Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
No water meter on properties or rubbish charges in UK (#false)
Options
Comments
-
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,z0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.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.
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.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.
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.
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.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.0 -
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.0 -
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.
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.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.
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.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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.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.0 -
-
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.0 -
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).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.
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.0 -
You don't need house-to-house water meters to implement that - that is not what the purpose of these meters is for.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.
Any money needed for the infrastructural improvements can easily be brought about through progressive taxation instead.
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.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.
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?)0 -
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.0 -
Water isn't. Potable drinking water most certainly is. The good news is, it's only the latter that will be metered.KyussBishop wrote: »Except water is not a scarce resource needing conservation in Ireland.0 -
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.oscarBravo wrote: »Water isn't. Potable drinking water most certainly is. The good news is, it's only the latter that will be metered.
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.0 -
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?0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
No, that's a misrepresentation.KyussBishop wrote: »In other words, a shortage of adequate infrastructure (with much of the existing infrastructure being incredibly leaky), not of resources...
Yes, it rains a lot in Ireland. Rainfall isn't the driver of scarcity in the supply of clean water here; the ability to treat and store it is. That ability will always be finite, which means that the supply is finite, which means it's a scarce resource.
You are suggesting that we should increase income tax in order to avoid the requirement to address the scarcity of a resource by managing demand for it. That's, to put it kindly, bonkers.0 -
Does water create a pollution or public health problem? No.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?
The solution to an inadequate supply of an abundant resource, is to increase the supply with better infrastructure, not to shift the cost of that infrastructure onto the less well off.
If you want to increase efficiency in the use of water supplies, provide people with incentives (carrot, not stick), by giving tax deductions on installation of water-efficient utilities in buildings - not by making the less well off pay more in general.
These water meters are for raising funds, and going down the road towards turning our water infrastructure into a sellable asset - we are nowhere near the point where water supplies warrant creating a more regressive tax system.0 -
If you want to increase efficiency in the use of water supplies, provide people with incentives (carrot, not stick), by giving tax deductions on installation of water-efficient utilities in buildings - not by making the less well off pay more in general.
Nobody values something they get for nothing.
Should everyone receive free food as well?0 -
It's not an either/or decision - given funds from the EU, it's easy to do both at once, and lacking that doesn't warrant creating a more regressive tax system, it warrants pushing for the EU harder for proper stimulus programs.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.0 -
We need that infrastructure anyway as our population increases, and a huge portion of that water is lost to infrastructure that leaks a significant amount of that water (making it largely a problem of infrastructural inefficiency/waste, not of drinking water supply).oscarBravo wrote: »No, that's a misrepresentation.
Yes, it rains a lot in Ireland. Rainfall isn't the driver of scarcity in the supply of clean water here; the ability to treat and store it is. That ability will always be finite, which means that the supply is finite, which means it's a scarce resource.
You are suggesting that we should increase income tax in order to avoid the requirement to address the scarcity of a resource by managing demand for it. That's, to put it kindly, bonkers.
We even have a fair size amount of idle labour and construction resources needed to get going on such a project as well, which is being utterly wasted right now (a real/physical loss to our economy).
Switching over to regressive taxes, for a system that needs upgrading/development anyway, just ensures the least well off shoulder the burden of funding those upgrades, instead of it being spread more progressively.
You also don't need to fund this infrastructural development with taxes, because public spending is as easily funded by EU level bonds or money creation (as much as people disagree on the latter part, don't debate it unless willing to state and defend the economic school you support - if that's neoclassical/mainstream, you won't be able to defend it) - it's a once off cost as well, vs the constant neverending cost of meters.0 -
The solution to an inadequate supply of anything is a combination of increasing supply and curbing demand.KyussBishop wrote: »The solution to an inadequate supply of an abundant resource, is to increase the supply with better infrastructure, not to shift the cost of that infrastructure onto the less well off.
Leaving aside the absurdity of the proposal that tax deductions (because we are so in a position to afford tax breaks right now) should only be available to those who can afford to retrofit their plumbing; further leaving aside the rather obvious flaw that I can have the most water-efficient fixtures in the world and still leave my sprinklers on all night: why is it necessary to reject the stick out of hand and demand nothing but carrot?If you want to increase efficiency in the use of water supplies, provide people with incentives (carrot, not stick), by giving tax deductions on installation of water-efficient utilities in buildings - not by making the less well off pay more in general.
