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

KyussBishop

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

These meters are not for demand mitigation - they are for taxing people. If the meters were for demand mitigation, they could easily only charge people if they go above a quota. They don't.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

If it's going to a public company, or a semi-state 100% owned by government, it is a tax.

If it is going to a private company, it is giving private control over a natural monopoly, and giving them guaranteed earnings and rent-seeking power over society, which is as good as a tax, and is worse, because it requires government to both give the profits to private interests, and to subsidize the losses - automatically costing the public more than it should.

I'm not asking government to distort anything, I'm saying don't change how it has been for decades, because it is the change they are making now that is making it more regressive.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

If you don't understand that banks already 'magic the money out of thin air' already, and that this makes up 95+% of the money supply, then no - it's not a discussion that can be had, as someone who doesn't understand the economic theory they support gets the monetary system (and thus practically all of macroeconomics) wrong, doesn't have much useful to say about macroeconomics themselves.

KyussBishop

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.

Government can say whatever they like now, and then when another financial squeeze happens in the future, government can then (if it's not a different one in power by then already) just disingenuously throw their hands up and say "sorry guys, no money, got to sell it off for the cash now".

Promises don't mean anything - least of all from a government where our 'Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources' has openly admitting breaking his promises to the public, saying "Isn't that what you tend to do during an election?", and even less when they are eventually not going to be around to keep any promises made anyway.

Chips Lovell

In that case, feel free to speculate that everything is on the table. They haven't decided to privatise education, healthcare, policing. But sure they might at some point....

Ahhhhh, another bash the LPT/Government thread! We are borrowing BILLIONS of Euro every year to pay for these services. That HAS to stop. It is time everyone paid for their own. With regards to water charges, the water infrastructure in Ireland is in dire straits and needs serious money to fix. Should we borrow that money or ask the users to pay? I know which I prefer. If we were to have the water and refuse included in our LPT, it would be at least 3 times the current charge.
The argument that we've lost our sovereignty is an empty one, while we are dependent on the rest of Europe to support our day to day living.
It is good to see that the revenue have begun taking the LPT from the wages/welfare of the 10% who didn't pay.
We have to learn to live within our means and it says little about us if we have to have others teach us how to do so.

djpbarry

KyussBishop wrote: »

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...

How do you know?

KyussBishop wrote: »

What is with all of these false analogies in this thread? Fuel: Not a renewable resource, scarce; Carbon: It's polluting, water isn't...

Waste water is.

KyussBishop wrote: »

If the meters were for demand mitigation, they could easily only charge people if they go above a quota.

I’m pretty sure that’s the plan?

KyussBishop wrote: »

If you don't understand that banks already 'magic the money out of thin air' already, and that this makes up 95+% of the money supply...

And that hasn’t caused any problems, has it?

Godge

KyussBishop wrote: »

These meters are not for demand mitigation - they are for taxing people. If the meters were for demand mitigation, they could easily only charge people if they go above a quota. They don't.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/householders-to-be-charged-for-drinking-water-from-october-2014-29445558.html

"Mr Hogan confirmed that leakages found on private properties would be fixed for free – first revealed in the Irish Independent – and that customers would be given a free allowance."

I think the above article settles that. Everyone gets a free allowance and therefore they charge if you go above a quota, therefore, to use your arguments they are for demand mitigation not taxing people.

KyussBishop wrote: »

If it's going to a public company, or a semi-state 100% owned by government, it is a tax.




.

ESB and Board Gais are semi-states 100% owned by the State. Does that mean my payments to them are taxes? If I switch to Airtricity, does that mean my tax bill goes down?

KyussBishop

djpbarry wrote: »

How do you know?

If it's being used as a justification for these meters, the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim.

djpbarry wrote: »

Waste water is.

What exactly are people meant to be wasting this water on, that it creates more pollution? (seeing a plain old water by itself, is not polluting)

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m pretty sure that’s the plan?

There is no policy decided and publicly disclosed, which quantifies any of that.

djpbarry wrote: »

And that hasn’t caused any problems, has it?

