Water charges for excessive usage

Plumbthedepths

Sleeper12 wrote: »

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.

Yeah plenty of mentions of a referendum yet no referendum. Strange that. We've had local elections, Presidential election, even other referendums since 2014 when a referendum relating to ownership of water could have been held yet it didn't happen.

charlie14

Sleeper12 wrote: »

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.

I would have thought FG would have factored in that cost before promising to hold one.:rolleyes:
Pity they had not been as prudent with state finances before they wasted the guts of a billion on the fiasco. Or indeed during the past four years with the runaway cost of the Children Hospital and the NBP.

Penny wise and pound foolish comes to mind. Especially when it is inconvenient for their wet dream on water charges.

Sleeper12

Plumbthedepths wrote:

Yeah plenty of mentions of a referendum yet no referendum. Strange that. We've had local elections, Presidential election, even other referendums since 2014 when a referendum relating to ownership of water could have been held yet it didn't happen.

I believe you originally asked for proof that they planned a referendum.

No need for a referendum if there is no charge for water. Why would you? Why waste even more millions?

Referendum was also offered to FF if they backed charges but FF wouldn't abstain to water charges. FF forced the scraping of the water charges after the previous election.

Plumbthedepths

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I believe you originally asked for proof that they planned a referendum.

No need for a referendum if there is no charge for water. Why would you? Why waste even more millions?

Referendum was also offered to FF if they backed charges but FF wouldn't abstain to water charges. FF forced the scraping of the water charges after the previous election.

There was many hundreds of millions wasted in setting up IW, a few million to get the public to buy into it by way of a referendum would seem like money well spent.

Bass Reeves

charlie14 wrote: »

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 ?

He explained why that direct and indirect taxes are.important. you failed to read both my post and his so I will explain again

In a recession taxes in consumption decline, these are Vat, capital gains, VRT, and corporation taxes. You are left with direct taxes, these are direct taxes such as PAYE, PRSI and USC, as well as charges such as car road tax, property tax and charges for other services such as charges to access hospitals as well as Education and water charges if the state wishes to bring them in.

There are other consumption taxes other than VAT. Some of these impact those on middle higher incomes such as VRT, exicse on fuel etc.

Then these are indirect taxes that effect those again on higher incomes such as third level education fees as well as 2nd level school fees as the state funds schools in under privileged area's to a higher extent than schools in other areas.

Every body pays tax but some people pay a hell of a lot more than others. The issue you fail to understand is that out tax base is to narrow and it comes under pressure when we enter recession which necessitates huge cuts in spending and makes the recession worse than it should be

charlie14

Bass Reeves wrote: »

He explained why that direct and indirect taxes are.important. you failed to read both my post and his so I will explain again

In a recession taxes in consumption decline, these are Vat, capital gains, VRT, and corporation taxes. You are left with direct taxes, these are direct taxes such as PAYE, PRSI and USC, as well as charges such as car road tax, property tax and charges for other services such as charges to access hospitals as well as Education and water charges if the state wishes to bring them in.

There are other consumption taxes other than VAT. Some of these impact those on middle higher incomes such as VRT, exicse on fuel etc.

Then these are indirect taxes that effect those again on higher incomes such as third level education fees as well as 2nd level school fees as the state funds schools in under privileged area's to a higher extent than schools in other areas.

Every body pays tax but some people pay a hell of a lot more than others. The issue you fail to understand is that out tax base is to narrow and it comes under pressure when we enter recession which necessitates huge cuts in spending and makes the recession worse than it should be

You also seem to have missed my point that due to the whole fiasco around water charges, it will be a cold day in hell before any future government attempts broadening the tax base by way of water charges.

That is simply the political reality of that FG/Lab clusterf**k of water charges

charlie14

charlie14 wrote: »

You also seem to have missed my point that due to the whole fiasco around water charges, it will be a cold day in hell before any future government attempts broadening the tax base by way of water charges.

That is simply the political reality of that FG/Lab clusterf**k of water charges

What you are ignoring is the fact that Irish Water is still here. Beavering away, upgrading the system. Reinstating charges will be simple enough. You either pay a flat rate or metered.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

What you are ignoring is the fact that Irish Water is still here. Beavering away, upgrading the system. Reinstating charges will be simple enough. You either pay a flat rate or metered.

