So Are Water Charges Coming In This Year Or Not?

LiberalUtopia

Will water charges be applied to householders this year, or next?

The propaganda machine has been in full swing for years now and is reaching a climax. Those signs on the main roads in and out of Dublin city are like something out of George Orwell. No doubt we'll hear a lot less about leaking pipes once the private contracts have been handed out (due to their inherent efficiency of course).

Biggins

O' I'd say yes. Give it time.
The leeches hanging on to Fianna Fail (for their ever increasing TD pensions?), the Greens, will see to it that their disgusting legacy will come to completion.

StudentDad

Oh yes we'll probably end up paying per litre - and whatever few quid the govt. gets through gouging householders will not go back into modernising the water system - it'll go into paying for other 'essentials' like TD's junkets and pensions.

SD

yoshytoshy

I think water charges are a good thing ,but only if the whole thing is privatised.
Theres no reason to have so many necessities funded by our taxes. At least if it is privatised ,we'll get value for money thats spent on it.

StudentDad

Water charges could be a good thing - but the way this country is run it simply won't be a good thing. The govt. will treat it as yet another revenue stream and god help the poor divil who refuses to pay up. The money like our road tax will go to pay for anything the govt. sees fit - aka - junkets - and not one penny will go to refurbishing and modernising the water system around the country.

SD

bmaxi

yoshytoshy wrote: »

I think water charges are a good thing ,but only if the whole thing is privatised.
Theres no reason to have so many necessities funded by our taxes. At least if it is privatised ,we'll get value for money thats spent on it.

Water is one of the things that should not be privatised. Water is essential to maintain life, why should it be used to make billionaires of Cowen's buddies. Is it not enough FF gave our gas away?
If water charges are to come in they should remain in state control, surely something has been learned from the horror stories in the U.K. The argument agains is always that it will take so much money to upgrade the system, well that was the argument in the U.K. as well but they still manage to pour over 30% of their water down the drain despite ever increasing water charges.

astrofool

It's still our water, it's just that every public body in Ireland is run by idiots. At least by privatising, and introducing competition, there might be a chance that it will be run efficiently.

I'd cringe to think what a publicly run company would do with "our gas", we'd probably use it to put a big flame out of the spire.

Macha

bmaxi wrote: »

Water is one of the things that should not be privatised. Water is essential to maintain life

So are food and electricity. Should these also be free of charge, paid through our taxes?

Taxipete29

taconnol wrote: »

So are food and electricity. Should these also be free of charge, paid through our taxes?

Electricity is not essential to maintain life

Vyse

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Electricity is not essential to maintain life

And food doesn't fall from the sky:D

gandalf

There is no way we should have to pay water charges until they get the delivery systems sorted so there is no wastage only then would I consider it fair to pay charges. There is no way I want the water systems to be privatised. The same way congestion charges, bus corridors and stupid speed limits shouldn't be introduced until there is a proper integrated public transport system. We are letting these idiots both in Government and Councils away with far too much at this stage.

conorhal

Does anybody know what the FG/Labor position on water charges are? I'd imagine it would take time to implement and would provide the opposition with a popular electoral platform to campaign against.
Personally, when it comes to further public sector spending I'm of the opinion that government should get their own house in order before puting their hands back in my pocket. Take Clare county council. They have built themselves shiny new high spec offices and had the highest spend by any council last year when it came to foreign travel and junkets, yet they have the worst water infrastructure in the country. When you see spending priorities that are so askew you have to think to yourself that they are taking the mickey.

deadhead13

The supply of water is the responsibility of the 88 local authorities. 58% of these authorities revenue comes from business rates and from goods and services, 42% from central government. It seems to be implied that we are currently being supplied with water for free, but this isn't the case.

djpbarry

LiberalUtopia wrote: »

The propaganda machine has been in full swing for years now and is reaching a climax. Those signs on the main roads in and out of Dublin city are like something out of George Orwell.

Uh oh, I think I hear the hyperbole police...

yoshytoshy wrote: »

Theres no reason to have so many necessities funded by our taxes. At least if it is privatised ,we'll get value for money thats spent on it.

You mean like the value for money provided by Eircom?

StudentDad wrote: »

The money like our road tax will go to pay for anything the govt. sees fit - aka - junkets - and not one penny will go to refurbishing and modernising the water system around the country.

