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

Chips Lovell

KyussBishop wrote: »

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.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that if someone isn't paying on the basis of exactly how polluting their output is, then the polluter pays principle doesn't apply.

I pay for my rubbish disposal by weight, not by how polluting it is. Are bin charges now suddenly invalid because of this?

It's a very simple principle and I'm not sure why you feel the need to start getting jesuitical about it.

KyussBishop

djpbarry wrote: »

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

Eh, no, here is what I said:

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.

When you make an assertion, you need to back it up. When your method of argument relies upon repeating a false assertion that has been debunked many times, then you have no argument.

When your assertions rely upon a complete lack of understanding of how inflation actually works at a macroeconomic level (something people would have in common with the vast majority of economists, since most don't understand 'endogenous money' i.e. that bank loans create money), you need to go back to the drawing board and revisit your understanding of inflation - this is something most people interested in economics never do, even though they can see that mainstream economics get macroeconomics wrong, by not considering that 'banks loans create money'.

When your understanding of economics is based on theory that is false, you don't double-down on flawed assertions, you revisit the theory and fix your flawed assumptions.

djpbarry wrote: »

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.

Your arguments are assertions that "it will cause inflation", and you are asserting here that you have 'arguments', without specifying them and when I have debunked every one of them and picked apart the layers of fallacious argument within (which with your posts, you didn't bother to try and hide much, just turn it into a discussion of 'repeat the same assertion 100x'), and that is it.

Nevermind that I always stipulate having an inflation target, which immediately makes every assertion of 'inflation' false at best, and more typically a complete straw-man.

You do not understand how inflation works. You think inflation is caused by money creation, when it is only caused by sustained money creation that pushes past full-employment.


It's a common misconception of a bunch of quotes from Milton Friedman, primarily "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon"; except the full quote is:
"Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output"

So all the idiocy of 'money creation = inflation' assertions are wrong, and I debunk that here with the exact (mis)quote people use to back it, because it is exactly the point that the only money creation I advocate, is that which increases output.

Jawgap

KyussBishop wrote: »

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.

Using water consumes resources - not just the water itself, but also the materials needed to build the infra-structure to convey the water (before and after use) and the chemicals, power etc needed to render it potable in the first place and treat it prior to disposal in the second place.

When you dilute waste water you're increasing the volume which, depending on a range of factors may or may not reduce the potency. For example, an untreated waste water stream has pretty big lumps in it - these settle out quickly and cause severe pollution in the vicinity of the outfall - usually anoxic conditions in small enough areas.

A screened waste water stream subject to primary treatment has some nutrients removed and the stream contains much smaller lumps which can travel further before they settle out. This doesn't cause the type of severe pollution an untreated stream does but it can still spread viruses and human bacterial pathogens in the particles far and wide.

The sludge from the treatment can be spread on land, burned or otherwise disposed of but one way or another we end up sticking it back into the environment, and if it's not done properly we end up contaminating surface water sources and aquifers.

The more water we use, the more we waste so a metered water tax is, imo, comparable to a carbon tax. A flat rate tax just encourages consumption because there's no incentive to minimise use.

And just as an aside, using potable water to wash cars, water lawns etc is nothing short of disgraceful waste and anything that discourages it should be welcomed.

KyussBishop

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

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.

Yes but what is alleged is that it is an inefficiency problem in the first place, which is very unconvincing given the extremely poor examples given thus far, which don't hint at anything other than a miniscule issue, if any.

Not any attempt by anyone to try and quantify the scale of the problem either; given that, it provides a very poor argument for switching over the regressive taxation, which we know causes societal harm - and that would be done in order to fix something which may be a totally insignificant issue.

Godge

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).

You can't just ignore all of the arguments made in the thread already.

(1) Expenditure on water infrastructure which is not growth-generating cannot be justified at this time give the state's finances. Implementing a system of demand management with a charge is preferable

(2) You have no evidence to support the 40% leak rate, other than guesstimates in various non-independent reports.

