why protest over water and not USC?

harpsman · 24-11-2014 12:34am

barneystinson wrote: »

It's pretty clear in the previous post, so I think you're choosing not to understand... a decent amount paid for by taxation i.e. a reasonable allowance/credit paid for by the state, and the balance charged to the user.

Well thats exactly what we had before Kelly did a u turn and made it flat charge.

ezra_pound · 24-11-2014 12:37am

harpsman wrote: »

Well thats exactly what we had before Kelly did a u turn and made it flat charge.

It's still metered. The flat charge is the maximum you pay.

ezra_pound · 24-11-2014 12:42am

Tordelback wrote: »

It may shock you, but some of us who pay tax believe in funding state services through progressive taxation, rather than regressive flat taxes. It's a basic principle for many of us that people should pay on the basis of ability rather than need. The present setup for water charges is the opposite of that, hence the opposition of some tax-payers to the current setup.

Incidentally, I'm not against metering water, as the conservation angle is important. I'd like to see a situation where a *decent* amount of water was supplied and paid for by general taxation, excessive consumption was charged for, and lower usage rewarded with tax credits or some other manner.

This is what the government are doing. The vast majority of funding for our water system is from the exchequer with less than a quarter being raised by water charges. Do you not understand this?

harpsman · 24-11-2014 12:51am

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The Irish "left" is notable for opposing taxes, just like the "right". The "left" might argue for certain extra taxes, but if they had any integrity they would also want people to pay their taxes for the common good. In a modern welfare state everyone has to pay the likes of USC even if you think millionaires should pay more (which they do).

Dont forget the largest party of the Irish "left", Sinn Fein,who until quite recently claimed to be marxists actually support a tax regime where huge multinational corporations pay virtually no tax on their billions of euros of profits.

You couldnt make it up.

harpsman · 24-11-2014 10:52am

ezra_pound wrote: »

It's still metered. The flat charge is the maximum you pay.

I ll be intersted to see how much you save if you are economical.

Icepick · 24-11-2014 1:57pm

Tordelback wrote: »

It may shock you, but some of us who pay tax believe in funding state services through progressive taxation, rather than regressive flat taxes. It's a basic principle for many of us that people should pay on the basis of ability rather than need. The present setup for water charges is the opposite of that, hence the opposition of some tax-payers to the current setup.

Incidentally, I'm not against metering water, as the conservation angle is important. I'd like to see a situation where a *decent* amount of water was supplied and paid for by general taxation, excessive consumption was charged for, and lower usage rewarded with tax credits or some other manner.

Treated water is a utility not a tax. Stupid decisions regarding this issue in the past don't change this fact.

Regarding paying on the basis of ability rather than need, one obvious problem is that the need (expectations) far exceed the ability of the productive part of the society.
That's why we have a large deficit and an enormous overall debt.

Rightwing · 24-11-2014 2:02pm

Fuxake wrote: »

Are Irish people completely mathematically challenged muppets? The biggest protests in years over a water charge which will cost a single person household €60/ annum. Yet not a word over Universal Social Charge which costs a single person on €10/hour (working 40 hours a week) approx €774/ annum.
A single person on €30,000- not exactly flush if they have to pay for their own accommodation, VHI etc- is paying €1418 per annum. If in a couple, both working, their total household bill for USC is €2836! And yet some of these people are hysterical about a water charge of €160????
What is going on here? Why isn't the energy focused on the real killers?

I think they were taking the initiative here. €60 now, probably €600 if no protests.

fliball123 · 24-11-2014 5:07pm

Icepick wrote: »

Treated water is a utility not a tax. Stupid decisions regarding this issue in the past don't change this fact.

Regarding paying on the basis of ability rather than need, one obvious problem is that the need (expectations) far exceed the ability of the productive part of the society.
That's why we have a large deficit and an enormous overall debt.

Regardless of utility or tax it is a cost that people have to pay. People should pay tax and they should get a decent level of services in return IMO water is one of those services...We get phuck all else for our taxes.

OldNotWIse · 24-11-2014 5:08pm

Maybe a lot of people protesting against IW have never been affected by the USC...

joolsveer · 24-11-2014 5:12pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Maybe a lot of people protesting against IW have never been affected by the USC...

I object to paying the new water charges on the basis that I have been paying water charges through taxes for many years. I pay USC also.

OldNotWIse · 24-11-2014 5:14pm

joolsveer wrote: »

I object to paying the new water charges on the basis that I have been paying water charges through taxes for many years. I pay USC also.

