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 Charge Quotas

Options
  • 16-04-2014 3:07pm
    #1
    D1stant
    Registered Users Posts: 1,806 ✭✭✭


    I'm in favour of water charges as a general principle - i.e. pay for what you use

    But the quotas being reported (flown) today are crazy. An article in the paper edition of the Independent (cant find the online version) reckoned a familly of 4 would use the daily free quota up in the morning. (something like 2 toilet flushes, 2 showers and tap for brushing teeth)

    Is the quota based on the number of occupants?
    Will low users or earners unemployed, minimum wage or on state pension have to pay?
    Will very high users be penalised more aggressively above a higher threshold?
    Will the tax be geographically applied?

    Are you in favour of water charges in principle 242 votes

    No. Never
    0% 0 votes
    Yes
    72% 176 votes
    Only if teh quotas are fair and high enough for normal usage
    27% 66 votes


«134567…10

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    beakerjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 20,753 ✭✭✭✭beakerjoe


    Im against it, things like WET T-SHIRT COMPETITIONS will be a thing of the past!

    When will I ever get to shout More wate during the heat of a good hose down?


  • Options
    #3
    GenieOz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 892 ✭✭✭GenieOz


    Until I get the standard of Riverrock or Volvic coming through my taps I won't be happy with paying for water.


  • Options
    #4
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    GenieOz wrote: »
    Until I get the standard of Riverrock or Volvic coming through my taps I won't be happy with paying for water.

    You pretty much do already. Most bottled water comes from the same sources as tap water.


  • Options
    #5
    SEPT 23 1989
    Registered Users Posts: 43,028 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    Money down the drain


  • Options
    #6
    Vinz Mesrine
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,833 ✭✭✭Vinz Mesrine


    Diego Simeone wrote: »
    You pretty much do already. Most bottled water comes from the same sources as tap water.

    That's not true anyway, I've never seen Volvic look like this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    B.A._Baracus
    Registered Users Posts: 11,186 ✭✭✭✭B.A._Baracus


    You can rest aussured that the 'daily quota' is a load of bollocks. Probably use it doing the dishes.

    As for the water charges in general? Can't argee with them and cant see how anyone can. Its just a tax. Way to get more money out of you. Sure there will be an air tax some day. Government has to find new ways to get money.


  • Options
    #8
    turnikett1
    Registered Users Posts: 676 ✭✭✭turnikett1


    GenieOz wrote: »
    Until I get the standard of Riverrock or Volvic coming through my taps I won't be happy with paying for water.

    Isn't that the point of it? I do agree though. I have no problem paying for this on principle but only if it will improve the quality of water. I'm sick of having this murky bad tasting water from my taps here. Water shouldnt have a taste! I remember being at a mates in the country once and the tap water they had was phenomenal - crystal clear, as cold as ice and a pleasure to drink and touch. I'm ok with paying Irish Water if they can deliver that level of quality.

    However, this being Ireland and all, I'm ready to expect far less :(


  • Options
    #9
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    I'm in favour of water charges. The Tragedy of the Commons is a well established phenomenon and it absolutely applies to water usage. The quotas and fair usage limits are the key here though. The purpose of water charges should be to take some contribution to cover the cost of water provision as well as a punitive fee to punish negative externalities.


  • Options
    #10
    GenieOz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 892 ✭✭✭GenieOz


    Diego Simeone wrote: »
    You pretty much do already. Most bottled water comes from the same sources as tap water.

    I doubt it with a lot of them, the taste is incredibly different


  • Options
    #11
    Mrs Garth Brooks
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,865 ✭✭✭Mrs Garth Brooks


    There's water coming from the sky most days. Towns and villages were flooded a few months ago and people swimming and living in it. Why charge for it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Vinz Mesrine wrote: »
    That's not true anyway, I've never seen Volvic look like this.

    At least 24 percent of the bottled water we drink is filtered tap water, including Riverrock.

    This is based on American examples, but it's worth reading: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/bottled-water.htm


  • Options
    #13
    The One Doctor
    Registered Users Posts: 2,339 ✭✭✭The One Doctor


    Diego Simeone wrote: »
    punish negative externalities.

    Step away from the dictionary.


  • Options
    #14
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Don't agree with them at all and I sincerely hope this is one charge the Irish people will fight tooth and nail against.

