No refund for families who have paid water charges

nhunter100

henryporter wrote:

So pay some money to get it fixed then!

henryporter wrote:

So pay some money to get it fixed then!

He/she does, it's called tax.

nhunter100

xz wrote:

Quite the assumption, or accusation?

I think it's sarcasm.

tayto lover

Arkady wrote: »

You're obviously an extreme left wing nutjob.

Might balance out the right wing nutjobs.

xz

nhunter100 wrote:

I think it's sarcasm.

That, I can handle, but being accused of being a left wing nutjob job, because I have an opinion that differs from that of others shows the level of ignorance on society today

henryporter

nhunter100 wrote: »

He/she does, it's called tax.

Not according to any other European country - it's a utility that should be paid for based on consumption and presided over by a singular entity responsible for its supply, maintenance, and quality. You can go on believing that moronic rhetoric but unfortunately in 2016 the consumer needs to pay for the most valuable commodity on the planet.

nhunter100

henryporter wrote:

Not according to any other European country - it's a utility that should be paid for based on consumption and presided over by a singular entity responsible for its supply, maintenance, and quality. You can go on believing that moronic rhetoric but unfortunately in 2016 the consumer needs to pay for the most valuable commodity on the planet.

Thanks, I pay my taxes and am quite comfortable with my beliefs.

nhunter100

xz wrote:

That, I can handle, but being accused of being a left wing nutjob job, because I have an opinion that differs from that of others shows the level of ignorance on society today

It has been a common theme on all commentary that if you oppose IW you're by default part of the looney left.

oscarBravo

nhunter100 wrote: »

Thanks for the laugh. You dismiss the protests as just not wanting to pay. Good display of ignorance.

If the protests are not about not wanting to pay, they should come up with a better slogan than "can't pay, won't pay".

nhunter100 wrote: »

He/she does, it's called tax.

Would you advocate scrapping electricity bills and paying for it through taxation instead?

nhunter100

oscarBravo wrote:

Would you advocate scrapping electricity bills and paying for it through taxation instead?

Ah whataboutery, always good for a giggle.

henryporter

nhunter100 wrote: »

Thanks, I pay my taxes and am quite comfortable with my beliefs.

Perhaps then they should abolish water charges and hike up income tax so that you can rest easier with the concept of paying your way. Or perhaps you could opt out of paying for water and go off and trap your own rainwater and treat it and store it so that you can go on enjoying it without feeling screwed?

oscarBravo

nhunter100 wrote: »

Ah whataboutery, always good for a giggle.

That's not an answer.

nhunter100

henryporter wrote:

Perhaps then they should abolish water charges and hike up income tax so that you can rest easier with the concept of paying your way. Or perhaps you could opt out of paying for water and go off and trap your own rainwater and treat it and store it so that you can go on enjoying it without feeling screwed?

I do pay my way and I have no problem resting easy. Thanks for your concern though. However I have always conserved water. I've been harvesting rainwater since I bought my home 11 years ago put in low flush toilets changed the shower heads and use a water efficiencent washing machine.All this before FG tried to screw the taxpayer.Are you feeling aggrieved that people stood up to the government?

nhunter100

oscarBravo wrote:

That's not an answer.

Thread is about water, not electricity.Hence whataboutery.

henryporter

nhunter100 wrote: »

I do pay my way and I have no problem resting easy. Thanks for your concern though. However I have always conserved water. I've been harvesting rainwater since I bought my home 11 years ago put in low flush toilets changed the shower heads and use a water efficiencent washing machine.All this before FG tried to screw the taxpayer.Are you feeling aggrieved that people stood up to the government?

FG (as much as I can't stand them) didn't do anything to the tax payer - first off they got elected by default to deal with the mess that Fianna Failure created, secondly they discovered that the Troika were (and are) in charge, and thirdly they have actually decreased income tax as part of the reform of converting central tax to targeted taxation (obviously with the blessing of the aforementioned Troika). Kudos on the water conservation measures though - if only the water charges were based on usage as opposed to a flat charge - you'd be on the pigs back then

oscarBravo

nhunter100 wrote: »

Thread is about water, not electricity.Hence whataboutery.

I don't understand the idea that water should be paid for through taxation. It's a utility. It's delivered to your house like electricity, gas, broadband...

No other utility is paid for through taxation. What's so special about water? Specifically, what's so special about water in Ireland? It's a utility everywhere else.

