No water meter on properties or rubbish charges in UK (#false)

mogrady14

Friends living in the South East of Britain don't have to pay for water or rubbish collection. The SE of Britain is hotter than here and they get less rain and they still don't pay for water. Nor do they pay for refuse charges. Most of my friends were to college in UK and never paid water charages. When they started working they still didn't pay water charges. There were no water meters on the properties.

In Ireland there is also a tax on houses. Supposedly the household tax is to pay for services but we already pay for services like rubbish collection and water.

Whether u are on 100,000 euro in the public sector or are on the dole, you still are expected to pay even the same amount. Wouldn't it be fairer to raise income tax?

If we are paying the household charge to fund services- why do we have to pay water charges and for rubbish collection?

[MOD]People in the SE of the UK do pay water charges.[/MOD]

DM addict

You do pay for water in the UK. Also things like bin collections are covered through council tax.

Rascasse

1. They do pay water charges.

2. They also pay council taxt. Someone in the South East of England would pay between £900 (small flat) to £3000 (large detached house) per year in council tax.

sneakyST

They are telling you porkies. I pay around £1200 council tax which includes refuse collection, plus water and sewerage on top. If they aren't working they will get special rates.

@Rascasse - Council tax isn't based on house size, its based on the area you live in and historical valuations

spank_inferno

I think the op needs to look into property tax rates paid in the UK compared tio here.

bumper234

And then there's the BEDROOM tax!

spank_inferno

bumper234 wrote: »

And then there's the BEDROOM tax!

Again... No such thing.
All the "bedroom tax" is, is a reduction in rent allowence based on unoccupied bedrooms.

The rent allowance system here is broadly similar.

Boulevardier

The Council tax in England includes rubbish charges, which in my opinion should also be included here in our property tax.

The water charge in England facilitates privatisation, which is likely to happen here as well in a few years, whetever the government say.

These are 2 instances where Irish householders will have to pay direct and regressive charges for services which they used not to have to directly pay for, with no compensating reductions in any other taxes or charges.

That is an outrageous rip-off. Average Irish people are being screwed into the ground. We need to demand that all waste and water costs are included in a progressive property tax or some other local tax.

spank_inferno

Boulevardier wrote: »

The Council tax in England includes rubbish charges, which in my opinion should also be included here in our property tax.

The water charge in England facilitates privatisation, which is likely to happen here as well in a few years, whetever the government say.

These are 2 instances where Irish householders will have to pay direct and regressive charges for services which they used not to have to directly pay for, with no compensating reductions in any other taxes or charges.

That is an outrageous rip-off. Average Irish people are being screwed into the ground. We need to demand that all waste and water costs are included in a progressive property tax or some other local tax.

UK council rates are still probably higher than our LPT, + waste, + water.

I would agree with you regarding "Irish Water", whether its semi-state or fully private.

The charges are not regressive, they are in fact the opposite.

The reason there was not compensating reductions is because the cost of public services in Ireland is still too high.

I'm happier to pay service-by-service than in 1 charge that has no flexibility or hope of competition.

http://www.southeastwater.co.uk/your-account/about-your-bill/water-charges#.UgTpk9K1Hms

The average domestic bill for the year 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014 is £201.

DoesNotCompute

Boulevardier wrote: »

The Council tax in England includes rubbish charges, which in my opinion should also be included here in our property tax.

I'm guessing that this is a non-starter given that some (if not most) Councils in Ireland have already handed over waste collection to private companies.

everdead.ie

Boulevardier wrote: »

The Council tax in England includes rubbish charges, which in my opinion should also be included here in our property tax.

The water charge in England facilitates privatisation, which is likely to happen here as well in a few years, whetever the government say.

These are 2 instances where Irish householders will have to pay direct and regressive charges for services which they used not to have to directly pay for, with no compensating reductions in any other taxes or charges.

That is an outrageous rip-off. Average Irish people are being screwed into the ground. We need to demand that all waste and water costs are included in a progressive property tax or some other local tax.

We are paying for taking a large amount of people out of the tax bracket and this is no longer being covered by the Construction Industry which is very heavy on taxes as far as I know.

Boulevardier

The direct charge/competition/privatisation agenda is intended to have two crucial effects: firstly, driving down wages and working conditions for those in the industry, and secondly, protecting the better off from higher progressive taxes.

The alternative is a public service model of inclusive provision, financed by progressive taxes.