    Just look at how much Irish Water are paying consultants etc - this is just another way to line the pockets of the establishment. It has absolutely nothing to do with environmentalism.


  • Options
    #15
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    HardLuckWoman wrote: »
    There's water coming from the sky most days. Towns and villages were flooded a few months ago and people swimming and living in it. Why charge for it.

    Because that water isn't drinkable? Treating water to the point where it's drinkable and transporting it to your home involves significant costs. People pay for this already via taxation.


  • Options
    #16
    Caliden
    Registered Users Posts: 5,982 ✭✭✭Caliden


    It's another tax under the shroud of water charges. They can't simply introduce a '...just because...' tax of €400/year so say it's for water, install meters and charge it that way.

    Next we'll be paying an 'Urban density tax' for the opportunity of living in high population areas where the charge is derived from the number of people per square km and of course it will be completely different from property tax.


  • Options
    #17
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Diego Simeone wrote: »
    Because that water isn't drinkable? Treating water to the point where it's drinkable and transporting it to your home involves significant costs. People pay for this already via taxation.

    If we're paying for it already via taxation then shouldn't water charges be accompanied by a tax cut?

    Unless of course this is just a fancy way of increasing tax without having to publicly admit to it, which I'm sure our fine government representatives would never even dream of contemplating :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #18
    Caliden
    Registered Users Posts: 5,982 ✭✭✭Caliden


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    If we're paying for it already via taxation then shouldn't water charges be accompanied by a tax cut?

    Unless of course this is just a fancy way of increasing tax without having to publicly admit to it, which I'm sure out fine government representatives would never even dream of contemplating :rolleyes:

    Oh they've said that the cost to taxpayers would be much more if it wasn't for a government subsidy. Aren't they very generous to us? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #19
    Mrs Garth Brooks
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,865 ✭✭✭Mrs Garth Brooks


    Diego Simeone wrote: »
    Because that water isn't drinkable? Treating water to the point where it's drinkable and transporting it to your home involves significant costs. People pay for this already via taxation.

    And will they still charge households if water is infected with cryptosporidium? You bet they would.


  • Options
    #20
    Green farmer
    Registered Users Posts: 4,005 ✭✭✭Green farmer


    Water charges don't irritate me as such. If they give me clean water and I'll pay them for it. I really want to know what Exactly what am I getting in return for my property tax ?


  • Options
    #21
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    If we're paying for it already via taxation then shouldn't water charges be accompanied by a tax cut?

    Unless of course this is just a fancy way of increasing tax without having to publicly admit to it, which I'm sure our fine government representatives would never even dream of contemplating :rolleyes:

    The Government aren't running budget surpluses, so by definition, taxation isn't covering the cost of providing services we receive. Why would a tax cut make any sense in this situation?

    Introducing water charges means that money from the general taxation fund that was previously spent on water provision will be redirected to areas where other shortfalls of exchequer funding are occurring.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Caliden
    Registered Users Posts: 5,982 ✭✭✭Caliden


    Green farmer wrote: »
    Water charges don't irritate me as such. They give me water and I pay them for it. I really want to know what Exactly what am I getting in return for my property tax ?

    It goes into the big pot and it's spent, like every other tax.

    The nonsense they've spouted about it being spent on local amenities is just that, nonsense.
    It's not even comparable to 'council tax' in the U.K. (which actually gets spent in it's originating areas).


  • Options
    #23
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    HardLuckWoman wrote: »
    And will they still charge households if water is infected with cryptosporidium? You bet they would.

    If your water is infected with cryptosporidium I presume you wouldn't use it. Hence you wouldn't hit the free/fair usage quota and as such wouldn't be charged.


  • Options
    #24
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Caliden wrote: »
    It goes into the big pot and it's spent, like every other tax.

    The nonsense they've spouted about it being spent on local amenities is just that, nonsense.
    It's not even comparable to 'council tax' in the U.K. (which actually gets spent in it's originating areas).

    This could do with a thread all to itself, but Ireland needs more decentralisation of Government, in power and monetary terms. Local property tax makes perfect sense in theory, providing the taxation is spent on local amenities (as is the case in the UK as you pointed out, and the US etc). Same applies to water charges.