(3) It is not a regressive tax as people are to be given a "free" quota.

(4) There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of water wastage, from guys washing their cars in the front drive once a week, to sprinklers, to water-guzzling washing machines and dishwashers, to leaky taps left unfixed by householders. No amount of infrastructural investment will deal with this, only a demand management system will. We can't live on the basis that everyone is entitled to waste as much water as they want to given the limited capacity of the reservoirs and the water shortages that appeared around the country this summer.

(5) The metered system will help identify the leaks you talk about so that should be welcomed by you.

(6) Nobody in favour of water charges is against investment in water supply infrastructure, it just has to be productive and based around increased demand. At the same time, the longer we have to postpone the massive investment needed to bring water from the Shannon to Dublin, the better for everyone in the country.

KyussBishop wrote: »

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.

There is no need to turn every policy debate into an argument that Europe should be spending more money on infrastructure in Ireland by creating money. That is an issue for another thread.

Godge

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

You seem to be operating under the assumption that if someone isn't paying on the basis of exactly how polluting their output is, then the polluter pays principle doesn't apply.

I pay for my rubbish disposal by weight, not by how polluting it is. Are bin charges now suddenly invalid because of this?

It's a very simple principle and I'm not sure why you feel the need to start getting jesuitical about it.

So that he can push the "We need Europe to spend loads of created money on investment" argument in this thread.

Chips Lovell

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yes but what is alleged is that it is an inefficiency problem in the first place, which is very unconvincing given the extremely poor examples given thus far, which don't hint at anything other than a miniscule issue, if any.

You've been given plenty of examples but have chosen to dismiss them. If you don't think that it's inefficient to see people using tap water to water their lawns or wash their cars etc., there's not much more that I can add.

KyussBishop

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

You seem to be operating under the assumption that if someone isn't paying on the basis of exactly how polluting their output is, then the polluter pays principle doesn't apply.

I pay for my rubbish disposal by weight, not by how polluting it is. Are bin charges now suddenly invalid because of this?

It's a very simple principle and I'm not sure why you feel the need to start getting jesuitical about it.

Jesuitical? Other people are making the false comparison to a carbon tax, based on the pollution argument, and I have deconstructed their reasoning for making that comparison - that is not 'jesuitical', it is debunking a false comparison.

Bin waste is something we know causes a lot of avoidable pollution - nobody is able to provide good examples of avoidable water pollution, that warrant bringing in a water tax, and is not better fixed through infrastructural changes.

The main reason I'm getting increasingly persistent in the discussion, is to debunk the nonsense arguments presented, which lay false defense to a change which seems far more aimed at future privatization than anything else.

lawred2

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?

council tax???

KyussBishop

Jawgap wrote: »

Using water consumes resources - not just the water itself, but also the materials needed to build the infra-structure to convey the water (before and after use) and the chemicals, power etc needed to render it potable in the first place and treat it prior to disposal in the second place.

When you dilute waste water your increasing the volume which, depending on a range of factors may or may not reduce the potency. For example, an untreated waste water stream has pretty big lumps in it - these settle out quickly and cause severe pollution in the vicinity of the outfall - usually anoxic conditions in small enough area.

A screened waste water stream subject to primary treatment has some nutrients removed and the stream contains much smaller lumps which can travel further before they settle out. This doesn't cause the type of severe pollution an untreated stream does but it can still spread viruses and human bacterial pathogens in the particles far and wide.

The sludge from the treatment can be spread on land, burned or otherwise disposed of but one way or another we end up sticking it back into the environment, and if it's not done properly we end up contaminating surface water sources and aquifers.

The more water we use, the more we waste so a metered water tax is, imo, comparable to a carbon tax. A flat rate tax just encourages consumption because there's no incentive to minimise use.

And just as an aside, using potable water to wash cars, water lawns etc is nothing short of disgraceful waste and anything that discourages it should be welcomed.

Constructing infrastructure is something that needs to be done anyway, as the population increases, and when we have infrastructure that is leaking up to 40% of the water, we need to fix that to stop wasting our current efforts/resources.