L1011

They're likely paying 1400-2000 a year in council tax to get their "free" bin collection. 200-400 for water and sewerage based on an estimate, Southern Water are heavily pushing metering as a money saving option at the moment.

Amirani

Boulevardier wrote: »

These are 2 instances where Irish householders will have to pay direct and regressive charges for services which they used not to have to directly pay for, with no compensating reductions in any other taxes or charges.

They're definitely not regressive?

People with more expensive houses pay more property tax.

People who use more refuse (generally refuse output has a positive correlation with wealth) pay more refuse charges.

Please explain how they're regressive taxes again?

donaghs

DM addict wrote: »

You do pay for water in the UK. Also things like bin collections are covered through council tax.

Worth noting that our existing taxes are/were already paying for our water services.
I agree with the idea of paying for usage, but in the current climate, adding new taxes on top of our existing ones just looks like revenue raising exercises.

L1011

donaghs wrote: »

Worth noting that our existing taxes are/were already paying for our water services.

Except our existing taxes aren't paying for everything they're meant to pay for, hence the defecit.

djpbarry

donaghs wrote: »

...in the current climate, adding new taxes on top of our existing ones just looks like revenue raising exercises.

Why else would new taxes be levied?

Boulevardier

Usage taxes are regressive because they are not based on wealth or on ability to pay. They come down hardest on homes with a high ratio of dependents to all occupants.

New taxes of this kind are not the answer to our revenue shortfalls. Higher income tax, and wealth tax, should be the first tax sources to be called on.

FG seems to be trying to con the people of Ireland into buying into a host of regressive taxes in order to protect their own wealthy backers. The pity is, we are being fooled.

donaghs

djpbarry wrote: »

Why else would new taxes be levied?

To reform the taxation system mainly. e.g. new tax for water based on usage (encourage more environmentally friendly water usage, etc) but then, say, reduce VAT to stimulate growth.

I accept the point that our government is not raising enough revenue to pay its bills. New taxes aren't always the answer. Taxation seems to be the easier option than cutting government spending.

djpbarry

Boulevardier wrote: »

New taxes of this kind are not the answer to our revenue shortfalls. Higher income tax, and wealth tax, should be the first tax sources to be called on.

They've already been called on - Ireland has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world.

The shortfall cannot be made up without broadening the tax base.

djpbarry

donaghs wrote: »

Taxation seems to be the easier option than cutting government spending.

Largely because the same people who argue against tax increases also argue against spending cuts.

ardmacha

The usual rants.
"Taxes are regressive" - while then using the example of Britain where bin charges are in your house tax. At least here if you dump less you pay less and with a water meter if you use less you pay less.
"Cut Spending" - which spending exactly do you propose to cut?
"wealth tax" - might a tax on houses by value not be a start
"our existing taxes pay for water" - not really, there is a large deficit, existing taxes are not enough

Lockstep

Currently living in the UK: we have to pay both water charges and council tax.
Council tax is crippling as well: at least £100 a month in Nottingham. It can be as high as £300 for a fancier house.
Water charges are normally £200-400 a year as well.

Mr.Micro

Lockstep wrote: »

Currently living in the UK: we have to pay both water charges and council tax.
Council tax is crippling as well: at least £100 a month in Nottingham. It can be as high as £300 for a fancier house.
Water charges are normally £200-400 a year as well.

Irish people have gotten away for decades not paying this, not paying that. Now we are being dragged kicking and screaming to the realization that services cost and have to be paid for. I lived in the UK for a long time and I agree, at the start of every year one owed the Council tax and water charges, no matter what. Crippling indeed, but what choice is there?

Am Chile

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Irish people have gotten away for decades not paying this, not paying that. Now we are being dragged kicking and screaming to the realization that services cost and have to be paid for. I lived in the UK for a long time and I agree, at the start of every year one owed the Council tax and water charges, no matter what. Crippling indeed, but what choice is there?

What a crock of bs-since domestic rates being abolished in 1977- are you seriously suggesting we have being getting free services? last time I checked the council workers who work in the water department and other departments werent working for free-they are being paid through our taxes to provide the services that they have being providing- and then we have some sheeple suggest irish people arent paying their way.

SpaceTime

As students, you must have been in student accommodation or somehow escaped the council tax dragnet.

Council Tax in England is pretty seriously expensive and really makes our Local Property Tax and commercial bin charges look rather insignificant in comparison.

