Water charges for excessive usage

Brendan Bendar

We all know it’s income tax we are talking about.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/why-one-in-three-earners-pays-no-income-tax-1.2841652

Plumbthedepths

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

We all know it’s income tax we are talking about.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/why-one-in-three-earners-pays-no-income-tax-1.2841652

My parents don't pay income tax, but they pay a vast array of other taxes.
No it was only you that knew what you were trying to say. You need to be clear and concise.
However since there is a myriad of taxes paid by everyone your claim about not paying tax is false.

pablo128

I paid 4k in motor related tax last year not including tax on fuel for 2 cars. That's more than I paid in income tax.

You just want to beat down on social welfare recipients, Brendan. Let's call a spade a spade.

James Brown

pablo128 wrote: »

Something something bullhorn, middle Ireland getting stiffed, etc. We've been down this road many times with Brendan.

Yes the funny bit is when we get to the 'anyone on welfare was exempt so its irrelivant'.
And around and around we go....

Fun fact:

Irish Water spent over €800,000 on high-end documentary
Irish Water spent over €800,000 on a feature-length documentary commissioned as part of a public information campaign on how Ireland uses water, records released to The Irish Times show.

The film, titled The Story of Water, was broadcast on Virgin Media Two in early December. It was produced by blue chip “creative agency” Rothco Accenture, which charged €654,000 to develop, film, produce and edit the programme. The VAT bill for the project was €150,420.

Irish Water said the documentary “was considered the most cost-effective way to tell a very complex story”.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-water-spent-over-800-000-on-high-end-documentary-1.4133311

I mean as the man said, 'it doesn't just fall from the sky'.

Brendan Bendar

pablo128 wrote: »

I paid 4k in motor related tax last year not including tax on fuel for 2 cars. That's more than I paid in income tax.

You just want to beat down on social welfare recipients, Brendan. Let's call a spade a spade.

Incorrect Pee, totally incorrect, I have every respect for, now read this carefully, genuine welfare recipients.

I have every respect for folk who make an effort.

I have little respect for those who game the system, tip around the edges, evade their responsibilities to the revenue illegally.

Hope that makes things clear Pee.

Benedict

"the most cost-effective way to tell a very complex story”.
It certainly is a complex story! We're all still wondering if they're going to involve the Army Rangers when searching for non-metered "suspects" - and what about installing meters as an alternative to paying a E500 fine when there are no installers to carry out the installations?

It's definitely "complex"!

charlie14

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Incorrect Pee, totally incorrect, I have every respect for, now read this carefully, genuine welfare recipients.

I have every respect for folk who make an effort.

I have little respect for those who game the system, tip around the edges, evade their responsibilities to the revenue illegally.

Hope that makes things clear Pee.

Would that tipping around the edges and gaming the system include, let say for the sake of arguement, someone who was found by a tribunal to have profited through gaining inside track information on a state contract from a Minister of a particular political party, who again received another contract courtesy of that political part where yet again their is another inquiry into with that someone being a tax exile ?

Would that come under this tipping around edges and gaming the system or are dodgy tax exiles exempt ?

Brendan Bendar

charlie14 wrote: »

Would that tipping around the edges and gaming the system include, let say for the sake of arguement, someone who was found by a tribunal to have profited through gaining inside track information on a state contract from a Minister of a particular political party, who again received another contract courtesy of that political part where yet again their is another inquiry into with that someone being a tax exile ?

Would that come under this tipping around edges and gaming the system or are dodgy tax exiles exempt ?

Cha, word in your cluas, the Brenner condemns all law breaking.

charlie14

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Cha, word in your cluas, the Brenner condemns all law breaking.

I take it so you believe that report as Kenny told us would not gather dust many years ago should have been dusted down and acted on long ago.

My example of your lads that dodge around the edges and game the system that are tax exiles with unfavouble tribunal findings behind them I would not look at as, (I was going to say law abiding citizens, but as tax exiles I doubt they can even be called citizens) law abiding.

Should the state be awarding those type of lads contracts ?

Brendan Bendar

charlie14 wrote: »

I take it so you believe that report as Kenny told us would not gather dust many years ago should have been dusted down and acted on long ago.

My example of your lads that dodge around the edges and game the system that are tax exiles with unfavouble tribunal findings behind them I would not look at as, (I was going to say law abiding citizens, but as tax exiles I doubt they can even be called citizens) law abiding.