Sure, yes - it's showed that private control over money creation is undemocratic, giving banks/finanace enormous rent-seeking powers over society, and massive political power, and in general leads to massive abuse for private gain, with zero accountability.

We won't be losing fiat and going back to a commodity currency again, so we need to bring this enormously politically charged power over society, back under democratic control.

KyussBishop

Godge wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/householders-to-be-charged-for-drinking-water-from-october-2014-29445558.html

"Mr Hogan confirmed that leakages found on private properties would be fixed for free – first revealed in the Irish Independent – and that customers would be given a free allowance."

I think the above article settles that. Everyone gets a free allowance and therefore they charge if you go above a quota, therefore, to use your arguments they are for demand mitigation not taxing people.

It settles nothing without quantifying exactly how much leeway the policy provides - if it's anything less than a reasonable amount any household would need to get by on a day-to-day basis, then it is being brought in largely for taxation purposes.
They also obviously won't just go charging customers with leaks, an inflated bill (seeing as this is not an uncommon occurrence during winters), so of course they're going to fix that up for free.

Godge wrote: »

ESB and Board Gais are semi-states 100% owned by the State. Does that mean my payments to them are taxes? If I switch to Airtricity, does that mean my tax bill goes down?

In the former case, the difference is purely semantic as the money is still going towards providing a public service (just like any other taxes, except with an enforced profit-seeking policy), and in the latter case, it's profits going to private hands, not staying within a public service (and for a natural monopoly like water, this would give them enormous rent-seeking powers over society, that they should not have).

alastair

KyussBishop wrote: »

What exactly are people meant to be wasting this water on, that it creates more pollution? (seeing a plain old water by itself, is not polluting)

Most people would consider sewage a pollutant.

KyussBishop

alastair wrote: »

Most people would consider sewage a pollutant.

'Water' on its own is not sewage. What are people supposed to be wasting the water on, to create more sewage then?

People 'leaving their sprinklers on all night' (the only example anyone has come up with, of waste) does not create more sewage.

More dilute sewage is also not more 'pollution'.

Chips Lovell

He was talking about waste water, not wasting water.

KyussBishop

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

He was talking about waste water, not wasting water.

If there is to be more waste water, people have to be using/wasting more water to create it in the first place - and what exactly are they meant to be wasting this water on?

Nevermind that 'water' alone, isn't more polluting - which is the analogy people are trying to use, to compare water meters to carbon taxes.

Chips Lovell

He said waste water is a pollutant.

Hence the relevance of polluter pays principle.

KyussBishop

Taking waste water and diluting it, is not more pollution.

alastair

KyussBishop wrote: »

More dilute sewage is also not more 'pollution'.

Who says it's more dilute? The reality is that greater volumes of waste water = greater overhead of pollution management. There's a relationship between what goes in, and what goes out.

Chips Lovell

Higher volumes = higher costs.

KyussBishop

alastair wrote: »

Who says it's more dilute? The reality is that greater volumes of waste water = greater overhead of pollution management. There's a relationship between what goes in, and what goes out.

So what are people supposed to be doing to add extra unnecessary pollution to the waste water then?

Nobody has any answer to the supposed instances of waste/inefficiencies/pollution that are meant to be occurring, why such inefficiences are extraneous/avoidable, and why water meters are specifically needed to combat them.

It's a really simple question too: What are people meant to be doing, to create this extra waste, that they could avoid doing otherwise?

djpbarry

KyussBishop wrote: »

If it's being used as a justification for these meters, the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim.

Kind of difficult to measure consumption in the absence of meters, isn’t it?

KyussBishop wrote: »

Sure, yes - it's showed that private control over money creation is undemocratic, giving banks/finanace enormous rent-seeking powers over society, and massive political power, and in general leads to massive abuse for private gain, with zero accountability.

My point is that excessive money creation is bad, regardless of whether the source is public or private.

