The Greens and water

Scofflaw

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

'We need water' well done, we do indeed.
My post was asking why Gormley has little or nothing to say unless against the opposition or on issues I do not deem as urgent compared to all the other issues at hand.
It seems to me that one day we will be paying tax for the sheer hell of it as we will have a myriad of specific taxes and charges to pay. I for one look forward to pavement tax, street light tax and so on. Because street lights cost money don't you know and cement isn't free.:rolleyes:

There are two basic types of taxes:

1. taxes just "for the sheer hell of it" (VAT, corporation tax, income tax, capital gains tax, etc etc) where the payment has no other aim than supporting government spending

2. taxes which additionally or alternatively have the aim of discouraging or encouraging certain forms of behaviour.

Water charges are an example of the second kind of tax, where the aim is both to pay for government and to discourage excessive water use. As for street lighting - businesses in theory support that kind of expenditure through payment of rates (which reminds me...).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Shea O'Meara

Scofflaw wrote: »

There are two basic types of taxes:

1. taxes just "for the sheer hell of it" (VAT, corporation tax, income tax, capital gains tax, etc etc) where the payment has no other aim than supporting government spending

2. taxes which additionally or alternatively have the aim of discouraging or encouraging certain forms of behaviour.

Water charges are an example of the second kind of tax, where the aim is both to pay for government and to discourage excessive water use. As for street lighting - businesses in theory support that kind of expenditure through payment of rates (which reminds me...).

cordially,
Scofflaw

So what's your point?

Scofflaw

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

So what's your point?

That you're already paying the bulk of your taxes "for the sheer hell of it" and that part of the point of water charges is to stop people using water wastefully.

Which in turn makes me wonder what your particular argument against water charges is supposed to be, other than that you personally feel he should be doing something about the by-elections instead?

By-elections require a writ to be moved in the Dáil, and therefore won't happen until Fianna Fáil decides they have a decent chance of winning, but you feel the Minister should ignore all else while he pursues that unattainable goal?

regards,
Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater

Indeed. I know the minister isn't female, but I'm sure he's not so bad at multi-tasking as to be unable to pursue two different political issues at the same time.

Shea O'Meara

Scofflaw wrote: »

That you're already paying the bulk of your taxes "for the sheer hell of it" and that part of the point of water charges is to stop people using water wastefully.

That's partially my point and as more pieces become separated can we expect a tax cut to balance these new charges?;)

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which in turn makes me wonder what your particular argument against water charges is supposed to be, other than that you personally feel he should be doing something about the by-elections instead?

My gripe (water) is not against the mere idea of paying for water, which while I agree a good argument can be made, I feel if introduced it will be abused to the detriment of you and I, but the fact that Gormley is a passenger in this government who keeps the status quo on bigger issues yet wakes from his slumber on hunting and water, which are not on as an important and immediate level as other issues we recently and currently face, where he was/is having a little nap somewhere when they are being discussed or nodding along with his partner party whom he initially vowed to keep in check.

Scofflaw wrote: »

By-elections require a writ to be moved in the Dáil, and therefore won't happen until Fianna Fáil decides they have a decent chance of winning, but you feel the Minister should ignore all else while he pursues that unattainable goal?

Well he does a damn good job of it, so why would he stop now?
I guess it comes down to priorities.

oscarBravo

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

...can we expect a tax cut to balance these new charges?;)

Do you think we can afford to cut taxes right now?

Scofflaw

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

That's partially my point and as more pieces become separated can we expect a tax cut to balance these new charges?;)

I wouldn't imagine so at the moment.

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

My gripe (water) is not against the mere idea of paying for water, which while I agree a good argument can be made, I feel if introduced it will be abused to the detriment of you and I, but the fact that Gormley is a passenger in this government who keeps the status quo on bigger issues yet wakes from his slumber on hunting and water, which are not on as an important and immediate level as other issues we recently and currently face, where he was/is having a little nap somewhere when they are being discussed or nodding along with his partner party whom he initially vowed to keep in check.

Ah, so you think he ought not to pay attention to Green issues, despite people having voted him in on that basis?

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Well he does a damn good job of it, so why would he stop now?
I guess it comes down to priorities.

And some might say that the priorities of a Minister for the Environment were environmental issues, and that of a Green Minister for the Environment perhaps even more so. Apparently, you believe playing electoral politics is more important. I don't share that view, and I somehow doubt that many others do either - while a lot of people are waiting for this government to run its course it's still important to quite a lot of them that it actually does the job. The sensible ones, anyway.

regards,
Scofflaw

Shea O'Meara

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you think we can afford to cut taxes right now?