These are good arguments about waste water though, but I would add, that a problem with waste water needs to be shown to exist and be avoidable first, and it would also need to be shown that the problem is not better fixed through infrastructural changes (by making the system more efficient, i.e. separating drains from sanitary sewerage), and other one-time-cost measures, that remove the need for regressive taxation.

I agree with taking measures to make the system run more efficiently (less waste water, less use of potable water), but I disagree that regressive taxation is the best way to do this.

alastair

KyussBishop wrote: »

nobody is able to provide good examples of avoidable water pollution

Other than the ones highlighted in this thread?

Chips Lovell

KyussBishop wrote: »

Jesuitical? Other people are making the false comparison to a carbon tax, based on the pollution argument, and I have deconstructed their reasoning for making that comparison - that is not 'jesuitical', it is debunking a false comparison.

You're not debunking. You're claiming that because one type of polluter pays charge isn't exactly analogous to another, it doesn't follow the same principle. That's needless hair splitting and wasting everyone's time.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Bin waste is something we know causes a lot of avoidable pollution - nobody is able to provide good examples of avoidable water pollution, that warrant bringing in a water tax, and is not better fixed through infrastructural changes.

Treating sewage avoids water pollution. The more sewage we treat, the more it costs. And, as Jawgap pointed out, when the system gets overloaded, waste water gets diverted into storm water, causing pollution.

Jawgap

KyussBishop wrote: »

Jesuitical? Other people are making the false comparison to a carbon tax, based on the pollution argument, and I have deconstructed their reasoning for making that comparison - that is not 'jesuitical', it is debunking a false comparison.

Bin waste is something we know causes a lot of avoidable pollution - nobody is able to provide good examples of avoidable water pollution, that warrant bringing in a water tax, and is not better fixed through infrastructural changes.

The main reason I'm getting increasingly persistent in the discussion, is to debunk the nonsense arguments presented, which lay false defense to a change which seems far more aimed at future privatization than anything else.

there are loads of examples on the EPA's site - we can start with the fact that as of 2011, nearly 6% of the national wastewater load was receiving no treatment or preliminary treatment - a further 73% was only getting up to secondary treatment.

Just over 20% of the load was getting secondary treatment & nutrient reduction - so there's 80% of the national wastewater load not getting anything better than secondary treatment - if they introduced proper nutrient reduction technologies in more WWTPs a lot of water pollution / enrichment would be avoided.

The tax will be regressive, but only to a point. The standing charge element will be regressive, but as long as the 'free' quota is set at a practical level (to facilitate proper cooking, hygiene and sanitation) people will only incur charges if they waste the water.

The fact is that [especially] in this country people will only value it, if they are charged for it.

On the other side of the equation, the regulator needs to be all over Irish Water to pile the pressure on them to reduce leakages and improve efficiencies in work practices etc, but unfortunately I suspect we'll be saddled with something fairly toothless. We also need a decent Drinking Water Inspectorate to make sure IW improve and maintain quality - I'd not be too confident we'll get one!

Godge

KyussBishop wrote: »

I agree with taking measures to make the system run more efficiently (less waste water, less use of potable water), but I disagree that regressive taxation is the best way to do this.

Demand management through water charges with a free quota is one way of managing the situation.

Infrastructural investment in needed productive improvements is another.

Most people are arguing for a mix of these. From my experience of life and everything else, it is always a mixture of the carrot and stick that works, not one or the other.

You are the one presenting an argument for the second option only, the let people wash their cars three times a week and have sprinklers on a timer to come on even when it's raining etc. It helps boost your arguments for borrowing to invest but in reality is not an acceptable policy outcome because of its flaws.

KyussBishop

Godge wrote: »

You can't just ignore all of the arguments made in the thread already.

(1) Expenditure on water infrastructure which is not growth-generating cannot be justified at this time give the state's finances. Implementing a system of demand management with a charge is preferable

(2) You have no evidence to support the 40% leak rate, other than guesstimates in various non-independent reports.

