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 - where do you stand?
Options
Comments
-
Why are the results hidden? I wouldn't have voted if I'd known.There were many different reasons given on the airwaves last week for participation in weekend protests.
I myself don't have any great issue with water charges but have concerns over the management of the company tasked with provision.
Where do people stand?0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Why are the results hidden? I wouldn't have voted if I'd known.
Probably to ensure nobody is influenced to join the winning team. Seems like a good idea actually.0 -
-
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Why are the results hidden? I wouldn't have voted if I'd known.
Same question here? Can we see the results please?0 -
Our Cm3 is one of the most expensive in Europe and given time and like a lot of Government rhetoric we will hold top position.
If as the minister indicated at the weekend on radio that studies show 40% of household drinking quality water is used for flushing toilets and that also equates to the 40% of water lost through leaking pipes, then why is there not an incentive scheme in place to harvest rainwater for flushing systems.
It is because they want your money, it is because they are not serious at all about saving water. It is because they want to flog it as a super quango utility company for a lot of money. Only by enshrining Irish Water in the Constitution will prevent it from being flogged to the highest bidder. Primary legislation to stop it being sold will only be circumvented by another piece of legislation to sell it. Trust no one especially this Shower!0 -
Advertisement
-
-
How do you think Ireland has provided water to its citizens for the past four decades? Were pipes laid and maintained by fairies? Did the local authorities work for free in providing this? Do we not have any sanitation or treatment plants?TCDStudent1 wrote: »Water does not magically fall from the sky into their tap. Do they expect the man who goes out an lay down pipes to not get paid. Or they expect somebody else to pay for their water - where is the fairness in that?
There are costs involved in providing water services. Everyone knows and accepts that. Suggesting otherwise (as you do above) is just a ridiculous strawman. What some people unfortunately fail to grasp is that we all already pay for the provision of water via general taxation rather than a rate. Water is not free but that doesn't mean that we should be double charged for it.
Which is what sticks with people. We're being charged twice for the same level of service. This makes a mockery of the idea that this is about anything other than the government increasing revenue and feathering the nests of a few political appointees along the way.Sand wrote:1 - Don't we already pay for water out of income taxes?
Sure, okay. Think of this as a tax hike then.
If money is that short then personally I'd be a lot happier if the government just went ahead and bumped up the rate of income tax without this whole farce. That would at least be fair taxation and wouldn't see hundreds of millions wasted on consultants, IT systems and ex-ministerial drivers.
I've two issues with this:2 - Why not just bump up income tax then Ted?
Because there's obvious beneficial outcomes to charging on water consumption. If you purchase water conserving appliances, surely you should see some benefit over your neighbour who wastes water and leaves taps running all day. Only fair, and incentivises investment in water conservation.- There are many ways of increasing awareness of water consumption without metering or Irish Water. (The two are not inseparable.) That's exactly why the government allocates funds to various worthy public awareness campaigns - of which I've never before seen a water conservation one. Spending hundreds of millions on a new state agency and forcing a new tax of people is not the only way to approach this.
- Not only is the government using a large hammer, it's looking to crack a small walnut. Let's be clear: Ireland does not have a water conservation problem. We are blessed with abundant sources of water for a relatively small population. Most European nations would love to have our access to freshwater. The problems with water in Ireland, eg quality and access, are those of poor administration, not total usage.
Hmmm? You usually don't get to see the results until you cast your vote.Probably to ensure nobody is influenced to join the winning team. Seems like a good idea actually.0 - There are many ways of increasing awareness of water consumption without metering or Irish Water. (The two are not inseparable.) That's exactly why the government allocates funds to various worthy public awareness campaigns - of which I've never before seen a water conservation one. Spending hundreds of millions on a new state agency and forcing a new tax of people is not the only way to approach this.
-
Which is what sticks with people. We're being charged twice for the same level of service. This makes a mockery of the idea that this is about anything other than the government increasing revenue and feathering the nests of a few political appointees along the way.
Okay, no one likes a tax rise, but that's what it is.If money is that short then personally I'd be a lot happier if the government just went ahead and bumped up the rate of income tax without this whole farce. That would at least be fair taxation and wouldn't see hundreds of millions wasted on consultants, IT systems and ex-ministerial drivers.
