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
24567…10

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Valetta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,611 ✭✭✭Valetta


    The more direct taxes (by this I mean taxes applied directly to goods/services) the better, as far as I am concverned.

    It gives you a lot more choice in how much tax you pay.

    Property Tax: Buy a smaller house
    Waste Charges: Recycle more
    Water Charges: Use less / recycle
    VAT: Buy less.

    I'm not saying that these choices are as simple as they sound, but they certainly do give you more options than an increase in Income Tax.

    It's obvoius that the government need to raise more money than they are at present, so I think the levying of charges on goods and services is the preferrable way to go.


  • Options
    #33
    Caliden
    Registered Users Posts: 5,982 ✭✭✭Caliden


    Diego Simeone wrote: »
    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.

    I couldn't agree more.

    Our government keeps comparing us to our European counter-parts when it comes to taxation but they forget the part about putting into practice how it's spent.

    I would have absolutely no problem paying property tax/water charges IF those taxes were spent in the local area or spent on things that are of benefit to everyone; road maintenance, repair of schools, general upkeep of common areas, etc.

    Sadly it's not the case and I fear the same will apply to the universal health charge when it's introduced, i.e. into the pot, health services continue to deteriorate...


  • Options
    #34
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users Posts: 13,326 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    seamus wrote: »
    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.

    We can put 'If its yellow let it mellow, if its brown flush it down' reminder notes on our toilets.


  • Options
    #35
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,364 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Valetta wrote: »
    The more direct taxes (by this I mean taxes applied directly to goods/services) the better, as far as I am concverned.

    It gives you a lot more choice in how much tax you pay.

    Property Tax: Buy a smaller house
    Waste Charges: Recycle more
    Water Charges: Use less / recycle
    VAT: Buy less.

    I'm not saying that these choices are as simple as they sound, but they certainly do give you more options than an increase in Income Tax.

    It's obvoius that the government need to raise more money than they are at present, so I think the levying of charges on goods and services is the preferrable way to go.
    Part of the problem with direct taxation is it effects people differently. You effectively tax those on lower incomes more. It isn't about quantity as certain things are essential.

    The problem in this country is we tax every which way. Like bin collections went from charge per lift, to charge by lift and by weight. Generally or taxes are multiplied out not even just double taxation. We get very few services for the tax we pay.

    Don't get me wrong I am all for paying by use and income tax but it is all too heavy handed. I personally think tax should never reach above 50% on any part of your income. I paid little more in tax than a single parent with one child receives in benefits. That is not sustainable or even fair


  • Options
    #36
    Valetta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,611 ✭✭✭Valetta


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    Part of the problem with direct taxation is it effects people differently. You effectively tax those on lower incomes more. It isn't about quantity as certain things are essential.

    The problem in this country is we tax every which way. Like bin collections went from charge per lift, to charge by lift and by weight. Generally or taxes are multiplied out not even just double taxation. We get very few services for the tax we pay.

    Don't get me wrong I am all for paying by use and income tax but it is all too heavy handed. I personally think tax should never reach above 50% on any part of your income. I paid little more in tax than a single parent with one child receives in benefits. That is not sustainable or even fair

    I agree in principle, but unfortunately the deficit is such that it's inevitable that we get squeezed more and more.

    However, giving people as much choice as possible is the best way to go.

    Having said that, the spending side of the equasion needs to be drastically overhauled, but that's a different coloured kettle of fish. :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,566 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    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 so we'll be paying for it twice over? :p

    In principle I think that paying for treated water is not a terribly bad idea; predominantly as a standing charge rather than consumption basis. Why as standing charge? Because the resource itself is free: just treatment and provision are the costs.

    But why am I against this tax? Because it's a horrible mixture of stealth tax and profiteering - never mind we already have a "local property tax" which is designed to pay for "local services".

    Sorry, we're paying trice over! :pac:


  • Options
    #38
    GenieOz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 892 ✭✭✭GenieOz


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    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.

    That's an interesting experiment, I'll definitely do that to see if I can. From the bottles and tap I can taste the difference immediately though.


  • Options
    #39
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    Diego Simeone wrote: »
    I'm in favour of water charges.

