We already pay for water

splinter65

Zebra3 wrote: »

The main reason Irish Water was set up was to accommodate the future privatisisation of our water supply.

Yet this seems to have gone over so many people’s heads.

Cool story. Really cool.

Sleeper12

The most annoying part for me was shouting "peaceful protest" and at the same time shouting racist slurs & threatening the Irish water workers.

splinter65

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Shame, shame, shame on you. Peaceful protest. Midget parasite.

Your forgetting “moaney Joany”

splinter65

Fake News wrote: »

It was just another fad tax introduced to compensate for irresponsible government spending, like the plastic bag levy. When it first came out, it was something like 5c a bag. We were told the money would go towards protecting the environment which was understandable. Now it's 70cent a bag, which is inexcusable. I always get the same response each time I go into the supermarket. I have the groceries thrown at me. I have to ask for a plastic bag to put my groceries into and I get the same response every time ''We only have the 70cent ones, is that ok?'' The shop assistant knowing all too well that's an extortionate price for a plastic bag. If it was ok, they wouldn't have to ask. I can imagine this was the direction water charges were heading in time. The government, through irresponsible spending, would screw it up again somehow, and bring a new tax, like internet tax or something stupid like that and the cycle would repeat itself all over again.

What do you do with the plastic bag you buy at the till fake news? All you have to do is empty it when you go home and then put it back in the pocket of your coat straight away and it will be there for you when you go to the shops the next time.

mada999

The problem was it was the proposed tax that broke the camels back. The local authorities looked after the water supply for years. Then there there was the perceived Govt policy to stop maintaining the public water supply by under funding the local council authorities.

LPT came in which should have covered the water supply imo. It also boils down to the way they were going to set up the company and acquire the meters.

Denis O'Brien's involvement in the water metering, the hardman Phil Hogan / Alan Kelly trying to bully people into water charges...Bord Gais getting the contract as they had "the knowledge and expertise" but then shelling out millions upon millions on consultants!

Then the huge cost of setting up a semi-state quango "billing company" just to collect payments - before any upgrade of the current infrastructure...and still relying on the local authorities for water infrastructure maintenance.

Govt cronies appointed to the company on massive wages, massive bonuses, company car payments and huge golden handshake payments . Laughing all the way to the bank with the public looking on in a fecking recession. God knows how much public money was actually wasted on setting this time up. Maybe infrastructure could have been upgraded with all this ??

It was all a bit much and the way the govt handed it was a shambles..

We all know how it will go in the end though... Once the public pay for all the pipes & infrastructure etc, it will be privatized and charges will only go one way and that is up to insure shareholders will pocket a nice sum of dough...

Hitman3000

mada999 wrote:

We all know how it will go in the end though... Once the public pay for all the pipes & infrastructure etc, it will be privatized and charges will only go one way and that is up to insure shareholders will pocket a nice sum of dough...

We just need to look to England.

Avatar MIA

mada999 wrote: »

We all know how it will go in the end though... Once the public pay for all the pipes & infrastructure etc, it will be privatized and charges will only go one way and that is up to insure shareholders will pocket a nice sum of dough...

That doesn't make sense.

I don't think Irish Water would be privatised. But, who are the shareholders? We currently are, and if we invest in the infrastructure the purchaser (which could potentially be us again) would pay for the enhanced asset. So, the state (us) would get the benefit of the value to possibly pay off some of the National Debt. That's how company valuations work.

Would I be in favour of it being nationalised. No. But, that's a separate argument.

mada999

Avatar MIA wrote: »

That doesn't make sense.

I don't think Irish Water would be privatised. But, who are the shareholders? We currently are, and if we invest in the infrastructure the purchaser (which could potentially be us again) would pay for the enhanced asset. So, the state (us) would get the benefit of the value to possibly pay off some of the National Debt. That's how company valuations work.

Would I be in favour of it being nationalised. No. But, that's a separate argument.

the shareholders will be from the other billing companies that will be set up by foreign companies due to EU competition laws....

I just think a lot of money has been wasted setting up this new company when a lot of the work is still being done by the local authorities... i wonder are they paying the local authorities for the work they have to do

mada999

mada999 wrote: »

the shareholders will be from the other billing companies that will be set up by foreign companies due to EU competition laws....

I just think a lot of money has been wasted setting up this new company when a lot of the work is still being done by the local authorities... i wonder are they paying the local authorities for the work they have to do

Yes, a lot of work is being done. But NOT by Local Authority workers. It’s being done by companies contracted by Irish Water.

Chrongen

Phat Dick wrote: »

That was the most annoying sentence from anti water charges people

Are you pissed off that you just bent over and paid up like a good little sap? Are you pissed off that the unwashed masses actually had a point and won? Are you pissed off that you were conned and now have to admit it?

Avatar MIA

Chrongen wrote: »

Are you pissed off that you just bent over and paid up like a good little sap? Are you pissed off that the unwashed masses actually had a point and won? Are you pissed off that you were conned and now have to admit it?

What are you on about, those of us that paid got €100 plus are getting our money back. A net gain of €100.

Who was conned again?

Hitman3000

Avatar MIA wrote:

What are you on about, those of us that paid got €100 plus are getting our money back. A net gain of €100.

A gain of 100 euro, where do you think that came from? Then you're wondering who was conned.

