Water charges for excessive usage

NovemberWren

charlie14 wrote: »

Of course everything has changed, but if you seriously believe any political party will somehow attempt to use this health crisis to reintroduce water charges it`s you who really need to wake up.
It would be looked at for what it would be. Cynical opportunism.

'cynical opportunism'.... therefore, it prob. will happen.
seems to me these governments are mostly about that.

recently, in regard to the Council employees, and their complete and utter disregard to queries and total non-reply (to two letters and at the very least three times them 'putting it in their computer'); I said to a person about the Council 'union' employees; but the person (I hate to admit it,... an fg person) said that the Council employees are recruited by the IPA, Institute of Public Administration, in D.4.

if this is so, is it not time that this IPA is let know how totally ineffectual their Council employee recruits are.

nothing in regard to water (which the Council engineers are there to oversee?) is ever divulged to persons; and prob. not even to councillors.
(some councillors seem to want that,... for their own 'cynical' money and power).

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

Do you not think they have shot themselves in both feet enough already over water charges, without now attempting more of the same in the middle of an international health crisis where we are being told to wash our hands often, and disinfect any potential surfaces that could harbour the virus.:rolleyes:

If FF and FG are smart, one of their first policy agreements will be on a Commission on Taxation and Service Charges. That will result in broad changes to taxation.

blanch152

NovemberWren wrote: »

'cynical opportunism'.... therefore, it prob. will happen.
seems to me these governments are mostly about that.

recently, in regard to the Council employees, and their complete and utter disregard to queries and total non-reply (to two letters and at the very least three times them 'putting it in their computer'); I said to a person about the Council 'union' employees; but the person (I hate to admit it,... an fg person) said that the Council employees are recruited by the IPA, Institute of Public Administration, in D.4.

if this is so, is it not time that this IPA is let know how totally ineffectual their Council employee recruits are.

nothing in regard to water (which the Council engineers are there to oversee?) is ever divulged to persons; and prob. not even to councillors.
(some councillors seem to want that,... for their own 'cynical' money and power).

Council employees are recruited by the IPA?

Now that is a funny one.

NovemberWren

blanch152 wrote: »

Council employees are recruited by the IPA?

Now that is a funny one.

I agree.
if ever, there is deflecting, from; council, to ir.water, to engineers, to councillors, ... it is when water metering is asked about. (and I had said to that person that Dept.of Environ.&Loc.Govt. are the recruiters.. and then, to be deflected to, Institute of Public Administration).
more than funny; amazing.

Unless there is actually some accuracy in it, i.e. that IPA 'may' recruit the higher executive bunch in the Council?, and possibly 'do' instruct these in the political policy of govt.; which is; denigrate enquirer, and ensure ignorance of the, basically cartel of employees.

I kinda' believe the latter.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

If FF and FG are smart, one of their first policy agreements will be on a Commission on Taxation and Service Charges. That will result in broad changes to taxation.

If they are smart they will forget about reducing or abolishing the USC and increase it instead at all levels.
People might crib and cry but it is the only tax where avoidance and evasion are virtually impossible.


Even a miniscule increase will bring any many multiples of a water charge, create a whole less hassle and would be generally viewed as a tax that can be reduced as the economy improves whereas a water charge would be looked at as only ever going in the opposite direction and political opportunism.


Structural expenditure should be looked at, whether contracts are signed or not,with a view to delaying them until finances improve. Starting with the National Broadband Plan.

Benedict

Many people now believe that schools will not re-open until September (and even that could be optimistic) so kids will be home all day using water and most of those with meters will be liable for excessive usage charges of E500 per annum while (according to the current plan) those with no meters can use what they want - free of charge.

And those with meters will just suck this up and pay? Right?

Of course they will.

Benedict

Benedict wrote: »

Schools will not re-open until September (and even that could be optimistic) so kids will be home all day using water and most of those with meters will be liable for excessive usage charges of E500 per annum while (according to the current plan) those with no meters can use what they want - free of charge.

And those with meters will just suck this up and pay? Right?

Of course they will.

Nice one, Ben.

Hope you and yours are safe, well and not wandering more than 2k from your home when out for a walk.

Brendan Bendar

Idbatterim wrote: »

zero point in going back to water charges and I doubt they will bother. They should introduce a council tax, every adult in a household pays it, no exceptions!

