Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Water charges for excessive usage

Options
1…6566687071…85

Comments

  • Options
    #2012
    JohnnyFlash
    Registered Users Posts: 7,055 ✭✭✭JohnnyFlash


    People don’t mind paying 120 quid a month for Sky TV but don’t want to pay for water. That’s entitlement and a belief that someone else should pay for things that are actually important.

    It’s entitlement culture. No need for a long debate on it.


  • Options
    #2013
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 29,384 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    JohnnyFlash wrote:
    It’s entitlement culture. No need for a long debate on it.


    I'd say there's a lot more complicated psychology going on behind that now in fainess


  • Options
    #2014
    JohnnyFlash
    Registered Users Posts: 7,055 ✭✭✭JohnnyFlash


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    I'd say there's a lot more complicated psychology going on behind that now in fainess

    No. Not really.

    It’s entitlement. It’s the belief in the importance of the self over the good of the whole. It’s a form of individualism. It’s actually quite capitalistic. Of course we’ve always known that water charges are a central core belief of Europeans left wing parties, but not in Ireland (apart from Labour of course).


  • Options
    #2015
    Benedict
    Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭Benedict


    JohnnyFlash wrote: »
    No. Not really.

    It’s entitlement. It’s the belief in the importance of the self over the good of the whole. It’s a form of individualism. It’s actually quite capitalistic. Of course we’ve always known that water charges are a central core belief of Europeans left wing parties, but not in Ireland (apart from Labour of course).


    Straight question, answer yes or no. If you lived on an estate of 600 houses and everyone except you got water free but you (because you had a meter) had to pay. Would you be happy to pay? Yes or no please, no woffle.


  • Options
    #2016
    JohnnyFlash
    Registered Users Posts: 7,055 ✭✭✭JohnnyFlash


    Benedict wrote: »
    Straight question, answer yes or no. If you lived on an estate of 600 houses and everyone except you got water free but you (because you had a meter) had to pay. Would you be happy to pay? Yes or no please, no woffle.

    I’m happy to pay for water as I believe it’s a vital and precious resource and we need to invest in the infrastructure that delivers this vital resource. For the future as well. Not having a semi-state utility manage our water through billing will come back and bite us on the ass pretty soon. That’s why the water charge protests were so craven and shameful.

    So yes. Why would I be the only one with a meter btw?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2017
    Maewyn Succat
    Registered Users Posts: 506 ✭✭✭Maewyn Succat


    Benedict wrote: »
    In some other jurisdictions, apparently, they offer you a meter and if you refuse, you get hit with an annual fixed charge. This could work in Ireland but for the fact that they can't offer you a meter because they do do installations any more. Also, the only way to get people to pay the fixed charge would be to let the Revenue go after it and this would ruin the privatisation plan (which we all know is the ultimate aim).

    Why would someone buy a company where half of it's product literally goes straight into the ground and can't be charged for and there is such opposition to getting paid for the other half of their product that the business would be unsustainable?

    The privatisation argument is really high level tinfoil hat stuff.


  • Options
    #2018
    Benedict
    Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭Benedict


    JohnnyFlash wrote: »
    I’m happy to pay for water as I believe it’s a vital and precious resource and we need to invest in the infrastructure that delivers this vital resource. For the future as well. Not having a semi-state utility manage our water through billing will come back and bite us on the ass pretty soon. That’s why the water charge protests were so craven and shameful.

    So yes. Why would I be the only one with a meter btw?


    Fair dues, you gave a straight answer - yes, you would be happy to pay even if the other 599 homes on the estate were allowed to go free.


  • Options
    #2019
    JohnnyFlash
    Registered Users Posts: 7,055 ✭✭✭JohnnyFlash


    Benedict wrote: »
    Fair dues, you gave a straight answer - yes, you would be happy to pay even if the other 599 homes on the estate were allowed to go free.

    You never answered why such a scenario would exist in the first place.


