Gormley talking rubbish again...

Lenny Lovett

So we have John Gormley droning on about the need for water charges again on the Marian Finucane show now. While I agree we should pay for water, we should be paying by use, not a flat fee as they are going to implement. Most councils have installed water metres on the properties in their areas over the past few years so why not charge by use? Why should I pay for my neighbours eight children's water use? Yet another ill thought out Green policy.

MagicSean

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

So we have John Gormley droning on about the need for water charges again on the Marian Finucane show now. While I agree we should pay for water, we should be paying by use, not a flat fee as they are going to implement. Most councils have installed water metres on the properties in their areas over the past few years so why not charge by use? Why should I pay for my neighbours eight children's water use? Yet another ill thought out Green policy.

And the rates should be dependent on treatment quality too.

Pete_Cavan

A lot of the water mains in this country have been upgraded from rusted cast iron to HDPE pipes in the past decade and new water meter boxes were installed with all house connections. There are many more similar upgrade schemes planned and most of these seem to be going ahead (I work for a civil engineering company who tenders for these works). All new houses built in the last 15 years have had water meter boxes installed also. Our network of water main pipes needed upgrade and the government is taking this opertunity to get things in place for metered water charges. The water charges idea is not a new one they came up with to raise money due to the recession, it is something that they have been planning to implement for years. They obviously didnt count on the recession and now are being forced to introduce water charges sooner than expected. Everything is not in place for the metering so it looks like they will have to bring in flat charges for a few years until the metering can be done. It is fairer to have a flat charge for everyone than it is to charge some people by usage and some on a flat charge. I would have thought everything will be in place for metering in the next 5-10 years.

dan_d

If the stuff didn't fall on our heads everyday, I'd be a little less annoyed about water charges. But anyway, assuming they come in, I'll only be happy to pay them if the money is absolutely guaranteed to be put back into redeveloping the water main system, and not thrown into the numerous black holes that abound in this country.

That probably won't happen. Therefore, I'm not happy to pay them.

Manach

Persumably as part of this service the government then will be under a contractual obiligation to provide water and can be taken to court for any break in service .... [slightly OT, but memories of the winter of last year resurfacing]

mikemac

I'm going to assume people with private wells are exempt?

After all, the council didn't provide this service.

And with an annual service by a fitter and electricity to power your pump, it's not like it's free anyway even if you are lucky to have a well on your land

CoalBucket

Just out of curiosity, does anybody know how people with their own well will be charged or will they be charged at all ?

GarlicBread

Heres the real John Gormley before he was corrupted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cebpJJeiL_E

Perhaps if he was to make public the cost of buying fluoride and then pumping it into our water we could give it up and save a few euro's? Instead we are going to pay for it, lovely stuff, ill have John to thank when my kids get bone cancer.

Pete_Cavan

Manach wrote: »

Persumably as part of this service the government then will be under a contractual obiligation to provide water and can be taken to court for any break in service .... [slightly OT, but memories of the winter of last year resurfacing]

In many areas the main reason there was no water last winter was because the councils had to turn off the supply to preserve what clean water they had available. This is becuase the reserviors were very low, mainly because people assume there is an endless supply of clean water and feel they can waste it, also during the bad weather some people leave taps running in the hope that their pipes wont freeze, wasting the water. If people have to pay for water they will think twice about wasting it so there should be more water available.

bijapos

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

So we have John Gormley droning on about the need for water charges again on the Marian Finucane show now. While I agree we should pay for water, we should be paying by use, not a flat fee as they are going to implement. Most councils have installed water metres on the properties in their areas over the past few years so why not charge by use? Why should I pay for my neighbours eight children's water use? Yet another ill thought out Green policy.

He never said on Finucane that it was going to be a flat rate charge.

Where did he say that it was going to be a flat fee and not metered?

charlemont

they will have another thing coming coming if they think this neighbourhood is going to stand aside and allow the installation of water meters.

Scofflaw

charlemont wrote: »

they will have another thing coming coming if they think this neighbourhood is going to stand aside and allow the installation of water meters.