Every time somebody points out to you that governments conjuring money from thin air to pay for infrastructure isn’t sustainable, you come back with this “Oh but the banks do it” argument. But nobody is making any argument in support of anything banks have or have not done. It’s not a binary choice.

alastair

KyussBishop wrote: »

So what are people supposed to be doing to add extra unnecessary pollution to the waste water then?

Nobody has any answer to the supposed instances of waste/inefficiencies/pollution that are meant to be occurring, why such inefficiences are extraneous/avoidable, and why water meters are specifically needed to combat them.

It's a really simple question too: What are people meant to be doing, to create this extra waste, that they could avoid doing otherwise?

Perhaps they can do nothing - but the principle of polluter pays would still apply. A gaff with a dozen hearty bricklayers resident, living off a diet of breakfast rolls and Guinness, will clearly pollute more than a little old lady living on her own*.



* Unless she had a bevvy of poodles with irritable bowel syndrome.

Chips Lovell

KyussBishop wrote: »

So what are people supposed to be doing to add extra unnecessary pollution to the waste water then?

Everything from letting their tap run while brushing their teeth right up to power washing their driveways once a week.

KyussBishop

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Higher volumes = higher costs.

So it's not more polluting then, ok. Thus it is not comparable to carbon taxes.

djpbarry

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's a really simple question too: What are people meant to be doing, to create this extra waste, that they could avoid doing otherwise?

Using dishwashers? Using washing machines? Washing cars? Watering lawns?

You're aware of the fact that there's an impending water shortage in the Dublin area? Are you suggesting that this has absolutely nothing to do with increased water usage among the population?

alastair

KyussBishop wrote: »

So it's not more polluting then, ok. Thus it is not comparable to carbon taxes.

Higher volumes of sewage and waste water is indeed a higher volume of pollutants.

Chips Lovell

KyussBishop wrote: »

So it's not more polluting then, ok. Thus it is not comparable to carbon taxes.

What? Are you seriously arguing the the cost of treating sewage stays the same regardless of volume?

KyussBishop

djpbarry wrote: »

Kind of difficult to measure consumption in the absence of meters, isn’t it?

Right, so the justification for implementing what amounts to a regressive tax is: Nothing. There is an alleged problem, that is far more likely to be explained by the 40% leak rate in the water infrastructure - thus, the obvious solution is to use progressive taxation, to fix the infrastructure, not to tackle an alleged (and potentially miniscule) problem, that people can't even provide examples of waste for (beyond 'leaving their sprinklers on all night'?? I mean really - that's the only example so far).

djpbarry wrote: »

My point is that excessive money creation is bad, regardless of whether the source is public or private.

Every time somebody points out to you that governments conjuring money from thin air to pay for infrastructure isn’t sustainable, you come back with this “Oh but the banks do it” argument. But nobody is making any argument in support of anything banks have or have not done. It’s not a binary choice.

Well, I agree fully with the first sentence at least - I don't advocate excessive money creation. There's more than enough physical resources and labour available in Europe, to soak up money in productive effort, without it breaching inflation targets or inflating bubbles.

Your claim that paying for infrastructure that way isn't sustainable, is a 100% unbacked assertion - people only have assertions to combat my views.
If anyone had a good argument against my views, then by now they would have refined their narrative so well, as to completely and succinctly shut down my arguments every time they are brought up - instead, you just get people asserting variations of "that won't work", usually based around a total lack of understanding of how inflation works, most commonly using various forms of scaremongering and moralizing, yet zero logic or actual argument.

I haven't encountered a poster challenging my arguments that even understands inflation properly yet - nobody seems to understand the basic fact, that inflation is about physical resources, and that you can create and spend as much money as you like, so long as you aren't spending against supply bottlenecks.
People opposing also seem to obtusely avoid understanding, that you can increase the rate of supply of goods to match an increase in demand - and that there are very few hard-limits to this outside of labour.

Basically, it means that if it's physically possible, if the physical resources are there and can be extracted fast enough to match demand (and labour is the most important 'resource' - it is the main hard limit), then you can do anything with money creation, and you have to stop when a resource hits a supply bottleneck (i.e. when you reach full-employment, with labour hitting a bottleneck).

