Do we already pay for water?

Help!!!! · 30-10-2014 12:43pm #1

10599207_1585808311642466_2175524275527849717_n.jpg?oh=ffbab3b77bd6a1e5d94d01cc3fd4328f&oe=54EF8342

Is this for real or a internet hoax?
If real then surely the government think the Irish people are fools

BoJack Horseman · 30-10-2014 12:53pm

Help!!!! wrote: »

Is this for real or a internet hoax?
If real then surely the government think the Irish people are fools

No, its for reals.

Those earning & who have cars pay for it all.
(Aside from businesses of course).

My IW bill actually works out cheaper than the above.

Help!!!! · 30-10-2014 12:55pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No, its for reals.

Those earning & who have cars pay for it all.
(Aside from businesses of course).

My IW bill actually works out cheaper than the above.

So the government should reduce VAT & car tax then?

Gone West · 30-10-2014 12:56pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No, its for reals.

Those earning & who have cars pay for it all.
(Aside from businesses of course).

My IW bill actually works out cheaper than the above.

Doesn't matter, you are paying for it twice anyways.
The people who say "water isn't free, you need to pay for it" are being disingenuous.

Seriously, fúck those old men in our parliament who are too afraid to stand up to their IMF/Euro masters. History will judge them harshly I am sure.

Timberrrrrrrr · 30-10-2014 12:58pm

Fuzzy wrote: »

Doesn't matter, you are paying for it twice anyways.
The people who say "water isn't free, you need to pay for it" are being disingenuous.

Seriously, fúck those old men in our parliament who are too afraid to stand up to their IMF/Euro masters. History will judge them harshly I am sure.

So you don't believe that EVERYONE who uses water should pay for it equally?

BoJack Horseman · 30-10-2014 12:59pm

Help!!!! wrote: »

So the government should reduce VAT & car tax then?

I'd prefer that, but a 2% drop in VAT may just be absorbed into existing prices with little impact to the purchaser.
So income tax for workers was reduced instead at the last budget, effective in January.

Don't see why a slight adjustment in car tax wouldn't be do-able.
It would save me €19.5 per year.

BoJack Horseman · 30-10-2014 1:02pm

Fuzzy wrote: »

Doesn't matter, you are paying for it twice anyways.
The people who say "water isn't free, you need to pay for it" are being disingenuous.

Seriously, fúck those old men in our parliament who are too afraid to stand up to their IMF/Euro masters. History will judge them harshly I am sure.

So much wrong

1) IW is not an external mandate.

2) Any central taxation no longer spent on water provision gets spent elsewhere.... The public services are starved of funding, so all parties would welcome that.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp · 30-10-2014 1:11pm

I've just read the act. Where does it specifically state that 2% and 5% were added to pay for water? The details of the Act can be read here.

Edit: I agree that we already pay for water in general taxes but I don't see where the anti-water crowd are getting their % figures.

Chips Lovell · 30-10-2014 1:14pm

This isn't how taxation works. Your taxes aren't fenced off into portions to pay for certain things, e.g. x% of your income tax going on education or y% of your VAT paying for water. Put simply, most of your taxes go into central funds which are then divvied out to pay for everything. Any shortfall is covered by borrowing.

So, long story short, those tax increases used to compensate for the abolition of domestic water charges in 1997 will now be spent elsewhere. We'd need to be running a surplus for there to be any chance of the government compensating for the introduction of water charges by making a corresponding cut in taxes.

30-10-2014 1:17pm

As they say in the army........"you do now!!!!!"

PeterBrown1415 · 30-10-2014 1:23pm

'Spent Elsewhere'
Given to bond-holders perhaps?

This is yet another 'bondholder tax', just like Income levy, Property Tax, USC and Household charge. Ultimately, whatever it's called, the money ends up in the same place.

Gone West · 30-10-2014 1:24pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So much wrong

1) IW is not an external mandate.

2) Any central taxation no longer spent on water provision gets spent elsewhere.... The public services are starved of funding, so all parties would welcome that.

1) With a straight face you can say that no external parties forced the government to set Irish Water up?

