually renague on these commitments,
some of which are fundamental to all,or sections of the electorate,and affect their livliehoods.

BTW,you responded to a post that was not directed towards you.

Which you are entitled to do,as is everyone else.

gladrags

gladrags wrote: »

Cannot see the rationale behind your "son" analogy.

We are talking about governments past and present,who are elected based on clear commitments,or if you wish promises,to the electorate.

They continually renague on these commitments,
some of which are fundamental to all,or sections of the electorate,and affect their livliehoods.

BTW,you responded to a post that was not directed towards you.

Which you are entitled to do,as is everyone else.

Deleted User wrote:

Please do actually answer the questions, they're not rhetorical.

The rationale is that things change, and binding people to 'promises' they've made before the dynamics have adjusted is not normal in real life. In fact it's bizarre.

FreudianSlippers

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm fed up having this discussion with you if you're going to continue to be obtuse with regard to this point. It has passed devil's advocate now and is bordering on something else.

JK doesn't wish to have a discussion. His only wish is to derail the thread, as he has attempted with others.

Jack Killian

Redbishop wrote: »

But not all households are contributing the same via either mentioned or other tax contribution measures.
In fact it is quite possible that the less contributory households are paying the least while using the most water.
Now I ve no gripe about tax bands and contributions but at least metered charging levels the playing field after subvention.

Interesting assertion. A one-adult household has only one income so contributes less in income tax but forks out the same LPT as a two-adult home.

They also, however use less water, not more.

So I'm expected to be subsidising others even more since IW arrived.

No solution is perfect but for some reason all solutions seem to hit the squeezed middle even more. And in IW's case for zero gain, as the cost/benefit analysis has never been given, other than taking off the books and making people pay the extra a different way.

swampgas

Deleted User wrote: »

The rationale is that things change, and binding people to 'promises' they've made before the dynamics have adjusted is not normal in real life. In fact it's bizarre.

It's really obvious when a party (or candidate) has a clear set of guiding principles - core values in other words. They will take a hit rather than compromise on those values.

If circumstances change and a party changes a policy, the changes should be in line with the core values of that party. In a coalition it's trickier, but you would expect the component parties to compromise in a way that gives most priority to whichever of their principles are most important.

Populist parties like FF have a core value which is "get elected". And that's pretty much it. They are far most likely to jump from one position to another as they chase whatever the current poll says is going to win them votes.
The flip-flopping by FF on water is a good indicator that water charges are itself is of no importance to them at all. Anyone expecting them to stick to any stated position on water is deluded.

Redbishop

Jack Killian wrote: »

Interesting assertion. A one-adult household has only one income so contributes less in income tax but forks out the same LPT as a two-adult home.

They also, however use less water, not more.

So I'm expected to be subsidising others even more since IW arrived.

No solution is perfect but for some reason all solutions seem to hit the squeezed middle even more. And in IW's case for zero gain, as the cost/benefit analysis has never been given, other than taking off the books and making people pay the extra a different way.

I don't assert, I say its possible.
You assert in bold.
Need not be true in all cases.

Jack Killian

Redbishop wrote: »

I don't assert, I say its possible.
You assert in bold.
Need not be true in all cases.

Fair point. You asserted that it was quite possible; it's also therefore quite possible that they are not contributing less and/or not consuming more, as it is - as you say - not true in all cases.

johnnyskeleton

Mod Note:

Ok, ok, the thread topic is on refunds if IW is abolished. This thread has veered off topic into other aspects of IW e.g. should it be paid by general taxation or not. People can start new threads about those issues but we are not going to have a free for all megamerge type thread.

So I'll lock this thread but may reopen in the event that the issue of refunds in the event IW is abolished comes back into the news.