Should the state be awarding those type of lads contracts ?

We need convictions and sentences Cha, not the opinions and rhetoric of driven individuals.

Like ..what law was broken.
Like ..was this person guilty
Like ..guilty of what.
Like ..guilty under what judgement.

The fact that certain driven individuals have a pathological dislike of certain individuals duddn’t ..... what did Padraig Rabbitte say.... butter no parsnips.


That’s how it rolls, bro.

Sourness and bile ain’t acceptable evidence for convictions.

And convictions is where it’s at.

Plumbthedepths

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

We need convictions and sentences Cha, not the opinions and rhetoric of driven individuals.

Like ..what law was broken.
Like ..was this person guilty
Like ..guilty of what.
Like ..guilty under what judgement.

The fact that certain driven individuals have a pathological dislike of certain individuals duddn’t ..... what did Padraig Rabbitte say.... butter no parsnips.


That’s how it rolls, bro.

Sourness and bile ain’t acceptable evidence for convictions.

And convictions is where it’s at.

You were asked a straight forward question, not willing to answer I see.
A vacuous response is all I read.

Brendan Bendar

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You were asked a straight forward question, not willing to answer I see.
A vacuous response is all I read.

Can’t help you if your can’t interpret a post, dude.


Take your time, there’s no rush.

Plumbthedepths

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Can’t help you if your can’t interpret a post, dude.


Take your time, there’s no rush.

B you were asked a simple question about awarding a contract, you have squirmed, twisted avoided answering what was asked of you. You asked me a question sometime back about how I would fund water. I gave you a straight forward answer, no evasion no nonsense just an answer. You would do well to do what you have asked of others.

McMurphy

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

We need convictions and sentences Cha, not the opinions and rhetoric of driven individuals.

Like ..what law was broken.
Like ..was this person guilty
Like ..guilty of what.
Like ..guilty under what judgement.

The fact that certain driven individuals have a pathological dislike of certain individuals duddn’t ..... what did Padraig Rabbitte say.... butter no parsnips.


That’s how it rolls, bro.

Sourness and bile ain’t acceptable evidence for convictions.

And convictions is where it’s at.

I remember posters in this very thread getting their knickers in quite a twist when Paul Murphy's sham case was rightly thrown out of court.

The selective memory has reared its head again I see.

Brendan Bendar

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You were asked a straight forward question, not willing to answer I see.
A vacuous response is all I read.

Pee, if that was a straight forward question.......:D

Then I’m potuned in the embaroruny club and teenclated by the glivrrty frytterings.


In case you didn’t guess, it was anything but a straight forward question.

Plumbthedepths

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Pee, if that was a straight forward question.......:D

Then I’m potuned in the embaroruny club and teenclated by the glivrrty frytterings.


In case you didn’t guess, it was anything but a straight forward question.

Looks obvious you have no interest in answering a straight forward question. Move on so, just remember when you ask questions of others they have a right to respond the same way you have done to C's question.

charlie14

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

We need convictions and sentences Cha, not the opinions and rhetoric of driven individuals.

Like ..what law was broken.
Like ..was this person guilty
Like ..guilty of what.
Like ..guilty under what judgement.

The fact that certain driven individuals have a pathological dislike of certain individuals duddn’t ..... what did Padraig Rabbitte say.... butter no parsnips.


That’s how it rolls, bro.

Sourness and bile ain’t acceptable evidence for convictions.

And convictions is where it’s at.

It was a straight forward question.
A simple yes or no would have sufficed.


As to the guilty or innocence of certain individuals with very serious adverse state tribunal findings that have the very real potential to cost the state, (even on the scale of FG wastefulness), very serious money.



While Enda`s tribunal report that would not gather dust is,... well 9 years now doing exactly that, certain individuals are well shielded from any possible prosecution.


But you know all that Bren don`t you.;)

Brendan Bendar

charlie14 wrote: »

It was a straight forward question.
A simple yes or no would have sufficed.


As to the guilty or innocence of certain individuals with very serious adverse state tribunal findings that have the very real potential to cost the state, (even on the scale of FG wastefulness), very serious money.



While Enda`s tribunal report that would not gather dust is,... well 9 years now doing exactly that, certain individuals are well shielded from any possible prosecution.


But you know all that Bren don`t you.;)

Nothing straight forward about it at all, I have to say.

Nothing at all.

charlie14

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Nothing straight forward about it at all, I have to say.

Nothing at all.

....and a fair old concerted effort by friends to keep it that way I believe fair to say.

That or they love to watch dust gathering.

Benedict

There are people out there (and good luck to them) who still believe that IW can (and will) bill non-metered homes for excessive usage in exactly the same way as metered homes will be billed.

There are also people (and good luck to them also) who still believe that the world is flat and that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

I heard the IW mouthpiece a few month ha go on matt cooper.
She said they'll check the water usage for let say a complete estate.
If the estate it in excess of usage, then they get a letter to assist on determining the source and the whole estate gets billed odd that reading!! absolute rubbish thinking.

I have a guy down the road who has his own chauffer business with about 6 cars and he's power washing them at two per day in his front garden, even during that hose ban!!

But it's not up to me to play detective, it's not my business model so I'd love to see them try that method of operation. I haven't a clue what her name was but none of her maths added up.

Brendan Bendar

rusty cole wrote: »

I heard the IW mouthpiece a few month ha go on matt cooper.
She said they'll check the water usage for let say a complete estate.
If the estate it in excess of usage, then they get a letter to assist on determining the source and the whole estate gets billed odd that reading!! absolute rubbish thinking.

I have a guy down the road who has his own chauffer business with about 6 cars and he's power washing them at two per day in his front garden, even during that hose ban!!

But it's not up to me to play detective, it's not my business model so I'd love to see them try that method of operation. I haven't a clue what her name was but none of her maths added up.

My deepest sympathies there, you have problems.

rusty cole

rusty cole wrote: »

I heard the IW mouthpiece a few month ha go on matt cooper.
She said they'll check the water usage for let say a complete estate.
If the estate it in excess of usage, then they get a letter to assist on determining the source and the whole estate gets billed odd that reading!! absolute rubbish thinking.

I have a guy down the road who has his own chauffer business with about 6 cars and he's power washing them at two per day in his front garden, even during that hose ban!!

But it's not up to me to play detective, it's not my business model so I'd love to see them try that method of operation. I haven't a clue what her name was but none of her maths added up.

If he’s running a business, then he’s more than likely paying business rates.

charlie14

rusty cole wrote: »

I heard the IW mouthpiece a few month ha go on matt cooper.
She said they'll check the water usage for let say a complete estate.
If the estate it in excess of usage, then they get a letter to assist on determining the source and the whole estate gets billed odd that reading!! absolute rubbish thinking.

I have a guy down the road who has his own chauffer business with about 6 cars and he's power washing them at two per day in his front garden, even during that hose ban!!

But it's not up to me to play detective, it's not my business model so I'd love to see them try that method of operation. I haven't a clue what her name was but none of her maths added up.

I did`nt hear that particular programme, but from past IW mouthpieces it would not overly surprise me.
If in fact that is what she said, it wasn`ty just her maths that didn`t add up.

If IW attempted to charge all households in a housing estate for water lost via a leak they would not have legally a leg to stand on. Most likely end up in court being sued themselves.

Nevin Parsnipp

Deleted User wrote: »

If he’s running a business, then he’s more than likely paying business rates.

Yeah ? That's a joke .....right ??

Nevin Parsnipp

Nevin Parsnipp wrote: »

Yeah ? That's a joke .....right ??

No. Just an observation. Many people run businesses from their home and pay business rates for the privilege!

well I doubt this lad does, from his side garage in his garden. and to be honest, live and let live, he seems nice but I'm just highlighting it to illustrate their joke of a billing suggestion. Technically were they to run with that generic water usage model, they're reliant on neighbours to report him, crap system.

rusty cole

rusty cole wrote: »

well I doubt this lad does, from his side garage in his garden. and to be honest, live and let live, he seems nice but I'm just highlighting it to illustrate their joke of a billing suggestion. Technically were they to run with that generic water usage model, they're reliant on neighbours to report him, crap system.

It must be some garage to keep 6 vehicles safe!

Brendan Bendar

rusty cole wrote: »

well I doubt this lad does, from his side garage in his garden. and to be honest, live and let live, he seems nice but I'm just highlighting it to illustrate their joke of a billing suggestion. Technically were they to run with that generic water usage model, they're reliant on neighbours to report him, crap system.

If he is not paying his way, he is putting his hand in your pocket.

We have way too many of these ‘ lovable rogues and chancers ‘ about the place.

Plumbthedepths

The comments on this thread have descended into nonsense