Seeing as how funds are presently being invested in modernising the distribution system, it seems rather unlikely that “not one penny” of a proposed water charge will be spent on said system.

deadtiger wrote: »

There is no way we should have to pay water charges until they get the delivery systems sorted...

Which will be paid for with... what exactly?

deadtiger wrote: »

...so there is no wastage only then would I consider it fair to pay charges.

No wastage? None whatsoever? 100% efficiency?

deadtiger wrote: »

The same way congestion charges, bus corridors and stupid speed limits shouldn't be introduced until there is a proper integrated public transport system.

Unless I am very much mistaken, we don’t pay congestion charges in this country, what speed limits has to do with the state finances is anyone’s guess, and you want to get rid of bus lanes, but demand an integrated public transport system at the same time? Hmm...

Liam Byrne

Since our existing taxes won't be paying for this anymore, then if they reduced the existing taxes before charging us, I'd accept it.

Otherwise, no.

We're charged on the double or triple for too many things as it is (e.g. Crippling VRT + Road Tax + Crippling Excise on Petrol + Tolled Roads being the worst).

djpbarry

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Since our existing taxes won't be paying for this anymore, then if they reduced the existing taxes before charging us, I'd accept it.

Would it not be reasonable to consider the possibility that, at present, tax revenue is simply too low to cover the maintenance and/or upgrading of the water distribution system?

Liam Byrne

djpbarry wrote: »

Would it not be reasonable to consider the possibility that, at present, tax revenue is simply too low to cover the maintenance and/or upgrading of the water distribution system?

No, it wouldn't.

If they sorted out the overpayment and unvouched expenses and waste, there would be plenty tax revenue to go around.

And there's no point hitting people who can't afford it for even more tax, because you'll hit a point where there's no point in working.

Scofflaw

djpbarry wrote: »

Would it not be reasonable to consider the possibility that, at present, tax revenue is simply too low to cover the maintenance and/or upgrading of the water distribution system?

No, no! That would involve the idea that higher taxes could be necessary, and higher taxes can never be necessary, even when we want better services. It's always the case that eliminating the inefficiencies in the government would allow us to have better services and lower taxes.*

amused,
Scofflaw

*at least Fianna Fáil have successfully bought several elections on that basis

schween

It's funny how they say our water system is a shambles due to lack of funding.

And people say they won't pay water charges until the system is brought up to standard, with funding.

gandalf

djpbarry wrote: »

Which will be paid for with... what exactly?

As someone already stated the councils seem hell bent on wasting money without getting their own houses in order. Streamline and become effiecient then they can come for more money.

No wastage? None whatsoever? 100% efficiency?

Well I would expect a far better situation than the current one in certain areas where up to 58% of our drinking water supply is lost through leaks.

(page 85 of the Local Government Management Services Board Service Indicators in Local Authorities 2008 Report will give you all the figures)

Unless I am very much mistaken, we don’t pay congestion charges in this country, what speed limits has to do with the state finances is anyone’s guess, and you want to get rid of bus lanes, but demand an integrated public transport system at the same time? Hmm...

It has to do with stupid ill thought out decisions by Government. Sort out the problems with efficiencies before you start to charge people more. Get the priorities right going forward. Ensure we are getting value for our tax monies be it with employees or projects. At the moment we are no where near that situation.

BTW where did I say that I wanted to get rid of bus corridors.

gandalf

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, no! That would involve the idea that higher taxes could be necessary, and higher taxes can never be necessary, even when we want better services. It's always the case that eliminating the inefficiencies in the government would allow us to have better services and lower taxes.*

amused,
Scofflaw

*at least Fianna Fáil have successfully bought several elections on that basis

You may make light of the situation but there are inefficiencies in all areas of the Government and people are sick and tired of being taxed both directly and indirectly and seeing that money being wasted.

If these are addressed then maybe there will be no need to raise more taxes to bring the network up to spec but if they did have to then I and alot more taxpayers would be happy to pay our share. At the moment all we see is a black hole that is consuming more funds without any accountability.

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

.....even when we want better services.

Sorry, but (a) I'm happy enough with the water service and didn't ask for a better one and (b) we had a local Group Water Scheme that we paid for ourselves (both annually and one-off equipment/repair -wise when it needed it). The local authority took it over. And now the Government want to charge us for the privilege ? No thanks.