I don't agree it would be fair. Consumption taxes make sense when it comes to common resources, and they are fairer. There are basic services like policing and law enforcement that I benefit from even if I don't ever directly use them. In fact, I benefit mainly from the regular "consumers" of policing and law enforcement receiving that service.
On the other hand, I don't see why I should pay for your water. I receive no benefit, direct or indirect from it. We don't all equally conserve water. If you want to run your taps all day long, you pay for it. It's not my concern and its unfair to expect me to cover the cost of you watering your lawn every day.I've two issues with this:- There are many ways of increasing awareness of water consumption without metering or Irish Water. (The two are not inseparable.) That's exactly why the government allocates funds to various worthy public awareness campaigns - of which I've never before seen a water conservation one. Spending hundreds of millions on a new state agency and forcing a new tax of people is not the only way to approach this.
Money tends to have much more of an effect on peoples behaviour than public awareness. Look at the plastic bag tax. I remember as a kid seeing my neighbourhood with plastic bags dumped everywhere. Never see that anymore... all that for the charge of 22 cent.
There is already a large, costly state infrastructure providing water in Ireland. I wholly agree Irish Water is a disgrace of an organisation, but that's easily solved with some political courage and clear thinking.- Not only is the government using a large hammer, it's looking to crack a small walnut. Let's be clear: Ireland does not have a water conservation problem. We are blessed with abundant sources of water for a relatively small population. Most European nations would love to have our access to freshwater. The problems with water in Ireland, eg quality and access, are those of poor administration, not total usage.
I think what you mean to say is that Ireland does not have a water *supply* problem. We do have a water conservation problem, with much of the water lost in transit between resevoir and your home. Let alone the wastage in the home. Metering and charging makes sense to identify where the leaks are to and to incentivise water conservation. I do recall that even a relatively decent summer leads to water pressure and rationing issues throughout Dublin...Hmmm? You usually don't get to see the results until you cast your vote.
Good point - I demand the results are unhidden now.0 -
How do you think Ireland has provided water to its citizens for the past four decades? Were pipes laid and maintained by fairies? Did the local authorities work for free in providing this? Do we not have any sanitation or treatment plants?
There are costs involved in providing water services. Everyone knows and accepts that. Suggesting otherwise (as you do above) is just a ridiculous strawman. What some people unfortunately fail to grasp is that we all already pay for the provision of water via general taxation rather than a rate. Water is not free but that doesn't mean that we should be double charged for it.
In that case, do you think it is fair that people who already pay for water (i.e. in group water schemes / private wells) pay taxes that go to providing free water to others?
Would you accept a situation where people who already pay for water pay less tax and people who do not pay for water pay more tax?0 -
Were already paying for our water by having our own well. And sewage through our own system.
Our taxes are going to subsidise water/sewage for others.
People need to get over themselves and pay for the services they receive.
The government should have tagged this charge into the same system as the LPT right from the beginning where people would have no option but pay or have the money stopped.
Tired of this argument. "I pay for my well and I subsidise other peoples water". Boo hoo. Doesn't Dublin tax money subsidise rural communities in general? Tell you what; you can whinge about subsidising piped water when your county pays for itself.
The Government knew well that they would have been committing political suicide had they tagged water charges onto the LPT. As it stands, they won't be seeing their seats returned at the other side of GE 2016.0 -
Advertisement
-
Tired of this argument. "I pay for my well and I subsidise other peoples water". Boo hoo. Doesn't Dublin tax money subsidise rural communities in general? Tell you what; you can whinge about subsidising piped water when your county pays for itself.
Lots of houses in Dublin off the public system too. There's 12,000 households with septic tanks across the Dublin local authorities. No love for them either?0 -
I disagree. Consumption taxes on basic necessities are by nature regressive. I doubt there's any major difference between the basic amount of water needed to sustain someone in the lowest tax bracket and those in the highest. A basic component of a "fair" tax is that is distributes the tax burden in such a way that those who can afford to pay most do so.I don't agree it would be fair. Consumption taxes make sense when it comes to common resources, and they are fairer.
