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…6970727475…85

Comments

  • Options
    #2132
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    pablo128 wrote: »
    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.

    It’s still not enough for what is needed. Hence the need for user paying.


  • Options
    #2133
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,110 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Brendan Bendar wrote: »
    Hmmm there might be full employment but is there full compliance....;)

    Have a chew on that Pabster....

    When it comes to general taxation, and especially income tax compliance, you will find that those with the high paid accountants are very adapt at exploiting loopholes rather than the average wage earner or those on minimum wage.

    Amazing what those accountants can do for you if the money is right.We had one individual that we know of, an old friend of FG, who landed a nice contract from IW that is now being examined by an inquiry, and who has had an adverse findings from a previous inquiry.Not only that, but the same individual has now wedged his corrupt behind into the National Broadband Plan.
    All that while being a tax exile.

    Chew on that for compliance Brendan.


  • Options
    #2134
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,110 ✭✭✭✭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

    It was, and is, being paid for out of general taxation and will continue to be so.
    All the sheep that didn`t oppose metering have achieved is costing the state a large fortune for nothing and now are themselves on the front line for court appearances on allocations.
    Many would regard that as sweet irony.


  • Options
    #2135
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,110 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    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.

    but, but, ..... were you not one of the people telling us it was not a tax in the first place ?
    In fact is there any other tax that is not the responsibility of the Revenue Commission ?
    Everybody pays tax, and in more ways than just VAT.
    Although if you are a tax exile it doesn`t seem to be a problem for some getting a nice wedge of taxpayers money when it comes to state contracts.

    When tax coffers do not cover all out going you raise taxes to compensate.You do not pick one area and waste a fortune of taxpayers money during a period of austerity attempting to set it up as prime picking for privatisation.


  • Options
    #2136
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    charlie14 wrote: »
    but, but, ..... were you not one of the people telling us it was not a tax in the first place ?
    In fact is there any other tax that is not the responsibility of the Revenue Commission ?
    Everybody pays tax, and in more ways than just VAT.
    Although if you are a tax exile it doesn`t seem to be a problem for some getting a nice wedge of taxpayers money when it comes to state contracts.

    When tax coffers do not cover all out going you raise taxes to compensate.You do not pick one area and waste a fortune of taxpayers money during a period of austerity attempting to set it up as prime picking for privatisation.

    Correct. It’s NOT a tax. I’m simply pointing out that there’s not enough in the tax piggy bank to cover the cost of providing potable water to the country. Hence the need for end users to pay for the service.

    Imagine the outrage if there was even a 1% increase in VAT - The only tax EVERYONE pays


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2137
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,110 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Correct. It’s NOT a tax. I’m simply pointing out that there’s not enough in the tax piggy bank to cover the cost of providing potable water to the country. Hence the need for end users to pay for the service.

    Imagine the outrage if there was even a 1% increase in VAT - The only tax EVERYONE pays


    The general taxation piggy bank covers more services than just water, and there are many other taxation revenue schemes other than VAT.A tax that dis-proportionately effects the less well off in society.



    If there is not enough tax revenue to pay for all these services, (and remember the LPT was introduced in July 2013 as an additional tax to provide funding for such a service), then why just isolate water ?


    Because it has the greatest potential of all state funded services for privatisation ?
    That would certainly "get it off the books"!


  • Options
    #2138
    Brendan Bendar
    Registered Users Posts: 19,469 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    charlie14 wrote: »
    The general taxation piggy bank covers more services than just water, and there are many other taxation revenue schemes other than VAT.A tax that dis-proportionately effects the less well off in society.



    If there is not enough tax revenue to pay for all these services, (and remember the LPT was introduced in July 2013 as an additional tax to provide funding for such a service), then why just isolate water ?


    Because it has the greatest potential of all state funded services for privatisation ?
    That would certainly "get it off the books"!

    Bangin’ that drum for a good while Cha, do you ever tire of it.

    What will we have next...Siteserve or somat?


  • Options
    #2139
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,110 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Brendan Bendar wrote: »
    Bangin’ that drum for a good while Cha, do you ever tire of it.

    What will we have next...Siteserve or somat?



    Doesn`t seem you have much to drum on these days since your beloved water meters got holed below the water line and sank ingloriously.


    Even if they are still going to bite that championed them in the posterior if they exceed their allocation.


    Seeing as you brought up Siteserve. Bit of a major hole in your tax compliance waffle there as well Bender, when the owner has not only has an adverse tribunal finding, is now the subject of another inquiry, but is a tax exile to boot.
    FG`s new way of doing politics :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #2140
    Maewyn Succat
    Registered Users Posts: 506 ✭✭✭Maewyn Succat


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    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.