Just repeating "we're not talking about electricity" doesn't answer the question. Why should this one utility be paid for from general taxation, and not the rest?

henryporter

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't understand the idea that water should be paid for through taxation. It's a utility. It's delivered to your house like electricity, gas, broadband...

No other utility is paid for through taxation. What's so special about water? Specifically, what's so special about water in Ireland? It's a utility everywhere else.

Just repeating "we're not talking about electricity" doesn't answer the question. Why should this one utility be paid for from general taxation, and not the rest?

Queue the 'shure water falls out of da shky and it alwhays has" argument...

august12

We could and should have one body for our water maintenance but a body that would oversee the provision of quality water through the local authority. This body would and should establish the level of funding required in each authority. This body would need no more than 50 to 100 staff. This would mean that all local authorities would charge the same for water consumption and the money generated would be recouped by this body to distribute back to the authorities relative to the amount of infrastructure to be maintained/upgraded etc. It's not rocket science. The amount of extra work generated by this quango is unbelievable.

henryporter

august12 wrote: »

We could and should have one body for our water maintenance but a body that would oversee the provision of quality water through the local authority. This body would and should establish the level of funding required in each authority. This body would need no more than 50 to 100 staff. This would mean that all local authorities would charge the same for water consumption and the money generated would be recouped by this body to distribute back to the authorities relative to the amount of infrastructure to be maintained/upgraded etc. It's not rocket science. The amount of extra work generated by this quango is unbelievable.

Don't know what rock you've been living under this past 70 odd years but Irish LA's are black holes when it comes to finance and administration. IW ended up having to subsume the LA water administration compliment (A bit like the HSE had to do for the Health Boards), that's why it's so highly staffed. Try telling LA's about redundancy...

xz

Do you have something to gain by us paying for this "utility", because it sure sounds like it the way you are defending it

nhunter100

oscarBravo wrote:

No other utility is paid for through taxation. What's so special about water? Specifically, what's so special about water in Ireland? It's a utility everywhere else.

If you don't understand the importance of water, pointless engaging with you further.

august12

henryporter wrote: »

Don't know what rock you've been living under this past 70 odd years but Irish LA's are black holes when it comes to finance and administration. IW ended up having to subsume the LA water administration compliment (A bit like the HSE had to do for the Health Boards), that's why it's so highly staffed. Try telling LA's about redundancy...

And you think Irish Water is an efficiently run organisation? If the Local authorities are a black hole for money, what do you think we have now?

Water John

The funding of each water improvement was very transparent within the LA's.
Look up the minutes of any LA meeting some years ago, or ask any Councillor.
Lots of rubbish written about saving money.
LA's simply did not get the funding to improve water services. It's that simple.
I am very familiar as to how it worked.
I agree with charging for water. But its toxic at present because mainly of Hogan's bullying.
IW as August says should be totally downsized. Water and sewerage provision is mostly local. Water from Wexford doesn't go to Meath.

oscarBravo

nhunter100 wrote: »

If you don't understand the importance of water, pointless engaging with you further.

You do realise that every time you evade answering a simple question, it becomes clearer that you just don't have an answer?

Sure, water is important. It's important in every other OECD country too, but they all treat it as a utility. Yet again, what's different here?

august12

Water John wrote: »

The funding of each water improvement was very transparent within the LA's.
Look up the minutes of any LA meeting some years ago, or ask any Councillor.
Lots of rubbish written about saving money.
LA's simply did not get the funding to improve water services. It's that simple.
I am very familiar as to how it worked.
I agree with charging for water. But its toxic at present because mainly of Hogan's bullying.
IW as August says should be totally downsized. Water and sewerage provision is mostly local. Water from Wexford doesn't go to Meath.

thank you, it's good to have a rational discussion with someone who understands the previous system of water management through the LAs and also recognises the importance of paying for quality water. This current body is not fit for purpose and the sooner we go back to the drawing board, the better. My concern is, we don't seem to have the where with all in this country to set up organisations for the good of the people, there are too many vested interests more concerned with lining their own pockets.

Jayop

xz wrote: »

Do you have something to gain by us paying for this "utility", because it sure sounds like it the way you are defending it

All it is is bitterness that some people pay less tax so will contribute less to it than those who are supporting it will. Same people looking for tax breaks for the better off because they think it's unfair they pay more tax than someone earning 20k.