Sorry, what I meant to say was 'That's partially my point and as more pieces become separated can we expect a tax cut to balance these new charges?:D'

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ah, so you think he ought not to pay attention to Green issues, despite people having voted him in on that basis?



And some might say that the priorities of a Minister for the Environment were environmental issues, and that of a Green Minister for the Environment perhaps even more so. Apparently, you believe playing electoral politics is more important. I don't share that view, and I somehow doubt that many others do either - while a lot of people are waiting for this government to run its course it's still important to quite a lot of them that it actually does the job. The sensible ones, anyway.

regards,
Scofflaw

I think anyone simply playing politics should resign.
As a minister in government at this time and a prominant figure in the coalition party, Environment or not, he should in the least voice an opinion on matters that relate to the well being of the country as well as Green issues. They were not soley voted for on environmental issues. They were seen to have a moral fortitude, ideals they would stick by. Unless you believe all government departments such as defence and health would become environmental posts if they were ever to win a majority? Minority or not, you seem to believe the few non-fianna fail voices within government should go with the flow, (another water pun) and stick within their department. I don't share that view. Arguments, votes and statements can be made while carrying out the duties of office. If the Greens stood by their principles the govenment may fold, (chance would be a fine thing) but I'd have some respect for them.

djpbarry

bryanw wrote: »

If someone uses say (taking the 90% figure) 200 L of water a day, which is then reduced to 20 L, they can't be doing very well with that amount. 20 L is nothing.

Indeed it is, but then, your figure of 200 L is entirely arbitrary, isn't it?

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

...the fact that Gormley is a passenger in this government who keeps the status quo on bigger issues yet wakes from his slumber on hunting and water, which are not on as an important and immediate level as other issues we recently and currently face...

I think you'll find that quite a large number of people will disagree with you on that, be they of an environmental persuasion or otherwise. Besides, security of water supply (or lack thereof) can hardly be considered purely a 'Green' issue - it's a serious public health issue.

Grumpypants

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Why with all that's going on with the country is Gormley focusing on water?
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/gormley-rules-out-flat-rate-water-metering-463389.html
As part of the ruling, in my opinion, undemocratic (as people remain unrepresented in some areas) government does he come out with snipes at the opposition and, lets be fair, side issues when our current crisis is taken into account?

On water and taking into account it's Ireland...I've a few points.
Firstly, it's a long running joke that when Ireland gets a few weeks of sun we have a water shortage, what with the rain we get all year round. Then if you look at England, there's been numerous reports on the many private companies who look after ther water supply and how they rip off the public and let x amount of gallons disappear due to badly kept pipes. The cost of this loss coming back on the consumer.
Now this being Ireland it will eventually end up being privatised, most likely to one company and we will be shafted. Either way, rain eleven months of the year, water shortage for a few weeks bringing us to hiked up prices for a number of months.
Are we cool with all this? We will, have no doubt, get f***ed by this in the long run.

We dont drink rain so it doesnt matter how much it rains here. Water need to be treated and delivered that involves huge costs for the local councils which are paid for by the geverment with taxes. So cutting costs in goverment will help the current situation.

Secondly having clean water to drink is more important than any current crisis.

Its becasue its Ireland and often water mains have to ruin a few miles up back roads to serve single houses that its quite hard to maintain a proper network.

I have no problem with paying for water i would like an option though for an alternative source of water for the toilet. I dont really want to pay for 5 litres of drinking water to flush down the loo as we have at the momment.

Macha

Grumpypants wrote: »

I have no problem with paying for water i would like an option though for an alternative source of water for the toilet. I dont really want to pay for 5 litres of drinking water to flush down the loo as we have at the momment.

We've installed these really simple devices and they allow you to use exactly the amount of water you need:

http://www.meconwml.com/

Scofflaw

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Sorry, what I meant to say was 'That's partially my point and as more pieces become separated can we expect a tax cut to balance these new charges?:D'

If you mean in the long run when a government can afford tax breaks, can we expect a tax cut to balance these new charges, the answer is undoubtedly yes. Tax cuts are popular.

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

I think anyone simply playing politics should resign.

But that's essentially what you want Gormley to do - play politics.