(3) It is not a regressive tax as people are to be given a "free" quota.

(4) There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of water wastage, from guys washing their cars in the front drive once a week, to sprinklers, to water-guzzling washing machines and dishwashers, to leaky taps left unfixed by householders. No amount of infrastructural investment will deal with this, only a demand management system will. We can't live on the basis that everyone is entitled to waste as much water as they want to given the limited capacity of the reservoirs and the water shortages that appeared around the country this summer.

(5) The metered system will help identify the leaks you talk about so that should be welcomed by you.

(6) Nobody in favour of water charges is against investment in water supply infrastructure, it just has to be productive and based around increased demand. At the same time, the longer we have to postpone the massive investment needed to bring water from the Shannon to Dublin, the better for everyone in the country.

1: It is growth generating - the EU can easily provide the funds.
2: Show me your evidence for a problem of waste of water resources, or excess of waste water. What I have, is far more solid than any evidence you can provide:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/politics/local-authorities-lose-40-of-water-182800.html
3: There is no quantification for this 'quota', so that is not supported by any policy evidence. If this quota turns out to be anything less than that which households need to use on a day-by-day basis, it is a regressive tax.

4: People need to wash their cars, people use water for gardening, people need to wash their clothes and dishes. If you want to switch to a regressive tax system, which is very damaging, you have a high burden of proof for showing this waste, anecdotal 'leaky taps' doesn't cut it.
If we have up to 40% waste of water, then we can support at least a third increase in water utilization just by fixing the infrastructure.

5: Sure, great: Except they are being used primarily as taxation, under control of a semi-state, which looks very apt for being switched over to a fully privatized service in the future. The potential societal damage of all this, requires a high burden of proof that the problem is worth this.

There is also nothing to stop the more cost-effective implementation of less meters, to watch for leaks in general areas among a set of houses (which is easy to find the leak by selectively momentarily turning off a houses water supply to test rates), rather than wasteful house-by-house metering.

6: Then we should invest in this infrastructure, and not blame our crumbling leaky infrastructure, on the (backed by a total lack of evidence or quantification) idea that people are being excessively wasteful.

Godge wrote: »

There is no need to turn every policy debate into an argument that Europe should be spending more money on infrastructure in Ireland by creating money. That is an issue for another thread.

I agree - though when people try to pretend that only taxes can be used to pay for such infrastructure, and that we "just don't have the money", it's hard not to get into a longer debate while debunking that.

KyussBishop

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

You've been given plenty of examples but have chosen to dismiss them. If you don't think that it's inefficient to see people using tap water to water their lawns or wash their cars etc., there's not much more that I can add.

alastair wrote: »

Other than the ones highlighted in this thread?

Show me some examples that aren't either insignificant (running tap while brushing teeth), wrong (dishwashers are arguably better than hand washing), not better served by infrastructural changes (runoff from washing cars down outside drains, should not be treated, there should be separate sanitary sewers for household water waste), or is not part of everyday water usage (washing cars - people need to do that, watering gardens - people need to do that, etc. etc.).

Jawgap

KyussBishop wrote: »

1: It is growth generating - the EU can easily provide the funds.
.....

I know from personal experience that if there is one thing that sets the European Commission off it's Ireland looking for money for environmental improvements or remediation - the standard reply is lengthy and raving, based around the fact that our farmers have received billions over the years and the Irish state should have made sure that the money was spent in an environmentally responsible way......

Chips Lovell

KyussBishop wrote: »

4: People need to wash their cars, people use water for gardening, people need to wash their clothes and dishes. If you want to switch to a regressive tax system, which is very damaging, you have a high burden of proof for showing this waste, anecdotal 'leaky taps' doesn't cut it.

So the man who washes his car every week should pay the same as the man who washes his car every two months? The man with the huge, well manicured lawn should pay the same as the one with a bog-standard one?