You'll be supporting a flat rate charge, then?

He never said on Finucane that it was going to be a flat rate charge.

Where did he say that it was going to be a flat fee and not metered?

I don't think it's been said anywhere as such - however, if the system isn't ready, as per Pete_Cavan's post, then presumably it's not possible to roll out a metered charge in those areas. It may be possible to roll out a metered charge in some council areas, but the OP is not, I think, interested in nuances that don't lend themselves to a bit of Green-bashing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Coyler

The Greens have said time and again that their proposal is that there should be a household allowance before the flat fee or metering kicks in. In other words, if you remain under what two adults with 2.4 children would use on average you're fine.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me as a father of two but I'm sure that doesn't suit rants about the Green Party.

Pete_Cavan

charlemont wrote: »

they will have another thing coming coming if they think this neighbourhood is going to stand aside and allow the installation of water meters.

Your attitude encapsulates everything that is wrong with this country. Not paying for water directly actually costs you more than if it was metered. The cost of installing and maintaining the pipe network, building and maintaining pumping/purification stations, maintaining reservoirs and purchasing of chemicals and testing the water already and will always exist, you just pay for it indirectly through taxes rather than directly through water charges.

With metered water charges people would be more careful about their use of water, if they have to pay for it they wont waste a drop. Also people will look at ways of reducing their water usage, such as rainwater harvesting for non-potable water so you dont have to pay to flush the toilet. Less water is needed and this reduces the cost of providing water. The entire mains pipe network is currently being upgraded so no more leaky pipes, meaning less water is lost in the system, meaning less cost.

Upgrading our water infrastructure and introducing metered water charges is one of the best thing this country can be doing at the minute as there will be huge savings and the money can be spent in other areas.

Charlemont, there is a good chance there is already a box for a meter installed at your house. If not, and you think the rest of your neighbourhood will stand by you to prevent boxes being installed I'd say you will be on your own because I doubt they will be as short sighted as you.

meditraitor

I cant wait for the first court cases that will result from the inevitable water charges....... ;-)


Mrs brown, single mother of 4 Jailed for not paying water charges in the wettest country in europe!

The Mirror, some time in 2011

P. Breathnach

CoalBucket wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, does anybody know how people with their own well will be charged or will they be charged at all ?

Not authoritative, but I was told by a senior local government officer that people with their own supplies can not be charged under present legislation. We have our own supply, but still pay through general taxation for the supply to other people.

meditraitor wrote: »

I cant wait for the first court cases that will result from the inevitable water charges....... ;-)


Mrs brown, single mother of 4 Jailed for not paying water charges in the wettest country in europe!

The Mirror, some time in 2011

When I want my politics guided by the The Mirror, I'll buy that paper. If our fictitious Mrs, Brown wants to avoid water charges, all she need do is capture the rainwater from her roof.

Lenny Lovett

feelingstressed wrote: »

I'm going to assume people with private wells are exempt?

Apparrantley not. Initially, as there are not metres in all areas a flat fee will be levied and everyone will be obliged to pay.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

If people have to pay for water they will think twice about wasting it so there should be more water available.

Only if it is metred and they are going to be paying for what they use. You see, this is what makes the whole scheme ridiculous. It will not stop people wasting water as if we're all paying a flat charge then it makes no difference whether we wast it or not we still have to pay the same.

bijapos wrote: »

He never said on Finucane that it was going to be a flat rate charge.

Where did he say that it was going to be a flat fee and not metered?

He didn't, Brian Lenihan said the other day that a flat charge would be brought in initially as metres will not be available to every property for some years to come.

Scofflaw wrote: »

It may be possible to roll out a metered charge in some council areas, but the OP is not, I think, interested in nuances that don't lend themselves to a bit of Green-bashing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

There's no need for that kind of sniping. I made valid points. I am not a fan of the Green Party, I will grant you. Why? Because I am involved in a business that strives to be eco friendly and we hit walls all the time because of ill thought out policies instigated by the Green Party. This is yet another of these ill conceived taxes. They have spent the past few years in Govt doing anything but what they should have been doing to promote the real Green agenda. There are many environmentally friendly changes they could have made that wouldn't have cost them or us much but would, in fact, have saved everyone money but they didn't.