Arkady

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't understand the idea that water should be paid for through taxation. It's a utility. It's delivered to your house like electricity, gas, broadband...

No other utility is paid for through taxation. What's so special about water? Specifically, what's so special about water in Ireland? It's a utility everywhere else.

Just repeating "we're not talking about electricity" doesn't answer the question. Why should this one utility be paid for from general taxation, and not the rest?

It shouldn't but you're not telling the full truth. We don't also pay for electricity through general taxation as well as through utility charges, in order to divert the general taxation money that is used to paying for that utility, to fund the paying off the reckless private debts of cronie developers, private banks and billionaire bondholders, so they can maintain their wealthy lifestyle without any ill effects.

nhunter100

oscarBravo wrote:

You do realise that every time you evade answering a simple question, it becomes clearer that you just don't have an answer?

You do realise this is a forum and I can choose to ignore you, when you engage in 'whataboutery ' in my opinion it's pointless engaging further.Respond by all means.But I exercise my right to ignore you. ; )

oscarBravo

Arkady wrote: »

It shouldn't...

An answer! Thank you.

...but you're not telling the full truth.

I'm not telling anything; I'm asking a question.

We don't also pay for electricity through general taxation as well as through utility charges...

Well, no. We don't pay for electricity because we pay for it through utility charges. In the same way, if we're paying for water through utility bills, we won't also be paying for it through taxation. That's such a self-evident fact that it's utterly mind-boggling that it has to be repeatedly pointed out.

As for the rest of your post, I get it: you're unhappy about what your taxes are paying for. Which is your right as a citizen. What puzzles me is this: paying for water through taxation doesn't change the fact that you're also paying for other things that you're unhappy about. So what's the advantage of not paying for it as a utility?

nhunter100 wrote: »

You do realise this is a forum and I can choose to ignore you, when you engage in 'whataboutery ' in my opinion it's pointless engaging further.Respond by all means.But I exercise my right to ignore you. ; )

Sure. As long as you understand that refusing to answer a simple question makes it abundantly clear that you don't, in fact, have an answer.

Jayop

But we are paying for it though general taxation and motor taxation. I didn't see any plans to stop that.

IW was nothing more than a quango and the only money that it ever earned was going to pay for the running of it.

xz

oscarBravo wrote:

Sure, water is important. It's important in every other OECD country too, but they all treat it as a utility. Yet again, what's different here?

Most other OECD countries don't have the massive level of taxation that we do either

Water John

XZ don't know where you came up with that. We don't have very high levels of overall tax. The higher level of income tax does however kick in at a low level.
€160 is not a big charge but this end needs to be parked and sorted out because of the mess made with its introduction.
We increase charge for prescriptions. I don't hear anyone shouting that we already pay for this through general taxation.

xz

@oscarBravo, I fully understand that you see the need for a fully, high standard water supply in this country, and of course, it had to be paid for, and usually in the former of a utility bill, but in this country things work a little differently, it's a you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours situation, played out by various Government's of this country, stamp out the cronyism, then I'll be on the same page as you

Water John

We'll I can tell you IW and those getting plum positions, consultancy etc was the ultimate in cronyism. Check where some of the key players came from. I don't want to be sued for libel by naming them.

Steve012

bmay529 wrote: »

As someone who has paid their water charges I read this morning that FF say there will be No refund for families who have paid water charges. If true, as someone who felt they were meeting their civic duty, even though I did not like the charge, it would really **** me off if those who did not pay got off scot-free while those who did will face the hit. For sure I will remember it a) when deciding who to elect next time and b) I will remember this whenever any future charges our Government dream up are levied. SO FF find a way to recognise those who paid and don't pawn it off by saying someone else decided on the charge. Also am I right in saying every other country in Europe has water charges and that their removal will effect the country's balance sheet with many other negative implications

"I did not like the charge, it would really **** me off if those who did not pay got off scot-free"

Awww..

lol its more like they had the B*LLOXS Not to pay... Keep your self wallowing to yourself, you made the decision to pay! The people who didn't, didn't force your arm to pay..
If fact Nobody did..

Jack Killian

oscarBravo wrote: »

I was going to respond to this until I saw you describe VRT as "illegal". There's not much point arguing with someone who makes up their own facts.

Nice cop-out. Excise Duty was on cars and they renamed it to keep it there. It's certainly against the spirit of the law and the aim for harmonisation of taxes.