    Why?
    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 .

    Yep. Why you in favour of paying out twice for the same thing though?


  • Options
    #40
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    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.

    That's a different matter and I agree with you on that. Excessive consultation fees and wastage is an issue well worth raising.

    However the concept of paying for excessive water usage in general is a fair one I believe.


  • Options
    #41
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,364 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    GenieOz wrote: »
    That's an interesting experiment, I'll definitely do that to see if I can. From the bottles and tap I can taste the difference immediately though.
    Me too. The bottled water tastes like plastic. The one most people instantly realise is Coke in a glass bottle tastes nicer than that from a plastic bottle and a can tastes nicer than the plastic too but not as nice as that from a glass bottle.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Banjo String wrote: »
    Yep. Why you in favour of paying out twice for the same thing though?

    Think about that for a second and you may realise why your point sounds ridiculous. How will we be playing twice for the same thing?

    General exchequer funds will obviously be diverted elsewhere.


  • Options
    #43
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    I'm sick to the back teeth of new taxes.


  • Options
    #44
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,364 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Valetta wrote: »
    I agree in principle, but unfortunately the deficit is such that it's inevitable that we get squeezed more and more.

    However, giving people as much choice as possible is the best way to go.

    Having said that, the spending side of the equasion needs to be drastically overhauled, but that's a different coloured kettle of fish. :)
    The deficit is nothing new what was new was us not having a deficit. Just look back over the financial history of the country.

    All the doom and gloom requires ignorance of the past. I remember the 80s and it was much worse than now. We certainly weren't granting visas to people to work here because we had a lack of people which we are doing at present.

    The reality is we should never of bowed down against the grey euro. The biggest draw on our tax is the elderly who also hold many assets and wealth of the country. The government have increased these benefits over the years and were not able to remove them due to public pressure.


  • Options
    #45
    Smidge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,541 ✭✭✭Smidge


    I've just heard on the TV3 news that they were considering implementing the charges as...
    Terraced house - Pays the least
    Semi - Mid range
    Detached - Pays the most

    Utter madness :mad:
    I live in a detached and have ALWAYS conserved water(on ecological principal). I already have water charges and have ALWAYS been under my usage.
    I have family members who live in terraced houses who waste a diabolical amount of water.
    If it comes in under these guidelines I WILL NOT PAY and they can cart me off gladly


  • Options
    #46
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    Diego Simeone wrote: »
    Think about that for a second and you may realise why your point sounds ridiculous. How will we be playing twice for the same thing?

    General exchequer funds will obviously be diverted elsewhere.

    No I don't think my point was ridiculous in the slightest. You yourself conceded that we have always been paying our water via tax intake (and I believe vat)

    Now, we're going to be hit with a water 'tax' to pay for our water that was, and is being paid for by taxpayers already. Seeing as I do not see any reduction in income tax or in vat, I (personally) see it as paying twice for the same thing.

    There are many instances of double taxation in Ireland, (acknowledged by even many hardcore Govt supporters on these threads) why would this one be ridiculous?


  • Options
    #47
    Cantremember
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭Cantremember


    Come on small people, pay up. It will be taken from your pay packet anyway. Don't forget to pay your tv licence so that RTE can tell us how great the politicos are.


  • Options
    #48
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Banjo String wrote: »
    No I don't think my point was ridiculous in the slightest. You yourself conceded that we have been always been paying our water via tax intake (and I believe vat)

    Now, we're going to be hit with a water 'tax' to pay for our water that was, and is being paid for by taxpayers already. Seeing as I do not see any reduction in income tax or in vat, I (personally) see it as paying twice for the same thing.

    There are many instances of double taxation in Ireland, (acknowledged by even many hardcore Govt supporters on these threads) why would this one be ridiculous?

    You won't be paying twice for the same thing. The income tax of yours that previously paid for water will now be used for something else, maybe HSE overruns or public transport subvention. It's illogical to suggest it would be paying twice for water? Can you explain how it would be?