One of my relatives in London is paying about £300/month in property tax and has metered water on top of that and the rent is absolutely astronomically expensive for what is quit a basic apartment.

For anything that's not a hovel, you pay a completely insane amount of money in London anyway. I'm not sure about the rest of the SE, but it does seem quite expensive in general.

The electricity's a bit cheaper, and so's the gas but overall the cost of living's nuts.

Himself and his partner also have rather unimpressive incomes for their education level and the fact that they're mid-way up their career ladder.

---

Also, a friend of mine in London fell into arrears on council tax because she'd lost her job and the council sent in bailiffs and took her car (which she needed to get to work), her TV and most of her furniture.

...

Quite honestly, Ireland's not *THAT* bad. We do a hell of a lot of moaning and going on about it being awful. It's got its problems but it's really not that bad a place to live (assuming you can get a job ... and even if you can't you certainly won't be left destitute either)

oscarBravo

Am Chile wrote: »

last time I checked the council workers who work in the water department and other departments werent working for free-they are being paid through our taxes...

...and borrowings.

Mr.Micro

Am Chile wrote: »

What a crock of bs-since domestic rates being abolished in 1977- are you seriously suggesting we have being getting free services? last time I checked the council workers who work in the water department and other departments werent working for free-they are being paid through our taxes to provide the services that they have being providing- and then we have some sheeple suggest irish people arent paying their way.

Did we pay rates? No we did not, for water... no. Businesses have been paying the rates all this time and funds from the Government has been the source of funding for the local authorities. Our UK cousins and many other nations pay taxes and these charges as well. We have had the worst crisis in the history of the state and there is not enough money to go round, so like it or not we the public have to pay, in addition to our taxes. There is little choice.

SpaceTime

A lot of areas of Ireland did pay water charges. For example, they were quite the norm in Cork until the 1996/7 !!

If you're in Dublin City Council / former Dublin County Council areas they didn't exist, but if you were in Dún Laoghaire they were levied too.

hfallada

I cant understand why people complain about having to pay for water and bins charges in Ireland. You have already being paying for them when you paid taxes you just didnt know. Water treatment cost €1,2 billion per year, €1 billion is paid for by the exchequer. Now the Government is making you pay for it directly.

Am Chile

hfallada wrote: »

I cant understand why people complain about having to pay for water and bins charges in Ireland. You have already being paying for them when you paid taxes you just didnt know. Water treatment cost €1,2 billion per year, €1 billion is paid for by the exchequer. Now the Government is making you pay for it directly.

Have you ever stopped to consider the people in mortgage arrears,families and single parents on low incomes who just wont be able to afford to pay water charges who will then face being threatened with water restrictions because they couldnt afford to pay? this will be a very regressive charge for people already struggling~ il be very surprised if water charges dont meet the same level of opposition as they did last time around,z

KyussBishop

As a proportion of income, consumption charges (like the water tax) usually are more regressive than other forms of tax (including getting the same charges through income tax); higher earners don't use a proportionally greater amount of water than lower earners (and same can be said for most other consumed goods), so it is automatically more regressive (as a proportion of income) than how funds would be sourced on income tax.

Implementing the tax this way, does two things:
1: It allows a faux-justification for implementing a regressive tax
2: It allows a faux-justification for implementing water meters, as a means for allowing privatization of the water infrastructure later on. Sure, right now it may be unthinkable, but if the countries finances get worse, I could easily see it getting put on the table - worsening financial trouble is an effective excuse for pushing through nearly anything, and disingenuously pretending it was unexpected and can't be helped.

Mr.Micro

KyussBishop wrote: »

As a proportion of income, consumption charges (like the water tax) usually are more regressive than other forms of tax (including getting the same charges through income tax); higher earners don't use a proportionally greater amount of water than lower earners (and same can be said for most other consumed goods), so it is automatically more regressive (as a proportion of income) than how funds would be sourced on income tax.

Implementing the tax this way, does two things:
1: It allows a faux-justification for implementing a regressive tax
2: It allows a faux-justification for implementing water meters, as a means for allowing privatization of the water infrastructure later on. Sure, right now it may be unthinkable, but if the countries finances get worse, I could easily see it getting put on the table - worsening financial trouble is an effective excuse for pushing through nearly anything, and disingenuously pretending it was unexpected and can't be helped.