Perhaps, Scofflaw, instead of attempting to ridicule me you'd be kind enough to tell us how they have made a change for the better in your life and business????

Callan57

I used to be against water charges until RTE did that prog on sustainable living & one of the families featured had a swimming pool, outdoor hot tub and a daughter who I think took 45 mins to have a shower ... now why the hell should I and my family pay for that?

As already pointed out anyone who doesn't want to pay for water can revert to collecting it off their roof and see how they like that!

flutered

the vast majority of people who live in rural areas pay their local council for water each year, i had a metre installed roughly 35 years ago.

juuge

It is noticable that everthing the Greens put forward ends up costing money. I really don't give a flying fkuc about tadpoles, carbon foot prints etc. We are a tiny island in the atlantic ocean and to think that what we can do as a country with a population less than that of Manchester, is somehow going to make a difference is nonsense. Go away Gormless your time is up, you've had your day and stop squirming to hold on to power it's pathetic.

Liam Byrne

Small point, folks; "metre" is a distance measurement, as in the length of the pipe bringing water to your home.

A "meter" is a device that measures usage.

thebman

I don't have a problem with the greens implementation assuming private wells are exempt and there is a standard allowance.

I do think that we must put the issue of fluoridation of the water on the table for discussion.

Scofflaw

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Apparrantley not. Initially, as there are not metres in all areas a flat fee will be levied and everyone will be obliged to pay.


Only if it is metred and they are going to be paying for what they use. You see, this is what makes the whole scheme ridiculous. It will not stop people wasting water as if we're all paying a flat charge then it makes no difference whether we wast it or not we still have to pay the same.


He didn't, Brian Lenihan said the other day that a flat charge would be brought in initially as metres will not be available to every property for some years to come.

There's no need for that kind of sniping. I made valid points. I am not a fan of the Green Party, I will grant you. Why? Because I am involved in a business that strives to be eco friendly and we hit walls all the time because of ill thought out policies instigated by the Green Party. This is yet another of these ill conceived taxes. They have spent the past few years in Govt doing anything but what they should have been doing to promote the real Green agenda. There are many environmentally friendly changes they could have made that wouldn't have cost them or us much but would, in fact, have saved everyone money but they didn't.

Perhaps, Scofflaw, instead of attempting to ridicule me you'd be kind enough to tell us how they have made a change for the better in your life and business????

In this case I'm forced to say that your criticism seems to me the part that was ill thought out. You criticised the introduction of water charges on a flat rate without any of the detail that has been added by other posters, which change the picture rather radically from your version, which has been the case with other comments by you on Green policy - hence my comment.

I'd be interested, naturally, to know which Green policies cause your business to "hit walls".

cordially,
Scofflaw

mikemac

Callan57 wrote: »

As already pointed out anyone who doesn't want to pay for water can revert to collecting it off their roof and see how they like that!

Well if you read the post above you it seems that people in rural areas that build their own well, service it and pay ESB for it and are going to pay the same flat rate charge.

Pay a charge to the council for what? What did the council provide? Nothing!:mad:
Why can't people in this situation go to council offices and sign a declaration and get out of this tax.
After all, you can't easily lie about having a well on your land

Lenny Lovett

Scofflaw wrote: »

In this case I'm forced to say that your criticism seems to me the part that was ill thought out. You criticised the introduction of water charges on a flat rate without any of the detail that has been added by other posters, which change the picture rather radically from your version, which has been the ase with other comments by you on Green policy - hence my comment.