Of course money is a powerful incentive, no disagreement there. But there has to be a strong rationale for the deployment of this deterrent. As you say, plastic bags were choking Irish towns and so a small charge was introduced on this non-essential and reusable item. In contrast, not only is the water charge much heavier and unavoidable (who doesn't use water?) but it's tackling a non-existent problem. It's trying to get people to conserve a renewable resource that we have in abundance; that's like suggesting a tax to get people to breathe less.Money tends to have much more of an effect on peoples behaviour than public awareness. Look at the plastic bag tax. I remember as a kid seeing my neighbourhood with plastic bags dumped everywhere. Never see that anymore... all that for the charge of 22 cent.
So I've no problem with the state launching a small ad campaign to remind people that conservation is generally a good principle. But whacking people with a hefty tax to conserve the one thing we don't particularly need to conserve?
You're conflating two different things here: reducing the demand for water (ie by encouraging a less consumption) and minimising the operational loss of water in the system. These are independent of each other – reducing consumption will have no impact on leaking pipes and vice versa.I think what you mean to say is that Ireland does not have a water *supply* problem. We do have a water conservation problem, with much of the water lost in transit between resevoir and your home. Let alone the wastage in the home. Metering and charging makes sense to identify where the leaks are to and to incentivise water conservation.
Even then, such is our abundance of water that neither of these threatens a shortage of water. There's an operational cost attached to water lost in transit (and I'm all for addressing that through modernisation) but metering will be of marginal use in identifying leaks and charging none.
Frankly I think it's a disgrace that these schemes have to exist at all. Generally they plug gaps in the national water network – something that's the product of local authority incompetence. The biggest tragedy of this whole affair is that the government has taken a very real issue (the poor management and provision of water in Ireland) and used it as a smokescreen for an additional tax and feed trough, neither of which will actually improve Irish water management.TCDStudent1 wrote:In that case, do you think it is fair that people who already pay for water (i.e. in group water schemes / private wells) pay taxes that go to providing free water to others?
But, to directly address your point, I have no time for this selfish 'well I don't use it' mentality when it comes to taxes. Paying these is part of your duty as a citizen. Complaining about how tax revenue is being wasted is fine, suggesting that you should be able to opt-out altogether is absolutely wrong. It doesn't matter if someone has private well/healthcare/gun/whatever, you're still expected to contribute to the national accounts.0 -
Reekwind wrote:the government has taken a very real issue (the poor management and provision of water in Ireland) and used it as a smokescreen for an additional tax and feed trough,Paying these is part of your duty as a citizen. Complaining about how tax revenue is being wasted is fine, suggesting that you should be able to opt-out altogether is absolutely wrong...... you're still expected to contribute to the national accounts.
So why are you against spreading the cost of the fairly expensive process of water treatment & distribution amongst a larger number of citizens?
It seems you acknowledge the status quo has problems but are outraged at the attempted solution before its had a chance to start.0 -
But, to directly address your point, I have no time for this selfish 'well I don't use it' mentality when it comes to taxes. Paying these is part of your duty as a citizen. Complaining about how tax revenue is being wasted is fine, suggesting that you should be able to opt-out altogether is absolutely wrong. It doesn't matter if someone has private well/healthcare/gun/whatever, you're still expected to contribute to the national accounts.
Of course everyone should have to contribute to taxation revenue, but where a citizen isn't going to benefit from a service, not on the basis of preference or need, but on the basis of lack of access, then the user-pays model is clearly better suited. Everyone will, or has the potential, to benefit from health services, child benefit, social welfare, etc. It might not be today or tomorrow, but the citizen has the implicit benefit of those services. Public water or water waste services however, are not available to a significant portion of the population however, and never will be - at least a half million households. That would put water services in the same category as cars, or guns, or LPT - it's a service cost that should be measured by the benefit to the citizen.0 -
Have any of these bankers and property developers who flushed the country down the jax been spotted at these water tax protests?
Just wondering?0 -
Of course everyone should have to contribute to taxation revenue, but where a citizen isn't going to benefit from a service, not on the basis of preference or need, but on the basis of lack of access, then the user-pays model is clearly better suited. Everyone will, or has the potential, to benefit from health services, child benefit, social welfare, etc. It might not be today or tomorrow, but the citizen has the implicit benefit of those services. Public water or water waste services however, are not available to a significant portion of the population however, and never will be - at least a half million households. That would put water services in the same category as cars, or guns, or LPT - it's a service cost that should be measured by the benefit to the citizen.