Er...good for you?

VinLieger · 24-11-2014 5:15pm

joolsveer wrote: »

I object to paying the new water charges on the basis that I have been paying water charges through taxes for many years. I pay USC also.

Yes and from now on you wont be paying through taxes, the concept isnt exactly rocket science especially since the vast majority of people have gotten how much they will be paying under the new charges scheme back with the budget

fliball123 · 24-11-2014 5:18pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Yes and from now on you wont be paying through taxes, the concept isnt exactly rocket science especially since the vast majority of people have gotten how much they will be paying under the new charges scheme back with the budget

Well when I see the government putting into legislation that water charges will be offset via the direct tax that I pay then thats the only acceptable way i would pay it.. As pointed out people are already paying for water..What else does our direct taxes pay for?

BmCon · 24-11-2014 5:23pm

The water charge affects everybody where the USC means nothing if your not working.

joolsveer · 24-11-2014 5:25pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Er...good for you?

Why? By the way I also object to paying USC.

OldNotWIse · 24-11-2014 5:29pm

joolsveer wrote: »

Why? By the way I also object to paying USC.

Because I am not sure why the post was directed at me? The opening Q was why there are so many people protesting abotu IW and not USC. I pointed out that many people who are affected by IW are not affected by USC.

fliball123 · 24-11-2014 5:32pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Because I am not sure why the post was directed at me? The opening Q was why there are so many people protesting abotu IW and not USC. I pointed out that many people who are affected by IW are not affected by USC.

Its easy to see why one is being protested against one tax hits 100% of the population the other hits workers who have not got the time to protest as they are enslaved to pay for the bleeding heart lefties who will not be happy until everyone is broke and the power hunger elitists on the right who have the mantra my profit is mine but my debt is everyones..Its those in the middle paying for all asunder that are the real victims here...

greendom · 24-11-2014 5:36pm

fliball123 wrote: »

Its easy to see why one is being protested against one tax hits 100% of the population the other hits workers who have not got the time to protest as they are enslaved to pay for the bleeding heart lefties who will not be happy until everyone is broke and the power hunger elitists on the right who have the mantra my profit is mine but my debt is everyones..Its those in the middle paying for all asunder that are the real victims here...

USC is a very regressive tax, it's the working poor who are the real victims here

fliball123 · 24-11-2014 5:38pm

greendom wrote: »

USC is a very regressive tax, it's the working poor who are the real victims here

Do the working poor receive the same p1ss poor services that others pay for..Yes is the answer therefore they should pay something towards them. Also taking the whole income tax regime in this country we have one of the most progressive taxation policies in the world. Those who earn the most pay the most

ciaranlong · 24-11-2014 5:39pm

I think another issue is that the water charges will take the form of a bill (as far as I understand) whereas the USC is a direct deduction from peoples' pay-packets. So some people will be concerned about having enough money to pay the bill when it is due. I think that's one of the best arguments for funding water services through general taxation.

Geuze · 24-11-2014 5:41pm

joolsveer wrote: »

I object to paying the new water charges on the basis that I have been paying water charges through taxes for many years. I pay USC also.

Why we won’t be paying twice for water

During 2013 the Govt collected €60,837m, or 61bn approx. During 2013 the Govt spent €70,804, or €71bn approx.

The general Govt deficit was €9,967 or nearly 10bn.

Currently the Central Govt pay grants to the local councils to run the 1,000+ water and wastewater treatment plants.

The idea is that Govt grants to IW will fall, and be replaced by people paying water charges.

The costs to run the 1000+ plants shouldn’t change, but people will be paying for them directly, rather than then via Govt grants to councils.

So the Govt will spend less, and the fiscal deficit will fall, as it has to.

So nobody will be “paying twice”.

Yes, people will be paying a new tax/charge to help reduce the fiscal deficit.

So, to be clear, the LPT and water charges are new taxes/charges to help reduce public borrowing, and are part of the broadening of the tax base.

Of course, nobody likes new or higher taxes. An alternative to the LPT and water charges is higher consumption taxes or higher income taxes.

To people who say: “we already pay” – yes we already pay taxes, but they are not enough to cover public spending.

Plates · 24-11-2014 5:42pm

joolsveer wrote: »

I object to paying the new water charges on the basis that I have been paying water charges through taxes for many years. I pay USC also.

How many times do we need to hear that argument trotted out?