I don't get what you're on about re the criticism but I will make my views on the water tax clear anyway:
Water charges should only be brought in when the water meters are in place so that people pay for waht they use. This will encourage people to conserve water as well as generate revenue. The way they're going to do it now is unfair as people will pay the same whether they live alone in a one bed house or as a family of seven in a five bed house using seven times as much water. If it was a proper Green initiative they would be promoting water conservation rather than using it as a revenue generator.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'd be interested, naturally, to know which Green policies cause your business to "hit walls".

cordially,
Scofflaw

The recycling policies and the wind energy policy.

bytey

Gormely can GFH if he thinks im paying for flouridated water
take the poison out and i might consider it .

Shea O'Meara

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Small point, folks; "metre" is a distance measurement, as in the length of the pipe bringing water to your home.

A "meter" is a device that measures usage.

Cordially,
Liam Byrne:D

the groutch

he should be worrying more about how to deal with the snow this time around (assuming he's not off on a sking holiday)

Shea O'Meara

We need to pay our way, yes.

To be honest, I always get a little confused on the issue of water charges and other charges such as for bins etc.
We pay tax, (those fortunate to have a job) and I'm wondering if we continue to separate these services and get charged accordingly can one not begin to ask the government for a statement at the end of each year showing where their tax money goes? Also, individualising seems to cause issues where people believe they were already paying for such services, why the new charges? Would it not make more sense to raise taxes to cover costs or on that note, lower them when water charges come in?
How far away are we from those living near parks getting bills for gardening etc.?
I can see water protests similar to the bin protests is all.

Scofflaw

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

I don't get what you're on about re the criticism but I will make my views on the water tax clear anyway:
Water charges should only be brought in when the water meters are in place so that people pay for waht they use. This will encourage people to conserve water as well as generate revenue. The way they're going to do it now is unfair as people will pay the same whether they live alone in a one bed house or as a family of seven in a five bed house using seven times as much water. If it was a proper Green initiative they would be promoting water conservation rather than using it as a revenue generator.

I agree, but the plan, as far as I can see, is still to introduce metering.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

The recycling policies and the wind energy policy.

How do they cause your business to hit brick walls, though?

cordially,
Scofflaw

meditraitor

P. Breathnach wrote: »

When I want my politics guided by the The Mirror, I'll buy that paper. If our fictitious Mrs, Brown wants to avoid water charges, all she need do is capture the rainwater from her roof.

Your politics are guided by papers? sorry to hear that.

InigoMontoya

CoalBucket wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, does anybody know how people with their own well will be charged or will they be charged at all ?

I can't see on what basis you could charge someone for a service they don't avail of. I realise that they currently do so indirectly via taxes, but that's not the same as directly charging them for water they don't get.

juuge wrote: »

It is noticable that everthing the Greens put forward ends up costing money. I really don't give a flying fkuc about tadpoles, carbon foot prints etc. We are a tiny island in the atlantic ocean and to think that what we can do as a country with a population less than that of Manchester, is somehow going to make a difference is nonsense. Go away Gormless your time is up, you've had your day and stop squirming to hold on to power it's pathetic.

It's less (nothing?) to do with carbon footprints or tadpoles(!) and more to do with paying for a service.

I agree with the last part though.

seaniedearg

there was a journalist on newstalk just dere saying we are in a situation just like when al gore and george bush junior went to the american courts...

al gore caved in to protect democracy, but labour fine gael want an election to protect democracy..

a four year plan with one years mandate on the clock?

interesting times alright bosco, and j gormely wants to do the work of the dail in a back room...what is the dail for then?

DarkJager

I'd find it hard to think I'm the only one getting sick to death of Captain Planet and his wonderful ideas he's coming out with. Everything the Greens put forward is costing us money in taxes or levies, all under the guise of "saving the planet". Its time for this green nonsense to get out of the car (never mind take a back seat) as there are much more important concerns for people now than "carbon footprints" and whatever other bollixology they've terms for now.

Come back to us in about 30 years time with your plans Gormley, when we might have 2 cents to rub together again. For the present however, take your sorry party and gtfo.

Lenny Lovett

Scofflaw wrote: »

I agree, but the plan, as far as I can see, is still to introduce metering.