I would say you are right, that some way down the line the water authority(ies) will be privatized, just like happened in the UK. As the cost of water supply and treatment becomes more expensive it will be lucrative for private companies to take up the mantle. The LA in Ireland never looked after the infrastructure and all the leaking pipes so the problems will be passed on to private companies.

macsauce

mogrady14 wrote: »

Friends living in the South East of Britain don't have to pay for water or rubbish collection. The SE of Britain is hotter than here and they get less rain and they still don't pay for water. Nor do they pay for refuse charges. Most of my friends were to college in UK and never paid water charages. When they started working they still didn't pay water charges. There were no water meters on the properties.

In Ireland there is also a tax on houses. Supposedly the household tax is to pay for services but we already pay for services like rubbish collection and water.

Whether u are on 100,000 euro in the public sector or are on the dole, you still are expected to pay even the same amount. Wouldn't it be fairer to raise income tax?

If we are paying the household charge to fund services- why do we have to pay water charges and for rubbish collection?

No, it wouldn't. If you enjoy running water or a bin collection then you should pay for it. I don't fancy subsidising someone else.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

mogrady14 wrote: »

Friends living in the South East of Britain don't have to pay for water or rubbish collection. The SE of Britain is hotter than here and they get less rain and they still don't pay for water. Nor do they pay for refuse charges.pay water charges and for rubbish collection?

Yes they do, why are deliberatley misrepresenting the situation.
They pay water charges and they pay very high levels of council tax.

Pete_Cavan

KyussBishop wrote: »

As a proportion of income, consumption charges (like the water tax) usually are more regressive than other forms of tax (including getting the same charges through income tax); higher earners don't use a proportionally greater amount of water than lower earners (and same can be said for most other consumed goods), so it is automatically more regressive (as a proportion of income) than how funds would be sourced on income tax.

Implementing the tax this way, does two things:
1: It allows a faux-justification for implementing a regressive tax
2: It allows a faux-justification for implementing water meters, as a means for allowing privatization of the water infrastructure later on. Sure, right now it may be unthinkable, but if the countries finances get worse, I could easily see it getting put on the table - worsening financial trouble is an effective excuse for pushing through nearly anything, and disingenuously pretending it was unexpected and can't be helped.

1: Consumption based charges encourage people to reduce their consumption, therefore reducing the cost of providing the service while increasing income. Making "those who can afford to pay" (which is usually defined as anybody but me) pay means cost of providing the service is likely to increase and no problems are solved. Progressive/regressive is largely irrelevant as there will be a free allowance.

2: The problem with the privitisation theory is our water network is worthless and no one would want to buy it. According to the Irish Water: Phase 1 Report by PwC, annual operating costs for the system are in the region of €700m and annual capital investment is in the order of €550 million (which is not enough). The introduction of metered water charging is expected to raise about €500 million in 2015 and income from non-domestic charges currently comes to €221 million. This could just about cover the operating costs, but leave nothing for capital investments. Without capital investments the operating costs would constantly increase as the network deteriorate. It would be an enormous liability for a private company.

woodoo

Plans afoot http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-10/water-meter-plans-may-swell-u-k-household-bills-telegraph-says.html

I have read a bit from people in the uk arguing against the meters. They say the meters will be used to drive down peoples consumption of water but they will steadily raise the cost per unit. The average person will be screwed by it.

KyussBishop

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

1: Consumption based charges encourage people to reduce their consumption, therefore reducing the cost of providing the service while increasing income. Making "those who can afford to pay" (which is usually defined as anybody but me) pay means cost of providing the service is likely to increase and no problems are solved. Progressive/regressive is largely irrelevant as there will be a free allowance.

When exactly has Ireland ever been short of rain/water? The primary reason we ever have restrictions on water-use implemented, is because the infrastructure is so incredibly leaky.

Progressive/regressive absolutely is relevant, because it means the less well off will be made to pay more than they do today - public services should be built upon progressive taxation, and there is no shortage of water to warrant consumption-based charges.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

2: The problem with the privitisation theory is our water network is worthless and no one would want to buy it. According to the Irish Water: Phase 1 Report by PwC, annual operating costs for the system are in the region of €700m and annual capital investment is in the order of €550 million (which is not enough). The introduction of metered water charging is expected to raise about €500 million in 2015 and income from non-domestic charges currently comes to €221 million. This could just about cover the operating costs, but leave nothing for capital investments. Without capital investments the operating costs would constantly increase as the network deteriorate. It would be an enormous liability for a private company.