Why can't we apply your argument to electricity? We shouldn't be metering electricity; it's discriminatory against the poor. We should offer tax breaks for the installation of energy-efficient appliances, and provide everyone with all the electricity they need, paid for by the exchequer. Why should people who use more electricity pay more than people who use less?0 -
Yes, that's a supply problem that needs to be addressed. But the fact that efficiencies can be achieved on the supply side doesn't negate the need to introduce demand mitigation measures also.KyussBishop wrote: »We need that infrastructure anyway as our population increases, and a huge portion of that water is lost to infrastructure that leaks a significant amount of that water (making it largely a problem of infrastructural inefficiency/waste, not of drinking water supply).
Two things: why is a water bill a tax, if an electricity bill isn't? Secondly, why must every revenue-raising measure be judged solely on the one-dimensional metric of "progressivity"? If you keep doing that, all you're really doing is demanding that the government further distort one of the most progressive income tax regimes on the planet, all to satisfy that one naive criterion.Switching over to regressive taxes, for a system that needs upgrading/development anyway, just ensures the least well off shoulder the burden of funding those upgrades, instead of it being spread more progressively.
If you're going to turn this into yet another argument that nobody needs to pay for anything because the government can magic the money out of thin air to avoid having to levy taxes, you can have the discussion to yourself.You also don't need to fund this infrastructural development with taxes, because public spending is as easily funded by EU level bonds or money creation (as much as people disagree on the latter part, don't debate it unless willing to state and defend the economic school you support - if that's neoclassical/mainstream, you won't be able to defend it) - it's a once off cost as well, vs the constant neverending cost of meters.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22733
Water charges aren't laying the groundwork for privatisation. The government has stated repeatedly that Irish Water isn't going to be privatised.0 -
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »Water charges aren't laying the groundwork for privatisation. The government has stated repeatedly that Irish Water isn't going to be privatised.
This Government has a finite time. All good things come to an end. Privatization will come in the end and maybe for the better, so long as there is investment in the infrastructure, something that one could not accuse the LA s of doing.0 -
Advertisement
-
We're not going to do anything other than increase the destruction of our public services and selloff of national assets, for the next decade or so, so long as Europe isn't providing the necessary help - I don't have the insular view of policymaking stopping at Ireland, as talking about these topics without considering what should be done at a European level, is pointless (we have after all, handed over critical aspects of our sovereignty, and significant aspects of control over policymaking to Europe).oscarBravo wrote: »Leaving aside the absurdity of the proposal that tax deductions (because we are so in a position to afford tax breaks right now) should only be available to those who can afford to retrofit their plumbing; further leaving aside the rather obvious flaw that I can have the most water-efficient fixtures in the world and still leave my sprinklers on all night: why is it necessary to reject the stick out of hand and demand nothing but carrot?
We have the resources in manpower and industry, to retrofit those services, and Europe is making us leave those resources idle - and for no good reason.
People shouldn't lose sight of the physical resources available to us, when talking about economics and 'money' - something easily provided by Europe, for the benefit of all of Europe.
When you design the tax system, you balance the damage caused by moving towards a regressive system (at the worst possible time in recent economic history - when the less well off are already being hammered by an economic crisis), against the damage caused by extremely infrequent water shortages, that are easily rectified by fixing broken infrastructure (something that has to be done anyway).
Who also, would be wasting water by 'leaving their sprinklers on all night' - there isn't a massive waste of water because of people abusing the supply of it, it is because the system is leaking an enormous amount of water.
What is with all of these false analogies in this thread? Fuel: Not a renewable resource, scarce; Carbon: It's polluting, water isn't; Electricity: Again, vast majority of generation is non-renewable, a lot of the service is provided through extraction of scarce resources.oscarBravo wrote: »Why can't we apply your argument to electricity? We shouldn't be metering electricity; it's discriminatory against the poor. We should offer tax breaks for the installation of energy-efficient appliances, and provide everyone with all the electricity they need, paid for by the exchequer. Why should people who use more electricity pay more than people who use less?
We do actually have tax breaks here for energy efficient appliances.0
Advertisement