Yes, the plan is to introduce metering but that is a long way off (Several years). There simply isn't the money to install meters right now so in the meantime we will all pay the same regardless of whether we have a swimming pool and eight kids or are single and live in a one bed flat. Not fair is it? Our factory has it's own water supply yet we will still have to pay water charges. WTF is that all about? What we will pay would be enough to take at least one more person off the Dole.

Scofflaw wrote: »

How do they cause your business to hit brick walls, though?
cordially,
Scofflaw

In a few ways but I'll give you a couple of examples:
1. One of our buisinesses manufactures paper products. We have a plant in France which recycles paper from bring centres and converts it into a new product for us. We wanted to do the same here but it is impossible for a few reasons: A. The Dept of Environment provide grants to Community Schemes to collect waste paper and shred it for horse bedding. These organisations are using grant aid to buy the waste paper thus pushing the price sky high (in excess of €120 per tonne compared to €40 on the continent) and the paper is leaving the recycle chain hence none left for us to make into new paper products. This is also forcing farmers to destry the straw that was previously used for animal bedding by burning it... Not very Green eh?

2. We have been fighting a battle for nearly two years to install wind turbines and are being snookered by a mountain of red tape and excessive regulation again eminating from the Dept of the Environment...

so maybe now you understand why I have no time for the Greens here. On the other hand the Green movement on the Continent is extremely proactive and forward thinking. I think power went to their heads here?

Cordially,

Lenny!

Scofflaw

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Yes, the plan is to introduce metering but that is a long way off (Several years). There simply isn't the money to install meters right now so in the meantime we will all pay the same regardless of whether we have a swimming pool and eight kids or are single and live in a one bed flat. Not fair is it? Our factory has it's own water supply yet we will still have to pay water charges. WTF is that all about? What we will pay would be enough to take at least one more person off the Dole.

What I'm asking is how you know this to be a fact, though. I appreciate it may be what is introduced in the Budget, but it hasn't been introduced, and the last public statements I can find by Gormley on the subject (about 3 weeks ago) he's talking about metered charges.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

In a few ways but I'll give you a couple of examples:
1. One of our buisinesses manufactures paper products. We have a plant in France which recycles paper from bring centres and converts it into a new product for us. We wanted to do the same here but it is impossible for a few reasons: A. The Dept of Environment provide grants to Community Schemes to collect waste paper and shred it for horse bedding. These organisations are using grant aid to buy the waste paper thus pushing the price sky high (in excess of €120 per tonne compared to €40 on the continent) and the paper is leaving the recycle chain hence none left for us to make into new paper products. This is also forcing farmers to destry the straw that was previously used for animal bedding by burning it... Not very Green eh?

No, it doesn't sound very green - but I'm slightly surprised that community schemes manage to have quite such an impact! Are you sure that it's purely the Community Schemes pushing up the prices of waste paper (as opposed to, say, Chinese demand), and how does the existence of paper bedding "force" the farmers to destroy the straw?

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

2. We have been fighting a battle for nearly two years to install wind turbines and are being snookered by a mountain of red tape and excessive regulation again eminating from the Dept of the Environment...

The last time I looked at an issue like that - with a biomass power plant in Monaghan - it seemed that the "red tape" complained about there was pretty much just good practice. What particular issue snookers you here?

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

so maybe now you understand why I have no time for the Greens here. On the other hand the Green movement on the Continent is extremely proactive and forward thinking. I think power went to their heads here?

To be honest, they've been, if anything, a bit more proactive and forward thinking in government than they were in opposition. It's perhaps worth bearing in mind that while I often support the Green party, it's fundamentally because the alternatives are much worse from an environmental perspective.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Lenny Lovett

Scofflaw wrote: »

What I'm asking is how you know this to be a fact, though. I appreciate it may be what is introduced in the Budget, but it hasn't been introduced, and the last public statements I can find by Gormley on the subject (about 3 weeks ago) he's talking about metered charges.

