Water charges for excessive usage

Maewyn Succat

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Can you post a link to back up your claim that Irish water was to be privatised?

I have searched online but can't find any links to you claims on privatisation

This is the closest I could find:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3fterm=tinfoil%2bhat&amp=true

Sleeper12

Maewyn Succat wrote:

This is the closest I could find:

Plumbthedepths

Amazing what you can find if you look.


https://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/09/07/privatisation-of-irish-water-is-ultimately-envisaged/?utm_source=internal&utm_medium=web&utm_content=related_posts

branie2

How soon?

charlie14

Maewyn Succat wrote: »

This is the closest I could find:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3fterm=tinfoil%2bhat&amp=true

Check out what Fergus O`Dowd, who was the Junior Minister in charge of establishing IW, has to say on the privatisation of water services.
He had no doubts.

Apparently the CSO also believed that was the ultimate aim as well in their application to Eurostat.

Edit.
I see Plumbthedepths has saved you the trouble on the latter.

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Amazing what you can find if you look.


https://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/09/07/privatisation-of-irish-water-is-ultimately-envisaged/?utm_source=internal&utm_medium=web&utm_content=related_posts

So. Irish Water cannot be privatised without a referendum. So, no referendum, no privatisation.

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So. Irish Water cannot be privatised without a referendum. So, no referendum, no privatisation.

To privatise the infrastructure requires a referendum. I really do hate it when someone gives a somewhat selective synopsis.

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

To privatise the infrastructure requires a referendum. I really do hate it when someone gives a somewhat selective synopsis.

Exactly. So, no referendum, no privatisation. No worries.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

Exactly. So, no referendum, no privatisation. No worries.

No referendum, no hope of water charges in the future. No worries.

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Exactly. So, no referendum, no privatisation. No worries.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Benedict

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Amazing what you can find if you look.


https://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/09/07/privatisation-of-irish-water-is-ultimately-envisaged/?utm_source=internal&utm_medium=web&utm_content=related_posts

This letter clearly shows that water privatisation was being considered.
Most of us can recall that when it was suggested that water privatisation would be made illegal by means of a referendum, the authorities backed off saying "No, it's not necessary, it won't arise".
If they were certain that privatisation would never be considered, making it illegal would have been no problem. Anyone who can't figure out why they backed off must be pretty naive.
And remember, if/when it had been privatised, the costs would have gone through the roof.

Benedict

Interesting copy & paste below from Citizens' Information (copied 02 March '20)

Who is eligible for the First Fix Scheme

"The First Fix Free Scheme is available to domestic customers who are registered with Irish water and have:

A water meter installed
A confirmed leak on the external supply pipe
A working and accessible inside stop valve"

So the un-metered half of the country won't have charges to pay - but the bad news is they're not entitled to "First Fix Free".
So that's one advantage of having a meter.

Only problem is, if they don't pay charges, maybe they don't give two hoots about having the leak fixed!

astrofool

Benedict wrote: »

Interesting copy & paste below from Citizens' Information (copied 02 March '20)

Who is eligible for the First Fix Scheme

"The First Fix Free Scheme is available to domestic customers who are registered with Irish water and have:

A water meter installed
A confirmed leak on the external supply pipe
A working and accessible inside stop valve"

So the un-metered half of the country won't have charges to pay - but the bad news is they're not entitled to "First Fix Free".
So that's one advantage of having a meter.

Only problem is, if they don't pay charges, maybe they don't give two hoots about having the leak fixed!

I'm sure they'll be back to blaming IW when their foundations start sinking

charlie14

Benedict wrote: »

Interesting copy & paste below from Citizens' Information (copied 02 March '20)

Who is eligible for the First Fix Scheme

"The First Fix Free Scheme is available to domestic customers who are registered with Irish water and have:

A water meter installed
A confirmed leak on the external supply pipe
A working and accessible inside stop valve"

So the un-metered half of the country won't have charges to pay - but the bad news is they're not entitled to "First Fix Free".
So that's one advantage of having a meter.

Only problem is, if they don't pay charges, maybe they don't give two hoots about having the leak fixed!

You would imagine wit all the noise they made about conserving water IW would have offered that service to all households.
But then if they had been serious about conservation they would have spent that money on repairing mains leaks rather than piddling about with minor household side leaks.


Like the conservation grant, first fix was just another of their scams to get households to, as IW termed it, "engage" with their fiasco.

suicide_circus

presumably IW will be scrapped if/when SF get into government

Brendan Bendar

charlie14 wrote: »

You would imagine wit all the noise they made about conserving water IW would have offered that service to all households.
But then if they had been serious about conservation they would have spent that money on repairing mains leaks rather than piddling about with minor household side leaks.


Like the conservation grant, first fix was just another of their scams to get households to, as IW termed it, "engage" with their fiasco.

The lads tipping around doing ‘this and that’ would ensure they didn’t engage with anyone who wasn’t giving them money.

Wouldn’t know where Ashton Gate was for sure for sure:D

Not everyone though.....

charlie14

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

The lads tipping around doing ‘this and that’ would ensure they didn’t engage with anyone who wasn’t giving them money.

Wouldn’t know where Ashton Gate was for sure for sure:D

Not everyone though.....

Still deluding yourself over the numbers that refused to "engage" I see.


You are correct in a way about not everyone though.
Not everyone will be liable for excessive usage charges.


It will be the mugs that "engaged" with IW

Brendan Bendar

charlie14 wrote: »

Still deluding yourself over the numbers that refused to "engage" I see.


You are correct in a way about not everyone though.
Not everyone will be liable for excessive usage charges.


It will be the mugs that "engaged" with IW

Deluding yersel Chas.