Macha

deadtiger wrote: »

If these are addressed then maybe there will be no need to raise more taxes to bring the network up to spec but if they did have to then I and alot more taxpayers would be happy to pay our share. At the moment all we see is a black hole that is consuming more funds without any accountability.

Really? Are you aware of the relevant figures?

gandalf

taconnol wrote: »

Really? Are you aware of the relevant figures?

Don't have those figures on hand but according to Gormley it costs around €1billion per annum to treat water for public consumption.

Eliot Rosewater

I wouldn't consider water charges a tax. Its a charge for a service, funnily enough.

Of course it should be introduced. People should have to pay for these kind of services they receive! The more water you use, that is the more you cost the water distribution network, the more you pay. This idea that its a "right" and thus should be free doesn't hold water (:D). As another poster said, should food be free?

Ideally there would be a law stipulating that only water charges revenue could be spent on the water network, and vica versa. Ditto for the plethora of vehicle taxes for the roads. I think that not paying for services you use and instead socializing costs is not "fair" and just plain stupid.

Im unsure about privatization. Could competition be introduced into the water sector? Ive only one pipe into my house!

Scofflaw

deadtiger wrote: »

You may make light of the situation but there are inefficiencies in all areas of the Government and people are sick and tired of being taxed both directly and indirectly and seeing that money being wasted.

If these are addressed then maybe there will be no need to raise more taxes to bring the network up to spec but if they did have to then I and alot more taxpayers would be happy to pay our share. At the moment all we see is a black hole that is consuming more funds without any accountability.

And that's after a decade of "lower taxes, better services". Something is clearly not right.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bmaxi

taconnol wrote: »

So are food and electricity. Should these also be free of charge, paid through our taxes?

Perhaps you could point out where I said water should be free of charge. I said it shouldn't be privatised.

yoshytoshy

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Im unsure about privatization. Could competition be introduced into the water sector? Ive only one pipe into my house!

I'm not well up on how different service companies operate ,but gas in britain is available from different suppliers and one pipe is used for that.
I think it's probably down to discounts for companies renting parts of the network or something.

With regards to water being life,

We are not the only country in the world who has tap water ,so to suggest it's a necessity and we can't do without it is just silly.
A private company can't charge people for something they haven't used ,the government on the other hand wants to charge everyone the same amount.

It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest charging a blanket charge for water ,just to cover initial costs of upgrading. It will just end up a mess three or four years in ,as soon as the government has gotten use to the cash flow and people forget about what happened this year.

trapsagenius

StudentDad wrote: »

Water charges could be a good thing - but the way this country is run it simply won't be a good thing. The govt. will treat it as yet another revenue stream and god help the poor divil who refuses to pay up. The money like our road tax will go to pay for anything the govt. sees fit - aka - junkets - and not one penny will go to refurbishing and modernising the water system around the country.

SD

That's the spirit!

StudentDad

trapsagenius wrote: »

That's the spirit!

Ah now my 'spirit' is the odd glass of Jameson - the councils answer to 'cleaner water' where I live is, 'ach sher throw in some more Chlorine there Dave coz we can't be arsed building proper facilities.'

So I have to use a damned water filter to make my water drinkable! Only in good auld Oireland!

SD

Overheal

conorhal wrote: »

Does anybody know what the FG/Labor position on water charges are? I'd imagine it would take time to implement and would provide the opposition with a popular electoral platform to campaign against.
Personally, when it comes to further public sector spending I'm of the opinion that government should get their own house in order before puting their hands back in my pocket. Take Clare county council. They have built themselves shiny new high spec offices and had the highest spend by any council last year when it came to foreign travel and junkets, yet they have the worst water infrastructure in the country. When you see spending priorities that are so askew you have to think to yourself that they are taking the mickey.

Delicious. Do we have any sources for this?

Green Gooner

In a nation surrounded by the sea and which gets large amounts of rainfall. Its amazing we could be charged for the water.

It's the poor families who cant afford it I'll pity. Any thing the Greens come up with has cost a bit extra money - they dont give a damn about the poorer section's of our society.

