Irish Water - Tax or Charge for service?

Godge

NorthStars wrote: »

Water, in my opinion, is a basic service any country should provide for all of it's citizens.
It should be funded through general taxation for the benefit of all.
Commodifying this one basic of life should be frowned upon and resisted with vigour.

If a 26 county 'Water Services Board' is required to coordinate the existing LA water section workers, so be it.
It wouldn't take a genius to set this up.

Up until FG and Labour came to power, we were spending up to €1.2 billion a year on water provision and infrastructure.
This has been reduced by this government to somewhere around €400 million pa.

There's a reason for this and as far back as 2009 FG had their IW plans in place. Stop investment, run the system down in order to give them the reason to sell off this basic right.

Some people here are claiming that banks and bondholders should be paid off ahead of providing clean water and a decent infrastructure for the people of this country.

I find this attitude quite disgusting, and to be fair, it's a minority view.

So, in short, a coordinated plan for water provision is acceptable, to be funded from general taxation for the benefit of all.

The cuts to water investment were made by the previous FF government under instruction from the Troika. It is to FG and Labour's credit that they attempted to set up a system to take decisions about investment in water services away from political interference and control into a single publicly-owned utility that could borrow in its own right and address the many different problems created by the broken system of LA water provision. It is unfortunate that they panicked at the sign of protest and changed the financing system which meant they ultimately failed the Eurostat test. Sticking to their guns, as the excellent Eddie Molloy article I posted earlier in the thread demonstrated would have resulted in a far better outcome.

As for user pays, it is the only way to ensure the end-user focuses on conservation.


You say: "Some people here are claiming that banks and bondholders should be paid off ahead of providing clean water and a decent infrastructure for the people of this country."

That is a complete misrepresentation of the pro-water charges position and completely without merit.

Irish Water is a charge for service. That service is the provision of potable water at an affordable cost. It is only right that people pay for what they use and are rewarded for conservation of a scarce resource.

Quin_Dub

Deleted User wrote: »

Like PRSI??

Well - what I meant is that your "unemployment Insurance" would cover a fixed % of your original salary, e.g. 80% for 12 months or something and not just a standard fixed rate regardless of your income.

Amirani

View wrote: »

It isn't stealing. It is a democratic decision of the Oireachtas. They can vote to take the monies from any tax and spend it on any service they want.

Motor tax also pays somewhat for the negative environmental externalities involved in having a road system (hence it's a motor tax rather than a road tax, and bicycles don't pay). If some of this environmental tax is used to improve the environmental impact of water distribution - i.e. through a reduction in waste water and water inefficiencies, then that seems perfectly reasonable.

K-9

Mod:
Thread closed for review.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

Mod:
Thread closed for review.

From the Opening Post:

It is not a thread for issues such as whether Irish Water is a corrupt organisation, the protests (good bad or indifferent), glee or disdain about the amount of people that have signed up, discussions as to how many people have actually signed up or paid, whether it is to be kept off books or should be part of the national debt, whether it will be privatised etc etc. All these things are off topic for this thread,

Sorry for the delay over the weekend.

NorthStars and Synode, please do not post again in this thread, there already was an on thread mod warning and I had to delete a series of posts about registration percentages after that.

Nichard Dixon

Deleted User wrote: »

Irish Water is a charge for service. That service is the provision of potable water at an affordable cost. It is only right that people pay for what they use and are rewarded for conservation of a scarce resource.

Spot on. There must be some relationship between payment and use to ensure that people do not waste water and appreciate that it costs money. Water can be subsidised to some extent but some element of payment must remain.

In the Dublin area any moderation in water demand will mean that elaborate engineering to bring water from the Shannon etc may not be needed, this public expenditure could be wisely used elsewhere.

ancapailldorcha

Off topic posts deleted.

Godge

Nichard Dixon wrote: »

Spot on. There must be some relationship between payment and use to ensure that people do not waste water and appreciate that it costs money. Water can be subsidised to some extent but some element of payment must remain.

In the Dublin area any moderation in water demand will mean that elaborate engineering to bring water from the Shannon etc may not be needed, this public expenditure could be wisely used elsewhere.

That is the key to Irish Water.

The infrastructural cost of bringing water from the Shannon is huge and the environmental damage it will cause is also severe. If metered water charges bring conservation and that delays the infrastructural requirement by a couple of decades, then Irish Water is a success by that measure alone. Given Dublin has already the lowest leakage rates in the country, the antis' mantra of fix the leaks first doesn't apply.

heyjude

Its a tax dressed up (and apparently marketed successfully in some quarters) as a charge. The charges were supposed to be set by the regulator and in their original form, apparently included a standing charge, but following intervention by the government(Labour Party opposition), the standing charge had disappeared when the charging regime was announced last year prior to the 31st October 2014 deadline for registration with Irish Water.

