Water Charge Quotas

D1stant · 16-04-2014 3:07pm #1

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

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

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

beakerjoe · 16-04-2014 3:14pm

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

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

GenieOz · 16-04-2014 3:14pm

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

Amirani · 16-04-2014 3:16pm

GenieOz wrote: »

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

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

SEPT 23 1989 · 16-04-2014 3:18pm

Money down the drain

Vinz Mesrine · 16-04-2014 3:18pm

Diego Simeone wrote: »

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

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

B.A._Baracus · 16-04-2014 3:19pm

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

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

turnikett1 · 16-04-2014 3:19pm

GenieOz wrote: »

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

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

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

Amirani · 16-04-2014 3:19pm

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

GenieOz · 16-04-2014 3:21pm

Diego Simeone wrote: »

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

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

Mrs Garth Brooks · 16-04-2014 3:23pm

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

Amirani · 16-04-2014 3:23pm

Vinz Mesrine wrote: »

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

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

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

The One Doctor · 16-04-2014 3:23pm

Diego Simeone wrote: »

punish negative externalities.

Step away from the dictionary.

hatrickpatrick · 16-04-2014 3:24pm

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

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

Amirani · 16-04-2014 3:29pm

HardLuckWoman wrote: »

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

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

Caliden · 16-04-2014 3:30pm

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

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

hatrickpatrick · 16-04-2014 3:31pm

Diego Simeone wrote: »

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

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

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

Caliden · 16-04-2014 3:32pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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

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

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

Mrs Garth Brooks · 16-04-2014 3:33pm

Diego Simeone wrote: »

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

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

Green farmer · 16-04-2014 3:35pm

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

Amirani · 16-04-2014 3:36pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Caliden · 16-04-2014 3:37pm

Green farmer wrote: »

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

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

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

Amirani · 16-04-2014 3:38pm

HardLuckWoman wrote: »

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

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

Amirani · 16-04-2014 3:41pm

Caliden wrote: »

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

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

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

pajor · 16-04-2014 3:41pm

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

But this is Ireland. :pac:

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

Waste waste waste is all it'll be.

flutered · 16-04-2014 3:47pm

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

Badly Drunk Boy · 16-04-2014 3:48pm

Diego Simeone wrote: »

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

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

seamus · 16-04-2014 3:49pm

D1stant wrote: »

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

It wouldn't be like the Indo to sensationalise information they "obtained from a source", would it?

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

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

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

Ray Palmer · 16-04-2014 3:49pm

GenieOz wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

hatrickpatrick · 16-04-2014 3:51pm

Diego Simeone wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

hatrickpatrick · 16-04-2014 3:53pm

Diego Simeone wrote: »

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

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

Valetta · 16-04-2014 4:01pm

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.

Caliden · 16-04-2014 4:05pm

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...

ArmaniJeanss · 16-04-2014 4:09pm

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.

Ray Palmer · 16-04-2014 4:18pm

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

Valetta · 16-04-2014 4:25pm

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.

RandomName2 · 16-04-2014 4:29pm

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?

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:

GenieOz · 16-04-2014 4:30pm

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.

Banjo String · 16-04-2014 4:35pm

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?

Amirani · 16-04-2014 5:08pm

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.

Ray Palmer · 16-04-2014 5:11pm

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.

Amirani · 16-04-2014 5:12pm

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.

Maximus Alexander · 16-04-2014 5:16pm

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

Ray Palmer · 16-04-2014 5:19pm

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.

Smidge · 16-04-2014 5:55pm

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

Banjo String · 16-04-2014 9:18pm

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?

Cantremember · 16-04-2014 9:20pm

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.

Amirani · 16-04-2014 9:20pm

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?

Groundsource · 16-04-2014 9:23pm

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

Jonny Blaze · 16-04-2014 9:23pm

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!

Jonny Blaze · 16-04-2014 9:29pm

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!

Water Charge Quotas

Are you in favour of water charges in principle 242 votes

Comments