    Why only pay for water through general taxation? Why not include electricity as well and let us that network fall into disrepair through a lack of investment?


  • Options
    #2141
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,219 ✭✭✭pablo128


    Maewyn Succat wrote: »
    Why only pay for water through general taxation? Why not include electricity as well and let us that network fall into disrepair through a lack of investment?

    Is it the general public that let the water network fall into disrepair? We go out to work every day, pay our taxes and entrust the government of the day to look after such issues. That is their job for which they are paid handsomely.

    Instead the slimey feckers let it go to sh1t and then try to privatise it behind our backs. Actually it makes my blood boil just thinking about it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2142
    Maewyn Succat
    Registered Users Posts: 506 ✭✭✭Maewyn Succat


    pablo128 wrote: »
    Is it the general public that let the water network fall into disrepair? We go out to work every day, pay our taxes and entrust the government of the day to look after such issues. That is their job for which they are paid handsomely.

    Instead the slimey feckers let it go to sh1t and then try to privatise it behind our backs. Actually it makes my blood boil just thinking about it.

    No the reason why it fell into such disrepair was lack of investment starting around 1977 when rates including water charges were abolished meaning money that should have went towards the water network was allocated elsewhere. No amount of tax paid will fix the issues in the network because there will always be something more "important " and vote grabbing to spend it on.


  • Options
    #2143
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    the mob has spoken, the people dont want to pay for water by usage. we are going to have to get used to generations of crap water infrastructure.


  • Options
    #2144
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,110 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    the mob has spoken, the people dont want to pay for water by usage. we are going to have to get used to generations of crap water infrastructure.


    So whats new ?
    We have a crap health service for years regardless of the taxpayers money poured into it.
    It is not a case of enough tax revenue, it`s a case of it being badly spent.


    If memory serves me correctly, were we not promised by Enda Kenny a world class water and waste water service before charges would start ?
    Is it any wonder they were told where to stick their water charges!


  • Options
    #2145
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,110 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Maewyn Succat wrote: »
    Why only pay for water through general taxation? Why not include electricity as well and let us that network fall into disrepair through a lack of investment?


    If you had a service agreement with a company, and over they years they let things go to the dogs, what would you tell them if they then came back to you for the money to fix the mess of their making ?


  • Options
    #2146
    Brendan Bendar
    Registered Users Posts: 19,469 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    the mob has spoken, the people dont want to pay for water by usage. we are going to have to get used to generations of crap water infrastructure.

    That’s how a lot of them operate su, want world class everything, but pay for nothing.

    Doesn’t compute.Time a light was shone into some murky corners.


  • Options
    #2147
    Maewyn Succat
    Registered Users Posts: 506 ✭✭✭Maewyn Succat


    charlie14 wrote: »
    If you had a service agreement with a company, and over they years they let things go to the dogs, what would you tell them if they then came back to you for the money to fix the mess of their making ?

    Please explain how this is relevant to this thread.


  • Options
    #2148
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,110 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Maewyn Succat wrote: »
    Please explain how this is relevant to this thread.


    Not that difficult to join the dots that I feel the need to waste my time doing so for people who still cannot admit that water charges are dead.


  • Options
    #2149
    Maewyn Succat
    Registered Users Posts: 506 ✭✭✭Maewyn Succat


    charlie14 wrote: »
    Not that difficult to join the dots that I feel the need to waste my time doing so for people who still cannot admit that water charges are dead.

    The dots you are talking about joining aren't even in the same book let alone the same page.
    Water charges are dead....for now. Do you really think an attempt won't be made in the future to introduce water charges again?


  • Options
    #2150
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    charlie14 wrote: »
    If you had a service agreement with a company, and over they years they let things go to the dogs, what would you tell them if they then came back to you for the money to fix the mess of their making ?

    If you have a service agreement with a company, you pay. eg, phone, electricity, gas, water......


  • Options
    #2151
    Benedict
    Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭Benedict


    Maewyn Succat wrote: »
    The dots you are talking about joining aren't even in the same book let alone the same page.
    Water charges are dead....for now. Do you really think an attempt won't be made in the future to introduce water charges again?


    Yes, you are correct. Covid-19 will have put things on hold for now but I promise you, water charges will be back on the agenda once IW figure out some way of selling them to the masses. But it won't be easy because there's a hell of a mess to clear up.