  • Options
    #49
    Groundsource
    Closed Accounts Posts: 102 ✭✭Groundsource


    D1stant wrote: »
    I'm in favour of water charges as a general principle - i.e. pay for what you use
    You already pay for it, through TAX'es


  • Options
    #50
    Jonny Blaze
    Closed Accounts Posts: 753 ✭✭✭Jonny Blaze


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    We can put 'If its yellow let it mellow, if its brown flush it down' reminder notes on our toilets.

    If its brown, drink it down...

    If it's black.. send it back!


  • Options
    #51
    Jonny Blaze
    Closed Accounts Posts: 753 ✭✭✭Jonny Blaze


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    The reality is we should never of bowed down against the grey euro. The biggest draw on our tax is the elderly who also hold many assets and wealth of the country. The government have increased these benefits over the years and were not able to remove them due to public pressure.

    At least our inheritance taxes are the among the highest in the world! :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    Diego Simeone wrote: »
    You won't be paying twice for the same thing. The income tax of yours that previously paid for water will now be used for something else, maybe HSE overruns or public transport subvention. It's illogical to suggest it would be paying twice for water? Can you explain how it would be?

    Wasn't it fifty odd million went to consultants via Irish water? Paid for by tax payers cash.
    Then we will be paying for water directly while cash previously allocated for it, stays in the same central pot will be pıssed away and squandered.

    Have a look as to where your property tax cash ended up this year, despite assurances and promises from those lying thieving thugs in the Govt saying local cash would be ringfenced and remain in the local area it was collected in.

    Then what happened? Central fund....... No accountability....... No traceability........


  • Options
    #53
    Groundsource
    Closed Accounts Posts: 102 ✭✭Groundsource


    They can keep they're rancid piss, have me own supply.


  • Options
    #54
    SamAK
    Registered Users Posts: 1,094 ✭✭✭SamAK


    Groundsource wrote: »
    They can keep they're rancid piss, have me own supply.


    Your own well?

    I was wondering about this - what if you've spend 5k having your own well sunk (assuming you're rural, like a few of my friends) and have pristine, crystal clear spring water coming out of your taps?

    Will you still be charged?


  • Options
    #55
    Groundsource
    Closed Accounts Posts: 102 ✭✭Groundsource


    SamAK wrote: »

    Will you still be charged?
    No. But I'm sure they have something in mind for us.


  • Options
    #56
    the groutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,096 ✭✭✭✭the groutch


    Smidge wrote: »
    I've just heard on the TV3 news that they were considering implementing the charges as...
    Terraced house - Pays the least
    Semi - Mid range
    Detached - Pays the most

    Utter madness :mad:

    the true madness is a flat rate for apartments, where a single person will pay the same as a family.


  • Options
    #57
    IvySlayer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,187 ✭✭✭✭IvySlayer


    I don't mind water charges as long as the money goes towards improving the water quality and the infrastructure. I certainly do not want to go back to the water shortages in the winter these past few years...


  • Options
    #58
    D1stant
    Registered Users Posts: 1,806 ✭✭✭D1stant


    Groundsource wrote: »
    They can keep they're rancid piss, have me own supply.

    I have my own rancid piss too, but the tea is horrible


  • Options
    #59
    That_Girl_ Is_ A_Cowboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 286 ✭✭That_Girl_ Is_ A_Cowboy


    My sister told me that she read a comment somewhere that in mainland europe for the water charges they pay, the water coming in is hot water. I don't know how true that is though.


  • Options
    #60
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    That_Girl_ Is_ A_Cowboy wrote: »
    My told me that she read a comment somewhere that in mainland europe for the water charges they pay, the water coming in is hot water. I don't know how true that is though.

    I think they were having you on. :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Smidge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,541 ✭✭✭Smidge


    the groutch wrote: »
    the true madness is a flat rate for apartments, where a single person will pay the same as a family.

    Thats my point really.
    There could be any number of people living in a terraced house. I know there are more people in my family in the terraced houses than there is living in mine. It doesn't give an equitable basis for the charge.
    And this was supposed to be introduced "for environmental reasons".:rolleyes:

    I don't know how they can even keep a straight face at this stage, they are literally making it up as they go along to squeeze every last washer out of people. :mad:


Advertisement