Not understanding that, means fundamentally not understanding how inflation works, and having a totally flawed understanding of macroeconomics.
It's a bit odd (though not surprising) that all of the posters who scaremonger most about inflation, just don't even understand how it works at a basic level.

Jawgap

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

What? Are you seriously arguing the the cost of treating sewage stays the same regardless of volume?

I think you'll find that's the case in Ireland because most wastewater treatment plants were under specc'ed meaning in a lot of cases once you exceed 6 times the dry weather flow the 'surplus' is discharged through the stormwater system or through the stormwater overflow. Effectively, the cost doesn't increase in a way you'd expect with increasing volumes past a certain point.

Greater volumes may not be as potent as lesser volumes - as the nutrients are more dilute, but that generates a more diffuse stream which can spread further so you get a lower level of effect spread over a much wider area.

djpbarry

KyussBishop wrote: »

Right, so the justification for implementing what amounts to a regressive tax is: Nothing. There is an alleged problem, that is far more likely to be explained by the 40% leak rate in the water infrastructure - thus, the obvious solution is to use progressive taxation, to fix the infrastructure, not to tackle an alleged (and potentially miniscule) problem, that people can't even provide examples of waste for (beyond 'leaving their sprinklers on all night'?? I mean really - that's the only example so far).

It’s not the only example provided so far. Washing cars and excessive use of dishwashers/washing machines are obvious examples of potential sources of waste. There are obviously several more.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Your claim that paying for infrastructure that way isn't sustainable, is a 100% unbacked assertion - people only have assertions to combat my views.
If anyone had a good argument against my views, then by now they would have refined their narrative so well, as to completely and succinctly shut down my arguments every time they are brought up - instead, you just get people asserting variations of "that won't work", usually based around a total lack of understanding of how inflation works, most commonly using various forms of scaremongering and moralizing, yet zero logic or actual argument.

In other words, anyone who disagrees with you is obviously just plain dumb, right?

I’ve outlined my arguments against your proposal in great detail in other threads (as have others) – I have neither the time nor inclination to do so again here. If you choose to dismiss those arguments, that’s up to you, but it takes a staggering level of arrogance to rehash the same proposal over and over and over again while dismissing anyone who has pointed out obvious flaws as lacking understanding.

Chips Lovell

KyussBishop wrote: »

Right, so the justification for implementing what amounts to a regressive tax is: Nothing. There is an alleged problem

There's nothing alleged about the fact that it costs money to gather and treat potable water and that it costs money to dispose of waste water at the other end. All of which has an impact on the environment.

KyussBishop

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Everything from letting their tap run while brushing their teeth right up to power washing their driveways once a week.

djpbarry wrote: »

Using dishwashers? Using washing machines? Washing cars? Watering lawns?

You're aware of the fact that there's an impending water shortage in the Dublin area? Are you suggesting that this has absolutely nothing to do with increased water usage among the population?

Proper water infrastructure separates water leaving households for treatment (sanitory sewerage), while leaving that from drains to go untreated, rendering most of those examples superfluous.

Letting the tap run while brushing teeth (instead of turning it off), causes dilution not pollution, using dishwashers arguably uses less water/energy/detergent on average, making them put less of a load on infrastructure, and causing less pollution from the detergent.

djpbarry wrote: »

You're aware of the fact that there's an impending water shortage in the Dublin area? Are you suggesting that this has absolutely nothing to do with increased water usage among the population?

That is to do with the 40% leak rate, growing population, and poor infrastructure in general. Fix the infrastructure (using progressive taxation), don't just slap a charge on it when its left in disrepair - we need to fix and develop the infrastructure anyway, there is little evidence (or even decent argument) presented, of any actual significant waste of water resources.

Certainly, I'd challenge anyone to show that the waste caused by households, exceeds to 40% leak rate!

KyussBishop

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

What? Are you seriously arguing the the cost of treating sewage stays the same regardless of volume?

This line of argument is talking about pollution, not costs - people are comparing the water taxes to a carbon tax, and when you are diluting the waste water, you are not increasing pollution.