The lpt as is, is a farce! I question LPT water charges etc, if they are going to just less than token gesture rates charged, tons of exemptions, the usual irish set up... Better off leave the system as it and no increase welfare by a fiver a week etc, than all this hassle of charging for water and it being some pittance like two hundred a year...

The water charges won’t come back, in this generation.

I agree with the concept you outline of a council tax.

But only on the condition you rightly emphasise- every adult household pays- no exceptions.

Once the exceptions start creeping in, that’s the end of things.

Everybody needs to be ‘on the books’ no tipping around or ‘duckin’ an divin’

There will be a major financial problem to be handled when all this is over, and the lefties and Alphabets won’t give a flying fuuherke what happened up to now.

The bullhorns will out and ‘What do we want - when do we want it- neeeeau.’ will be the name of the game.

That’s how it has rolled up to now anyway.

Nevin Parsnipp

Often wonder why the bullhorn lefties who are constantly baying for everything to be "Free"....never ask WHO will be paying for it ?

Cause they know it will not be them....all the "exceptions" ...disability.....dolers.....training schemes....medical card holders ad nauseum !

When are they going to look for free cars and fuel ???

Nevin Parsnipp

Nevin Parsnipp wrote: »

Often wonder why the bullhorn lefties who are constantly baying for everything to be "Free"....never ask WHO will be paying for it ?

Cause they know it will not be them....all the "exceptions" ...disability.....dolers.....training schemes....medical card holders ad nauseum !

When are they going to look for free cars and fuel ???

The 1% will pay of course.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

The 1% will pay of course.

Only 1% of the population contribute to general taxation
I must have missed that :rolleyes:

charlie14

charlie14 wrote: »

Only 1% of the population contribute to general taxation
I must have missed that :rolleyes:

Don’t you know that the top 1% pay as much taxes as the bottom 90%? So the loony lefty’s tell us. They also reckon that that 1% should pay more!

Bass Reeves

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

The water charges won’t come back, in this generation.

I would not bet on that alit of people taught that about property tax as well and it failed to sell in the.mid 90's yet we had it 15 years later

Brendan Bendar

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I would not bet on that alit of people taught that about property tax as well and it failed to sell in the.mid 90's yet we had it 15 years later

No Bass, the big difference is that the Ashton Gate lads are working the property and......and ....there are exceptions and exemptions.

In my opinion anything that will get everyone will have the bullhorn bhoys out on the road.Once there’s forms to be signed she’s a dead mallard.

Only way is slap a charge on EVERY HOUSEHOLD Revenue run.

No nods and winks, no fixers involved, no auld old soldiers tolerated and make sure the word ‘water’ is nowhere near it.

Call it the ‘Paddy Power Biro and Betting Slip charge’ or sommit.

Bass Reeves

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

No Bass, the big difference is that the Ashton Gate lads are working the property and......and ....there are exceptions and exemptions.

In my opinion anything that will get everyone will have the bullhorn bhoys out on the road.Once there’s forms to be signed she’s a dead mallard.

Only way is slap a charge on EVERY HOUSEHOLD Revenue run.

No nods and winks, no fixers involved, no auld old soldiers tolerated and make sure the word ‘water’ is nowhere near it.

Call it the ‘Paddy Power Biro and Betting Slip charge’ or sommit.

I have already posted that the mistake made in 2012 was not to bring in a flat charge and as you say no exemptions. Bring it in at 100/ house for either water or sewer and find it that way. Labour looking over its shoulder at the Greens wobbled the last time

If you fail to pay deduct from SW, TAX credit, pension etc. No point in protesting a as it can be collected anyway.

charlie14

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I have already posted that the mistake made in 2012 was not to bring in a flat charge and as you say no exemptions. Bring it in at 100/ house for either water or sewer and find it that way. Labour looking over its shoulder at the Greens wobbled the last time

If you fail to pay deduct from SW, TAX credit, pension etc. No point in protesting a as it can be collected anyway.

Some people appear to have short memories or attempting to rewrite history of only a few years ago.


Under Alan Kelly of Labour as Minister for Environment, flat rate charges were attempted and even with the comical conservation grant bribe it still failed.