  • Options
    #2020
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,110 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Maewyn Succat wrote: »
    Why would someone buy a company where half of it's product literally goes straight into the ground and can't be charged for and there is such opposition to getting paid for the other half of their product that the business would be unsustainable?

    The privatisation argument is really high level tinfoil hat stuff.


    You either have not thought this through or you are just ignoring some inconvenient facts.


    1. The plan was not to charge for just the 50% of treated water that reached the end user. It was based on the cost of all treated water produced. Even a cursory glance at IW`s costing will show you that.


    2. Very little money to be gained by privatising a utility that has 50% of its produce going to waste and only 50% of its users paying for the remainder.
    If you can change those dynamics by metering all of its users and in the process getting them to pay for not just what they use, but also pay for upgrading the infrastructure to optimum efficiency then you have a utility that is ripe for privatisation.


    3. If privatisation is such tin foil hat thinking then the legislation we were promised four years ago to ensure it would never happen would have put that theory to bed.


  • Options
    #2021
    Maewyn Succat
    Registered Users Posts: 506 ✭✭✭Maewyn Succat


    charlie14 wrote: »
    You either have not thought this through or you are just ignoring some inconvenient facts.


    1. The plan was not to charge for just the 50% of treated water that reached the end user. It was based on the cost of all treated water produced. Even a cursory glance at IW`s costing will show you that.


    2. Very little money to be gained by privatising a utility that has 50% of its produce going to waste and only 50% of its users paying for the remainder.
    If you can change those dynamics by metering all of its users and in the process getting them to pay for not just what they use, but also pay for upgrading the infrastructure to optimum efficiency then you have a utility that is ripe for privatisation.


    3. If privatisation is such tin foil hat thinking then the legislation we were promised four years ago to ensure it would never happen would have put that theory to bed.

    Is that all based on them going the same way about it if the notion of water charges was back on the table or do you think they might try a different approach next time?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2022
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    JohnnyFlash wrote: »
    You never answered why such a scenario would exist in the first place.

    Ah, Johnny. That’s all Benedict can think of. It’s gone from 50/100 to 1/600 paying! Strange, that.


  • Options
    #2023
    BanditLuke
    Registered Users Posts: 2,600 ✭✭✭BanditLuke


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What a pathetic argument. You despise a political party and that’s your only reason to despise water charges. What about conservation? Fairness?

    This isn't about conservation it's about eventual privatisation. Anyway it's all irrelevant as FG has failed in it's ultimate goal. A second water charge is dead


  • Options
    #2024
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 17,058 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Benedict wrote:
    Straight question, answer yes or no. If you lived on an estate of 600 houses and everyone except you got water free but you (because you had a meter) had to pay. Would you be happy to pay? Yes or no please, no woffle.


    I'm in favour of paying but it has to be a reasonable price & it has to be fair.

    There are solutions to most of the problems. For example an older apartment complex with let's say 100 apartments & none of them metered. The apartment complex itself will be easy to meter. It may be possible to install several meters. One for each block. The answer here is to charge the management company what's on the meter. Leave it up to them to divide the bill anyway they want. Every apartment has a stopcock and it's simple enough to fit a meter to this. Bring in legislation where anyone refusing a meter pays 30 higher than the average. Carrot and stick. Make them want to get a meter installed.

    Also as I mentioned before other countries have brought in legislation where you cannot sell the property without a meter. It's illegal for the solicitor to move forward with a sale that doesn't have a meter. What they do in the UK in this case is make the homeowners pay for the meter when selling. This encourages people to avail of any free offer for a meter install long before they think about selling their property.


  • Options
    #2025
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,182 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    is_that_so wrote: »
    IW have been given approval by the Commission for Regulation of Utilities to start charging people for using excessive amounts of water, above the 213,000L annual limit set by legislation. By the looks of it people will have plenty of time to conform and then there'll be a charge of €1.85 for each 1,000 litres above that limit. A sensible move in my view as there are an estimated 80,000 households going over the limit.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0717/1063532-irish-water/


    Its just a way to bring in charging for water. It should be opposed.

    Unless you are dumb enough to think the govt gives a **** about the environment.