Overheal

Green Gooner wrote: »

In a nation surrounded by the sea and which gets large amounts of rainfall. Its amazing we could be charged for the water.

Go. Go drink the seawater. Collect rainwater from your gutter. Wont be long before you realize the problem there...

Green Gooner

Overheal wrote: »

Go. Go drink the seawater. Collect rainwater from your gutter. Wont be long before you realize the problem there...

:rolleyes:

djpbarry

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If they sorted out the overpayment and unvouched expenses and waste, there would be plenty tax revenue to go around.

Would there? Would you mind terribly backing that up with some figures?

deadtiger wrote: »

As someone already stated the councils seem hell bent on wasting money without getting their own houses in order. Streamline and become effiecient then they can come for more money.

What level of streamlining and efficiency is necessary before taxes and/or charges can be introduced?

deadtiger wrote: »

Well I would expect a far better situation than the current one in certain areas where up to 58% of our drinking water supply is lost through leaks.

As would I, but the system ain’t gonna get fixed without investment.

Macha

bmaxi wrote: »

Perhaps you could point out where I said water should be free of charge. I said it shouldn't be privatised.

We're talking about water charges, not privatisation.

djpbarry

Green Gooner wrote: »

In a nation surrounded by the sea and which gets large amounts of rainfall. Its amazing we could be charged for the water.

I’m not sure that we do receive particularly large amounts of rainfall in this country (relative to elsewhere in Europe, for example). What has the sea to do with anything? Are you suggesting desalination plants as a potential solution?

Green Gooner wrote: »

It's the poor families who cant afford it I'll pity.

Ah yes, “the vulnerable”. We can’t go charging “the vulnerable” for public services now can we?

gandalf

djpbarry wrote: »

What level of streamlining and efficiency is necessary before taxes and/or charges can be introduced?

A level where we are getting proper service and value for money for taxes already inputted into the system. I am sure you'll agree we are nowhere near that situation at the moment.

As would I, but the system ain’t gonna get fixed without investment.

Of course the solution is to pour more money down the drain if you forgive the pun :rolleyes:

Laminations

djpbarry if you bet 500e on a horse and it lost dismally, would you be reluctant to hand over another 500? In this case we weren't betting with our money, we were paying for service that has been dismally managed. Its understandable people dont want to be charged more until they see some evidence that its worth it.

Green Gooner

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not sure that we do receive particularly large amounts of rainfall in this country (relative to elsewhere in Europe, for example). What has the sea to do with anything? Are you suggesting desalination plants as a potential solution?
Ah yes, “the vulnerable”. We can’t go charging “the vulnerable” for public services now can we?

I'm assuming you've lived were I do in the west then, were in rains quite frequently. :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

Green Gooner wrote: »

I'm assuming you've lived were I do in the west then, were in rains quite frequently. :rolleyes:

Then you should have no difficulty replacing mains water with collected rainwater, which you will not be charged for.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bmaxi

taconnol wrote: »

We're talking about water charges, not privatisation.

I'm perfectly aware what we are talking about, I was replying to a poster who favoured the introduction of water charges only in conjunction with privatisation.

yoshytoshy

I mentioned privatisation ,I don't know why people think water is for free at the moment.
None of the vans with water division written on them are donated by bill gates or anything and the blokes driving the said vans aren't voluntary "workers".

The government are using peoples fear of water shortage ,to get more money.

Scofflaw

yoshytoshy wrote: »

I mentioned privatisation ,I don't know why people think water is for free at the moment.
None of the vans with water division written on them are donated by bill gates or anything and the blokes driving the said vans aren't voluntary "workers".

The government are using peoples fear of water shortage ,to get more money.

Not really the case - in fact, the government has simply been "lucky" (if that's really the right word). This has been in the pipeline for quite a while - here is one of the preliminary reports - Economic Analysis of Water Use in Ireland, 2004:

This analysis of water use forms part of an initial characterisation report required by the Water Framework Directive (WFD) that is being prepared by the relevant local authorities in relation to each River Basin District (RBD) and overseen at the national level by the DEHLG and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The purpose of this report is to make use of currently available information to provide an initial overview of the current and projected future economic benefits and costs associated with the utilisation of water resources in Ireland.

People perhaps think of this as a Green initiative under the current government, but it isn't, I'm afraid - it was agreed with our European partners, originally in 2000.