It's like a fella winning €100 on a bet, going on loads of p*ss ups, spending multiples of what he won but constantly saying "me winnings paid for that session".

greendom · 24-11-2014 5:46pm

fliball123 wrote: »

Do the working poor receive the same p1ss poor services that others pay for..Yes is the answer therefore they should pay something towards them. Also taking the whole income tax regime in this country we have one of the most progressive taxation policies in the world. Those who earn the most pay the most

I often hear this bandied about - have you any stats to back this up ?

fliball123 · 24-11-2014 5:51pm

Geuze wrote: »

Why we won’t be paying twice for water

During 2013 the Govt collected €60,837m, or 61bn approx. During 2013 the Govt spent €70,804, or €71bn approx.

The general Govt deficit was €9,967 or nearly 10bn.

Currently the Central Govt pay grants to the local councils to run the 1,000+ water and wastewater treatment plants.

The idea is that Govt grants to IW will fall, and be replaced by people paying water charges.

The costs to run the 1000+ plants shouldn’t change, but people will be paying for them directly, rather than then via Govt grants to councils.

So the Govt will spend less, and the fiscal deficit will fall, as it has to.

So nobody will be “paying twice”.

Yes, people will be paying a new tax/charge to help reduce the fiscal deficit.

So, to be clear, the LPT and water charges are new taxes/charges to help reduce public borrowing, and are part of the broadening of the tax base.

Of course, nobody likes new or higher taxes. An alternative to the LPT and water charges is higher consumption taxes or higher income taxes.

To people who say: “we already pay” – yes we already pay taxes, but they are not enough to cover public spending.

Well I will take you to task on that..
How much are we paying for banking clusterphucks,
How much are we paying for pensions for public servants who phucked the country up.
How much are we paying in social welfare
and finally how much are we paying our current public servants.

We pay enough for water the govenment chooses to over fund all of the above areas with my tax so tell them to feel free to cut from any of the above areas of expenditure to cover water..Thanks

Geuze · 24-11-2014 5:53pm

greendom wrote: »

I often hear this bandied about - have you any stats to back this up ?

http://www.publicpolicy.ie/wp-content/uploads/Budget-2013-Progressivity-of-Irish-Income-Tax-System1.pdf

http://www.finance.gov.ie/sites/default/files/Structure-of-Irelands-Tax-System_0.pdf

fliball123 · 24-11-2014 5:54pm

greendom wrote: »

I often hear this bandied about - have you any stats to back this up ?

ehh how much do we hit the hgher bracket at..oh ehmmm at around the point of the AIW so at the point where the average is we pay over half our wage that is made over that to the government on direct taxation that is proof in itself even with the recent changes in the budget

greendom · 24-11-2014 6:00pm

Geuze wrote: »

http://www.publicpolicy.ie/wp-content/uploads/Budget-2013-Progressivity-of-Irish-Income-Tax-System1.pdf

http://www.finance.gov.ie/sites/default/files/Structure-of-Irelands-Tax-System_0.pdf

not sure the table in the first article includes usc (it says income tax +employee contributions)

jonski · 24-11-2014 6:06pm

I think people didn't protest against the USC because they all knew at the time that the country was in the crapper and that taxes would have to rise , I think they also thought that as it was a separate tax it would be reduced when the country got back on it's feet and eventually done away with .

I think people are protesting against Irish Water because they feel :

a: that the next time there is a recession it will be sold off and privatised ,

b: that the rates will go up and the grant will disappear ,

c: that Irish Water is a massive quango that will soak up more money than necessary in wages and bonuses and cronyism and bad management with zero accountability .

d: that they were already getting their water through general taxation and they feel they will be paying twice for it

And I think that the protesters don't believe the government when they tell them that the above won't happen .

Icepick · 24-11-2014 6:21pm

fliball123 wrote: »

We get phuck all else for our taxes.

In fact we got 10 billion more for our taxes.
That a lot of it wasted by Public Service and welfare is a different issue.

greendom · 24-11-2014 6:24pm

fliball123 wrote: »

ehh how much do we hit the hgher bracket at..oh ehmmm at around the point of the AIW so at the point where the average is we pay over half our wage that is made over that to the government on direct taxation that is proof in itself even with the recent changes in the budget

That sounds pretty regressive to me, but I think your calculations are way out.

Dannyboy83 · 24-11-2014 11:59pm

jonski wrote: »

I think people didn't protest against the USC because they all knew at the time that the country was in the crapper and that taxes would have to rise , I think they also thought that as it was a separate tax it would be reduced when the country got back on it's feet and eventually done away with .