Chrongen

Avatar MIA wrote: »

What are you on about, those of us that paid got €100 plus are getting our money back. A net gain of €100.

Who was conned again?

YOU got conned.

The fact that you are getting your money back doesn't change that.

You were effectively stolen from without a fight (on your part).

mada999

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, a lot of work is being done. But NOT by Local Authority workers. It’s being done by companies contracted by Irish Water.

The statement above is slightly incorrect. The local authorities are some of these 3rd parties

"While Irish Water owns the infrastructure, local authorities are continuing to provide much of the manpower. Those agreements run to 2025, at which time it was intended those workers would become directly employed by Irish Water."

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irish-water-to-speed-up-transfer-of-council-staff-463068.html


LA water staff are an indisputable part of the future of IW

• Discussions currently ongoing to agree a mechanism to utilise
the expertise, skills and experience with LAs to support IW to
2017 and beyond

https://www.water.ie/about-us/careers/water-and-wastewater-proc-3/Water-and-Wastewater-Process-Optimisation-Analyst.pdf

Avatar MIA

Hitman3000 wrote: »

A gain of 100 euro, where do you think that came from? Then you're wondering who was conned.

Madda was implying those that paid got conned. I was correcting him. I know where the €100 came from, but at least I was getting my own money back.

Idbatterim

stoloen without a fight? water charge protestors, a gas lot most of them! whats your opinion on an actual scandal like over half your earning being lost over the pittance of E34,800?

Avatar MIA

Chrongen wrote: »

YOU got conned.

The fact that you are getting your money back doesn't change that.

You were effectively stolen from without a fight (on your part).

No matter how many times you say it doesn't make it true.

And YOU can con me every day as often as you like if I make a net gain of €100 by being "conned".

Hitman3000

Idbatterim wrote:

stoloen without a fight? water charge protestors, a gas lot most of them! whats your opinion on an actual scandal like over half your earning being lost over the pittance of E34,800?

Mate I earn way more than 34k and according to my P60 from last year I paid just slightly above 24% of my wage in taxes and levies.
35k is not a pittance even the lads in deepest darkest Africa would agree with me .

mada999

mada999 wrote: »

The statement above is slightly incorrect. The local authorities are some of these 3rd parties

"While Irish Water owns the infrastructure, local authorities are continuing to provide much of the manpower. Those agreements run to 2025, at which time it was intended those workers would become directly employed by Irish Water."

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irish-water-to-speed-up-transfer-of-council-staff-463068.html


LA water staff are an indisputable part of the future of IW

• Discussions currently ongoing to agree a mechanism to utilise
the expertise, skills and experience with LAs to support IW to
2017 and beyond

https://www.water.ie/about-us/careers/water-and-wastewater-proc-3/Water-and-Wastewater-Process-Optimisation-Analyst.pdf

I would imagine that the LA workers are only involved in minor repairs. They lack the equipment and ability for anything major. No LA workers are involved in the bigger upgrade jobs.

Chrongen

Avatar MIA wrote: »

No matter how many times you say it doesn't make it true.

And YOU can con me every day as often as you like if I make a net gain of €100 by being "conned".

OK, give me a few hundred quid and if enough people complain on your behalf I'll give it back with a little extra. Come on it's for your own good. I'm doing you a favour.Not trying to con you.

Avatar MIA

Chrongen wrote: »

OK, give me a few hundred quid and if enough people complain on your behalf I'll give it back with a little extra. Come on it's for your own good. I'm doing you a favour.Not trying to con you.

That's not the correct analogy. The government (us) STILL need to pay for water. I'm going to assume this concept is understood by you.

The government were trying to widen the base as to how this was paid.

Some vocal people (some of those with a lot of time on their hands) protested and now the tax burden will fall back on those paying tax.

Clean drinking water isn't free. Someone has to pay for it, so before you stick your chest out and think you've stopped people paying for water, look yourself in the mirror and you'll see your wearing a funny red wig, round red nose and wearing quite large shoes on your feet.

Idbatterim

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Mate I earn way more than 34k and according to my P60 from last year I paid just slightly above 24% of my wage in taxes and levies.
35k is not a pittance even the lads in deepest darkest Africa would agree with me .

fair enough and I commend you, another one paying in no doubt much more than you get out. i just figure if many had a problem with water chagres, LOL at the reaction if they were paying over half their income in income tax over a low level. I reckon in dublin, relatively E35k is a pittance for over half your income to be lost...

Hitman3000

Avatar MIA wrote:

Clean drinking water isn't free. Someone has to pay for it, so before you stick your chest out and think you've stopped people paying for water, look yourself in the mirror and you'll see your wearing a funny red wig, round red nose and wearing quite large shoes on your feet.

Never once during all the protests did I hear anyone claim drinking water was free.
Funny that you mention wigs and red noses, I wonder were these mandatory for IW staff during the laughing yoga classes paid for by the citizen.

Avatar MIA

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Never once during all the protests did I hear anyone claim drinking water was free.

What they wanted was for it to be free for them. And they succeeded - their bookies will be delighted. :pac:

Rodin

Why exactly was the 100euro grant not deducted from the refund?

Avatar MIA

Rodin wrote: »

Why exactly was the 100euro grant not deducted from the refund?

Technically they were not connected.

Ken.

Mod-Ah fück this. Water threads have been done to death on AH. Locked