Mr Lenihan said on Radio on Thursday last, that because ther meters weren't in place across the country the only way they could implement it now is by way of a flat charge. You must admit that no matter who was in power, installing meters for every property in the country would take years. So in my mind they need to base their charges on occupancy and other factors such as size of property/number of bathrooms/additional water use etc.

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, it doesn't sound very green - but I'm slightly surprised that community schemes manage to have quite such an impact! Are you sure that it's purely the Community Schemes pushing up the prices of waste paper (as opposed to, say, Chinese demand), and how does the existence of paper bedding "force" the farmers to destroy the straw?

Different types of paper are used for different recycled products. It's a bit too complex to detail here but I would happily explain it if you wish. The farmers are forced to burn the straw because what else can they do with it? Their market is being swallowed up by the use of alternative bedding products. This in turn is reducing the natural compost that came as a by product of the bedding too so yet another "Green" use done away with. Like I say, ill thought out when it comes to the consequences. No discussion with the stake holders.

Scofflaw wrote: »

The last time I looked at an issue like that - with a biomass power plant in Monaghan - it seemed that the "red tape" complained about there was pretty much just good practice. What particular issue snookers you here?

Good practice is a matter of opinion and is not a one size fits all. One of the particular issues we have problems with are getting the approval from the Energy Agency and also the hook up with the ESB. The cart has been put before the horse on many of the Green policies again with no desire to listen and learn from the actual users/stake holders.

Scofflaw wrote: »

To be honest, they've been, if anything, a bit more proactive and forward thinking in government than they were in opposition. It's perhaps worth bearing in mind that while I often support the Green party, it's fundamentally because the alternatives are much worse from an environmental perspective.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I agree that the opposition is equally as poor and bereft as the Greens but the ideas I detailed in my previous post would and could be easily implemented at minimal cost but they seem to prefer the options that hurt their potential voters. Crazy!

Amhran Nua

Two questions:

Are we going to see our taxes reduced by that amount which currently goes towards maintenance and upgrading of the water systems?

Are these water charges going to be ring fenced to deal specifically with water costs, and if not, why not?

ei.sdraob

CoalBucket wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, does anybody know how people with their own well will be charged or will they be charged at all ?

You can bet that people with private wells will pay as well, the Greens have a hard on for shafting the rural people. And fairness doesnt come into their ideas of taxation, the polluter pays principle was all hot air.

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Two questions:

Are we going to see our taxes reduced by that amount which currently goes towards maintenance and upgrading of the water systems?

Of course not. This proposal exists in the context of a need to increase the total tax take.

Are these water charges going to be ring fenced to deal specifically with water costs, and if not, why not?

I hope not. Ring-fencing taxes is a bad idea.

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Of course not. This proposal exists in the context of a need to increase the total tax take.

So why not just increase the tax take? Nobody is going to be fooled by calling it a water tax if its not being used to deal with the water problems, if anything it will reduce even further the Greens' ragged credibility, if that's even possible at this stage. Especially when nothing actually changes with the water supply situation after a few years. I'm certainly not happy about paying a water tax if its being funnelled straight into paying for middle management in the HSE.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I hope not. Ring-fencing taxes is a bad idea.

Using taxes for the purpose for which they were levied is a bad idea now?

Thomas Bateman

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

So we have John Gormley droning on about the need for water charges again on the Marian Finucane show now. While I agree we should pay for water, we should be paying by use, not a flat fee as they are going to implement. Most councils have installed water metres on the properties in their areas over the past few years so why not charge by use? Why should I pay for my neighbours eight children's water use? Yet another ill thought out Green policy.

Thats what you get with people like Senior. Gormley, they talk the love of nature then charge you for one of its resources. What a Grade-A fool, this country needs an election to get rid of these people.

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So why not just increase the tax take? Nobody is going to be fooled by calling it a water tax if its not being used to deal with the water problems, if anything it will reduce even further the Greens' ragged credibility, if that's even possible at this stage. Especially when nothing actually changes with the water supply situation after a few years. I'm certainly not happy about paying a water tax if its being funnelled straight into paying for middle management in the HSE.

The idea is to increase the total tax take in a way that might also influence people to behave in desirable ways -- in this instance, to conserve water.

Using taxes for the purpose for which they were levied is a bad idea now?

No. Ring-fencing taxes is a bad idea.

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The idea is to increase the total tax take in a way that might also influence people to behave in desirable ways -- in this instance, to conserve water.

I haven't especially noticed the public acting in undesireable ways as regards water usage - the largest users of water are industrial and agricultural in nature. And they already pay rates. If the water rates were to be used to set up a proper water system, like seperating "grey" water from potable water prior to use, updating the infrastructure so more than 50% of it didn't leak out before anyone got to use it in the first place, and various other improvements like ensuring that major cities didn't get spore infections, would that not be much more desireable? Even by fixing the leaks you've halved public consumption without anyone changing their behaviour.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

No. Ring-fencing taxes is a bad idea.

Using taxes for the purpose for which they were levied is a bad idea now?

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

... Using taxes for the purpose for which they were levied is a bad idea now?

I repeat: ring-fencing taxes is a bad idea.

[If I say it often enough...]

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I repeat: ring-fencing taxes is a bad idea.

[If I say it often enough...]

So is it not clear to you that enabling taxes levied for one purpose to be funnelled off to another purpose promotes graft and corruption, and provides an incentive for the state to levy taxes like a "childrens' heart surgery fee" to pay for quangos which are little better than political bargaining chips?

thebman

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I repeat: ring-fencing taxes is a bad idea.

[If I say it often enough...]

Maybe if you provide a reason ....

Ring fencing money is the only way taxpayers have of knowing where our money is being spent...

Otherwise it just goes on more expenses.

Scofflaw

There's a small issue with ring-fencing, which is that it has to be done by statute, according to Bunreacht:

All revenues of the State from whatever source arising shall, subject to such exception as may be provided by law, form one fund, and shall be appropriated for the purposes and in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities determined and imposed by law.

Making a piece of legislation ring-fencing the money from water charges to pay for water works gives you a situation where that money has to be spent on water works even if that isn't either the best use of tax money, or even necessary. You could amend the Bill every year to reflect the planned expenditure on the water works, but that's not very much different from putting the amount into the Budget.

Possibly I'm missing something completely?

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

... Making a piece of legislation ring-fencing the money from water charges to pay for water works gives you a situation where that money has to be spent on water works even if that isn't either the best use of tax money, or even necessary. You could amend the Bill every year to reflect the planned expenditure on the water works, but that's not very much different from putting the amount into the Budget....

Not to mention the problems that might arise because of unplanned under- or overspends, or major fluctuations in the need for funding.

And the more general problems there would be in managing public finances if ring-fencing became a feature of the system, and funds were ring-fenced all over the place. You could find yourself moving towards a system where state services were allocated on a pay-by-use basis.

Amhran Nua

Scofflaw wrote: »

You could amend the Bill every year to reflect the planned expenditure on the water works, but that's not very much different from putting the amount into the Budget.

Or, you could phrase the law so that the charges are adjusted according to expense. Relatively simple to do in this age of ubiquitous computerisation. Even the constitution stipulates "subject to such exception as may be provided by law".

I see no difficulty there.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Not to mention the problems that might arise because of unplanned under- or overspends, or major fluctuations in the need for funding.

Ring fencing funds doesn't mean that additional funds can't be added, to be made up at a later date. Or that if there is a surplus it can't be credited back to rate payers in the next tax year.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And the more general problems there would be in managing public finances if ring-fencing became a feature of the system, and funds were ring-fenced all over the place. You could find yourself moving towards a system where state services were allocated on a pay-by-use basis.

Lets start out with water and see how it goes. What you're ultimately saying is that the state must account for every cent in taxes as being of benefit to the taxpayer. Again, I have trouble understanding why that must neccessarily be a difficulty in this or any day and age. The alternative is a giant slush fund to be distributed as those who barely have a mandate see fit.

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

... Lets start out with water and see how it goes....

No. Let's not introduce unnecessary complications into the public finances.