Reference:
"In October 2010, the administration’s ‘National Recovery Plan 2010-2014’ pledged that metering would form part of charges. Metering was to be introduced by 2014. As part of the EC-ECB-IMF Programme of Assistance to Ireland, agreed in November 2010, the Coalition agreed to the introduction of domestic water charges in 2012/2013."

So what the part in bold means is that they essentially forced the gov to start water charges, or they wouldn't get the "Programme of Assistance" (ie Money).

2) This is not the point. It's a stealth tax. I too understand how tax increases work.

Don't kill me for referencing wikipedia, but this article is actually pretty straightforward to understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

Manach · 30-10-2014 1:30pm

We've already paid for water. This is in the general tax. The initial basic concept of taxes had been to pay for the common goods which is used by all. Water is the core example of this.

Unfortunately the revenues collected are no longer sufficient for the government increase in spending as it takes up more of the GDP in activities outside its core functions. Hence the water tax is one more step in the march to pay for core services as the state continues to spend unchecked as it has the practically unchecked power and administrative apparatus to collect monies from people.

For Reals · 30-10-2014 1:38pm

We pay for water from general taxation, money funds the local council water departments who, under the dept. of the environment, oversee the country's water supply....

Now, due to the Irish tax payer bailing out private bondholders and our government wanting to ensure a shot at a decent FU EU job after their term, we have a continuation of the house tax, the coming communications tax and the water tax. These are designed to cover a shortfall in the public funds but are in no way related to private houses costing the state anything or water suddenly being a government priority.

It's to draw in more money by creating scams, rather than saying, 'Listen folks, we need raise tax', because they want to pull the wool over your eyes in the hopes some bufoons might vote for those who , 'look after their own'.

FreudianSlippers · 30-10-2014 1:44pm

Fuzzy wrote: »

1) With a straight face you can say that no external parties forced the government to set Irish Water up?

Reference:
"In October 2010, the administration’s ‘National Recovery Plan 2010-2014’ pledged that metering would form part of charges. Metering was to be introduced by 2014. As part of the EC-ECB-IMF Programme of Assistance to Ireland, agreed in November 2010, the Coalition agreed to the introduction of domestic water charges in 2012/2013."

So what the part in bold means is that they essentially forced the gov to start water charges, or they wouldn't get the "Programme of Assistance" (ie Money).

You're not entirely correct. The EU/IMF Programme of Financial Support for Ireland, 16 December 2010 – Memorandum of Understanding between the European Commission and Ireland stated that water charges would need to be introduced, but “In advance of the introduction of water charges – the government will have undertaken an independent assessment of transfer of responsibility for water services provision from local authorities to a water utility, and prepare proposals for implementation, as appropriate with a view to start charging in 2012/2013."

hfallada · 30-10-2014 1:48pm

People need to understand the government is currently running a deficit. Revenue has to be raised and expenditure cut to balance the budget. Borrowing money to meet the short fall is nothing but deferred taxation for future generations. The ones that will be paying for this generations poor management of the economy.

BoJack Horseman · 30-10-2014 1:51pm

hfallada wrote: »

People need to understand the government is currently running a deficit. Revenue has to be raised and expenditure cut to balance the budget. Borrowing money to meet the short fall is nothing but deferred taxation for future generations. The ones that will be paying for this generations poor management of the economy.

People genuinely can't fathom that.

They will bleet "bondholder... Bondholder".

Except that the bondholder tragedy accounts for about 3% of annual expenditure.

The other 97% has to come from somewhere.

Your right, debt is just a tax rise deferred.

munchkin_utd · 30-10-2014 1:52pm

Johan Screeching Handgun wrote: »

<snip>
Edit: I agree that we already pay for water in general taxes but I don't see where the anti-water crowd are getting their % figures.

you dont if you have to drill your own well or are on a group scheme and have to pay to have a septic tank installed and maintained.

great that so many have had "free" water to now. But it was never universal.

Alf Veedersane · 30-10-2014 1:55pm

Manach wrote: »

Unfortunately the revenues collected are no longer sufficient for the government increase in spending as it takes up more of the GDP in activities outside its core functions.

They're also no longer sufficient to cover the amount needed to upgrade the existing infrastructure.