The regulator had therefore, last year, apparently approved a charge regime that included a standing charge. Labour Party opposition saw the standing charge removed and a different set of charges which included the infamous 'free allowances' for anyone registering by the 31st Oct deadline, were published. But by late November, the government announced that they had decided on a new charge regime with the promised 'free allowance' now abolished, but the childrens' free allowance was retained. These charges are those being billed now.

But if this was genuinely a charge rather than a tax, then why is it that the government seems to effectively set the level of charges itself and they seem to have modified them several times either independent of the regulator or having overruled him, in response to feedback from the government parties or in response to negative public reaction. Also if Irish Water is a charge, like any other utility(and we are frequently told that other countries charge for water in this way), then why is their a free allowance for every child ? No other utility gives you a free allowance for each child and I doubt if they could easily find any other utility in Europe that does so.

The final argument in favour of it being a tax rather than a charge, was the revelation that the regulator had agreed that if Irish Water does not raise as much income as expected, due to reduced water consumption as people economise, then the regulator was prepared to give them a price increase to compensate. So if you cut your water use to save money, they could increase the unit cost of your water, so you could end up still paying the same, so what you pay wouldn't be related to your usage but would instead be related to what Irish Water needs to bring in. This makes a nonsense of the suggestion that one of the major reasons for charging for water is to encourage people to economise and is the type of behaviour you might expect of a Finance Minister, who, for example, adds extra duty to fuel when fuel prices drop, to keep tax revenue up as VAT on fuel falls.

If the charging regime for Irish Water is decided or has to be approved by the government, if free allowances for children are included at the governments' behest, if the sanctions that Irish Water(such as a ban on disconnection) have to be approved by the government, then for that and the previously mentioned reasons, Irish Water is a tax.

Galloglass

Amirani wrote: »

Motor tax also pays somewhat for the negative environmental externalities involved in having a road system (hence it's a motor tax rather than a road tax, and bicycles don't pay). If some of this environmental tax is used to improve the environmental impact of water distribution - i.e. through a reduction in waste water and water inefficiencies, then that seems perfectly reasonable.

So far as I know Motor Tax has been paying for Uisce Éireann.....I would like to claim my "Conservation Grant" but was surprised to find I am REQUIRED by the DSP to provide my PPS number to do so. Simply can't imagine why .....Any ideas anyone?

Seth Brundle

Galloglass wrote: »

So far as I know Motor Tax has been paying for Uisce Éireann.....I would like to claim my "Conservation Grant" but was surprised to find I am REQUIRED by the DSP to provide my PPS number to do so. Simply can't imagine why .....Any ideas anyone?

Because the DSP do their best to tackle fraud.
How would you suggest that it is limited to one payment per household?

Oh, and motor tax has not been paying for Uisce Eireann. It has been used to pay towards UE. Thetes quite a difference if you understand basic maths!

Galloglass

Are you suggesting that someone could "fraudulently" claim a "Conservation" grant? HOW would they do that?

My opinion is that the DSP intends to facillitate "Collection" of Water Charges by means of Wage Deduction etc (through Revenue and DSP) by means of PPS numbers.

I THOUGHT the "Grant" has NOTHING to do with Uisce Eireann. That's what the Government tells us anyway.

Seth Brundle

Galloglass wrote: »

Are you suggesting that someone could "fraudulently" claim a "Conservation" grant? HOW would they do that?

I didn't suggest anything.
I stated facts.

Galloglass wrote: »

My opinion is that the DSP intends to facillitate "Collection" of Water Charges by means of Wage Deduction etc (through Revenue and DSP) by means of PPS numbers.

Your opinion is wrong.

Galloglass wrote: »

I THOUGHT the "Grant" has NOTHING to do with Uisce Eireann. That's what the Government tells us anyway.

The grant is paid separately to any payments to IW. This is why the muppets are paying it to those who still think they have a right to refuse paying.

Galloglass

Your opinion is wrong.

The grant is paid separately to any payments to IW. This is why the muppets are paying it to those who still think they have a right to refuse paying.

SMILEY.....
Methinks you doth protest too much. As you seem incapablle of directly adressing my question
"WHY DOES DSP REQUIRE MY PPS NUMBER TO PAY ME A WATER CONSERVATION GRANT"

I'll love you and leave you....see you at the polls soon. Slán.

oscarBravo

Galloglass wrote: »

"WHY DOES DSP REQUIRE MY PPS NUMBER TO PAY ME A WATER CONSERVATION GRANT"

I'm open to correction, but I'm unaware of any circumstances in which DSP will pay anything to anyone without a PPS number. It's their "primary key", so to speak.