I think people are protesting against Irish Water because they feel :

a: that the next time there is a recession it will be sold off and privatised ,

b: that the rates will go up and the grant will disappear ,

c: that Irish Water is a massive quango that will soak up more money than necessary in wages and bonuses and cronyism and bad management with zero accountability .

d: that they were already getting their water through general taxation and they feel they will be paying twice for it

And I think that the protesters don't believe the government when they tell them that the above won't happen .

e: Public confidence was obliterated when "Government Minister Says They Can't Intervene In Irish Water Bonus Payments", which is essentially all of the above points rolled into one, before the damn thing even got off the ground

fliball123 · 25-11-2014 11:42am

greendom wrote: »

That sounds pretty regressive to me, but I think your calculations are way out.

Its progressive in the sence that those who earn the most pay the most, when you take USC, PRSI and PAYE the 3 income taxes paid at a very low level 33k now with the small increase in the budget we are paying 50% of what is earned over that. This is in and around what the average industrial wage is. You only need to compare rates in the likes of the UK and America for the rate that the higher tax bracket kicks in ..Its a lot more than the amount that it kicks in within Ireland.

It is regressive in the sense that it stifles peoples ambition..You work hard, educate yourself and get a better job all of a sudden the reward is no where near what it should be

Geuze · 25-11-2014 11:50am

fliball123 wrote: »

Well I will take you to task on that..
How much are we paying for banking clusterphucks,
How much are we paying for pensions for public servants who phucked the country up.
How much are we paying in social welfare
and finally how much are we paying our current public servants.

We pay enough for water the govenment chooses to over fund all of the above areas with my tax so tell them to feel free to cut from any of the above areas of expenditure to cover water..Thanks

I fully agree that the 64bn cost of the banking crisis is sickening.

And I agree with doing anything and everything to reduce that cost.

I agree that PS pensions are too generous, and I have repeatedly called for larger cuts to PS pensions.

Although most SW rates have been cut twice, I would go further and abolish JSA and OPF payments.

fliball123 · 25-11-2014 12:40pm

Geuze wrote: »

I fully agree that the 64bn cost of the banking crisis is sickening.

And I agree with doing anything and everything to reduce that cost.

I agree that PS pensions are too generous, and I have repeatedly called for larger cuts to PS pensions.

Although most SW rates have been cut twice, I would go further and abolish JSA and OPF payments.

Great so how can you make a comment saying people will not be paying for water twice when we are paying over the odds for all of the above as I say just cut the waste out of expenditure and use some of it to cover water.

Permabear · 25-11-2014 12:51pm

This post has been deleted.

BoJack Horseman · 25-11-2014 12:53pm

fliball123 wrote: »

just cut the waste out of expenditure and use some of it to cover water.

If only that had been thought of before.

What is wasted?

chopper6 · 25-11-2014 12:55pm

fliball123 wrote: »

..You work hard, educate yourself and get a better job all of a sudden the reward is no where near what it should be

As a PS worker I agree.

Geuze · 25-11-2014 1:09pm

fliball123 wrote: »

Great so how can you make a comment saying people will not be paying for water twice when we are paying over the odds for all of the above as I say just cut the waste out of expenditure and use some of it to cover water.

Fair enough, you propose that we continue to use general taxation to cover the costs of water.

And you suggest further cuts to public spending, especially of wasteful spending. [I agree here]

My only point is this: if we switch from taxpayer-financed water to paying for water with direct charges, we would not be paying twice.

Now, you might expect our taxes to fall, as they no longer have to cover the costs of water.

Yes, in normal times, but not with a 5bn+ deficit.

What will fall is not your taxes, but the deficit.

fliball123 · 25-11-2014 1:19pm

Geuze wrote: »

Fair enough, you propose that we continue to use general taxation to cover the costs of water.

And you suggest further cuts to public spending, especially of wasteful spending. [I agree here]

My only point is this: if we switch from taxpayer-financed water to paying for water with direct charges, we would not be paying twice.

Now, you might expect our taxes to fall, as they no longer have to cover the costs of water.

Yes, in normal times, but not with a 5bn+ deficit.

What will fall is not your taxes, but the deficit.

You make a good argument but with the amount of taxes paid in this country water should be covered..Its that simple. There are double taxation going on all through this economy and it needs to be stopped.

Examples such as buying a car, you buy the car you pay VAT, you then have to pay Car tax and tax on petrol through the nose, not to mention the scam that is NCTs.

If you pay car tax it should cover all of the above end of story.