Chips Lovell · 30-10-2014 2:14pm

PeterBrown1415 wrote: »

This is yet another 'bondholder tax', just like Income levy, Property Tax, USC and Household charge. Ultimately, whatever it's called, the money ends up in the same place.

For Reals wrote: »

Now, due to the Irish tax payer bailing out private bondholders and our government wanting to ensure a shot at a decent FU EU job after their term, we have a continuation of the house tax, the coming communications tax and the water tax. These are designed to cover a shortfall in the public funds but are in no way related to private houses costing the state anything or water suddenly being a government priority.

Such is the amount of things now being pinned on the "bondholders", you'd actually have paid them back several times over at this stage.

As BoJack Horseman points out, servicing the entire banking bailout bill accounts for 3% of public expenditure. The unsecured bondholders was a fraction of that.

BoJack Horseman · 30-10-2014 2:26pm

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

As BoJack Horseman points out, servicing the entire banking bailout bill accounts for 3% of public expenditure. The unsecured bondholders was a fraction of that.

To clarify where I got that figure from

- Primary expenditure is €54bn.
- Extra expenditure on national debt is about €7bn
- Of which the promissory note (Anglo/bondholder tragedy) amounts to about €1.7bn ..... as its on a huge repayment term.

€1.7bn of the total €61bn = 2.8%

So I'm sure some of the taxation now no longer spent on water will go to Germany... But proportionately not much.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp · 30-10-2014 2:35pm

I never said it was universal.

The fact is that everyone who pays taxes has paid for water, whether you received it or not. I pay tax towards medical cards but I don't have a medical card.

I have no problem with paying for water that I use. It should have been metered years ago.

However the formation of Irish Water has been a complete sham. In no way was it setup with the directive of "Improving water conservation". What a load of complete and utter tripe. This is purely a tax to raise the needed funds for government coffers.

The question the OP has asked " Do we already pay for water" . The answer is YES.

There is no grey area. The local councils didn't magic the funds from thin air.

munchkin_utd wrote: »

you dont if you have to drill your own well or are on a group scheme and have to pay to have a septic tank installed and maintained.

great that so many have had "free" water to now. But it was never universal.

ardmacha · 30-10-2014 2:36pm

The basic premise of this thread is that government can never adjust the things it charges for or taxes, the basket of taxes and charges is immutable for all time. This is nonsense, of course. Note that those arguing that no new charge or tax can never, in any circumstances, be introduced do not have the same inflexible attitude when a tax or charge is removed, so over time you end with public services with less and less revenue.

charlie_says · 30-10-2014 3:08pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

To clarify where I got that figure from

- Primary expenditure is €54bn.
- Extra expenditure on national debt is about €7bn
- Of which the promissory note (Anglo/bondholder tragedy) amounts to about €1.7bn ..... as its on a huge repayment term.

€1.7bn of the total €61bn = 2.8%

So I'm sure some of the taxation now no longer spent on water will go to Germany... But proportionately not much.

Do you have a source for that please?

Thanks.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp · 30-10-2014 3:09pm

Or the government increase taxes that we already pay like VAT... VRT...Fuel... etc. Should I mention USC or leave that alone?

ardmacha wrote: »

... so over time you end with public services with less and less revenue.

BoJack Horseman · 30-10-2014 3:12pm

charlie_says wrote: »

Do you have a source for that please?

Thanks.

1) the budget just gone (regarding expenditure & debt costs for 2014/15)

2) the promissory note deal on the Anglo/bondholder debt
http://m.rte.ie/news/2013/0207/366574-ibrc-ecb-promissory-note/
Much longer term traded for a lower year on year repayment.

Timberrrrrrrr · 30-10-2014 3:12pm

Johan Screeching Handgun wrote: »

Or the government increase taxes that we already pay like VAT... VRT...Fuel... etc. Should I mention USC or leave that alone?

So the gov shpuld raise taxes yet again and let the tax payers cover all of the cost and meanwhile there are people who pay **** all sitting at home with their sky subscriptions and Spanish holidays paying nothing?

alastair · 30-10-2014 3:13pm

charlie_says wrote: »

Do you have a source for that please?

Thanks.