Everyone benefits from the public water system to a greater or lessor extent .. kids go to school .. where does the water in the school come from .. people use public facilities, libraries, hospitals, parks, - where does the water come from? While there is an argument that individual should pay a charge relating to the non-capital cost of producing a clean water supply, the public water infrastructure is a public good that should be subsidised by the taxpayer.
By the way I have a private well so not being blinded by my own self interest here. In that regard I always had to smile when I heard people living in the ground floor of the apartment blocks I used to live in complaining that they didn't want to pay for the cost of the lift in the building .. simple solution .. move out!0 -
Schools pay commercial water charges.Everyone benefits from the public water system to a greater or lessor extent .. kids go to school .. where does the water in the school come from
They all pay commercial water charges too. Not domestic water charges... people use public facilities, libraries, hospitals, parks, - where does the water come from?
It would be, but just like the road infrastructure is supported by all, with additional contributions by motorists, the same logic would apply with water service usage.While there is an argument that individual should pay a charge relating to the non-capital cost of producing a clean water supply, the public water infrastructure is a public good that should be subsidised by the taxpayer.
A half million households don't have any reasonable ability to move.By the way I have a private well so not being blinded by my own self interest here. In that regard I always had to smile when I heard people living in the ground floor of the apartment blocks I used to live in complaining that they didn't want to pay for the cost of the lift in the building .. simple solution .. move out!0 -
Lots of houses in Dublin off the public system too. There's 12,000 households with septic tanks across the Dublin local authorities. No love for them either?
If they choose to live in an area with no piped water, or public sewerage, due to the distance they are located from these services, then I say those 20,000 have chosen to and should be expected to burden those costs. The tax payers should not have to burden the cost of rural dwellers for choosing to live in rural places, even if the address is in Dublin. My point, as you are well aware Alastair, is that Dublin city/suburban dwellers heavily subsidise rural dwellers and it is a weak argument for those with their own wells and septic tanks to complain about their income tax going into the public water system, which, as has been pointed out already, they likely benefit from.Of course everyone should have to contribute to taxation revenue, but where a citizen isn't going to benefit from a service, not on the basis of preference or need, but on the basis of lack of access, then the user-pays model is clearly better suited. Everyone will, or has the potential, to benefit from health services, child benefit, social welfare, etc. It might not be today or tomorrow, but the citizen has the implicit benefit of those services. Public water or water waste services however, are not available to a significant portion of the population however, and never will be - at least a half million households. That would put water services in the same category as cars, or guns, or LPT - it's a service cost that should be measured by the benefit to the citizen.
They could move to a place that they would benefit from such service. I have seen it mentioned that you suggested this in another topic before, for people to avail of certain things, (though I cannot verify its accuracy).
I would love to live in a place, where I had to pay for my own well and septic tank. But yokel laws stopped me from buying a modest half acre of land on the Dublin/Meath border (and other rural and semi-rural locations) where I wanted to build a house for my family to live in. If i wanted to live outsde of suburbia, I was told I had to buy an already built house, which was not what I wanted and not where I wanted either. Yokel needs seriously need to be changed, but that's OT.0 -
It would be, but just like the road infrastructure is supported by all, with additional contributions by motorists, the same logic would apply with water service usage.
Given your unflaffable support for IW and metered charges to cover the current and capital cost of the public water system will your next campaign be to support pay per usage on all Irish roads? Why should non-car users support the development and maintrenance of roads? Its a shocking situation really.
Is there any company out there in serious debt that could be purchased at a knock down price to install pay as you go systems on the roads .. if not then no real incentive to go down that road at present0 -
Personally, I think it would be better to have Irish Water privitised and bring some professionalism into it.
I have no objection to the idea of water charges
I have no objection to the idea of water as a commodity
I understand we're not paying for water, we're paying for the treatment of water to make it drinkable
I object to paying a monopoly that has no interest in providing a quality service in any facet of the company
I object to the ridiculous rates per litre they've set
I object to Irish Water having no focus on conservation, only profit making, to the point where they've actually hindered people trying to conserve water
I object to receiving an unnecessary 20 page application pack
I object to handing them over personal details that they openly state will be treated as a sellable asset
I object to the obvious corruption and nepotism that has occurred in the set up of the company
I object to being threatened and being treated like a fool by Enda Kenny and his cheerleaders
If they had shown any interest in improving our water service, these protests never would have happened. The only thing Irish Water want to do is install meters and start billing. Issues like crypto outbreaks and ongoing boil notices have been brushed under the carpet. Leaky pipes and wastage have been ignored.
