Water charges for excessive usage

Plumbthedepths

Nevin Parsnipp wrote: »

Do local authority households have to pay property tax ?

Local authority housing is exempt from the property tax.

Bass Reeves

Nevin Parsnipp wrote: »

Do local authority households have to pay property tax ?

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Local authority housing is exempt from the property tax.

It would only be a paper transaction with the LA paying property tax to its self. In a way its the sensible thing in thatit saves money on administration

Benedict

Let's face it, the LPT is just another tax - but unlike the water charges, at least you know that if the family in No 41 has to pay, you can be sure that the family in No 42 also has to pay.

The water charges may not be quite dead yet. If they can figure out a way of making it sound fair, they'll try again. But first they'll have to shred the daft plan that is currently in place.

When there's a large pot of cash at stake, it's amazing how determined people can be. So there will be people around a table right now trying to figure out how to get their hands on the lolly.

Money talks!

Benedict

Benedict wrote: »

Let's face it, the LPT is just another tax - but unlike the water charges, at least you know that if the family in No 41 has to pay, you can be sure that the family in No 42 also has to pay.

The water charges may not be quite dead yet. If they can figure out a way of making it sound fair, they'll try again. But first they'll have to shred the daft plan that is currently in place.

When there's a large pot of cash at stake, it's amazing how determined people can be. So there will be people around a table right now trying to figure out how to get their hands on the lolly.

Money talks!

Actually if both are renters NEITHER pays. Nor do social housing tenants. Only OWNERS pay.

charlie14

Benedict wrote: »

Let's face it, the LPT is just another tax - but unlike the water charges, at least you know that if the family in No 41 has to pay, you can be sure that the family in No 42 also has to pay.

The water charges may not be quite dead yet. If they can figure out a way of making it sound fair, they'll try again. But first they'll have to shred the daft plan that is currently in place.

When there's a large pot of cash at stake, it's amazing how determined people can be. So there will be people around a table right now trying to figure out how to get their hands on the lolly.

Money talks!

Water metering is dead, and the highlighted is one of the main reasons why.



There were a lot of people around the table scheming on getting their hands on the money.
Some did very well out of it. The taxpayers who were funding that, with no benefits accruing or likely to, not so much

Added to the ridiculous amount of money setting up Irish Water, once it became apparent that the taxpayer was being set up with the off the books scam as hostages of fortune for privatisation, the jig was up.

Brendan Bendar

charlie14 wrote: »

Water metering is dead, and the highlighted is one of the main reasons why.



There were a lot of people around the table scheming on getting their hands on the money.
Some did very well out of it. The taxpayers who were funding that, with no benefits accruing or likely to, not so much

Added to the ridiculous amount of money setting up Irish Water, once it became apparent that the taxpayer was being set up with the off the books scam as hostages of fortune for privatisation, the jig was up.

“Some did very well out of it”

Who were they?

apart from Tierney?

Taxpayer being set up for privatisation?

Give us the full scenario on that , with back up and evidence.

Larbre34

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

“Some did very well out of it”

Who were they?

apart from Tierney?

Taxpayer being set up for privatisation?

Give us the full scenario on that , with back up and evidence.

Every management consultant, legal house and PR company in the city of Dublin for starters. I worked on elements of the asset transfer programme, and considering the time we are talking about, the amount of gravy sloshing about was disgusting, shameful and indefensible.

Its what stopped me ever paying a water bill at the time. And how right i was.

Benedict

charlie14 wrote: »

Water metering is dead, and the highlighted is one of the main reasons why.



There were a lot of people around the table scheming on getting their hands on the money.
Some did very well out of it. The taxpayers who were funding that, with no benefits accruing or likely to, not so much

Added to the ridiculous amount of money setting up Irish Water, once it became apparent that the taxpayer was being set up with the off the books scam as hostages of fortune for privatisation, the jig was up.

They'll find it very difficult to resurrect the plans to charge customers - such a complete dogs' dinner has been made of it.
If it's going to be resurrected it will be soon so that by the time the next election comes 'round, it'll be forgotten.
They'll call it something else of course, such as the "Environmental fund" or something.

They'll avoid the words "water" and "charge" at all costs.

But they haven't gone away you know!