What you propose on deductions would have entailed Revenue being involved in collection. That was never a consideration as it would have meant no "off the books" and no hope of privatisation.

na1

The only problem with flat rates is: people start conserving water - less charges - less income for IW (or whatever collects the money). Then IW will increase the rate per liter, saying they need more money to support infrastructure.
Then people will get bigger bills and start saving more water, less flushing the toilet, not regularly washing hands etc. Again: less income for IW, increased rates, etc.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

Don’t you know that the top 1% pay as much taxes as the bottom 90%? So the loony lefty’s tell us. They also reckon that that 1% should pay more!

Don`t you know that from a Credit Suisse report the top 1% own more than half the worlds wealth.



Anyway,regardless of that small matter,what tax are you talking about


Latest figures I have found on the breakdown of tax revenue show:
Income tax 40%
V.A.T 27%
Corporation Tax 16%
Excise and Customs Duty 12%
Property Tax and Capital Taxes 5%
Are you saying that the top 1% pay as much of all those taxes as the bottom 90%.?


Btw, is the irony lost to you that in relation to the matter under discussion, water charges, that one of the principal benefactors financially from the madcap scheme (and who now has his snout in the National Broadband plan trough as well) is a tax exile.:pac::pac:

Benedict

charlie14 wrote: »

Only 1% of the population contribute to general taxation
I must have missed that :rolleyes:

M84 has had many opportunities to support her claim that the exact water usage of those without meters can be calculated. That was her claim. She has been challenged numerous time to support it but all we've got is "ask the plumber" or "look at the article I posted". So she is little more that a toothless tiger - full of smart remarks and hot air.


No doubt there'll be another smart-ass response from her to this. But you can be sure of one things, she will NOT explain how the exact usage of non-metered homes can be accurately measured.


The fact of the matter remains that IW (despite their claims) cannot measure the usage of non-metered homes and they therefore cannot charge those homes for what they use.


That is a fact.

Benedict

Benedict wrote: »

M84 has had many opportunities to support her claim that the exact water usage of those without meters can be calculated. That was her claim. She has been challenged numerous time to support it but all we've got is "ask the plumber" or "look at the article I posted". So she is little more that a toothless tiger - full of smart remarks and hot air.


No doubt there'll be another smart-ass response from her to this. But you can be sure of one things, she will NOT explain how the exact usage of non-metered homes can be accurately measured.


The fact of the matter remains that IW (despite their claims) cannot measure the usage of non-metered homes and they therefore cannot charge those homes for what they use.


That is a fact.

Morning, Ben. Back for your weekly update. Hope you and yours are keeping safe. Don’t forget to wash your hands often.

I dread to think of what measures the government will have to take to see us through what is going to be one hell of a tough time. Everyone will have to tighten their belts. Water charges will seem trifling compared to what is coming down the line.

Yellow_Fern

charlie14 wrote: »

Don`t you know that from a Credit Suisse report the top 1% own more than half the worlds wealth.



Anyway,regardless of that small matter,what tax are you talking about


Latest figures I have found on the breakdown of tax revenue show:
Income tax 40%
V.A.T 27%
Corporation Tax 16%
Excise and Customs Duty 12%
Property Tax and Capital Taxes 5%
Are you saying that the top 1% pay as much of all those taxes as the bottom 90%.?


Btw, is the irony lost to you that in relation to the matter under discussion, water charges, that one of the principal benefactors financially from the madcap scheme (and who now has his snout in the National Broadband plan trough as well) is a tax exile.:pac::pac:

The principal benefactors for water charges were Irish people who could have finally had a sustainable water network that promotes conservation. This is why all enviromentalists wanted water charges. This is why nearly all countries use them. Instead Me Feinism prevailed and we have to endure with a underfunded, polluted system that promotes selfishness and waste.

Brendan Bendar

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The principal benefactors for water charges were Irish people who could have finally had a sustainable water network that promotes conservation. This is why all enviromentalists wanted water charges. This is why nearly all countries use them. Instead Me Feinism prevailed and we have to endure with a underfunded, polluted system that promotes selfishness and waste.

Try tellin’ that to the bullhorn brigade......

Benedict

I'm sure we would all agree that water charges are unimportant right now compared with CV-19. But it has been important and will be again when the virus is under control.

Contributors have in some cases agreed and in other cases disagreed but all except one have treated the matter (and each other) in a mature and respectful way. But I suppose in a thread this length there's always going to be one guffawing idiot whose only aim is to make a mockery of the subject - and of the contributors - so perhaps we should be grateful that there is only one.