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

As a minister in government at this time and a prominant figure in the coalition party, Environment or not, he should in the least voice an opinion on matters that relate to the well being of the country as well as Green issues. They were not soley voted for on environmental issues. They were seen to have a moral fortitude, ideals they would stick by. Unless you believe all government departments such as defence and health would become environmental posts if they were ever to win a majority? Minority or not, you seem to believe the few non-fianna fail voices within government should go with the flow, (another water pun) and stick within their department. I don't share that view. Arguments, votes and statements can be made while carrying out the duties of office. If the Greens stood by their principles the govenment may fold, (chance would be a fine thing) but I'd have some respect for them.

The example you gave was that of the by-elections. The by-elections aren't issues of national importance by any stretch of the term. The people of those constituencies aren't going unrepresented, because we have multi-seat constituencies - and, frankly, given the recent behaviour of the major parties over the hunting bill, the idea that TDs speak for their constituency in Dáil votes is laughable.

As to 'going with the flow' - I don't expect the Greens to go with the flow, and I haven't seen them doing so either. They've supported their government partners, for which they have a mandate from their membership, and they've extracted a lot more clout from the various unpleasant things they've had to do to continue supporting the government. Disagreements at a Ministerial level occur at the Cabinet meeting, not in public.

It's quite possible this is the only time the Green Party will be in government in Ireland, and I think they're making a decent fist of it so far. They may well be wiped out at the next election (Green support is marginal at best in most of their existing seats), but they'll still have achieved more than they would sitting on the opposition benches, and my faith in Fine Gael and Labour either delivering the next coalition - or allowing the Greens more clout than they currently have if they did - is very low.

cordially,
Scofflaw

monkeypants

I'm not looking forward to the day where it costs money to wash oneself. I've worked with a few stinkers in my time and it wasn't fun.

View

monkeypants wrote: »

I'm not looking forward to the day where it costs money to wash oneself. I've worked with a few stinkers in my time and it wasn't fun.

This problem is to be dealt with by on-the-spot fines for "shower evaders"...

View

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Why with all that's going on with the country is Gormley focusing on water?
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/gormley-rules-out-flat-rate-water-metering-463389.html
As part of the ruling, in my opinion, undemocratic (as people remain unrepresented in some areas) government does he come out with snipes at the opposition and, lets be fair, side issues when our current crisis is taken into account?

I am open to correction on this issue but I believe that the introduction of water meters was agreed at EU-level back in in the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) in 2000 by the then FF-PD government.

As such blaming the Greens for actually trying to implement a policy agreed by FF and the PDs is a bit harsh - the alternative, after all, is that we refuse to implement it and it costs the tax-payers a lot after the ECJ rules against (and fines) Ireland for failing to implement the directive...

Link on this is here:

Water pricing is one of the measures used to reduce water demand. The Water Framework Directive requires EU Member States to ensure that by 2010 the proportion of the cost of water services – such as pumping, weirs, dams, channels, supply systems – with a negative impact on the environment – must be paid by the users (e.g. agriculture, hydropower, households, navigation).

Shea O'Meara

View wrote: »

As such blaming the Greens for actually trying to implement a policy agreed by FF and the PDs is a bit harsh -
Link on this is here:

Please re-read. The point is not who's to blame for water charges, but wondering why there isn't such enthusiasm about say finance, possible corruption etc. within their government.

View

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Please re-read. The point is not who's to blame for water charges, but wondering why there isn't such enthusiasm about say finance, possible corruption etc. within their government.

I did re-read and the focus of your original post still appears (to me) to be on water charges. I have to confess that I haven't personally gotten the impression there was a lack of enthusiasm in relation to (specific) other issues. I'd say it is more a case that items from the Programme for Government come up at different times.

syklops

There are many people in places like galway who are already paying for water. They need to buy drinking water because the stuff from the tap cannot be trusted. Many people in this situation would welcome with open arms water charges if it meant clean safe water coming from the tap.

yoshytoshy

I got an email detailing costs of meter installation ,which has stated that it can be up to €580 .

I presume people will be paying for these meters themselves ,if they don't want to pay a blanket amount.

Lu Tze

yoshytoshy wrote: »

I got an email detailing costs of meter installation ,which has stated that it can be up to €580 .

I presume people will be paying for these meters themselves ,if they don't want to pay a blanket amount.

It is likely that there will be no up front cost to the consumer for the meter, as this would put the meter in their ownership. Instead there will be a fixed monthly charge for the rental of the meter so that it stays in the water authority's ownership.

The rental will likely include a an allocation of water which if you go over you will pay per litrre used.