If you pay income tax it should cover a decent level of service. Do we get that in this country, answer is no we dont. An example is a visit to your hospital if you don't work you don't pay if you work you have to pay again and pay for the lad who is not working. Double taxation.

the problem with introducing water charges is eventually those on the lower end will not have to pay them leaving the income tax payer having to pay it.

The best solution for this gov is to go through spending and cut the fat out and use it to bridge the deficit. We pay more than enough taxes for the sh1tty services we receive

hatchman · 25-11-2014 1:43pm

fliball123 wrote: »

You make a good argument but with the amount of taxes paid in this country water should be covered..Its that simple.

I don't and there are many who don't get water supplied in this country so why should we pay in our taxes for water to be supplied to others ! I then have to pay to keep my private water supply and in tax pay for others to get theirs.

fliball123 · 25-11-2014 1:47pm

hatchman wrote: »

I don't and there are many who don't get water supplied in this country so why should we pay in our taxes for water to be supplied to others ! I then have to pay to keep my private water supply and in tax pay for others to get theirs.

Well thats a seperate issue, if you have a private water supply you should get a tax credit to cover the fact that your not using the public water system

hatchman · 25-11-2014 3:23pm

fliball123 wrote: »

Well thats a seperate issue, if you have a private water supply you should get a tax credit to cover the fact that your not using the public water system

I can't see that happening can you ? So tax take covering the total cost of public water supply is not that simple ?

Geuze · 25-11-2014 3:28pm

Note that my parents pay under 10% direct taxes on 50k gross.

They receive social transfers as follows:

2 med cards
2 travel passes
free TV licence = 160 euro
cheaper elec = 35pm = 420 pa subsidy

They get a massive return on the limited taxes they pay.

There are thousands of people like them.

This is why overall the taxes collected are not high.

This also contributes to the deficit, as Govts refuse to charge people like them enough tax to cover their social benefits.

They are in contrast to somebody on 40k who faces a 52% MTR, and must pay 50 to the GP, etc.

That worker feels that taxes and costs are too high, which is true.

fliball123 · 25-11-2014 3:43pm

Geuze wrote: »

Note that my parents pay under 10% direct taxes on 50k gross.

They receive social transfers as follows:

2 med cards
2 travel passes
free TV licence = 160 euro
cheaper elec = 35pm = 420 pa subsidy

They get a massive return on the limited taxes they pay.

There are thousands of people like them.

This is why overall the taxes collected are not high.

This also contributes to the deficit, as Govts refuse to charge people like them enough tax to cover their social benefits.

They are in contrast to somebody on 40k who faces a 52% MTR, and must pay 50 to the GP, etc.

That worker feels that taxes and costs are too high, which is true.

You have put that up before I have asked you are they retired, did they work and pay tax and if they did for how many years

jonski · 25-11-2014 3:54pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I was just offering some different reasons why different people were protesting .

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Just because it doesn't exist doesn't mean it shouldn't or can't or that people shouldn't want or expect it .

ciaranlong · 25-11-2014 4:45pm

@Jonski: I think you've summarised the situation very well below. The only thing I would add is that people shouldn't feel that they will be paying for water twice, as apparently the alternative to the water-charges is a rise in the top rate of income tax. I know that dichotomy hasn't got too much attention though, despite some recent comments about it by Enda Kenny and Jack O'Connor.

jonski wrote: »

I think people didn't protest against the USC because they all knew at the time that the country was in the crapper and that taxes would have to rise , I think they also thought that as it was a separate tax it would be reduced when the country got back on it's feet and eventually done away with .

I think people are protesting against Irish Water because they feel :

a: that the next time there is a recession it will be sold off and privatised ,

b: that the rates will go up and the grant will disappear ,

c: that Irish Water is a massive quango that will soak up more money than necessary in wages and bonuses and cronyism and bad management with zero accountability .

d: that they were already getting their water through general taxation and they feel they will be paying twice for it

And I think that the protesters don't believe the government when they tell them that the above won't happen .

Permabear · 25-11-2014 6:29pm

This post has been deleted.

Labarbapostiza · 25-11-2014 9:58pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Very smart. Aren't the protestors like big bellied big farm owning Fine Gael backbenchers. Always have the hands out, always grabbing. Don't even want to pay for their septic tanks, next they ';; be having the townies wiping their bottoms.

Permabear · 26-11-2014 12:39am

This post has been deleted.

jonski · 26-11-2014 12:47am

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I guess that might be what some of them want

why protest over water and not USC?

Comments