Do we already pay for water?

Help!!!!

Is this for real or a internet hoax?
If real then surely the government think the Irish people are fools

BoJack Horseman

Help!!!! wrote: »

Is this for real or a internet hoax?
If real then surely the government think the Irish people are fools

No, its for reals.

Those earning & who have cars pay for it all.
(Aside from businesses of course).

My IW bill actually works out cheaper than the above.

Help!!!!

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No, its for reals.

Those earning & who have cars pay for it all.
(Aside from businesses of course).

My IW bill actually works out cheaper than the above.

So the government should reduce VAT & car tax then?

Gone West

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No, its for reals.

Those earning & who have cars pay for it all.
(Aside from businesses of course).

My IW bill actually works out cheaper than the above.

Doesn't matter, you are paying for it twice anyways.
The people who say "water isn't free, you need to pay for it" are being disingenuous.

Seriously, fúck those old men in our parliament who are too afraid to stand up to their IMF/Euro masters. History will judge them harshly I am sure.

Timberrrrrrrr

Fuzzy wrote: »

Doesn't matter, you are paying for it twice anyways.
The people who say "water isn't free, you need to pay for it" are being disingenuous.

Seriously, fúck those old men in our parliament who are too afraid to stand up to their IMF/Euro masters. History will judge them harshly I am sure.

So you don't believe that EVERYONE who uses water should pay for it equally?

BoJack Horseman

Help!!!! wrote: »

So the government should reduce VAT & car tax then?

I'd prefer that, but a 2% drop in VAT may just be absorbed into existing prices with little impact to the purchaser.
So income tax for workers was reduced instead at the last budget, effective in January.

Don't see why a slight adjustment in car tax wouldn't be do-able.
It would save me €19.5 per year.

BoJack Horseman

Fuzzy wrote: »

Doesn't matter, you are paying for it twice anyways.
The people who say "water isn't free, you need to pay for it" are being disingenuous.

Seriously, fúck those old men in our parliament who are too afraid to stand up to their IMF/Euro masters. History will judge them harshly I am sure.

So much wrong

1) IW is not an external mandate.

2) Any central taxation no longer spent on water provision gets spent elsewhere.... The public services are starved of funding, so all parties would welcome that.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

I've just read the act. Where does it specifically state that 2% and 5% were added to pay for water? The details of the Act can be read here.

Edit: I agree that we already pay for water in general taxes but I don't see where the anti-water crowd are getting their % figures.

Chips Lovell

This isn't how taxation works. Your taxes aren't fenced off into portions to pay for certain things, e.g. x% of your income tax going on education or y% of your VAT paying for water. Put simply, most of your taxes go into central funds which are then divvied out to pay for everything. Any shortfall is covered by borrowing.

So, long story short, those tax increases used to compensate for the abolition of domestic water charges in 1997 will now be spent elsewhere. We'd need to be running a surplus for there to be any chance of the government compensating for the introduction of water charges by making a corresponding cut in taxes.

As they say in the army........"you do now!!!!!"

PeterBrown1415

'Spent Elsewhere'
Given to bond-holders perhaps?

This is yet another 'bondholder tax', just like Income levy, Property Tax, USC and Household charge. Ultimately, whatever it's called, the money ends up in the same place.

Gone West

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So much wrong

1) IW is not an external mandate.

2) Any central taxation no longer spent on water provision gets spent elsewhere.... The public services are starved of funding, so all parties would welcome that.

1) With a straight face you can say that no external parties forced the government to set Irish Water up?

Reference:
"In October 2010, the administration’s ‘National Recovery Plan 2010-2014’ pledged that metering would form part of charges. Metering was to be introduced by 2014. As part of the EC-ECB-IMF Programme of Assistance to Ireland, agreed in November 2010, the Coalition agreed to the introduction of domestic water charges in 2012/2013."

So what the part in bold means is that they essentially forced the gov to start water charges, or they wouldn't get the "Programme of Assistance" (ie Money).

2) This is not the point. It's a stealth tax. I too understand how tax increases work.


Don't kill me for referencing wikipedia, but this article is actually pretty straightforward to understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

Manach

We've already paid for water. This is in the general tax. The initial basic concept of taxes had been to pay for the common goods which is used by all. Water is the core example of this.

Unfortunately the revenues collected are no longer sufficient for the government increase in spending as it takes up more of the GDP in activities outside its core functions. Hence the water tax is one more step in the march to pay for core services as the state continues to spend unchecked as it has the practically unchecked power and administrative apparatus to collect monies from people.