Worthless? It's one of the best "sell access to a natural resource" rent-seeking opportunities out there - they can charge whatever they like once they own it, and it being a natural monopoly, people can do féck all about any price hikes.

SpaceTime

The main reason that we have water shortages is because of poor planning thanks to incompetence and corruption.

We created huge urban sprawl around Dublin and didn't put in the necessary water infrastructure to supply it.

There is simply insufficient reservoir capacity to supply greater Dublin area.

We haven't built major reservoirs since the 1950s in Dublin, Cork or anywhere really.

Pete_Cavan

KyussBishop wrote: »

When exactly has Ireland ever been short of rain/water? The primary reason we ever have restrictions on water-use implemented, is because the infrastructure is so incredibly leaky.

Levels of rain fall is irrelevant without adequate treatment and storage capacity and a distribution system to supply the water from where it is treated/stored to where it is consumed. Water meters help to control demand for water, and therefore volumes of treatment/storage capacity needed, and also provide important information to allow the distribution system to be managed more efficiently. Meters are the best way to identify leaks.

Progressive/regressive absolutely is relevant, because it means the less well off will be made to pay more than they do today - public services should be built upon progressive taxation, and there is no shortage of water to warrant consumption-based charges.

Public services should only be built upon progressive taxation when it is appropriate to do so. Do you think all carbon taxes should be lumped on people with high salaries regardless of carbon produced? How does that incentivise carbon reduction? In the case of carbon taxes and water charges the polluter pays principle is more applicable. The minimum free allowance will protect the less well off.

Worthless? It's one of the best "sell access to a natural resource" rent-seeking opportunities out there - they can charge whatever they like once they own it, and it being a natural monopoly, people can do féck all about any price hikes.

Water rates will be set by the Commission for Energy Regulation regardless of whether it is a public or private company so they cant "charge whatever they like". Even in the UK, where the industry has been entirely privatised, water rates are set by Ofwat. I have already given figures to show that water charges collected will only cover the operational costs of the service and contribute nothing to the inadequate current level of capital investment. Without capital investment, operational costs increase further. So yes, our water network is worth nothing to a private company.

djpbarry

woodoo wrote: »

I have read a bit from people in the uk arguing against the meters. They say the meters will be used to drive down peoples consumption of water but they will steadily raise the cost per unit. The average person will be screwed by it.

People have been arguing since the 80's that we'd "soon" be paying thousands of pounds per year for water here in the UK. It's still less than a pound per day in my case, which isn't exactly expensive.

donaghs

macsauce wrote: »

No, it wouldn't. If you enjoy running water or a bin collection then you should pay for it. I don't fancy subsidising someone else.

If you pay tax in Ireland, you will always be subsidising other people.

Godge

KyussBishop wrote: »

As a proportion of income, consumption charges (like the water tax) usually are more regressive than other forms of tax (including getting the same charges through income tax); higher earners don't use a proportionally greater amount of water than lower earners (and same can be said for most other consumed goods), so it is automatically more regressive (as a proportion of income) than how funds would be sourced on income tax.

Implementing the tax this way, does two things:
1: It allows a faux-justification for implementing a regressive tax
2: It allows a faux-justification for implementing water meters, as a means for allowing privatization of the water infrastructure later on. Sure, right now it may be unthinkable, but if the countries finances get worse, I could easily see it getting put on the table - worsening financial trouble is an effective excuse for pushing through nearly anything, and disingenuously pretending it was unexpected and can't be helped.

Yes, they are usually more regressive than other taxes but such regressive taxes have a history in Ireland and the rest of the world for other reasons which are based on societal benefit.

Excise duty on cigarettes and alcohol is a regressive tax aiming to reduce the costs associated with abuse of cigarettes and alcohol (or at least make those who are using them pay for them).

Similarly, excise duty on petrol acts to ration a finite natural resource and protects the environment.

Both water and bin charges fall into the same category, discouraging excessive use of water and encouraging recycling of waste.

KyussBishop

Godge wrote: »

Yes, they are usually more regressive than other taxes but such regressive taxes have a history in Ireland and the rest of the world for other reasons which are based on societal benefit.

Excise duty on cigarettes and alcohol is a regressive tax aiming to reduce the costs associated with abuse of cigarettes and alcohol (or at least make those who are using them pay for them).