    First thing on the agenda will be a name change from Irish Water to something like... Environmental Health Tax - or whatever.


    Where there's cash to be had, people don't give up that easily.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2152
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,110 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Deleted User wrote: »
    If you have a service agreement with a company, you pay. eg, phone, electricity, gas, water......


    Unlike others here at least you made the attempt to join the dots but still ignored that the taxpayer through taxation had and still have the equivalent of a service agreement with successive governments on the provision of water and waste water services.


    So, same question to you. If you have a service agreement with a company and they make a complete dogs dinner of it but then come back to you looking for more money to fix a mess of their own making, would you be willing to pay up ?
    If your answer is yes, I have a pair of unicorn eggs I can let you have at a very reasonable price.


  • Options
    #2153
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,110 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Maewyn Succat wrote: »
    The dots you are talking about joining aren't even in the same book let alone the same page.
    Water charges are dead....for now. Do you really think an attempt won't be made in the future to introduce water charges again?


    Actually the dots are very easy to join, but like everything else for water metering supporters there are none so blind as those that will not see.


    I Have asked this a number of times from crystal ball gazers and have yet to get an answer. Perhaps you would like to let us what your crystal ball is telling you ?


    Water charges are dead. What political party, or parties, will attempt this glorious resurrection, when will this miracle occur and how are they going to get the public to accept it without the political hammering the last two parties that attempted it are still receiving ?


  • Options
    #2154
    Benedict
    Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭Benedict


    I'm not sure what "service agreement" is being referred to.
    My understanding is that IW are saying if you have a meter and you use more than X amount, you'll be fined. And if you don't have a meter, happy days. No mention of any agreement?

    It's totally unfair and dumb and that's what's causing all the argument.

    Where's the "service agreement"?


  • Options
    #2155
    Bass Reeves
    Registered Users Posts: 18,552 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    charlie14 wrote: »
    Unlike others here at least you made the attempt to join the dots but still ignored that the taxpayer through taxation had and still have the equivalent of a service agreement with successive governments on the provision of water and waste water services.


    So, same question to you. If you have a service agreement with a company and they make a complete dogs dinner of it but then come back to you looking for more money to fix a mess of their own making, would you be willing to pay up ?
    If your answer is yes, I have a pair of unicorn eggs I can let you have at a very reasonable price.

    Could you put up a copy of this service agreement so we all can see it. I never received one from the government

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Options
    #2156
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Benedict wrote: »
    I'm not sure what "service agreement" is being referred to.
    My understanding is that IW are saying if you have a meter and you use more than X amount, you'll be fined. And if you don't have a meter, happy days. No mention of any agreement?

    It's totally unfair and dumb and that's what's causing all the argument.

    Where's the "service agreement"?

    Charlie brought it up in post 2145


  • Options
    #2157
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,110 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Benedict wrote: »
    I'm not sure what "service agreement" is being referred to.
    My understanding is that IW are saying if you have a meter and you use more than X amount, you'll be fined. And if you don't have a meter, happy days. No mention of any agreement?

    It's totally unfair and dumb and that's what's causing all the argument.

    Where's the "service agreement"?


    It the same service agreement you had from your local authority when you paid them to connect you to the public mains for water and/or waste water services on the understanding those services would be provided by way of general taxation.
    Only difference is that FG/Lab government attempted to alter it by getting you to "engage with Irish Water.
    Do you think they backed down from cutting supply by a trickle out of the goodness of their heart.


  • Options
    #2158
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,110 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Bass Reeves wrote: »
    Could you put up a copy of this service agreement so we all can see it. I never received one from the government


    Did you pay your local authority a fee for connection to the mains on the understanding that water would be supplied via the mains or not ?


  • Options
    #2159
    Bass Reeves
    Registered Users Posts: 18,552 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    charlie14 wrote: »
    Did you pay your local authority a fee for connection to the mains on the understanding that water would be supplied via the mains or not ?

    No

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Options
    #2160
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,110 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Charlie brought it up in post 2145


    I assume from his post the poster was aware of that particular post, but good of you to point it out to the poster



    When you are being so good, perhaps you would be also be good enough to answer the question that was asked by me directly off you in post 2152 ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2161
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    charlie14 wrote: »
    I assume from his post the poster was aware of that particular post, but good of you to point it out to the poster



    When you are being so good, perhaps you would be also be good enough to answer the question that was asked by me directly off you in post 2152 ?

    I thought it best not to answer, as any such answer would be ridiculed simply because I favour everyone paying for the water they use, either by flat charge or meter.


Advertisement