Ronan Lyons had a really good article on the weekly household tax spend a couple of years back - the bank bailouts, and accrued interest for them were indeed below 5% then, and they should have reduced since them with the re-scheduled payments deal.

FreudianSlippers · 30-10-2014 3:16pm

Johan Screeching Handgun wrote: »

I never said it was universal.

The fact is that everyone who pays taxes has paid for water, whether you received it or not. I pay tax towards medical cards but I don't have a medical card.

I have no problem with paying for water that I use. It should have been metered years ago.

However the formation of Irish Water has been a complete sham. In no way was it setup with the directive of "Improving water conservation". What a load of complete and utter tripe. This is purely a tax to raise the needed funds for government coffers.

I don't disagree, however...

The question the OP has asked " Do we already pay for water" . The answer is YES.

There is no grey area. The local councils didn't magic the funds from thin air.

The answer is actually "sort of". As someone else said, it's impossible to state exactly where our taxes go, but the amount spent on water will be significantly reduced from the "taxation pool" - there will be some money which will be used to subsidise the rate and provide allowances.

creedp · 30-10-2014 3:17pm

ardmacha wrote: »

The basic premise of this thread is that government can never adjust the things it charges for or taxes, the basket of taxes and charges is immutable for all time. This is nonsense, of course. Note that those arguing that no new charge or tax can never, in any circumstances, be introduced do not have the same inflexible attitude when a tax or charge is removed, so over time you end with public services with less and less revenue.

That argument certainly doesn't apply to me .. I won't speak for others .. Govt has introduced new charges/taxes in the past and while not welcomed have been accepted, e.g. are the universally hated 'universal social charge' and the prescription charge for medical card holders which tore up the previously held principle that medical card holders should pay for nothing. My problem is not with water charges, its with IW or whatever it is they call themselves now.

I understood the reason IW was tied into BG was to leverage its expertise as a utility supplier/biller but in reality the only logical reason I can see for this tie in is to have guaranteed access to the rather good terms and conditions availalbe to BG employees. I find this difficult to swallow as the excuse given by Govt for not applying pay cuts to semi-state workers is that they have existing contractual entitlement to these and we can't interfere with these terms. Why then did they establish a new organisation and link them to these existing contractual terms? Why not establish the organisation as a seperate entitly and agree terms and conditions appropriate to the economic circumstances in the country today? Given that once established IW had to spend a small fortune on consultancy to install a billing/charging system appropriate to a water utility company where was the advantage of linking in with BG?

I happen to agree with Howlin and the local government managers who said IW should not be paying bonuses to its staff ... I really can't understand if this view is held why the Govt allowed the current structure to be put in place. The reality is unlike the other utility companies, a large proportion of IW expenditure will continue to be covered by the taxpayer for many years .. through funding allowances and subventing the cost of infrastructural development .. why is the taxpayer (or at least a subset of taxpayers) so supportive of funding the added costs of water provision associated with running IW when there would be universal blue murder from taxpayers if public servants delivering this same service received these terms and conditions?

If I worked for Revenue I would be foaming at the mouth now .. look how successful Revenue was at collecteing the LPT .. should its staff not be entited to a share of the spoils for a job well done for the Govt? How would taxpayers feel if revenue official received a 19% bonus and a €10k car allowance for efficiently collecting their taxes? I wonder do Revenue officials have acces to a gym to maintain their motivation levels to continually improve their performance levels? Surely, if its a no brainer that these measures are successful, the taxpayer should be calling for these measures to be implemented ensure their taxes are efficienty collected?

alastair · 30-10-2014 3:26pm

creedp wrote: »

I understood the reason IW was tied into BG was to leverage its expertise as a utility supplier/biller but in reality the only logical reason I can see for this tie in is to have guaranteed access to the rather good terms and conditions availalbe to BG employees.

A significant reason that IW was tied in with Bord Gais is that it enables the water management to be taken out of the state's end of year liabilities, and into the semi state sector. If it's to be a semi-state for book-keeping purposes (which seems a legitimate strategy to me), then should it be a new semi-state, or one aligned with a semi-state already engaged in the utility business? I seriously doubt the employee terms and conditions at BG ever really entered into the decision-making process.

Do we already pay for water?

Comments