Brendan Bendar

Larbre34 wrote: »

Every management consultant, legal house and PR company in the city of Dublin for starters. I worked on elements of the asset transfer programme, and considering the time we are talking about, the amount of gravy sloshing about was disgusting, shameful and indefensible.

Its what stopped me ever paying a water bill at the time. And how right i was.

Any evidence for that Larry.

Your first sentence in particular.

Let’s drill it down.

“Every management consultant, legal house and PR company in the city of Dublin for starters”

Ok we will go with the starters, Larry.

Who were they , what evidence do you have for that statement, what did they gain.

Can we open up with that kick off?

Larbre34

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Any evidence for that Larry.

Your first sentence in particular.

Let’s drill it down.

“Every management consultant, legal house and PR company in the city of Dublin for starters”

Ok we will go with the starters, Larry.

Who were they , what evidence do you have for that statement, what did they gain.

Can we open up with that kick off?

We sure can. I worked alongside Accenture, Arthur Cox and RPS' in-house PR arm. I'm not going into the individual contracts, but the gross figures spent by IW on consultants were well publicised. The other consulting houses KPMG, PWC, DL, and legals Grant Thornton and McCann Fitz all got work either from IW or in the regional and local authorities.

They gained no more than they tendered for the work, but from my point of view it was unnecessary expenditure all told.

Brendan Bendar

Larbre34 wrote: »

We sure can. I worked alongside Accenture, Arthur Cox and RPS' in-house PR arm. I'm not going into the individual contracts, but the gross figures spent by IW on consultants were well publicised. The other consulting houses KPMG, PWC, DL, and legals Grant Thornton and McCann Fitz all got work either from IW or in the regional and local authorities.

They gained no more than they tendered for the work, but from my point of view it was unnecessary expenditure all told.

So, so far we have established that every management consultant, legal house and PR company in the city of Dublin did NOT do very well out of it.

That’s a start anyway.

charlie14

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

So, so far we have established that every management consultant, legal house and PR company in the city of Dublin did NOT do very well out of it.

That’s a start anyway.

Hard to believe they didn`t when there was 70 Million spent on consultants and 650,000 to a PR company to tell us that water came from the sky.
A waste of money from beginning to end.

Brendan Bendar

charlie14 wrote: »

Hard to believe they didn`t when there was 70 Million spent on consultants and 650,000 to a PR company to tell us that water came from the sky.
A waste of money from beginning to end.

Hear we go again.

Treated potable water didn’t come from the sky.

Pipes an water systems didn’t come from the sky

Reservoirs, water storage and collection systems didn’t come from the sky.

Sewage treatment systems, drains, water waste systems either.


I’m worn out here.

pablo128

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

“Some did very well out of it”

Who were they?

apart from Tierney?

Taxpayer being set up for privatisation?

Give us the full scenario on that , with back up and evidence.

Wouldn't it be great if everyone on this thread that made a claim, be forced to back it up with hard evidence?

Plumbthedepths

pablo128 wrote: »

Wouldn't it be great if everyone on this thread that made a claim, be forced to back it up with hard evidence?

From what I have seen on this and other related threads only those that opposed the nature of IW are required to provide verification of what they claim.
Supporters of the envisaged regime don't hold themselves to what they expect of others and feel free to post any rubbish that comes to mind.

charlie14

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Hear we go again.

Treated potable water didn’t come from the sky.

Pipes an water systems didn’t come from the sky

Reservoirs, water storage and collection systems didn’t come from the sky.

Sewage treatment systems, drains, water waste systems either.


I’m worn out here.

So what ?
After wasting 70 Million on consultants it was a great idea to spend 650,000 on something that ever child over 6 knew already ?
There was no limit on the amount of taxpayers money those idiots wasted.
Nor it seems idiots that still continue attempting to make excuses for it.


You would be less worn out if you accepted the reality that the clusterf*ck is not only dead it also has a stake through it`s heart.

Benedict

pablo128 wrote: »

Wouldn't it be great if everyone on this thread that made a claim, be forced to back it up with hard evidence?

In fairness, I think there was only one real and definite claim made that IW could establish exact usage of non-metered homes and it's true that that claim was never backed up.


After all, if they could establish the use of non-metered homes, why bother with meters in the first place?

By claiming that they can do without meters and still know what homes are using, IW were undermining the reason for zillions of Euro being spent on them.

Plumbthedepths

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Hear we go again.