Godge

:

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm open to correction, but I'm unaware of any circumstances in which DSP will pay anything to anyone without a PPS number. It's their "primary key", so to speak.

Don't you know, the DSP want to sell his PPS number to Denis O'Brien:D

Seriously, you are correct, even things like child benefit require a PPS number, as does the dole, pension etc.

Quin_Dub

Godge wrote: »

:


Don't you know, the DSP want to sell his PPS number to Denis O'Brien:D

Seriously, you are correct, even things like child benefit require a PPS number, as does the dole, pension etc.

They are going even further now - Everyone over 16 is to be issued with a photo ID card which will have your PPS number on it - To be used for any and all interactions with Government departments..

It's a fraud prevention measure - They are also now using facial recognition software to compare applicants to limit fraud..

According to an article in the Irish Times on Saturday they caught some guy via the technology that had claimed almost €500k in various benefits using 12 different id's!

I must say I've never quite understood the whole "Why should I tell the Government what my Government issued Reference number is?" position...

Definitely baffles me.

FreudianSlippers

Galloglass wrote: »

Your opinion is wrong.

The grant is paid separately to any payments to IW. This is why the muppets are paying it to those who still think they have a right to refuse paying.

SMILEY.....
Methinks you doth protest too much. As you seem incapablle of directly adressing my question
"WHY DOES DSP REQUIRE MY PPS NUMBER TO PAY ME A WATER CONSERVATION GRANT"

I'll love you and leave you....see you at the polls soon. Slán.

http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Personal-Public-Service-Number-PPS-Number-Frequently-Asked.aspx


Q1. What is my PPS No.?

A1. Your PPS Number is your Personal Public Service Number. It is a unique identifier for use in any transactions you may have with public bodies or persons authorised by those bodies to act on their behalf. Use of the number eliminates the possibility of confusing one person with another and makes it possible for public bodies to operate more efficiently and effectively with their customers.


I wouldn't have thought it rocket surgery myself.

micosoft

heyjude wrote: »

The final argument in favour of it being a tax rather than a charge, was the revelation that the regulator had agreed that if Irish Water does not raise as much income as expected, due to reduced water consumption as people economise, then the regulator was prepared to give them a price increase to compensate. So if you cut your water use to save money, they could increase the unit cost of your water, so you could end up still paying the same, so what you pay wouldn't be related to your usage but would instead be related to what Irish Water needs to bring in. This makes a nonsense of the suggestion that one of the major reasons for charging for water is to encourage people to economise and is the type of behaviour you might expect of a Finance Minister, who, for example, adds extra duty to fuel when fuel prices drop, to keep tax revenue up as VAT on fuel falls.

This will never happen as this argument consistently fails to take account of population growth and industry growth particularly on the East coast. It simply won't happen. It's like criticising the ESB that their energy conservation drive will result in higher per unit costs therefore the ESB bill is a tax. It's not a serious argument.

As for the rest. I agree that the Government has made a mess by trying to pander to those elements. We already have a simple model provided in the Electricity and Gas markets. State controlled distribution monopoly. Competition at generation and customer service level. Regulator for prices. I'd be quite happy to pay SSE airtricity/Electric Ireland/BGE or whoever for a combined Gas, Water, Electricity bill.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/its-hard-to-swallow-but-irish-waters-here-to-stay-31469645.html

This article by Eddie Molloy addresses many of the issues raised in a discussion about how we should charge for water.

"Water is indeed a human right, but it has to be paid for just like education or food. The idea that water can be paid for out of "general taxation" is a blatant political deceit that ultimately will impact most on poor people. By driving the debts of Irish Water back on to the Government's balance sheet, the effect will be two-fold. Firstly, investment in water will have to compete with restoration of vital social services decimated over the past decade. Every day we hear of nursing homes unfit for purpose, long waiting lists for children needing psychiatric care, families made homeless - and so on. Not one of those who rails against Irish Water has come anywhere near calculating the full costs of meeting all of these pressing needs, while blithely conceding that the utility's requirement for hundreds of millions over the next decade should compete with these priorities.
Secondly, the impressive programme that Irish Water engineers have mapped out to provide clean water, to stop fouling our lakes rivers and beaches, and to replace lead pipes, will slow down because the quantum of funds needed to carry out these planned works will not be forthcoming from the Government's coffers."

That extract above makes a very strong case for a charges-based system.

At some stage people working and working their holes off have to ask the question where is all the 50 odd billion that we pay in tax go to and if we dont get water for this what the hell are we getting?