  • Options
    #25
    pajor
    Registered Users Posts: 3,572 ✭✭✭pajor


    In principle I'm all for charging for water. Quality drinking water is a finite resource and money is needed for the upkeep of a quality system.




    But this is Ireland. :pac:

    How much repair and maintenace of the water system would have been done with the €50+ million that was spent on consultants?

    Waste waste waste is all it'll be.


  • Options
    #26
    flutered
    Registered Users Posts: 6,676 ✭✭✭flutered


    now the wasteage crack, did the gov not put the guy who put a new meaning on how to waste public money in charge of this, never mind the waages pensions and expenses wasted on him


  • Options
    #27
    Badly Drunk Boy
    Registered Users Posts: 6,500 ✭✭✭Badly Drunk Boy


    Diego Simeone wrote: »
    If your water is infected with cryptosporidium I presume you wouldn't use it. Hence you wouldn't hit the free/fair usage quota and as such wouldn't be charged.

    So you pour yourself a glass of water from the tap, and just as you're about to take the first glug of it you say "Hey look, there's cryptosporidium in this. I don't think I will drink it as it may make my tummy ill."?


  • Options
    #28
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    D1stant wrote: »
    An article in the paper edition of the Independent (cant find the online version) reckoned a familly of 4 would use the daily free quota up in the morning. (something like 2 toilet flushes, 2 showers and tap for brushing teeth)
    It wouldn't be like the Indo to sensationalise information they "obtained from a source", would it?

    I mean, it's not like they proclaimed a couple of days ago that a €100 standing charge would apply when it reality it'll be less than half that. Oh, wait...

    The quotas touted way back when appeared to be restrictive, but in reality the amount of water an average family actually needs, and the amount that they use are going to be disparate.

    For the vast majority of people it will be a quick exercise in learning to control the amount of water they use, and within a relatively short period of time not leaving the tap running while you brush your teeth and not filling the entire sink to clean a couple of spoons will become second nature.


  • Options
    #29
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,365 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    GenieOz wrote: »
    I doubt it with a lot of them, the taste is incredibly different
    Experiment on yourself
    1) Buy two bottles of still water, what ever is your favoured brand is
    2) Drink one
    3) Fill the bottle with tap water
    4) Place both bottles in the fridge over night
    5) Get somebody to fill two glasses from each bottle and mark them A,B,C and D
    6) Drink the water and sate which water you think is tap and which is bottled

    If you can tell the difference you will be one of the few people who can. They have carried out this experiment on people who claim a massive difference and they are no better than chance for identification.

    The taste difference is actually to do with the plastic in most cases. They did experiments with glass bottles and plastic bottles with the same water. People who preferred bottled water liked the water from plastic bottles.

    The conclusion was those who drink plastic bottled water have associated the taste of plastic as a good and correct taste. That is worrying because plastic used in such bottles maybe harmful in the long term and certainly is for the world as a whole.

    It is madness to be spending oil reserves transporting water and putting it into oil generated containers that last for centuries after use and cause pollution.


  • Options
    #30
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Diego Simeone wrote: »
    The Government aren't running budget surpluses, so by definition, taxation isn't covering the cost of providing services we receive. Why would a tax cut make any sense in this situation?

    Introducing water charges means that money from the general taxation fund that was previously spent on water provision will be redirected to areas where other shortfalls of exchequer funding are occurring.

    Indeed, such as massively overpaid quangos, consultants, politicians, advisors, etc.
    Let's start with Irish water:
    http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-water-consultants-spending-1263769-Jan2014/

    €86m divided by €100 is 860,000. so if the standing charge is €100, the first 860,000 households to pay it are not paying for water but for palm greasing bullsh!t. If the standing charge turns out to be €50, that means 1,720,000 households will waste that not on water but on consultation fees.

    That's only the start. We haven't even got into the extent of waste through leaky pipes etc.

    I should have made it more clear in my post - instead of increasing such charges and taxes, I want to first see the government stop spending our money on utter BS.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Diego Simeone wrote: »
    If your water is infected with cryptosporidium I presume you wouldn't use it. Hence you wouldn't hit the free/fair usage quota and as such wouldn't be charged.

    You'll still get charged some kind of flat standing charge, which is absolutely ridiculous. A consumption tax should be a consumption tax, simple as.


Advertisement