For Reals

We pay for water from general taxation, money funds the local council water departments who, under the dept. of the environment, oversee the country's water supply....

Now, due to the Irish tax payer bailing out private bondholders and our government wanting to ensure a shot at a decent FU EU job after their term, we have a continuation of the house tax, the coming communications tax and the water tax. These are designed to cover a shortfall in the public funds but are in no way related to private houses costing the state anything or water suddenly being a government priority.

It's to draw in more money by creating scams, rather than saying, 'Listen folks, we need raise tax', because they want to pull the wool over your eyes in the hopes some bufoons might vote for those who , 'look after their own'.

FreudianSlippers

Fuzzy wrote: »

1) With a straight face you can say that no external parties forced the government to set Irish Water up?

Reference:
"In October 2010, the administration’s ‘National Recovery Plan 2010-2014’ pledged that metering would form part of charges. Metering was to be introduced by 2014. As part of the EC-ECB-IMF Programme of Assistance to Ireland, agreed in November 2010, the Coalition agreed to the introduction of domestic water charges in 2012/2013."

So what the part in bold means is that they essentially forced the gov to start water charges, or they wouldn't get the "Programme of Assistance" (ie Money).

You're not entirely correct. The EU/IMF Programme of Financial Support for Ireland, 16 December 2010 – Memorandum of Understanding between the European Commission and Ireland stated that water charges would need to be introduced, but “In advance of the introduction of water charges – the government will have undertaken an independent assessment of transfer of responsibility for water services provision from local authorities to a water utility, and prepare proposals for implementation, as appropriate with a view to start charging in 2012/2013."

hfallada

People need to understand the government is currently running a deficit. Revenue has to be raised and expenditure cut to balance the budget. Borrowing money to meet the short fall is nothing but deferred taxation for future generations. The ones that will be paying for this generations poor management of the economy.

BoJack Horseman

hfallada wrote: »

People need to understand the government is currently running a deficit. Revenue has to be raised and expenditure cut to balance the budget. Borrowing money to meet the short fall is nothing but deferred taxation for future generations. The ones that will be paying for this generations poor management of the economy.

People genuinely can't fathom that.

They will bleet "bondholder... Bondholder".

Except that the bondholder tragedy accounts for about 3% of annual expenditure.

The other 97% has to come from somewhere.

Your right, debt is just a tax rise deferred.

munchkin_utd

Johan Screeching Handgun wrote: »

<snip>
Edit: I agree that we already pay for water in general taxes but I don't see where the anti-water crowd are getting their % figures.

you dont if you have to drill your own well or are on a group scheme and have to pay to have a septic tank installed and maintained.

great that so many have had "free" water to now. But it was never universal.

Alf Veedersane

Manach wrote: »

Unfortunately the revenues collected are no longer sufficient for the government increase in spending as it takes up more of the GDP in activities outside its core functions.

They're also no longer sufficient to cover the amount needed to upgrade the existing infrastructure.

Chips Lovell

PeterBrown1415 wrote: »

This is yet another 'bondholder tax', just like Income levy, Property Tax, USC and Household charge. Ultimately, whatever it's called, the money ends up in the same place.

For Reals wrote: »

Now, due to the Irish tax payer bailing out private bondholders and our government wanting to ensure a shot at a decent FU EU job after their term, we have a continuation of the house tax, the coming communications tax and the water tax. These are designed to cover a shortfall in the public funds but are in no way related to private houses costing the state anything or water suddenly being a government priority.

Such is the amount of things now being pinned on the "bondholders", you'd actually have paid them back several times over at this stage.

As BoJack Horseman points out, servicing the entire banking bailout bill accounts for 3% of public expenditure. The unsecured bondholders was a fraction of that.

BoJack Horseman

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

As BoJack Horseman points out, servicing the entire banking bailout bill accounts for 3% of public expenditure. The unsecured bondholders was a fraction of that.

To clarify where I got that figure from

- Primary expenditure is €54bn.
- Extra expenditure on national debt is about €7bn
- Of which the promissory note (Anglo/bondholder tragedy) amounts to about €1.7bn ..... as its on a huge repayment term.

€1.7bn of the total €61bn = 2.8%

So I'm sure some of the taxation now no longer spent on water will go to Germany... But proportionately not much.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

I never said it was universal.

The fact is that everyone who pays taxes has paid for water, whether you received it or not. I pay tax towards medical cards but I don't have a medical card.

