Water charges

RandomName2

Surprised there isn't a thread on this already.

Short argument against this new pseudo-tax.

• The lions share of local service costs is water provision, but they aren't actually covered by the LPT which is ostensibly designed to cover local services
• Water charges handled by limited company. Therefore central government will only see a small fraction of these profits.
• Although privatisation has the general beneficial effect of bringing cost-effectiveness to the fore, the recent debacle with the consultants show this to be anything but.
• Despite privatisation the water charges are operated by a monopoly. Note how local authority handling of waste collection only ended when there were a plurality of private collection firms in existence.
• Charges will be determied by use, despite the fact that the vast majority of costs are infrastructural; meaning that increased rates are merely an excuse to squeeze more money out of people.

To what extent can parties realistically run on a platform of removing or reducing such a charge?

emo72

well. the argument that it was about protecting our resource is taking a torpedo now, due to the fact that if we are careful and start using our water carefully, which i assume is a good thing. in that scenario they will charge us more? makes me want to pull my hair out.

bord gais got this because they had the experience and knowledge of how to set this up. and then they pay 50 million to consultants? why?

heard that 2.2 billion will be spent on this before its ready to go. we could have fixed all the leakage and upgraded the system for less than half of that. and think of the jobs that could have been created with that.

this is been set up so that it can be privatised eventually and then sold off to pay off our national debt. we already pay for our water through our high general taxation.

this is so wrong no matter what way you look at it.

Donaldio

Yeah i think it is ridiculous Ireland is first and foremost a Nation we are not some sort of defunct company to be sold off and liquidated. People paid for this Nation with there blood and now we are to be just to be sold off like peasants by some fatsos in suits ?
Its a ****ing joke.

Cookie_Monster

so why is it so different to electricity or gas supply?

golfball37

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so why is it so different to electricity or gas supply?

Water is undrinkable in several parts of the country for a start. There are major infrastructural deficits in the system that need repairing far more urgently before we should start paying for it.

Also you can bet there is someone prominent profiting from this who shouldn't be- [No names]. of course our media won't look into it though.

Colm R

golfball37 wrote: »

Water is undrinkable in several parts of the country for a start. There are major infrastructural deficits in the system that need repairing far more urgently before we should start paying for it.

Also you can bet there is someone prominent profiting from this who shouldn't be- [No names]. of course our media won't look into it though.

You have, for me touched on a key difference between water and other utilities, such as electricity and gas - in the case of the latter two, you can't really get bad electricity or gas - it either works or doesn't, and when it does not, you don't pay for it.

Water, obviously is different, and quality can vary.

Leaving out the debate about consultant fees, privitization and everything that`is in the newspapers, I personally agree with the principle that users should be charged for water.

However, as a consequence of the very vocal anti-charges side, versus the very often obnoxious pro-charges (government side), everyone is missing one key thing - there should be an SLA (Service Level Agreement) whereby water provided to household should be only charged if said water passes a test - carried out by a regulator as opposed to the company providing the water.

In so doing, people throughout the country, who unfortunately find themselves having to pay for boiling water or purchasing bottled water will be in exactly the same position they are now, until such a time as the owners of the system can deliver drinkable water to their home.

Grudaire

emo72 wrote: »

well. the argument that it was about protecting our resource is taking a torpedo now, due to the fact that if we are careful and start using our water carefully, which i assume is a good thing. in that scenario they will charge us more? makes me want to pull my hair out.

Is this bit true?

Any link to back it up?

Chips Lovell

The water service isn't being privatised.

emo72

Grudaire wrote: »

Is this bit true?

Any link to back it up?

All over the media on Thursday and Friday. On a mobile can't attach links.

emo72

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The water service isn't being privatised.

You are of course 100% right. There is no plans to privatise it. I wouldn't bet my house on it not being privatised in the future though.

We would have to hope our leaders would do the right thing in the future.

Eh.... Was a sale agreed for bord gais recently?

Chips Lovell

Not the part of Bord Gais that owns Irish Water, no.

RandomName2

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The water service isn't being privatised.

a private company limited by shares (in this Act referred to as the “subsidiary”)
conforming to the conditions laid down in this Act to be formed and
registered under the Companies Acts.
5.—(1) The subsidiary shall be known, in the Irish language, as
Uisce Éireann and, in the English language, as Irish Water

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so why is it so different to electricity or gas supply?

Well the resource itself is free and theoretically limitless (unlike gas). There is no cost in obtaining it as a raw resource (unlike either gas or electricity). Of course like gas or, to a lesser extent electricity, it must be treated before it is suitable for public consumption, and the pipes which supply it must be maintained. But this is a slightly different matter from paying for the resource itself (the division between ESB and Electric Ireland may somewhat highlight that).