Are taxes meant to be the same across the EU or not ? Relying on the old "they have it everywhere else" is indicative of absolute bull**** if they don't acknowledge and correct cases where the reverse is true.

Jack Killian

Mr.Micro wrote: »

It boils down, excuse the pun, to accountability and money, nothing else.

It does indeed.

We've had none of the former and severe misappropriation and waste of the latter.

Water John

Consultants, the man with a suit and a briefcase of various forms have been laughing all the way to the bank.

Arkady

xz wrote: »

@oscarBravo, I fully understand that you see the need for a fully, high standard water supply in this country, and of course, it had to be paid for, and usually in the former of a utility bill, but in this country things work a little differently, it's a you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours situation, played out by various Government's of this country, stamp out the cronyism, then I'll be on the same page as you

The whole point is to attempt to defend and to ensure the continued enrichment of their cronies, while hand waving away the blatant corruption and mismanagement going on.
They don't have the slightest genuine interest in the actual water supply or Irish society.

Jack Killian

Water John wrote: »

Consultants, the man with a suit and a briefcase of various forms have been laughing all the way to the bank.

....where they met society's remaining leeches and they all laughed at us together.

TireeTerror

I get free water from the well in my garden, but I wish I had mains water so I could refuse to pay it.

Lau2976

I honestly don't see how this is a big thing. Some people chose to pay, if we scrap them and don't give refunds that's the chance you took just like some chose not to pay and may be liable for them in the future if we keep them.

recylingbin

Those of us that paid will just have to content ourselves with the knowledge that our money was well spent on all the upgrades on the water network.
Those of us that didn't will be happy enough to know that they were right all along.

Win win.

Arkady

Lau2976 wrote: »

I honestly don't see how this is a big thing. Some people chose to pay, if we scrap them and don't give refunds that's the chance you took just like some chose not to pay and may be liable for them in the future if we keep them.

So you think its a good idea to set the precedent, that when any Irish government brings in any new charges that are unpopular, lawbreakers should get away free without paying or any consequences, and law abiding citzens, who might not agree but still pay, should instead be penalised with the charges ? Hmm there you have it folks, how to run a country Irish style.

Arkady

recylingbin wrote: »

Those of us that paid will just have to content ourselves that our money was well spent on all the upgrades on the water network.

Except they weren't. They were paid to fund jobs for the boys and consultants, as well as cronie contracts for water meters that will never be used.

recylingbin

Arkady wrote: »

Except they weren't. They were paid to fund jobs for the boys and consultants, as well as cronie contracts for water meters that will never be used.

What?
No way!!!!
Who thought that would happen when it was announced?

Water John

I think reasonable politicians have pulled away from penalising those that obeyed the law. That is as it should be.

Lau2976

Arkady wrote: »

So you think its a good idea to set the precedent, that when any Irish government brings in any new charges that are unpopular, lawbreakers should get away free without paying or any consequences, and law abiding citzens, who might not agree but still pay, should instead be penalised with the charges ? Hmm there you have it folks, how to run a country Irish style.

There's a difference with a charge being unpopular and unjust. IW has been a farce that's clearly being set up for privatization in the long run. What other tax have people gotten so worked up about? None. Because they accept that they may not like it but that it's right to pay. I'm sure the consultants and bosses love the people who bent over and paid. And I'm sure the ones who paid loved feeling smug that they were "good citizens". A good citizen fights for what's right not follows the government blindly. That's why the country is in the state it's in.

Arkady

Water John wrote: »

I think reasonable politicians have pulled away from penalising those that obeyed the law. That is as it should be.

They have, so why no refunds for those decent citizens that reluctantly paid, while those that broke the law are effectively rewarded and incentivized for doing so ?

Jayop

Arkady wrote: »

So you think its a good idea to set the precedent, that when any Irish government brings in any new charges that are unpopular, lawbreakers should get away free without paying or any consequences, and law abiding citzens, who might not agree but still pay, should instead be penalised with the charges ? Hmm there you have it folks, how to run a country Irish style.

Do you think it's a better precedent that the people should just blindly follow every stupid dictat that the government put in front of them?

Arkady

Jayop wrote: »

Do you think it's a better precedent that the people should just blindly follow every stupid dictat that the government put in front of them?

Depending on your point of view all governments and their laws are stupid dictat's so why should anyone pay anything ?