Try getting anything for water offa the Brenner:P

Everybody pays, or no-one pays.

Take it out of general taxation........:eek:.......is Joxer on the list or is he on de disabilithy..... doing ‘this an that’ cash only:P

pablo128

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Deluding yersel Chas.

Try getting anything for water offa the Brenner:P

Everybody pays, or no-one pays.

Take it out of general taxation........:eek:.......is Joxer on the list or is he on de disabilithy..... doing ‘this an that’ cash only:P

Get off the stage. That's getting old now. We are near full employment. There will always be some chancers no matter what but you are blowing it out of proportion.

Brendan Bendar

pablo128 wrote: »

Get off the stage. That's getting old now. We are near full employment. There will always be some chancers no matter what but you are blowing it out of proportion.

Hmmm there might be full employment but is there full compliance....;)

Have a chew on that Pabster....

charlie14

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Deluding yersel Chas.

Try getting anything for water offa the Brenner:P

Everybody pays, or no-one pays.

Take it out of general taxation........:eek:.......is Joxer on the list or is he on de disabilithy..... doing ‘this an that’ cash only:P

Poetic justice I feel that those who were so eager to see those that opposed their beloved meters in court for none payment, will now be the only ones there if they exceed their allocation.


Karma really can be a bitch

charlie14

charlie14 wrote: »

Poetic justice I feel that those who were so eager to see those that opposed their beloved meters in court for none payment, will now be the only ones there if they exceed their allocation.


Karma really can be a bitch

Why so? Most people understand the need for conservation of water. Careful what you wish for.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

Why so? Most people understand the need for conservation of water. Careful what you wish for.

Of course they do, but they also understand the FG Irish Water metering scam had nothing to do with conservation.


That became plain as day when 130M. was set aside for the "conservation grant" plus the 6M. to administrate it, rather than use it to actually conserve water by fixing leaking mains .



Some who rabbited on about conservation even knowing it was a scam had no problem taking it.

No worries there about conserving state finances when it came to free money at the taxpayers expense.

Nevin Parsnipp

charlie14 wrote: »

Of course they do, but they also understand the FG Irish Water metering scam had nothing to do with conservation.


That became plain as day when 130M. was set aside for the "conservation grant" plus the 6M. to administrate it, rather than use it to actually conserve water by fixing leaking mains .



Some who rabbited on about conservation even knowing it was a scam had no problem taking it.

No worries there about conserving state finances when it came to free money at the taxpayers expense.

Potable water is a valuable resource ...we need to conserve it and provide for adequate waste water systems.

The most logical and practical way to achieve is to charge the user and put the responsibility on them not to exceed usage norms.

That means that the ould josser who leaves his taps on all nite to" prevent freezing" and the selfish dude who washes his car every week end and leaves his lawn sprinkler on is paying for it and not sponging off the rest of us .

With appropriate controls in place that seems good sense to this poster.

Folks who oppose this see no need to CONSERVE potable water and allow this valuable and expensive resource to be used without any control or restrictions .

Thats this posters take anyways .....

pablo128

Nevin Parsnipp wrote: »

Potable water is a valuable resource ...we need to conserve it and provide for adequate waste water systems.

The most logical and practical way to achieve is to charge the user and put the responsibility on them not to exceed usage norms.

That means that the ould josser who leaves his taps on all nite to" prevent freezing" and the selfish dude who washes his car every week end and leaves his lawn sprinkler on is paying for it and not sponging off the rest of us .

With appropriate controls in place that seems good sense to this poster.

Folks who oppose this see no need to CONSERVE potable water and allow this valuable and expensive resource to be used without any control or restrictions .

Thats this posters take anyways .....

Most Irish households use a conservative amount anyway. And the end user is paying already. No need for another charge.

It's not like every second Villa here has a swimming pool either. We're ok on that front.

Nevin Parsnipp

pablo128 wrote: »

Most Irish households use a conservative amount anyway. And the end user is paying already. No need for another charge.

It's not like every second Villa here has a swimming pool either. We're ok on that front.

How do you address the CONSERVE issue in that scenario Pabbers ?

If most Irish Households use a conservative amount of water should not they that exceed a reasonable amount pay...and not sponge off the rest of us .?

Plumbthedepths

Nevin Parsnipp wrote: »

How do you address the CONSERVE issue in that scenario Pabbers ?

If most Irish Households use a conservative amount of water should not they that exceed a reasonable amount pay...and not sponge off the rest of us .?

Water is paid for through general taxation. Noone is sponging off you. A tried and brainless argument that has been repeated multiple times by the fans here and on other threads of IW.
Time to unfollow this nonsense before slates and shining lights is also mentioned.

Benedict

Nevin Parsnipp wrote: »

How do you address the CONSERVE issue in that scenario Pabbers ?

If most Irish Households use a conservative amount of water should not they that exceed a reasonable amount pay...and not sponge off the rest of us .?

Anyone paying tax is paying for water. The tooth-fairy is not paying for it, the taxpayer is. And that's us. So who's sponging?

Benedict

Benedict wrote: »

Anyone paying tax is paying for water. The tooth-fairy is not paying for it, the taxpayer is. And that's us. So who's sponging?

But, but, but.....not everyone pays tax, apart from VAT. There’s not enough in the tax coffers to cover the cost of providing potable water, upgrade the infrastructure, etc. Hence the need for user paying, whether flat rate or metering.

pablo128

Deleted User wrote: »

But, but, but.....not everyone pays tax, apart from VAT. There’s not enough in the tax coffers to cover the cost of providing potable water, upgrade the infrastructure, etc. Hence the need for user paying, whether flat rate or metering.

A quarter of most things people purchase on a weekly basis is tax. I pay more in vat per month than I do in income tax.