I have no problem with paying for water that I use. It should have been metered years ago.

However the formation of Irish Water has been a complete sham. In no way was it setup with the directive of "Improving water conservation". What a load of complete and utter tripe. This is purely a tax to raise the needed funds for government coffers.

The question the OP has asked " Do we already pay for water" . The answer is YES.

There is no grey area. The local councils didn't magic the funds from thin air.

munchkin_utd wrote: »

you dont if you have to drill your own well or are on a group scheme and have to pay to have a septic tank installed and maintained.

great that so many have had "free" water to now. But it was never universal.

ardmacha

The basic premise of this thread is that government can never adjust the things it charges for or taxes, the basket of taxes and charges is immutable for all time. This is nonsense, of course. Note that those arguing that no new charge or tax can never, in any circumstances, be introduced do not have the same inflexible attitude when a tax or charge is removed, so over time you end with public services with less and less revenue.

charlie_says

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

To clarify where I got that figure from

- Primary expenditure is €54bn.
- Extra expenditure on national debt is about €7bn
- Of which the promissory note (Anglo/bondholder tragedy) amounts to about €1.7bn ..... as its on a huge repayment term.

€1.7bn of the total €61bn = 2.8%

So I'm sure some of the taxation now no longer spent on water will go to Germany... But proportionately not much.

Do you have a source for that please?

Thanks.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Or the government increase taxes that we already pay like VAT... VRT...Fuel... etc. Should I mention USC or leave that alone?

ardmacha wrote: »

... so over time you end with public services with less and less revenue.

BoJack Horseman

charlie_says wrote: »

Do you have a source for that please?

Thanks.

1) the budget just gone (regarding expenditure & debt costs for 2014/15)

2) the promissory note deal on the Anglo/bondholder debt
http://m.rte.ie/news/2013/0207/366574-ibrc-ecb-promissory-note/
Much longer term traded for a lower year on year repayment.

Timberrrrrrrr

Johan Screeching Handgun wrote: »

Or the government increase taxes that we already pay like VAT... VRT...Fuel... etc. Should I mention USC or leave that alone?

So the gov shpuld raise taxes yet again and let the tax payers cover all of the cost and meanwhile there are people who pay **** all sitting at home with their sky subscriptions and Spanish holidays paying nothing?

alastair

charlie_says wrote: »

Do you have a source for that please?

Thanks.

Ronan Lyons had a really good article on the weekly household tax spend a couple of years back - the bank bailouts, and accrued interest for them were indeed below 5% then, and they should have reduced since them with the re-scheduled payments deal.

FreudianSlippers

Johan Screeching Handgun wrote: »

I never said it was universal.

The fact is that everyone who pays taxes has paid for water, whether you received it or not. I pay tax towards medical cards but I don't have a medical card.

I have no problem with paying for water that I use. It should have been metered years ago.

However the formation of Irish Water has been a complete sham. In no way was it setup with the directive of "Improving water conservation". What a load of complete and utter tripe. This is purely a tax to raise the needed funds for government coffers.

I don't disagree, however...

The question the OP has asked " Do we already pay for water" . The answer is YES.

There is no grey area. The local councils didn't magic the funds from thin air.

The answer is actually "sort of". As someone else said, it's impossible to state exactly where our taxes go, but the amount spent on water will be significantly reduced from the "taxation pool" - there will be some money which will be used to subsidise the rate and provide allowances.

creedp

ardmacha wrote: »

The basic premise of this thread is that government can never adjust the things it charges for or taxes, the basket of taxes and charges is immutable for all time. This is nonsense, of course. Note that those arguing that no new charge or tax can never, in any circumstances, be introduced do not have the same inflexible attitude when a tax or charge is removed, so over time you end with public services with less and less revenue.

That argument certainly doesn't apply to me .. I won't speak for others .. Govt has introduced new charges/taxes in the past and while not welcomed have been accepted, e.g. are the universally hated 'universal social charge' and the prescription charge for medical card holders which tore up the previously held principle that medical card holders should pay for nothing. My problem is not with water charges, its with IW or whatever it is they call themselves now.