Irish Water are nothing other than an extra and expensive layer of bureaucracy that was created as a vehicle for privatisation.

Your ideeas on charges being simply reinstated are in the same twilight zone as your mythical plumber who can calculate the volume of water used in an unmetered household by simply walking past it type rubbish.

blanch152

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Yeah plenty of mentions of a referendum yet no referendum. Strange that. We've had local elections, Presidential election, even other referendums since 2014 when a referendum relating to ownership of water could have been held yet it didn't happen.

Because there is no sensible way to word a referendum, we were down that rabbit hole on here many times, when those calling for a referendum were unable to produce a single coherent wording that withstood even the most basic of scrutiny.

It just isn't going to happen.

Bass Reeves

charlie14 wrote: »

You also seem to have missed my point that due to the whole fiasco around water charges, it will be a cold day in hell before any future government attempts broadening the tax base by way of water charges.

That is simply the political reality of that FG/Lab clusterf**k of water charges

A cold day in hell in tax parlance is when a recession hits. We will hit a recession in the next 5 years. Where can we rise extra money. Higher rate vat is at 23%. VRT is maxed out and the transition to electric cars will reduce that and car tax anyway. Carbon tax will.not counter the fall off. We will not be able to treble the 3rd level fees like last time, Property tax will be increased but as it already exists the take can only increase so much. Personnel taxation are still the same since the last downturn.
E
New taxes and charges will be required to fund government. A flat 200ruro water charge brings in 400millikn approximately

Plumbthedepths

blanch152 wrote: »

Because there is no sensible way to word a referendum, we were down that rabbit hole on here many times, when those calling for a referendum were unable to produce a single coherent wording that withstood even the most basic of scrutiny.

It just isn't going to happen.

I believe there was a poster on threads about IW who claimed a referendum and a plebiscite were the same thing. Misinformed ignorance.
'It just isn't going to happen' so FG were lying when they said a referendum would be held.

charlie14

charlie14 wrote: »

Irish Water are nothing other than an extra and expensive layer of bureaucracy that was created as a vehicle for privatisation.

Your ideeas on charges being simply reinstated are in the same twilight zone as your mythical plumber who can calculate the volume of water used in an unmetered household by simply walking past it type rubbish.

Where did I say that?

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Where did I say that?

Many pages back. One poster even started a separate thread to find out if your claim held water. It was widely ridiculed.

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Many pages back. One poster even started a separate thread to find out if your claim held water. It was widely ridiculed.

I never claimed that a person could tell anything by walking by!

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I never claimed that a person could tell anything by walking by!

Irrelevant, you claimed a competent plumber could ascertain the amount of water used without the aid of a meter. A claim which was rubbished by other competent plumbers on a different thread.

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Irrelevant, you claimed a competent plumber could ascertain the amount of water used without the aid of a meter. A claim which was rubbished by other competent plumbers on a different thread.

It’s very relevant. Words are being assigned to me that I never posted. Makes that posters posts irrelevant.

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It’s very relevant. Words are being assigned to me that I never posted. Makes that posters posts irrelevant.

Are you claiming you never said a competent plumber could ascertain the amount of water used by a household without the aid off a meter?

charlie14

charlie14 wrote: »

Irish Water are nothing other than an extra and expensive layer of bureaucracy that was created as a vehicle for privatisation.

Your ideeas on charges being simply reinstated are in the same twilight zone as your mythical plumber who can calculate the volume of water used in an unmetered household by simply walking past it type rubbish.

I again post this. Show me where I said the underlined.

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I again post this. Show me where I said the underlined.

I have asked about a claim you made? Are you denying it now?
Take up your issue with the poster you quoted, i don't speak for him/her.

Benedict

Full marks to IW for bravery! There's an article in today's Evening Herald (available online now) which shows that IW is engaged in discussions about how to hit users for charges if they over use water. They seem to see the lack of a meter as an issue they can deal with.

Anyone who thinks this thread is irrelevant should read today's Herald.

Get ready folks! IW is preparing to come out with all guns blazing!

They're hungry for your cash (and mine) and they're more determined than ever to get it.