View

fliball123 wrote: »

At some stage people working and working their holes off have to ask the question where is all the 50 odd billion that we pay in tax go to and if we dont get water for this what the hell are we getting?

Try reading the government's annual accounts (the detailed
Budget accounts, financial statements etc). If that is too much to tackle at first go, start with those of your local authority which are smaller and narrower in focus.

fliball123

View wrote: »

Try reading the government's annual accounts (the detailed
Budget accounts, financial statements etc). If that is too much to tackle at first go, start with those of your local authority which are smaller and narrower in focus.

Yes but you have to break this down to the person working and what they get for the money they pay. If water is not included in the multitude of taxes, PRSI, PAYE, USC, VAT, Road Tax, Carbon Tax, Inheritance Tax, Property Tax, Stamp duty, Capital Gains Tax. At what point does an individual who pays for all of this turn and ask the question where is all of this money going and you can point to the annual accounts how much of that is going to other people (banks, Public servants both working and retired, and how much goes on welfare) and at what point is it worth taking issue with yet an other additional tax when we are already an over taxed society when you are an average bog standard worker..

BoJack Horseman

fliball123 wrote: »

Yes but you have to break this down to the person working and what they get for the money they pay. If water is not included in the multitude of taxes, PRSI, PAYE, USC, VAT, Road Tax, Carbon Tax, Inheritance Tax, Property Tax, Stamp duty, Capital Gains Tax. At what point does an individual who pays for all of this turn and ask the question where is all of this money going and you can point to the annual accounts how much of that is going to other people (banks, Public servants both working and retired, and how much goes on welfare) and at what point is it worth taking issue with yet an other additional tax when we are already an over taxed society when you are an average bog standard worker..

The answer is still above, anyone can look up where it all goes..... and none of it disappears.

As for overtaxing.... Ireland is about in the middle for taxation, around 36% of GDP..... Much less than the nations people want us to emulate for some reason.

fliball123

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The answer is still above, anyone can look up where it all goes..... and none of it disappears.

As for overtaxing.... Ireland is about in the middle for taxation, around 36% of GDP.

And anyone paying all of these taxes are paying more than enough to cover water. As I say its where the money is being spent(wasted) where the issue is. Tax has continuously risen in this country over the last 2 decades and spend has kept rising bar a blip for the recession from 2008 to 2012 and by the end of this year we will be back spending boom time money. This is why water is well paid for by the taxes paid..the problem is the powers that be pay for banks and other ridiculous things and then expect us to pay more in tax. This is the problem currently, nothing to do with Irish water its to do with it being that final straw on the camels back

fliball123

fliball123 wrote: »

Yes but you have to break this down to the person working and what they get for the money they pay. If water is not included in the multitude of taxes, PRSI, PAYE, USC, VAT, Road Tax, Carbon Tax, Inheritance Tax, Property Tax, Stamp duty, Capital Gains Tax. At what point does an individual who pays for all of this turn and ask the question where is all of this money going and you can point to the annual accounts how much of that is going to other people (banks, Public servants both working and retired, and how much goes on welfare) and at what point is it worth taking issue with yet an other additional tax when we are already an over taxed society when you are an average bog standard worker..

http://www.publicpolicy.ie/where-does-your-tax-go/

BoJack Horseman

fliball123 wrote: »

And anyone paying all of these taxes are paying more than enough to cover water. As I say its where the money is being spent(wasted) where the issue is

Wait.... So, water & sewage provision is more than adequately funded?

As for waste.... That is subjective.

There are million of snouts in the states trough, they all think their slice of the pie must be protected.

Truth is, for the state to be as well funded as people want, taxation is nowhere near high enough.

listermint

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Wait.... So, water & sewage provision is more than adequately funded?

As for waste.... That is subjective.

There are million of snouts in the states trough, they all think their slice of the pie must beprotected.

Truth is, for the state to be as well funded as people want, taxation is nowhere near high enough.

But wasnt the LPT meant to handle for these local services ? What is LPT for now if not to fund for services ?

BoJack Horseman

listermint wrote: »

But wasnt the LPT meant to handle for these local services ? What is LPT for now if not to fund for services ?

They are all still running on much less funding & staff than they were at peak though.

No area of the public service is as well funded as it was at peak levels, relative to the population & the demands placed on it.

If you want more from the public service, you have to pay more.

listermint

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

They are all still running on much less funding & staff than they were at peak though.

No area of the public service is as well funded as it was at peak levels, relative to the population & the demands placed on it.

If you want more from the public service, you have to pay more.

I dont want more, i want the same that we have been paying for.

except now the funding has been increased ala LPT . But sure thats not enough we not have this water tax.

Whos asking for 'more services' ?