Seeing that the main costs are infrastructural, indeed work such as pipe maintenance must be conducted to lesser or greater extent in tandem with local government and road maintenance, paying specifically for usage is somewhat strange.

Also, as a side note, of electricity, water and gas, water is the most essential service. Is it still illegal to cut off water supply entirely, even if the water bills aren't paid? I know that the council had the authority to reduce pressure, but not to cut off supply.

Chips Lovell

A private company, owned by the state. This is not usually what is understood by privatisation though

RandomName2

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

A private company, owned by the state. This is not usually what is understood by privatisation though

According to its own website it is only semi-state... but I suppose...

Colm R

RandomName2 wrote: »

a private company limited by shares (in this Act referred to as the “subsidiary”)
conforming to the conditions laid down in this Act to be formed and
registered under the Companies Acts.
5.—(1) The subsidiary shall be known, in the Irish language, as
Uisce Éireann and, in the English language, as Irish Water



Well the resource itself is free and theoretically limitless (unlike gas). There is no cost in obtaining it as a raw resource (unlike either gas or electricity). Of course like gas or, to a lesser extent electricity, it must be treated before it is suitable for public consumption, and the pipes which supply it must be maintained. But this is a slightly different matter from paying for the resource itself (the division between ESB and Electric Ireland may somewhat highlight that).

Seeing that the main costs are infrastructural, indeed work such as pipe maintenance must be conducted to lesser or greater extent in tandem with local government and road maintenance, paying specifically for usage is somewhat strange.

Also, as a side note, of electricity, water and gas, water is the most essential service. Is it still illegal to cut off water supply entirely, even if the water bills aren't paid? I know that the council had the authority to reduce pressure, but not to cut off supply.

I'm not sure if the main cost is infrastructural. Would anyone know what the cost of usage is versus infrastructure cost?

For example, from what I understand, the vast majority of homes are not gravity fed. The may be gravity fed from a water tower, but the water has to be electrically pumped into it to begin with.

And would treatment be considered a usage cost or an infrastructural cost?

jmayo

Perhaps someone can set me straight on a few points that I came across at the weekend.

Are users meant to get an allowance ?
Are users penalised if they go below a certain usage level ?

That last point sounds like penalising those who would be conservative in their water usage and targetting the enviromentally friendly.

Akrasia

jmayo wrote: »

Perhaps someone can set me straight on a few points that I came across at the weekend.

Are users meant to get an allowance ?
Are users penalised if they go below a certain usage level ?

That last point sounds like penalising those who would be conservative in their water usage and targetting the enviromentally friendly.

What will happen is there will be a 'service charge' to have a connection to the water supply and this will come with a certain allowance of units of water
If you go above this allowance, you will get charged per unit

The problem is if everyone becomes more efficient and uses less water than the water company expects us to, they'll increase the service charge to cover the shortfall in revenue.

_Kaiser_

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so why is it so different to electricity or gas supply?

Because we're already paying for it in general taxation for one thing.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Because we're already paying for it in general taxation for one thing.

No we are not, general taxation does not meet the bills for the freebies that the people of this state want.
I can think of no good reason why consumers should not be charged for using treated supplied to them or for having their waste water treated.

For Reals

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

No we are not, general taxation does not meet the bills for the freebies that the people of this state want.
I can think of no good reason why consumers should not be charged for using treated supplied to them or for having their waste water treated.

You're falling for government nonsense. And where are you getting 'freebies'? I'm not aware of anything we get as a freebie, in fact, we even get billed for things we already paid for, like homes.
The idea that we've been getting water in any discount or free way, ever, is the biggest load of crap. They are trying to push the view that we had it for free for decades and as much as they'd rather not, we need pay for it, for the first time ever. They are squeezing more money out of the taxpayer and this is just the latest scam. If we can afford to borrow billions to bailout private investors, we can fund a basic thing such as water supply. If any government cant organise supplying the basic needs of a society via tax, as is the whole point of tax, they should quit.
Street lights next?

RandomName2

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

No we are not, general taxation does not meet the bills for the freebies that the people of this state want.

You're right, rainwater is free.

I would actually support a flat fee of maybe €200 per household for water supply - means tested, and uncharged on empty accommodation.

Paying what amounts to a poll tax on top of the "local services" LPT? Feck off.

munchkin_utd

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

No we are not, general taxation does not meet the bills for the freebies that the people of this state want.
I can think of no good reason why consumers should not be charged for using treated supplied to them or for having their waste water treated.