Treated potable water didn’t come from the sky.

Pipes an water systems didn’t come from the sky

Reservoirs, water storage and collection systems didn’t come from the sky.

Sewage treatment systems, drains, water waste systems either.


I’m worn out here.

You still here? I'm amazed. That's serious commitment to what was an obvious falacy. I guess party support thrumps everything. Sad.

Brendan Bendar

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You still here? I'm amazed. That's serious commitment to what was an obvious falacy. I guess party support thrumps everything. Sad.

As long as folk keep posting loose and free with the facts, I’ll be here, my friend.

Benedict

This kind of thread is good for the democratic process. When we are told things like, for example, that those homes without meters can and will be treated the same as those with meters, the public needs to be able to test the truth of that.

Anyone reading this thread will be fairly sure it seems not true and indeed appears to be a farcical claim. The only so-called evidence put forward was the notion that there is a plumber somewhere who knows the secret of how to measure all homes' usage without meters - but the plumber will not share the secret with anyone (not even with IW it seems).

Brendan Bendar

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

As long as folk keep posting loose and free with the facts, I’ll be here, my friend.

Like this gem from Benedict “ Let's face it, the LPT is just another tax - but unlike the water charges, at least you know that if the family in No 41 has to pay, you can be sure that the family in No 42 also has to pay.”

pablo128

Benedict wrote: »

This kind of thread is good for the democratic process. When we are told things like, for example, that those homes without meters can and will be treated the same as those with meters, the public needs to be able to test the truth of that.

Anyone reading this thread will be fairly sure it seems not true and indeed appears to be a farcical claim. The only so-called evidence put forward was the notion that there is a plumber somewhere who knows the secret of how to measure all homes' usage without meters - but the plumber will not share the secret with anyone (not even IW it seems).

I even set a thread up in the Plumbing forum to see if any plumbers were able to confirm that fable.

Surprisingly, no-one in the trade came forward to confirm it.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

Like this gem from Benedict “ Let's face it, the LPT is just another tax - but unlike the water charges, at least you know that if the family in No 41 has to pay, you can be sure that the family in No 42 also has to pay.”

Where have you been the last 3 years


Neither the family at No 41, No, 42, or any other number has to pay water charges.

charlie14

charlie14 wrote: »

Where have you been the last 3 years


Neither the family at No 41, No, 42, or any other number has to pay water charges.

Benedict was talking about LPT. I was pointing out his/her lack of understanding of who pays LPT. ie the homeowner. If the families living in No’s 41 and 42 are renters, then they don’t pay.

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Like this gem from Benedict “ Let's face it, the LPT is just another tax - but unlike the water charges, at least you know that if the family in No 41 has to pay, you can be sure that the family in No 42 also has to pay.”

What about your own gem? A competent plumber,lol.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

Benedict was talking about LPT. I was pointing out his/her lack of understanding of who pays LPT. ie the homeowner. If the families living in No’s 41 and 42 are renters, then they don’t pay.

Makes no difference to the topic being discussed.
Nobody whether owners or renters has to pay water charges, and with no way to monitor unmetered household that also applies to those exceeding allocations.

pablo128

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

What about your own gem? A competent plumber,lol.

Debunked. https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058042827

Benedict

In re M84 silly contribution, I said IF, once again IF no 41 has to pay then 42 will also have to pay. Got it? IF IF IF.

Also, if the landlord has rented it an now lives in Tokyo, it's still No 42 having to pay.

Just concentrate, M84, on trying to discover your plumber's big secret and stop trying to be clever.

Nevin Parsnipp

Deleted User wrote: »

Benedict was talking about LPT. I was pointing out his/her lack of understanding of who pays LPT. ie the homeowner. If the families living in No’s 41 and 42 are renters, then they don’t pay.

Or if No 41 and No 42 are local authority houses neither family pays.

On means related rental.

Medical card or maky up disability benefit.

Free travel.....

And on and on.....

Benedict

It is already the plan to only charge for "excessive use". To suggest that LA metered homes would be told they are free to use "excessive" amounts would be ridiculous and that wouldn't happen.

So LA homes would (in theory) be no different to non-LA metered homes. Unless IW took the view that the quota applied to non-LA homes in insufficient for LA homes?

How crazy would that make their own quota system look? It would be like saying LA people need more water than non-LA people?