That's a very good report, by the way - covers more or less everything you might need to know about the economics of water use in Ireland. Certain issues can be laid to rest pretty much straight away:

Whilst local authorities are in the process of transparently identifying the cost of delivering water and wastewater services to all sectors individually, Government policy and national legislation prohibit direct charges for domestic use. Thus, there is a significant annual shortfall for local authorities in expenditure over receipts in relation to the provision of these services. The source of funding for this deficit is the General Purposes Payments from central funds made to local authorities. As illustrated in Figure E-8, there is a growing gap between the general costs of water services and the costs currently recovered.

The gap referred to was about €225m in 2003.

cordially,
Scofflaw

yoshytoshy

Scofflaw wrote: »

The gap referred to was about €225m in 2003.

That just proves that nobody in government had any will to sort this out sooner.

Maybe set up some semi-state body for water ...
Uisce Eireann:D

djpbarry

deadtiger wrote: »

A level where we are getting proper service and value for money for taxes already inputted into the system.

So let’s quantify this in some way; what ‘level’ are we at now and what level need be attained before new taxes/charges can be introduced?

deadtiger wrote: »

Of course the solution is to pour more money down the drain if you forgive the pun :rolleyes:

And how exactly is the water distribution system to be repaired without spending money?

Laminations wrote: »

djpbarry if you bet 500e on a horse and it lost dismally, would you be reluctant to hand over another 500? In this case we weren't betting with our money, we were paying for service that has been dismally managed.

But we’re not directly paying for it – that’s sort of the point. Or to be more precise, individuals consuming large amounts of water are being subsidised by those who do not.

Green Gooner wrote: »

I'm assuming you've lived were I do in the west then, were in rains quite frequently. :rolleyes:

I never said anything about frequency.

Tipp Man

Plenty of people are already paying for water in this country. The majority of farms, certainly in tipperary are all metered

Its amazing that some are paying and some aren't.

gandalf

djpbarry wrote: »

So let’s quantify this in some way; what ‘level’ are we at now and what level need be attained before new taxes/charges can be introduced?

Here's the problem we need to tackle the whole system of local authorities and the way our services are dealt with. We do not need the number of councils that we have already, the cost duplication is crazy for a country of our size. Merge all the councils into 4 super councils and then with the cost savings upgrade the systems. Stumbling along as well are no longer makes sense and it will have to be dealt with sooner or later.

Paying more taxes to maintain the cushy status quo should no longer be an option. Looking at things on a microscopic level and talking about levels is not seeing the bigger picture which is we want value for our taxes and we are not getting that.

I refuse to pay more into this quagmire until I see some real changes with the councils that will ensure the citizens of this country are getting proper value for their hard earned tax Euros.

And how exactly is the water distribution system to be repaired without spending money?

It can't be obviously but what exactly are we paying taxes for then?

I have no issues in the long term paying for usage once I am happy that our monies are being used in the most cost effective manner possible to deliver the best services available. We are light years away from that position now.

We were promised a more efficient public service by the so-called benchmarking process and that turned out to be a fallacy of the highest order.

djpbarry

deadtiger wrote: »

Here's the problem we need to tackle the whole system of local authorities and the way our services are dealt with. We do not need the number of councils that we have already, the cost duplication is crazy for a country of our size. Merge all the councils into 4 super councils and then with the cost savings upgrade the systems.

What sort of savings are we talking about here? Can you give a ballpark figure? I’m going to need a fair bit of convincing that “streamlining” and increasing efficiency are going to deliver the sort of savings required (but that’s obviously not to say that increased efficiency should not be targeted).

As for local government reform, you’re not the first to demand it. However, the one party that was committed to reforming local government (The Greens) was wiped out at the last local elections. Go figure.

deadtiger wrote: »

It can't be obviously but what exactly are we paying taxes for then?

Are we paying enough taxes to cover current expenditure from public accounts and all future infrastructural projects? It seems to me that we are not.

deadtiger wrote: »

We were promised a more efficient public service by the so-called benchmarking process and that turned out to be a fallacy of the highest order.

At the height of ‘the boom’, we were promised better public services (because that’s what the public wanted) with lower taxes (because that’s what the public wanted). As has already been stated, there is something not quite right about such an approach.