  • Options
    #2026
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,110 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Maewyn Succat wrote: »
    Is that all based on them going the same way about it if the notion of water charges was back on the table or do you think they might try a different approach next time?


    What I pointed out is nowhere near based on all that buried water charges. Just a small sample.
    There was only going to be one shot at introducing charges, but FG f**ked it up in such spectacular fashion they killed it for at least a generation before any political party will even mention them.


    Tell me as, you are one of these crystal ball gazers that see charges coming back. When do you see this happening, and more to the point, who would have the wish to commit political suicide by even dreaming off it ?


  • Options
    #2027
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,219 ✭✭✭pablo128


    It's funny, these posters shouting 'but but other European countries.' The same countries don't charge vrt on cars but yet we have it in Ireland. Not a peep out of them though.


  • Options
    #2028
    Benedict
    Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭Benedict


    JohnnyFlash wrote: »
    You never answered why such a scenario would exist in the first place.


    There are entire estates in Irish towns and cities which don't have a single meter installed because when the installers came, they were not permitted to install. So if only one house agreed to let them install, then there would be one house only with a meter.


    There may well be estates with only one home metered.


  • Options
    #2029
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 17,058 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Benedict wrote:
    There are entire estates in Irish towns and cities which don't have a single meter installed because when the installers came, they were not permitted to install. So if only one house agreed to let them install, then there would be one house only with a meter.


    If charges were to be introduced it could be done in such a way that people refusing a meter pay three times the average metered price. This can be collected by revenue. Obviously any price structure has to reward a home with a meter. Pretty soon Irish water will be inundated with requests for meter installations.

    It's really not rocket science. Problem is that it is unlikely that we will have a government with a big enough majority to bring this in for a number of years. In the meantime they need to scrap the unworkable excess usage nonsense. It's unfair when they can't monitor everyone. Either everyone is charged for water usage or no one. Imo


  • Options
    #2030
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    If charges were to be introduced it could be done in such a way that people refusing a meter pay three times the average metered price. This can be collected by revenue. Obviously any price structure has to reward a home with a meter. Pretty soon Irish water will be inundated with requests for meter installations.

    It's really not rocket science. Problem is that it is unlikely that we will have a government with a big enough majority to bring this in for a number of years. In the meantime they need to scrap the unworkable excess usage nonsense. It's unfair when they can't monitor everyone. Either everyone is charged for water usage or no one. Imo

    Wonder why the government at the time didn't task Revenue with collection? Any thoughts?


  • Options
    #2031
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 17,058 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Plumbthedepths wrote:
    Wonder why the government at the time didn't task Revenue with collection? Any thoughts?


    They had this stupid idea of having the water utility separate from the government. There is absolutely no need for that until people are in the habit of paying. They tried to to to much too fast. There was a very low comply rate with the household charge until they handed it to revenue. They can take the utility under its wing and involve revenue for a few years


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2032
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,110 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    If charges were to be introduced it could be done in such a way that people refusing a meter pay three times the average metered price. This can be collected by revenue. Obviously any price structure has to reward a home with a meter. Pretty soon Irish water will be inundated with requests for meter installations.

    It's really not rocket science. Problem is that it is unlikely that we will have a government with a big enough majority to bring this in for a number of years. In the meantime they need to scrap the unworkable excess usage nonsense. It's unfair when they can't monitor everyone. Either everyone is charged for water usage or no one. Imo


    It`s really not rocket science to see that it will be many numbers of years before we have a FG majority government. If ever.

    Especially one that gets elected promising to bring back water charges.


  • Options
    #2033
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,110 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    They had this stupid idea of having the water utility separate from the government. There is absolutely no need for that until people are in the habit of paying. They tried to to to much too fast. There was a very low comply rate with the household charge until they handed it to revenue. They can take the utility under its wing and involve revenue for a few years


    Any reason you favour Revenue involvement for only a few years :confused:


  • Options
    #2034
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 17,058 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    charlie14 wrote:
    It`s really not rocket science to see that it will be many numbers of years before we have a FG majority government. If ever.


    I think FG failed us badly for the last 9 years but I don't understand why you'd think FG are the only party that would bring in water charges. Believe it or not water charges are a good thing. They help spread out the tax take. Unlike income tax, everyone pays. It's one of the few ways of actually getting people who totally rely on handouts to pay some form of direct taxation.

    I have many issues with the water charges they tried to introduce. Too complicated comes first. If the fee is actually low & it wasn't, then there is no need to give a household, child, OAP allowance. Everyone should pay from the first drop out of the tap but it should be a low price. Revenue should have been used to collect the small fee for the first few years. Homes refusing meters should have been changed triple the average metered fee until they had meters installed. FG being the most arrogant party thought they could threaten & bully the population thinking they would comply


  • Options
    #2035
    Maewyn Succat
    Registered Users Posts: 506 ✭✭✭Maewyn Succat


    charlie14 wrote: »
    What I pointed out is nowhere near based on all that buried water charges. Just a small sample.
    There was only going to be one shot at introducing charges, but FG f**ked it up in such spectacular fashion they killed it for at least a generation before any political party will even mention them.


    Tell me as, you are one of these crystal ball gazers that see charges coming back. When do you see this happening, and more to the point, who would have the wish to commit political suicide by even dreaming off it ?

    What buried water charges?

    I do agree that a mess was made of it and it will be a long time before they are back on the agenda.

    Do you honestly never envisage a point in time when water charges are either forced on Ireland or a government implements them of their own accord?

    For me the perfect time for a government to have water charges forced upon it would be when Sinn Fein are the majority party.


  • Options
    #2036
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Maewyn Succat wrote: »
    What buried water charges?

    I do agree that a mess was made of it and it will be a long time before they are back on the agenda.

    Do you honestly never envisage a point in time when water charges are either forced on Ireland or a government implements them of their own accord?

    For me the perfect time for a government to have water charges forced upon it would be when Sinn Fein are the majority party.

    FG couldn't do it when they had a compliant Labour party towing the line. Ordinary people decided to say a big f**k you to water charges, you think it won't happen again no matter who the governing party is? Pretty naïve imho.


  • Options
    #2037
    Benedict
    Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭Benedict


    It seems pretty clear that the reason for not handing it to Revenue was that this would knock future privatisation on the head.

    When the powers-that-be were invited to introduce legislation to prevent privatisation, they backed off simply saying "There's no need".

    Yeah right!


  • Options
    #2038
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 17,058 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Benedict wrote:
    It seems pretty clear that the reason for not handing it to Revenue was that this would knock future privatisation on the head.


    It wasn't really. The idea was to get Irish water off Ireland INC books. This would make our books look more healthy. Revenue can't collect water charges for an independent utility. This why revenue should have been used for the first few years only


  • Options
    #2039
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 17,058 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    The disaster that is Irish water & created by FG continues!

    I most of us were expecting something like this article below

    Plans to charge 58,000 people with excessive water usage delayed over privacy concerns https://jrnl.ie/5018513


  • Options
    #2040
    Bass Reeves
    Registered Users Posts: 18,552 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    FG couldn't do it when they had a compliant Labour party towing the line. Ordinary people decided to say a big f**k you to water charges, you think it won't happen again no matter who the governing party is? Pretty naïve imho.

    People absolve Labour from the mess but it was Labour resistance to a flat charge for first few year that scuppered water charges. This is what happened with household charge and it was bought in. Labour had bought into the Green party line about no charges before metering.

    Next time water charges are bought in it will be as a flat charge with revenue collecting it at the start

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2041
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Bass Reeves wrote: »
    People absolve Labour from the mess but it was Labour resistance to a flat charge for first few year that scuppered water charges. This is what happened with household charge and it was bought in. Labour had bought into the Green party line about no charges before metering.

    Next time water charges are bought in it will be as a flat charge with revenue collecting it at the start

    If Revenue is tasked to collect a water tax it can't be separated out at a later date.


Advertisement