I'd say this thread has now run its course but I have no doubt that in the future - perhaps a year or two - it will be back.

It'll be back because there's a lot of money to be made.

Until then - hopefully they'll find a vaccine soon against this dreadful virus.

charlie14

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The principal benefactors for water charges were Irish people who could have finally had a sustainable water network that promotes conservation. This is why all enviromentalists wanted water charges. This is why nearly all countries use them. Instead Me Feinism prevailed and we have to endure with a underfunded, polluted system that promotes selfishness and waste.

The enduring arguement made by supporters of Irish Water`s household metering throughout this whole sorry saga has been that it was somehow to do with conservation without anything whatsoever to back up their point.


We have one of the lowest per capita household usage without metering in the O.E.C.D. On Irish Water`s own figures, we us 108 cubic meters annually compared to Germany`s 297.3, France`s 401.4, Australia`s 703.12, U.S.A, 1206.8 and the UK`s 164. Al counties that have water metering.


What really knocks this conservation arguement into a cocked hat is that it is not households that are wasting water, but that 50% of treated water is being lost through mains leaks.
If you are really interested in conservation surely this is where you would start, (and something that was promised by FG before there would be any thought ofmetering), rather than establish a quango to spend over a Billion Euro on burying meters, or offering a bribe costed at over 130 Million Euro that had absolutely nothing to do with conservation.

charlie14

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Try tellin’ that to the bullhorn brigade......

Very few who recognised this for the con job it was and refused to have anything to do with it owned a bullhorn.
Vast numbers of those being FG and Labour supporters who had voted that government into office but subsequently showed in the ballot boxes just what they though of the lunacy.

Idbatterim

no government will touch this issue, certainly not now. Look, where things are at, on the election front. Who in their right mind after getting over previous crash, brexit, then this bull****, will touch water charges again? when they only plan on them raising a pittance, a total pittance. Its a waste of time... All the usual exclusions and it will be those paying for everything, paying for it again. forget it, take it out of general taxation... Not because the idea of water charges is bad, its the idiocy of this country, that makes them a bad idea HERE!

Benedict

Benedict wrote: »

I'm sure we would all agree that water charges are unimportant right now compared with CV-19. But it has been important and will be again when the virus is under control.

Contributors have in some cases agreed and in other cases disagreed but all except one have treated the matter (and each other) in a mature and respectful way. But I suppose in a thread this length there's always going to be one guffawing idiot whose only aim is to make a mockery of the subject - and of the contributors - so perhaps we should be grateful that there is only one.

I'd say this thread has now run its course but I have no doubt that in the future - perhaps a year or two - it will be back.

It'll be back because there's a lot of money to be made.

Until then - hopefully they'll find a vaccine soon against this dreadful virus.

I wouldn’t call you a guffawing idiot.

charlie14

charlie14 wrote: »

The enduring arguement made by supporters of Irish Water`s household metering throughout this whole sorry saga has been that it was somehow to do with conservation without anything whatsoever to back up their point.


We have one of the lowest per capita household usage without metering in the O.E.C.D. On Irish Water`s own figures, we us 108 cubic meters annually compared to Germany`s 297.3, France`s 401.4, Australia`s 703.12, U.S.A, 1206.8 and the UK`s 164. Al counties that have water metering.


What really knocks this conservation arguement into a cocked hat is that it is not households that are wasting water, but that 50% of treated water is being lost through mains leaks.
If you are really interested in conservation surely this is where you would start, (and something that was promised by FG before there would be any thought ofmetering), rather than establish a quango to spend over a Billion Euro on burying meters, or offering a bribe costed at over 130 Million Euro that had absolutely nothing to do with conservation.

If X amount is being lost through leaking pipes, how did they figure out how much we use per capita?

pablo128

Ask your imaginary plumber friend, Mary. He seems to have all the answers that no one else knows.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

If X amount is being lost through leaking pipes, how did they figure out how much we use per capita?

The figure of 108 cubic meters that shows we are one of the lowest household users of water in the O.E.C.D., and over 50% lower than our nearest neighbour where there are metered charges, is from Irish Water`s own water metering data.


To save any further pedantic posts from you I am assuming you asked because you did not know, rather than you attempting to justify a Billion euro spend on meters as a survey on household water usage.