And it's already been explained to you by several people that it isn't even regressive. You pay for what you consume above the allowance. Making this out as some sort of way of screwing the less way off is quite disingenuous.

KyussBishop

Jawgap wrote: »

there are loads of examples on the EPA's site - we can start with the fact that as of 2011, nearly 6% of the national wastewater load was receiving no treatment or preliminary treatment - a further 73% was only getting up to secondary treatment.

Just over 20% of the load was getting secondary treatment & nutrient reduction - so there's 80% of the national wastewater load not getting anything better than secondary treatment - if they introduced proper nutrient reduction technologies in more WWTPs a lot of water pollution / enrichment would be avoided.

The tax will be regressive, but only to a point. The standing charge element will be regressive, but as long as the 'free' quota is set at a practical level (to facilitate proper cooking, hygiene and sanitation) people will only incur charges if they waste the water.

The fact is that [especially] in this country people will only value it, if they are charged for it.

On the other side of the equation, the regulator needs to be all over Irish Water to pile the pressure on them to reduce leakages and improve efficiencies in work practices etc, but unfortunately I suspect we'll be saddled with something fairly toothless. We also need a decent Drinking Water Inspectorate to make sure IW improve and maintain quality - I'd not be too confident we'll get one!

These are good points, and I do think more should be done to increase efficiency in both use of water and waste, but studies on water tariff's don't seem to support the idea that meters and a tax is a good way to go about this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_tariff#Changes_in_water_use_in_response_to_tariff_increases

That article also points out significant negative socioeconomic effects of water charges, which I argue the potential damage of which, combined with the ineffectiveness of charges, renders the charges a net-harm to society rather than a help.

KyussBishop

Godge wrote: »

You are the one presenting an argument for the second option only, the let people wash their cars three times a week and have sprinklers on a timer to come on even when it's raining etc. It helps boost your arguments for borrowing to invest but in reality is not an acceptable policy outcome because of its flaws.

Yes the entire country spends all their time running sprinklers in their garden when its raining, and washing their cars three times a week - great examples.

You know I didn't advocate taxes or borrowing for investment.

djpbarry

KyussBishop wrote: »

That is to do with the 40% leak rate, growing population, and poor infrastructure in general.

As said already, measuring exactly how much water Irish households use is difficult because it’s not metered. However, I have seen it stated several times that average consumption per person is about 150 L per day in Ireland, which is considerably higher than many other EU countries:

Eurostat (February 2011) reported that most “EU Member States show annual rates of freshwater abstraction of between 50 m³ and 100 m³ per capita, although extremes reflect specific conditions: for example, in Ireland (141 m³ per capita) – where the use of water from the public supply is free”.

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/Environment/Water/FileDownLoad,29192,en.pdf

Average daily water consumption in Ireland is approximately 148 litres per person per day. This is well above the European average, with Denmark averaging 116 litres per person per day (EPA, 2008).

http://www.consensus.ie/documents/factsheet_6_water.pdf

KyussBishop wrote: »

...watering gardens - people need to do that...

Bollocks they do.

KyussBishop

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

So the man who washes his car every week should pay the same as the man who washes his car every two months? The man with the huge, well manicured lawn should pay the same as the one with a bog-standard one?

And it's already been explained to you by several people that it isn't even regressive. You pay for what you consume above the allowance. Making this out as some sort of way of screwing the less way off is quite disingenuous.

Show me some information on what this 'quota' will be set at - if it's set at a measure that allows reasonable everyday use, then sure, I'll say this isn't regressive.

djpbarry

Jawgap wrote: »

I know from personal experience that if there is one thing that sets the European Commission off it's Ireland looking for money for environmental improvements or remediation - the standard reply is lengthy and raving, based around the fact that our farmers have received billions over the years and the Irish state should have made sure that the money was spent in an environmentally responsible way......

You obviously didn’t get the memo about the EU’s magic money tree.