+1
The cost of providing water for the portion of the population who get it for "free" (as opposed to say my parents who are both metered and charged for water on a group scheme) is far from negliable.

a billion euro a year for water purification and disposal was a figure I heard recently.
Of course that would be higher if everyone had "free" water rather than just having certain folks getting free water from the council and letting everyone else pay for it themselves.

By charging those who currently do not pay, you are eliminating this anomoly that some get free water from the taxpayer and others dont.

Grudaire

RandomName2 wrote: »

I would actually support a flat fee of maybe €200 per household for water supply - means tested, and uncharged on empty

That wouldn't encourage reduced usage though.. it also wouldn't reflect the fact that water does have significant running costs on top of infrastructural costs

RandomName2

Grudaire wrote: »

That wouldn't encourage reduced usage though.. it also wouldn't reflect the fact that water does have significant running costs on top of infrastructural costs

Why is reduced usage something that one should aspire to in particular?

munchkin_utd

RandomName2 wrote: »

You're right, rainwater is free.

I would actually support a flat fee of maybe €200 per household for water supply - means tested, and uncharged on empty accommodation.

Paying what amounts to a poll tax on top of the "local services" LPT? Feck off.

the parents in Cavan have such a scheme.
They pay a small-ish flat fee and have a gigantic allowance and only if they go over that will they have to pay on the excess.

Even with an allowance in place you can focus people on not leaving the taps on all day or the likes which is why Dublin always runs dry in cold weather (aside from leakage issues)

RandomName2

munchkin_utd wrote: »

the parents in Cavan have such a scheme.
They pay a small-ish flat fee and have a gigantic allowance and only if they go over that will they have to pay on the excess.

Even with an allowance in place you can focus people on not leaving the taps on all day or the likes which is why Dublin always runs dry in cold weather (aside from leakage issues)

Sounds fare enough.

Although there is already legislation for people who have large leaks or vastly disproportionate usage. The council currently sends a letter asking the person to rectify the problem, and then cut off the supply (to a trickle) if it isn't fixed.

In cold water the shortages haven't been due to people using more water (which they do in the summer). It seems predominantly due to burst mains.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

Why is reduced usage something that one should aspire to in particular?

Seriously?

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Seriously?

Yes, seriously, in the same way that using solar energy or wind or any other renewable resource is not a big deal. Moreover, south county Dublin has been using the same reservoir for well over half a century; rarely experiencing shortages of any kind (and the shortages were almost never due to exhausting the reservoir's reserves.) There are almost no negative impacts from the usage of water (unlike, for instance, the usage of fossil fuels). Although there is a cost for water treatment, that is limited only by infrastructure and budget.

Spanish Eyes

I'm sure I'm missing some fundamental reason....

But why set up this feckin quango at all?

Why not just charge the user a flat fee as someone else suggested, payable to the Local Authority, then they can use the yield to invest in local water infrastructure, using their existing staff. Seems daft to have a quango employing new people, and a LA retaining the former staff.

But it's being set up this way to be privatised and sold off. That is being denied, but it's what the Troika IMF want. Watch this space.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

For Reals wrote: »

You're falling for government nonsense. And where are you getting 'freebies'? I'm not aware of anything we get as a freebie, in fact, we even get billed for things we already paid for, like homes.
The idea that we've been getting water in any discount or free way, ever, is the biggest load of crap. They are trying to push the view that we had it for free for decades and as much as they'd rather not, we need pay for it, for the first time ever. They are squeezing more money out of the taxpayer and this is just the latest scam. If we can afford to borrow billions to bailout private investors, we can fund a basic thing such as water supply. If any government cant organise supplying the basic needs of a society via tax, as is the whole point of tax, they should quit.
Street lights next?

We have been getting it for free for years, for the last number of decades up to the current crisis ,Ireland seen its tax base reduced and a constant lowering of personal taxes, yet time again we have the socialist refrain whenever we are asked to pay for anything that it is "Double Taxation".
The simple fact is that even when you strip out the cost of the banking debacle there is and was a substantial gap in the cost to the state in providing services, and the contribution of those who reside in the state through taxation.

RandomName2

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

We have been getting it for free for years, for the last number of decades up to the current crisis ,Ireland seen its tax base reduced and a constant lowering of personal taxes, yet time again we have the socialist refrain whenever we are asked to pay for anything that it is "Double Taxation".

Well, up until the current crisis Ireland saw its tax base steadily increase. Since the crisis the tax base has been significantly reduced, but personal taxes have become increasingly punitive. Far from "socialist", I'm not seeing a corresponding cut in spending to merit these war-time economics. See that Dun Laoghaire is getting a massive cultural centre that no-one has called for. €113m budget before contingencies - never mind the running costs... for a single building. Austerity? :rolleyes: