£50 Sewerage Charge

[paswt]

A house with 4 bedrooms all with en-suite bathrooms, 2 sitting rooms, dining room, snooker room, outdoor stables and 4 acres of land is not perceived to have more money than me and nicer house.

 

They have got a nicer house and more money then me.

"They" may have "a nicer house and more money than me" , I don't have a snooker room , outdoor stables or four acres of land , but good luck to them that do .

 

I'm not whining about the amount I pay in rates (at present lol ) and I don't feel that those wealthier folk should subsidise my lifestyle .

[Lisenchuk]

Agree with you PASWT, there is nothing worse than people promoting envy taxes.

[Lisenchuk]

A house with 4 bedrooms all with en-suite bathrooms, 2 sitting rooms, dining room, snooker room, outdoor stables and 4 acres of land is not perceived to have more money than me and nicer house.

 

They have got a nicer house and more money then me.

 

A house with 4 bedrooms all with en-suite bathrooms, 2 sitting rooms, dining room, snooker room, outdoor stables and 4 acres of land is not perceived to have more money than me and nicer house.

 

They have got a nicer house and more money then me.

That is no justification for them paying more for services and utilities,than anyone else,though.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Lisenchuk

[Kopek]

 

 

.

I already pay well over £300 a year. By the time £300 service charge is added to my bill in a few years time I'll be paying about £1,000 a year. For water.

 

Drink more Beer???? Probably cheaper.

[hboy]

 

 

 

 

 

.

I already pay well over £300 a year. By the time £300 service charge is added to my bill in a few years time I'll be paying about £1,000 a year. For water.

Drink more Beer???? Probably cheaper.

I've already tried to work out how many 99p 2L bottles of Co-op spring water I could buy for a grand. I bet its more water than I use and will be made to pay for in a year through water rates.

[Manxtrust]

David Quick has just seconded the motion to accept the toilet charge?........

 

I wish someone would flush him away,

[carbon selector]

He'll be well rewarded for his loyalty. Let's see what the ignorant effer^[1] has to say to the motion.

 

^[1]Not intended as an ignorant insult. The remark is based on personal experience with him as part of his parliamentary business.

[Blade Runner]

 

A house with 4 bedrooms all with en-suite bathrooms, 2 sitting rooms, dining room, snooker room, outdoor stables and 4 acres of land is not perceived to have more money than me and nicer house.

 

They have got a nicer house and more money then me.

"They" may have "a nicer house and more money than me" , I don't have a snooker room , outdoor stables or four acres of land , but good luck to them that do .

 

I'm not whining about the amount I pay in rates (at present lol ) and I don't feel that those wealthier folk should subsidise my lifestyle .

 

That makes a nice change then, all I have seen you post in the past was moaning how high your rates were.............. .

[paswt]

 

 

A house with 4 bedrooms all with en-suite bathrooms, 2 sitting rooms, dining room, snooker room, outdoor stables and 4 acres of land is not perceived to have more money than me and nicer house.

 

They have got a nicer house and more money then me.

"They" may have "a nicer house and more money than me" , I don't have a snooker room , outdoor stables or four acres of land , but good luck to them that do .

 

I'm not whining about the amount I pay in rates (at present lol ) and I don't feel that those wealthier folk should subsidise my lifestyle .

 

That makes a nice change then, all I have seen you post in the past was moaning how high your rates were.............. .

Then perhaps you should reread my posts, I was stating the what rates (property tax) I paid and venturing to suggest that just increasing the rates and saying that this would mean that "the average rates paid" would only "increase by a "pint a week" was irrelevant to folk in my position.

 

To say that "All I have seen you post in the past was moaning how high your rates were" is tad dishonest but should I be surprised?

I do not value your opinion so sorry sunshine I don't care, even though I may be subsidising your lifestyle.

[Nom de plume]

Pay for what you use - is it that hard?

[Roger Mexico]

Pay for what you use - is it that hard?

The point about 'user pays' for water though, is that costs are not necessarily related to usage. With electricity most of the expense is going to come from the raw materials used to generate it (gas, oil, whatever). With water however all that is free and a lot of the cost will come from the building and maintenance of the infrastructure to collect, store, process, deliver and take away the water. And those costs will be pretty much unconnected with how much water a household uses. (Not to mention that, given that the biggest use of domestic water is flushing the WC, even usage may not be as clear-cut as you think).

There will be some costs directly associated with water usage, such as the amounts of chemicals used, electricity for pumping and so on, so it's not clear cut. But I would imagine that a lot of the cost is effectively fixed overheads. There are also arguments for water meters where you want to restrict usage or where there are industries that use a lot of it, but neither of these really apply on the Island. So charging for usage would actually be unfair and varying rates would probably cover the difference in infrastructure support required between large and small properties.

Admittedly metering allows you to maintain an enormous bureaucracy and increase your administration costs. And then there's all the extra costs to fit and maintain al the meters with all the opportunities for lucrative contracts. Maybe worth it if you're really short of water or the infrastructure is already in place, but otherwise it's just imposing extra costs.

(Revamp of two much earlier posts, but we're all repeating ourselves by page 66)

[slinkydevil]

 

11 Sewerage charges

(1) The Sewerage Authority may, by order (a “sewerage charge

order”), impose charges on any person (each a “beneficiary”) for

whom it performs, or who receives the benefit of the performance

of, its functions under this Act.

(2) However, subsection (1) does not apply to functions for which

charges are imposed under Schedule 2 (conditions of trade

effluent consent).

(3) A sewerage charge order may give a discount or rebate for

prompt payment of the charges it imposes.

(4) The discount or rebate cannot be more than 5%.

(5) The following apply for a sewerage charge order —

(a) it must be made on or before 31 January in the financial

year before the charges imposed under it are to take effect

(the “next year”);

(b) the charges take effect in advance —

(i) at the time or times during the next year as

provided for under the order; or

(ii) if no time or times are provided, when the next year

starts; and

© unless the order otherwise provides, a particular charge

becomes owing from when the relevant function is

performed for the beneficiary.

(6) Subsection (5)© applies subject to sections 4 and 5.

(7) In imposing the charges, the Sewerage Authority must consider

the amounts it will need to perform the functions to which the

charges relate.

From page 21:

http://www.legislation.gov.im/cms/images/phocadownload/Acts_of_Tynwald/Primary_2013/floodriskmanagementact2013as%20enacted.pdf

As this order has been agreed after January 31st when will the charge be administered? Highlighted above, have they missed the cut off for the next financial year?

[Roger Mexico]

As this order has been agreed after January 31st when will the charge be administered? Highlighted above, have they missed the cut off for the next financial year?

 

Afraid not (I thought so too at first). All explained including just how sneaky they have been in my previous post #918

[Lisenchuk]

From Manx Radio News: They ain't taking any notice.

 

Tynwald approves toilet tax

Published online at 19/02/2014 22:51:16

Tynwald has approved the toilet tax – despite widespread public opposition and a petition containing 6,300 names.

In a debate lasting two hours, even Chief Minister Allan Bell said the £50 flat charge was unfair.

Those backing it said it was needed to fill a £2 million hole in the finances of the Water and Sewerage Authority before it’s merged with the MEA.

However, those against argued a flat fee didn’t take into account people’s ability to pay and many areas without a sewerage system were being asked to contribute as much as those that had one.

Tynwald approved the measure by an almost two-to-one majority, and it’ll now come into being in April.

[Lxxx]

From Manx Radio News: They ain't taking any notice.

 

Tynwald approves toilet tax Published online at 19/02/2014 22:51:16

Tynwald has approved the toilet tax despite widespread public opposition and a petition containing 6,300 names.

In a debate lasting two hours, even Chief Minister Allan Bell said the £50 flat charge was unfair.

Those backing it said it was needed to fill a £2 million hole in the finances of the Water and Sewerage Authority before its merged with the MEA.

However, those against argued a flat fee didnt take into account peoples ability to pay and many areas without a sewerage system were being asked to contribute as much as those that had one.

Tynwald approved the measure by an almost two-to-one majority, and itll now come into being in April.

Get the names of the MHK's who voted for it and bombard them with messages of how they are not going to get another vote off you for as long as they breathe.