No private company would get away with behaving like they have. The company would go under in months. Irish Water think they've been handed a captive audience so they can behave as poorly as they want and we'll have to pay them anyway.
These protests have shown that they can't do that. If they want to bill people, they need to start acting like a professional business, not a collection of cloistered civil servants who can't be bothered answering phones0 -
Advertisement
-
Given your unflaffable support for IW and metered charges to cover the current and capital cost of the public water system will your next campaign be to support pay per usage on all Irish roads? Why should non-car users support the development and maintrenance of roads? Its a shocking situation really.
Ehh, my point was that motor tax is a user-pays system.0 -
The_Captain wrote: »
No private company would get away with behaving like they have. The company would go under in months. Irish Water think they've been handed a captive audience so they can behave as poorly as they want and we'll have to pay them anyway.
See RTE.
The mouthpiece.......0 -
Why should non-car users support the development and maintrenance of roads? Its a shocking situation really.
You will be happy hear that the motorist pays far far more into the exchequer than is spent on roads
(By a ratio of about 9:1)
Non drivers don't support road building.Is there any company out there in serious debt that could be purchased at a knock down price to install pay as you go systems on the roads
BAM contracting perhaps?0 -
If they choose to live in an area with no piped water, or public sewerage, due to the distance they are located from these services, then I say those 20,000 have chosen to and should be expected to burden those costs. The tax payers should not have to burden the cost of rural dwellers for choosing to live in rural places, even if the address is in Dublin. My point, as you are well aware Alastair, is that Dublin city/suburban dwellers heavily subsidise rural dwellers and it is a weak argument for those with their own wells and septic tanks to complain about their income tax going into the public water system, which, as has been pointed out already, they likely benefit from.
The only cross-subsidy that you can point to with regard to the urban-rural divide, relates to rural services that are available to urban taxpayers too. Complaining about the higher costs of running roads etc through sparsely populated areas is all well and good, until you need to get from A to C, despite not living in B. Again, the distinction is not one of preference for, or need to access, but of inability to access those services.0 -
BoJack Horseman wrote: »Non drivers don't support road building.
Well - they do, but not to the same degree that motorists do. Just as would be the case with water charges.0 -
-
Ehh, my point was that motor tax is a user-pays system.
It not a metered system though .. its a simple flat charge albeit based on a flawed CO2 emitting system. This approach doesn't need a IW debacle to run yet raises revenues that IW would drool over. I wonder if the brains at IW and the consultants hired to advise of billing systems considerd this option?0 -
BoJack Horseman wrote: »You will be happy hear that the motorist pays far far more into the exchequer than is spent on roads
(By a ratio of about 9:1)
Non drivers don't support road building.
BAM contracting perhaps?
Motor Tax and VRT are 2 different taxes .. VRT is simply a tax that the Govt can get away with levying on people buying cars and goes straight into the general pot .. it is not used to fund roads just as VAT on car purchases/repairs etc does not fund roads.
Is BAM heavily indebted and under NAMA's wing .. if so its ripe for picking!0 -
It not a metered system though .. its a simple flat charge albeit based on a flawed CO2 emitting system. This approach doesn't need a IW debacle to run yet raises revenues that IW would drool over. I wonder if the brains at IW and the consultants hired to advise of billing systems considerd this option?
Motor tax is not, as you concede, a flat rate system. The 'meter' system applicable to motor tax has been based on CO2 emissions, combined with the excise from fuel used - so, the more you drive, the more you pay.0 -
Advertisement
-
Motor tax is not, as you concede, a flat rate system. The 'meter' system applicable to motor tax has been based on CO2 emissions, combined with the excise from fuel used - so, the more you drive, the more you pay.
Of course its a flat rate -whether I drive 1km or 100,000km in the year I pay the same rate .. how is that not a flat rate?? On the other hand of course I also pay CO2 taxes on my fuel which is based on consumption, i.e. that is the pay per use tax linked to CO2 not the motor tax which of couse, just like the IW charges, uses the excuse of saving the planet for justifying extracting even more taxes from the general public.0
Advertisement