KyussBishop

djpbarry wrote: »

As said already, measuring exactly how much water Irish households use is difficult because it’s not metered. However, I have seen it stated several times that average consumption per person is about 150 L per day in Ireland, which is considerably higher than many other EU countries:

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/Environment/Water/FileDownLoad,29192,en.pdf

http://www.consensus.ie/documents/factsheet_6_water.pdf
Bollocks they do.

That's per-capita, and likely includes the 40% leaked out of the infrastructure, per-head.

alastair

KyussBishop wrote: »

That's per-capita, and likely includes the 40% leaked out of the infrastructure, per-head.

Not according to the linked documents - that's excluding the pre-meter leaks.

Godge

KyussBishop wrote: »

I agree - though when people try to pretend that only taxes can be used to pay for such infrastructure, and that we "just don't have the money", it's hard not to get into a longer debate while debunking that.

This annoys me.

The accepted policy position of the government is that there is no possiblity of paying for infrastructure other than through increased borrowing, increased taxes or selling off State assets and the ability to do this is restricted by the Troika. That is the reality within which we can debate the practical aspects of any policy proposal.

Sure we can dream about finding/taking back all the oil off the west coast to solve all our problems (not you, others suggest this) or the EU printing money off a tree to fund investment but they are not realistic discussions because:

(1) Nobody has found any oil
(2) No serious politician or official in Europe is entertaining any thought of engaging on a printing money spree.

Diverting threads down either of these cul-de-sacs (and this one has gone down the second one) does little in my opinion to help the debate.

In discussing demand management versus infrastructural investment for Irish Water, the demand management side wins hands down in my opinion because of the constraints on infrastructural investment that this country is having to deal with and the much more important other investment options for any money that is available.

Waving a "Get out of Jail Free" card consisting of the EU can print loads of money doesn't help in any way as it is not a realistic policy option. Changing the mentality of the EU on printing money is probably a discussion for the EU forum and arguing the merits of printing money and avoiding inflation is probably for the Economic Theory forum. Dragging them into every thread on the Politics/Irish Economy fora is wearying.

Victor

KyussBishop wrote: »

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

Clean water is a scarce resource. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be having this discussion - you'd be able to avoid water charges by picking up some free clean water somewhere.

KyussBishop wrote: »

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.

You do realise that tax dedications favour the rich over the poor?

ardmacha wrote: »

Nobody values something they get for nothing.
Should everyone receive free food as well?

Carrots only.

KyussBishop wrote: »

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

Yes, it is. The dominant cost in dealing with sewage is the quantity of water, not the quantity of pollutant.

KyussBishop wrote: »

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.

Some of the water leaks are on private properties. Some such properties have demand equal to 100 comparable properties with no leaks.

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 dual flush toilets or other water efficient equipment will save water. Other than new properties, few Irish properties use such equipment.

KyussBishop wrote: »

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.

Separate drainage systems don't exist everywhere. I imagine combined (sewage and drainage) systems are still dominant.

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

Often they are the same thing - a leak in the piping between the property boundary and the tap.

Scofflaw

Sigh. I'd be inclined to penalise Kyuss here for doing exactly what he was asked not to do only last week, and turning yet another thread into a "Kyuss and his pet economic theory versus everyone else" - but, look, here you all are helping him along.

Kyuss cannot monopolise threads without your assistance, and it seems very unfair to penalise him for doing so given the rather wide assistance he attracts in doing so.

So, this time, Kyuss escapes again. Next time, just report him and I will then ban him. Please do not engage with Kyuss unless you wish to keep Kyuss monopolising threads. If people do continue to engage with his personal view of economics, I will continue the stay of execution.

moderately irritated,
Scofflaw

mogrady14

KyussBishop does make some valid points that are relevant to the subject of water meters so is it fair to ban him?
For Instance he is right about huge amount of water leaks losing 40-50% of total water.

[MOD]We won't discuss it here - any comments or opinions go here, please: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=85890815#post85890815[/MOD]

femur61

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?

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

Sorry yes you do, I have lived in the UK, you pay a lot more than here - Poll Tax.