I understood the reason IW was tied into BG was to leverage its expertise as a utility supplier/biller but in reality the only logical reason I can see for this tie in is to have guaranteed access to the rather good terms and conditions availalbe to BG employees. I find this difficult to swallow as the excuse given by Govt for not applying pay cuts to semi-state workers is that they have existing contractual entitlement to these and we can't interfere with these terms. Why then did they establish a new organisation and link them to these existing contractual terms? Why not establish the organisation as a seperate entitly and agree terms and conditions appropriate to the economic circumstances in the country today? Given that once established IW had to spend a small fortune on consultancy to install a billing/charging system appropriate to a water utility company where was the advantage of linking in with BG?

I happen to agree with Howlin and the local government managers who said IW should not be paying bonuses to its staff ... I really can't understand if this view is held why the Govt allowed the current structure to be put in place. The reality is unlike the other utility companies, a large proportion of IW expenditure will continue to be covered by the taxpayer for many years .. through funding allowances and subventing the cost of infrastructural development .. why is the taxpayer (or at least a subset of taxpayers) so supportive of funding the added costs of water provision associated with running IW when there would be universal blue murder from taxpayers if public servants delivering this same service received these terms and conditions?

If I worked for Revenue I would be foaming at the mouth now .. look how successful Revenue was at collecteing the LPT .. should its staff not be entited to a share of the spoils for a job well done for the Govt? How would taxpayers feel if revenue official received a 19% bonus and a €10k car allowance for efficiently collecting their taxes? I wonder do Revenue officials have acces to a gym to maintain their motivation levels to continually improve their performance levels? Surely, if its a no brainer that these measures are successful, the taxpayer should be calling for these measures to be implemented ensure their taxes are efficienty collected?

alastair

creedp wrote: »

I understood the reason IW was tied into BG was to leverage its expertise as a utility supplier/biller but in reality the only logical reason I can see for this tie in is to have guaranteed access to the rather good terms and conditions availalbe to BG employees.

A significant reason that IW was tied in with Bord Gais is that it enables the water management to be taken out of the state's end of year liabilities, and into the semi state sector. If it's to be a semi-state for book-keeping purposes (which seems a legitimate strategy to me), then should it be a new semi-state, or one aligned with a semi-state already engaged in the utility business? I seriously doubt the employee terms and conditions at BG ever really entered into the decision-making process.

SameDiff

It's just another way of increasing tax. They could do it with a change to income tax higher rates. With a stroke of a pen they could earn the same amount with a 1 or 2% increase in the top rate, but it's easier to apply what people perceive as a fair tax i.e. 'metered water usage'.

Last thing Kenny wants to do is alienate top earners, so it's easier to apply the tax to everybody.

It's completely unjust and unconstitutional, but it's Ireland. It's not England, when Thatcher tried to introduce the poll tax and all hell broke loose. Irish people will himmm and hawww and then comply.

They always do. Anyone who opposes will be shouted down as a nutter.

FreudianSlippers

SameDiff wrote: »

It's just another way of increasing tax. They could do it with a change to income tax higher rates. With a stroke of a pen they could earn the same amount with a 1 or 2% increase in the top rate, but it's easier to apply what people perceive as a fair tax i.e. 'metered water usage'.

I'm not sure how they would reconcile this with the Troika MoU? I'm further unclear on how increasing top rate tax (which I'll remind you is €32,800) is fair to anyone or even remotely benefits the majority of the country.

Last thing Kenny wants to do is alienate top earners, so it's easier to apply the tax to everybody.

€32,800! I'M RICH BEYOND MY WILDEST DREAMS!

It's completely unjust and unconstitutional

How is it unconstitutional? I won't bother waiting for a reply as it'll never happen.

SameDiff

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not sure how they would reconcile this with the Troika MoU? I'm further unclear on how increasing top rate tax (which I'll remind you is €32,800) is fair to anyone or even remotely benefits the majority of the country.


€32,800! I'M RICH BEYOND MY WILDEST DREAMS!


How is it unconstitutional? I won't bother waiting for a reply as it'll never happen.

....as I said anyone who opposes will be shouted down. Q.E.D.

Google "Poll Tax Riots" a.k.a. the community charge (bells ringing yet?), it cost Thatcher her career.

alastair

SameDiff wrote: »

It's completely unjust and unconstitutional

Actually, it's both just and constitutional.

SameDiff

alastair wrote: »

Actually, it's both just and constitutional.

....as I said anyone who opposes will be shouted down. Q.E.D.

BoJack Horseman

SameDiff wrote: »

Google "Poll Tax Riots" a.k.a. the community charge (bells ringing yet?), it cost Thatcher her career.

Hopefully there won't be similar levels of violence for a utility bill marginally higher than the TV lisence fee.