Benedict

Benedict wrote: »

Full marks to IW for bravery! There's an article in today's Evening Herald (available online now) which shows that IW is engaged in discussions about how to hit users for charges if they over use water. They seem to see the lack of a meter as an issue they can deal with.

Anyone who thinks this thread is irrelevant should read today's Herald.

Get ready folks! IW is preparing to come out with all guns blazing!

They're hungry for your cash (and mine) and they're more determined than ever to get it.

A link would be handy. Thanks in advance.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

Where did I say that?

May as well have as you never stated how the miracle of detecting volume usage could be achieved without a meter, and neither could plumbers on a thread you were also on.
If you want to explain it too us again, then fire away. Otherwise cut out the nonsense.

charlie14

Bass Reeves wrote: »

A cold day in hell in tax parlance is when a recession hits. We will hit a recession in the next 5 years. Where can we rise extra money. Higher rate vat is at 23%. VRT is maxed out and the transition to electric cars will reduce that and car tax anyway. Carbon tax will.not counter the fall off. We will not be able to treble the 3rd level fees like last time, Property tax will be increased but as it already exists the take can only increase so much. Personnel taxation are still the same since the last downturn.
E
New taxes and charges will be required to fund government. A flat 200ruro water charge brings in 400millikn approximately

So in this doomsday scenario water charges are or only hope.:rolleyes:


Do you actually have any idea of just how politically toxic water charge now are after the fiasco ?

charlie14

Benedict wrote: »

Full marks to IW for bravery! There's an article in today's Evening Herald (available online now) which shows that IW is engaged in discussions about how to hit users for charges if they over use water. They seem to see the lack of a meter as an issue they can deal with.

Anyone who thinks this thread is irrelevant should read today's Herald.

Get ready folks! IW is preparing to come out with all guns blazing!

They're hungry for your cash (and mine) and they're more determined than ever to get it.

Their guns is not doing them much good according to that article as they are well tied down in their holsters.
If they ever get them out of the holsters, firing blanks at unmetered household and apartment could also get them a walloping from M`luds big sticks.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Because there is no sensible way to word a referendum, we were down that rabbit hole on here many times, when those calling for a referendum were unable to produce a single coherent wording that withstood even the most basic of scrutiny.

It just isn't going to happen.

No referendum = no hope of water charges.



Simple as that.

Bass Reeves

charlie14 wrote: »

So in this doomsday scenario water charges are or only hope.:rolleyes:


Do you actually have any idea of just how politically toxic water charge now are after the fiasco ?

Property tax was the same it took 20 years to bring it in.....but it is in now. Water charges will come in at some stage in some format. Irish water needs funding and general taxation will not provide all the answer.

When a recession hits government look for new charges and methods to rbring revenue, they now know where the mistakes were made the last time next time they may just go with a flat charge and use revenue to collect for 8-10 years and then people will accept meters.

Benedict

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Property tax was the same it took 20 years to bring it in.....but it is in now. Water charges will come in at some stage in some format. Irish water needs funding and general taxation will not provide all the answer.

When a recession hits government look for new charges and methods to rbring revenue, they now know where the mistakes were made the last time next time they may just go with a flat charge and use revenue to collect for 8-10 years and then people will accept meters.

Yes, but going for a flat rate charge collected by Revenue is basically the same as it is now. No real difference. Right now (and up to now) the water has been paid for from tax, collected by Revenue.

Maewyn Succat

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.

Why doesn't the whole world say f**k you to water charges and follow the Irish model if it's so good?

Plumbthedepths

Maewyn Succat wrote: »

Why doesn't the whole world say f**k you to water charges and follow the Irish model if it's so good?

I have zero interest in what the rest of the world does regarding water charges. None of my business tbh .

charlie14

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Property tax was the same it took 20 years to bring it in.....but it is in now. Water charges will come in at some stage in some format. Irish water needs funding and general taxation will not provide all the answer.

When a recession hits government look for new charges and methods to rbring revenue, they now know where the mistakes were made the last time next time they may just go with a flat charge and use revenue to collect for 8-10 years and then people will accept meters.

People are still not getting, or conveniently ignoring, just how politically toxic the complete shambles has made water charges.
Any government for at least a generation attempting to impose them would be committing political hari kari.