Water charges for excessive usage

Sleeper12

Plumbthedepths wrote:

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

Why can't revenue collect the flat fee & when it is metered hand it to Irish water? The flat fee can be classed as a tax & the metered as a utility

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Why can't revenue collect the flat fee & when it is metered hand it to Irish water? The flat fee can be classed as a tax & the metered as a utility

Revenue cannot be involved in collecting for a utilities provider.

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote:

Revenue cannot be involved in collecting for a utilities provider.

I understand that. I asked if the initial flat fee was classified as a water tax couldn't revenue collect it but when it is eventually metered it can be reclassified as not a tax & Irish water can collect it.

Plumbthedepths

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I understand that. I asked if the initial flat fee was classified as a water tax couldn't revenue collect it but when it is eventually metered it can be reclassified as not a tax & Irish water can collect it.

Thing is when the state collects taxes no matter what they are called or what their purpose the state never relinquishes them.
There is many examples I can provide you with.
A well known one is the levy on all motor insurance for collapsed insurance company called PMPA. Happened in the 80's still paying the levy circa 40 years later.

Sleeper12

Plumbthedepths wrote:

Thing is when the state collects taxes no matter what they are called or what their purpose the state never relinquishes them. There is many examples I can provide you with. A well known one is the levy on all motor insurance for collapsed insurance company called PMPA. Happened in the 80's still paying the levy circa 40 years later.

That's totally different.

In this case the government actually wants Irish water off its books ASAP. Joe Public will still be paying on way or another.

So are you now saying that they can let revenue collect the flat fee and then hand it over to Irish water but they won't want to?

Benedict

Let's look at the facts. Houses are being built at a great rate right now with no meters - so clearly the whole idea of meter installation is dead and buried. And we know that usage in non-metered houses cannot be measured. So that is dead too. If IW send out bills, many will not pay - so in the end nobody will pay. So we are left with 2 alternatives. (1) Let Revenue at it or (2) Just keep paying (as has always happened) out of central funds and move on.

Benedict

Benedict wrote: »

Let's look at the facts. Houses are being built at a great rate right now with no meters - so clearly the whole idea of meter installation is dead and buried. And we know that usage in non-metered houses cannot be measured. So that is dead too. If IW send out bills, many will not pay - so in the end nobody will pay. So we are left with 2 alternatives. (1) Let Revenue at it or (2) Just keep paying (as has always happened) of of central funds and move on.

Or (3) Give customers the choice of a fixed charge or metered charge.

Sleeper12

Benedict wrote:

Let's look at the facts. Houses are being built at a great rate right now with no meters - so clearly the whole idea of meter installation is dead and buried. And we know that usage in non-metered houses cannot be measured. So that is dead too. If IW send out bills, many will not pay - so in the end nobody will pay. So we are left with 2 alternatives. (1) Let Revenue at it or (2) Just keep paying (as has always happened) of of central funds and move on.

Er, this isn't quite true. Houses built in the 25 years all have the large plastic cover over the plastic stopcock. These are made for meters. The meter can be installed in these in minutes without digging up the footpaths. The more new houses being built the more meter ready stopcocks in the country. Don't think meters have gone away. They most definitely haven't. We just had an incompetent government that couldn't implement metered water. The infrastructure for meters in being installed in every home being built today

Plumbthedepths

Sleeper12 wrote: »

So are you now saying that they can let revenue collect the flat fee and then hand it over to Irish water but they won't want to?

I suggested many pages ago that Revenue should collect a flat fee for the provision of water, no exceptions. It would also satisfy the worry of privatisation.

Plumbthedepths

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Er, this isn't quite true. Houses built in the 25 years all have the large plastic cover over the plastic stopcock. These are made for meters. The meter can be installed in these in minutes without digging up the footpaths. The more new houses being built the more meter ready stopcocks in the country. Don't think meters have gone away. They most definitely haven't. We just had an incompetent government that couldn't implement metered water. The infrastructure for meters in being installed in every home being built today

My house and that of my neighbours have all been built in the last 16 years or less. Not one of them has a large plastic over the stop cock. I worked on several housing schemes 10 years ago again none were left meter ready.

blanch152

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 ?

Sleeper12 wrote: »

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

Which is it? Water charges have gone away or Irish Water are still making efforts to impose water charges?

I have said all along that water charges will return. Maybe it will be a Sinn Fein government that oversees their re-introduction. That would be funny, given that they have previously supported and opposed water charges, sometimes at the same time.

Sleeper12

Plumbthedepths wrote:

My house and that of my neighbours have all been built in the last 16 years or less. Not one of them has a large plastic over the stop cock. I worked on several housing schemes 10 years ago again none were left meter ready.

Do you have a plastic stopcock or is it the old fashioned one that you need the big key to turn?

Sleeper12

blanch152 wrote:

Which is it? Water charges have gone away or Irish Water are still making efforts to impose water charges?

They have temporarily gone away. There is no question that we will have metered water in the future. How far in the future is the only question really

Plumbthedepths

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Do you have a plastic stopcock or is it the old fashioned one that you need the big key to turn?

Neither, it has an X type head. Like an old fashioned tap.
To install a meter at my home or that of any of my neighbours would require a digger.

Sleeper12

Plumbthedepths wrote:

Neither, it has an X type head. Like an old fashioned tap. To install a meter at my home or that of any of my neighbours would require a digger.

This has been outlawed in Dublin for the last 25 or 30 years now. I thought it was building regulations but maybe it is DCC and Fingal bylaws governing it

charlie14

Sleeper12 wrote: »

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

More rubbish about people who rely on State benefit not paying tax as an excuse for water charges.

Can you point to anyone in this country who does not pay tax ?


I have asked this already. Why would Revenue only collect this small fee of yours for the first few years ?
Makes me wonder do you not know the rules governing Revenue, or are you just being disingenuous knowing that the involvement of Revenue would have killed the ultimate aim of privatisation.



The softly softly catchy monkey trick didn`t work originally with the household set charge and "conservation grant" so that hand has been played already and has failed.
Even had it worked and everyone paid it would have barely covered IW overheads without a cent going to water or waste water services.

Sleeper12

charlie14 wrote:

More rubbish about people who rely on State benefit not paying tax as an excuse for water charges.

Calm down and get off that horse before you fall from such a height.

Care to read my post that you quoted again?

You will see that I went to the trouble of saying "direct" tax. Obviously everyone pays indirect taxes. You won't find too many people on social welfare paying direct taxes like working Joe's do. A tiny minority of people receiving social welfare pay direct tax.

Do I need to post the difference between direct tax and indirect tax? Or did you just not read my post correctly?

Brendan Bendar

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Calm down and get off that horse before you fall from such a height.

Care to read my post that you quoted again?

You will see that I went to the trouble of saying "direct" tax. Obviously everyone pays indirect taxes. You won't find too many people on social welfare paying direct taxes like working Joe's do. A tiny minority of people receiving social welfare pay direct tax.

Do I need to post the difference between direct tax and indirect tax? Or did you just not read my post correctly?

You do Sleeper, lad and his coterie of folk have attacked me on that too.

You better get used to it.

charlie14

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.

It will take some majority to see that fantasy come to fruition when a government with a 30 seat majority have already tried and failed dismally.

Bass Reeves

charlie14 wrote: »

More rubbish about people who rely on State benefit not paying tax as an excuse for water charges.

Can you point to anyone in this country who does not pay tax ?


I have asked this already. Why would Revenue only collect this small fee of yours for the first few years ?
Makes me wonder do you not know the rules governing Revenue, or are you just being disingenuous knowing that the involvement of Revenue would have killed the ultimate aim of privatisation.



The softly softly catchy monkey trick didn`t work originally with the household set charge and "conservation grant" so that hand has been played already and has failed.
Even had it worked and everyone paid it would have barely covered IW overheads without a cent going to water or waste water services.

It us not just people on SW that do not pay direct taxes. At present if you are earning under 16k/year you pay virtually no tax. There are proposals to take those earning less than 20k out of the tax net. Some parties want to do away with USC..

At some stage in the next 5 years we will enter a down turn. At present the existing economics cycle in the US at 12 years is the longest since the great depression. At some stage there will be a downturn. Boyant corporate tax returns are shielding us from our narrow tax base. In a downturn all options need to be looked at. It is at that stage that property tax levels and the water charges/levy will come in to play.

charlie14

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

As an ex Labour supporter I certainly did not absolve Labour, and from their subsequent election results it looks as if many others did not either, But is it not very soon to be attempting to re-write history?



The flat rate charges and the laughing gas conservation grant u-turns were due to both Labour and FG seeing so many of their own supporters taking to the streets in protest.

Sleeper12

charlie14 wrote:

I have asked this already. Why would Revenue only collect this small fee of yours for the first few years ? Makes me wonder do you not know the rules governing Revenue, or are you just being disingenuous knowing that the involvement of Revenue would have killed the ultimate aim of privatisation.

Can you post a link to back up your claim that Irish water was to be privatised? FG were willing to hold a referendum to ensure that this couldn't happen. Personally I think putting something like this is the constitution could be a mistake long term but they were willing to do it. I have searched online but can't find any links to you claims on privatisation

charlie14

Bass Reeves wrote: »

It us not just people on SW that do not pay direct taxes. At present if you are earning under 16k/year you pay virtually no tax. There are proposals to take those earning less than 20k out of the tax net. Some parties want to do away with USC..

At some stage in the next 5 years we will enter a down turn. At present the existing economics cycle in the US at 12 years is the longest since the great depression. At some stage there will be a downturn. Boyant corporate tax returns are shielding us from our narrow tax base. In a downturn all options need to be looked at. It is at that stage that property tax levels and the water charges/levy will come in to play.

Everybody pays tax. In fact. VAT alone eats up a greater extend of the income of SW recipients and that of the lower paid than those on a higher scale.
Not a fan of scrapping USC totally as I would view it as preferable to income tax as there is no loopholes for the better off to exploit.


Regardless of whether or not we have a downturn, with the mess that FG/Lab made of water charges it will be a cold day in hell before any government goes anywhere near them as a means of raising revenue.

jimmycrackcorm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Revenue cannot be involved in collecting for a utilities provider.

That's not how it works. Revenue collects taxes but it's the government who allocates how they spend the taxes.

charlie14

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Can you post a link to back up your claim that Irish water was to be privatised? FG were willing to hold a referendum to ensure that this couldn't happen. Personally I think putting something like this is the constitution could be a mistake long term but they were willing to do it. I have searched online but can't find any links to you claims on privatisation

Can you point out to me when in the last four years FG held this referendum or why they back-tracked on that commitment ?

Sleeper12

charlie14 wrote:

Everybody pays tax. In fact. VAT alone eats up a greater extend of the income of SW recipients and that of the lower paid than those on a higher scale. Not a fan of scrapping USC totally as I would view it as preferable to income tax as there is no loopholes for the better off to exploit.

We know that everyone pays indirect taxes like vat. During a downturn the indirect tax take from vat shrinks dramatically. This is why it is important for any country to increase the spread of direct taxes. In other words you might cut back your spending during the downturn & pay less vat but you will still have to pay your direct tax like water charges

Plumbthedepths

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Can you post a link to back up your claim that Irish water was to be privatised? FG were willing to hold a referendum to ensure that this couldn't happen. Personally I think putting something like this is the constitution could be a mistake long term but they were willing to do it. I have searched online but can't find any links to you claims on privatisation

FG wanted to hold a referendum? Any proof to back up your claim/?
Fergus O' Dowd former FG junior minister certainly believed privatisation was on the agenda. He even gave a speech in the Dail to that effect.


https://www.thejournal.ie/fergus-odowd-irish-water-agendas-privatisation-1825719-Dec2014/

Sleeper12

charlie14 wrote:

Can you point out to me when in the last four years FG held this referendum or why they back-tracked on that commitment ?

Why would they hold a referendum on keeping a loss making company from being privately owned? There is zero chance of a private company wanting to donate billions into the money pit that is Irish water. If there is no charge for water then there is no need for a costly referendum.

charlie14

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Calm down and get off that horse before you fall from such a height.

Care to read my post that you quoted again?

You will see that I went to the trouble of saying "direct" tax. Obviously everyone pays indirect taxes. You won't find too many people on social welfare paying direct taxes like working Joe's do. A tiny minority of people receiving social welfare pay direct tax.

Do I need to post the difference between direct tax and indirect tax? Or did you just not read my post correctly?

Why are so so keen to differentiate between direct and indirect tax when the state doesn`t.
They all go into the same pot.

Any chance you could clarify why you believe Revenue should collect these mythical future water charges for a few years, and who or why they should hand this over too after that and for what purpose ?

Sleeper12

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

FG wanted to hold a referendum? Any proof to back up your claim/?
Fergus O' Dowd former FG junior minister certainly believed privatisation was on the agenda. He even gave a speech in the Dail to that effect.


https://www.thejournal.ie/fergus-odowd-irish-water-agendas-privatisation-1825719-Dec2014/

https://www-thejournal-ie.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.thejournal.ie/water-referendum-ireland-4726072-Jul2019/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&amp=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=15825505088336&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thejournal.ie%2Fwater-referendum-ireland-4726072-Jul2019%2F

If you google it you will find plenty more.