Let change happen at the ballot box.

alastair

SameDiff wrote: »

....as I said anyone who opposes will be shouted down. Q.E.D.

Google "Poll Tax Riots" a.k.a. the community charge (bells ringing yet?), it cost Thatcher her career.

Th local authorities refused to enforce the poll tax collection, which made it's introduction more than a bit problematic. The local authorities here don't seem to have any problem with water charges, and the bill enforcement mechanisms for IW are pretty proven.

creedp

alastair wrote: »

A significant reason that IW was tied in with Bord Gais is that it enables the water management to be taken out of the state's end of year liabilities, and into the semi state sector. If it's to be a semi-state for book-keeping purposes (which seems a legitimate strategy to me), then should it be a new semi-state, or one aligned with a semi-state already engaged in the utility business? I seriously doubt the employee terms and conditions at BG ever really entered into the decision-making process.

Well as I see it one of the real deal breakers for public support for water charges are the BG term and conditions to which IW employees have become entitled to. In hindsight was were the particular advantage of linking IW to an existing utility comapny?

BoJack Horseman

SameDiff wrote: »

....as I said anyone who opposes will be shouted down. Q.E.D.

Dude, a contrary opinion is not "shouted down".

alastair

SameDiff wrote: »

....as I said anyone who opposes will be shouted down. Q.E.D.

Is someone shouting you down? You made a false claim. Just pointing that out.

BoJack Horseman

creedp wrote: »

was were the particular advantage of linking IW to an existing utility comapny?

I'm guessing it allows IW to borrow more favourably compared to their ability as a new standalone entity?

SameDiff

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Let change happen at the ballot box.

I wouldn't have much faith in a populace that put Bertie Ahern in three times. The Irish are f*cking clueless when it comes to national affairs. All the educated ones leave.

BoJack Horseman

SameDiff wrote: »

I wouldn't have much faith in a populace that put Bertie Ahern in three times. The Irish are f*cking clueless when it comes to national affairs. All the educated ones leave.

BoJack is still here.

Or, (to be contrarian) considering the alternate menu of SF/The Joe Higgins Party/Freeman Ben Gilroy/National Independence Party (our very own BNP)/Eirigi (even worse)...... The Irish in their wisdom have chosen a calmer course

..... (Bertie aside of course)

creedp

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I'm guessing it allows IW to borrow more favourably compared to their ability as a new standalone entity?

Well I'm only guessing also but I would have thought that its status as a semi-state organisation would give it the basis for more favourable borrowing terms .. as I said only guessing here as I've have yet to hear what the stated reason is. Maybe it has been swallowed up in the din of the continued justification of why IW as it is currently constituted is the only option in town.

FREETV

It is an out and out scam designed to bleed us dry, an austerity tax.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/will-saturdays-water-rally-be-the-day-when-sitting-ducks-who-forked-out-for-austerity-finally-stand-up-to-be-counted-30701456.html

FreudianSlippers

SameDiff wrote: »

....as I said anyone who opposes will be shouted down. Q.E.D.

Google "Poll Tax Riots" a.k.a. the community charge (bells ringing yet?), it cost Thatcher her career.

I'm not shouting anyone down. You made the claim, you support it.

hmmm

We're borrowing about 8 billion a year, so to answer the OP's question we're not paying for water and instead we're passing the bill onto our children.

hmmm

SameDiff wrote: »

Last thing Kenny wants to do is alienate top earners, so it's easier to apply the tax to everybody.

Sure why not simply raise the top tax rate to 90% and completely drive out anyone in this country with a bit of drive and ambition. Someone has to pay for all this "free" stuff that's being demanded, although I don't know why those Irish political parties on the left should be fighting to get property taxes (such as the property tax and water charge) repealed, and instead trying to get those taxes placed on workers income.

If you want to live in a massive house with a massive garden you water every day, why should everyone else have to subsidise your lifestyle?

FREETV

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/demand-for-pps-number-risks-putting-information-on-tap-30701460.html

That is why everybody should be out protesting as we already pay and the whole Irish Water is a corrupt sham, the idiots in power do not serve us and haven't a clue, couldn't look after and run a class of children yet are in charge of running the Country for us.
They are only interested in looking after their own vested interests.

seanaway

Anybody who doubts where this is going should watch this documentary.

It's long (90mins or so) but *WELL* worth the time.

Have no doubts, IW will be sold off.
http://www.bluegold-worldwaterwars.com/