Similarly, excise duty on petrol acts to ration a finite natural resource and protects the environment.

Both water and bin charges fall into the same category, discouraging excessive use of water and encouraging recycling of waste.

Except water is not a scarce resource needing conservation in Ireland. This is nothing other than a transfer of taxation methods down from progressive to regressive, likely laying the framework for privatization in the future (leading to a transfer of tax revenue, from public to private hands).

Transferring taxes from the wealthy to the less well off (and the later transfer of revenue from the public/government, to wealthy private hands), is not a societal benefit, particularly in times when the least well off are being squeezed harder than any time in the last couple of decades.

KyussBishop

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Levels of rain fall is irrelevant without adequate treatment and storage capacity and a distribution system to supply the water from where it is treated/stored to where it is consumed. Water meters help to control demand for water, and therefore volumes of treatment/storage capacity needed, and also provide important information to allow the distribution system to be managed more efficiently. Meters are the best way to identify leaks.

You don't need house-to-house water meters to implement that - that is not what the purpose of these meters is for.

Any money needed for the infrastructural improvements can easily be brought about through progressive taxation instead.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Public services should only be built upon progressive taxation when it is appropriate to do so. Do you think all carbon taxes should be lumped on people with high salaries regardless of carbon produced? How does that incentivise carbon reduction? In the case of carbon taxes and water charges the polluter pays principle is more applicable. The minimum free allowance will protect the less well off.
Water rates will be set by the Commission for Energy Regulation regardless of whether it is a public or private company so they cant "charge whatever they like". Even in the UK, where the industry has been entirely privatised, water rates are set by Ofwat. I have already given figures to show that water charges collected will only cover the operational costs of the service and contribute nothing to the inadequate current level of capital investment. Without capital investment, operational costs increase further. So yes, our water network is worth nothing to a private company.

Water is 'pollution' now? You are talking about a resource that is not scarce in this country, like fuel, and is not polluting, like carbon.

If the water network is worth nothing to private industry, why has it been entirely privatized in the UK then, and how do they pay for it? (subsidies? as in - socializing the losses, while privatizing the profits?)

alastair

KyussBishop wrote: »

Water is 'pollution' now? You are talking about a resource that is not scarce in this country, like fuel, and is not polluting, like carbon.

The outflow of your jacks must be unique. Irish water is also responsible for sewage treatment.

oscarBravo

KyussBishop wrote: »

Except water is not a scarce resource needing conservation in Ireland.

Water isn't. Potable drinking water most certainly is. The good news is, it's only the latter that will be metered.

KyussBishop

oscarBravo wrote: »

Water isn't. Potable drinking water most certainly is. The good news is, it's only the latter that will be metered.

In other words, a shortage of adequate infrastructure (with much of the existing infrastructure being incredibly leaky), not of resources; it's a far better investment of money, to build up the infrastructure with progressive taxation, instead of laying the groundwork for privatization.

We will need to be expanding this infrastructure anyway into the future, so there is no excuse to start stealthily funding that through more regressive means.

Godge

KyussBishop wrote: »

Except water is not a scarce resource needing conservation in Ireland. This is nothing other than a transfer of taxation methods down from progressive to regressive, likely laying the framework for privatization in the future (leading to a transfer of tax revenue, from public to private hands).

Transferring taxes from the wealthy to the less well off (and the later transfer of revenue from the public/government, to wealthy private hands), is not a societal benefit, particularly in times when the least well off are being squeezed harder than any time in the last couple of decades.

You obviously haven't lived in a part of the country that suffered low water pressure during the mini-drought this summer? Drinking water is a scarce resource.

Given that you only addressed the water charges point, I take it you agree that apparently regressive taxes such as excise duty, bin charges etc. that have societal benefits are acceptable despite their apparent regressiveness. Or should we abolish excise duty on cigarettes because more poorer people smoke?

Godge

KyussBishop wrote: »

In other words, a shortage of adequate infrastructure (with much of the existing infrastructure being incredibly leaky), not of resources; it's a far better investment of money, to build up the infrastructure with progressive taxation, instead of laying the groundwork for privatization.

We will need to be expanding this infrastructure anyway into the future, so there is no excuse to start stealthily funding that through more regressive means.

Not necessarily.

Rather than spending billions on water infrastructure, it might be better to spend that money on schools and hospitals while charging users for the water they use above the basic amount.