Irish Water - Tax or Charge for service?

fliball123

Deleted User wrote: »

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

So tell me if I am no longer in education, work from home, dont have children, dont claim the dole or any other welfare provision, and do not work for the public service and I pay all of the above taxes that I listed you tell me what value do I get for paying out these taxes?

This is what has to be taken into consideration when discussing this I appreciate what your trying to spell out but the majority of people pay a lot of money n tax and see this tax take being spent on other people and they see and get no value in it.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

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' ?

Even if LPT was ring fenced entirely, it would come nowhere near covering the cost of water provision alone (in millions).

2013 2014 2015
£264 £522 £328*


Would you like to campaign for an increased LPT?

*year to July
http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/lpt/lpt-stats-0715.pdf

fliball123

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 be protected.

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

you have just said there are a million snouts in the trough and you think we should pay more in order to keep the status quo. I dont think so water charges will be IMO a big vote buyer in the next G.E and will be done away with. People are paying more than enough when all taxation (both direct and indirect) is taken into account we are paying a lot of cash to keep the piggies noses in the trough, unfortunately they have come back to the well once to often and will be Fine Gael's and Labour's downfall in the next G.E

fliball123

fliball123 wrote: »

So tell me if I am no longer in education, work from home, dont have children, dont claim the dole or any other welfare provision, and do not work for the public service and I pay all of the above taxes that I listed you tell me what value do I get for paying out these taxes?

This is what has to be taken into consideration when discussing this I appreciate what your trying to spell out but the majority of people pay a lot of money n tax and see this tax take being spent on other people and they see and get no value in it.

Did you pay for your education whilst you were undertaking it?

fliball123

Deleted User wrote: »

Did you pay for your education whilst you were undertaking it?

Were my parents not paying for that your question may raise a chicken and egg scenario?

fliball123

fliball123 wrote: »

you have just said there are a million snouts in the trough and you think we should pay more in order to keep the status quo. I dont think so water charges will be IMO a big vote buyer in the next G.E and will be done away with. People are paying more than enough when all taxation (both direct and indirect) is taken into account we are paying a lot of cash to keep the piggies noses in the trough, unfortunately they have come back to the well once to often and will be Fine Gael's and Labour's downfall in the next G.E

The Government is operating a budget deficit which by definition means that we are not paying enough towards the running of the state. We are currently running a State beyond our means.

fliball123

fliball123 wrote: »

Were my parents not paying for that your question may raise a chicken and egg scenario?

Not particularly. Simple consideration, a couple with 16 kids vs a couple with 1 kid.

Both couples pay same tax, one couple gets 16 "€€ Educations", one gets 1 "€€ Education".

We have a society which operates free education because of the benefits to all of an educated society, which is then 'reaped' in taxes. Deferred payment in effect.

(That's the simplistic plan)

BoJack Horseman

fliball123 wrote: »

you have just said there are a million snouts in the trough and you think we should pay more in order to keep the status quo

I don't, I'm all for a smaller state.... It's Irish people in general that want more, more public services, more welfare etc etc...

People are paying more than enough when all taxation (both direct and indirect) is taken into account we are paying a lot of cash to keep the piggies noses in the trough, unfortunately they have come back to the well once to often and will be Fine Gael's and Labour's downfall in the next G.E

This is confusing because, objectively, the opposition are in favour of higher taxation than the current government.

If you say people want lower taxes, what makes you think they will elect parties committed to them being raised?

listermint

Deleted User wrote: »

Even if LPT was ring fenced entirely, it would come nowhere near covering the cost of water provision alone (in millions).

2013 2014 2015
£264 £522 £328*


Would you like to campaign for an increased LPT?

*year to July
http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/lpt/lpt-stats-0715.pdf

Your figures are in sterling, but il let that slide.

I do not have any campaign to increase LPT, the question surrounds what it was for. The voting public were told it was for local services such as water provision etc. Then that was pulled out from under them. So they are being asked to fund it via a new tax, the water tax. And you have issue as to why people are asking questions as to where funding is going.

Surely that is only natural no ?

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Your figures are in sterling, but il let that slide.

I do not have any campaign to increase LPT, the question surrounds what it was for. The voting public were told it was for local services such as water provision etc. Then that was pulled out from under them. So they are being asked to fund it via a new tax, the water tax. And you have issue as to why people are asking questions as to where funding is going.

Surely that is only natural no ?

I'm in the UK, so the localisation in excel is sterling. Apologies on Microsoft's behalf.

It's straightforward. The LPT (at current rates) would not cover the provision of all the services that you have listed. It wouldn't even adequately cover some of one of the services.

So that money to cover that shortfall must come from somewhere. We can raise LPT (five fold!) to cover the funding gap. Or we can efficiently cover the funding gap required to provide one of those services whilst reducing the costs (again, ignore the bolloxy pandering that FG/LAB managed to do with unions & capped charges) through metered charges for water.

Regarding your final question. I guess the answer is yes. If your prior assumptions are wrong, it is likely that your posterior assumptions will also be wrong. However, quite simply, you should not have believed that LPT could cover the costs of all services required.

fliball123

Deleted User wrote: »

The Government is operating a budget deficit which by definition means that we are not paying enough towards the running of the state. We are currently running a State beyond our means.

so the 2million people working pay just under 18billion in income tax which works out at about 9k a year per person working

Add in about 12billion for VAT for a population of 5million add in 2.4k

http://www.publicpolicy.ie/irelands-fiscal-profile-q4-2014/


if you look at this we pay 11.4k in tax if your working and going about your business as usual. Now what does this money pay for you put up the the site of http://www.publicpolicy.ie/where-does-your-tax-go/#middle-link

A lot of people get phuck all value from some of the above and there are other taxes like property taxes, carbon taxes and road taxes that cover some of these so where is this money going too and why should I have to pay more for water when I pay more than enough for what I rely on from the state.

Its about time the tax payer woke up and started asking the question do we get bang for our buck and unfortunately we dont

listermint

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm in the UK, so the localisation in excel is sterling. Apologies on Microsoft's behalf.

It's straightforward. The LPT (at current rates) would not cover the provision of all the services that you have listed. It wouldn't even adequately cover some of one of the services.

So that money to cover that shortfall must come from somewhere. We can raise LPT (five fold!) to cover the funding gap. Or we can efficiently cover the funding gap required to provide one of those services whilst reducing the costs (again, ignore the bolloxy pandering that FG/LAB managed to do with unions & capped charges) through metered charges for water.

Or we could keep it from taxation as it is today.

But those would rather us pay

LPT
The existing tax to cover it
and Water Tax too.

Anything more next year to add? Privatisation of all health services perhaps? Less and less for your tax money. And being made to feel like you are ungrateful when asking what you are paying for.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Or we could keep it from taxation as it is today.

But those would rather us pay

LPT
The existing tax to cover it
and Water Tax too.

Anything more next year to add? Privatisation of all health services perhaps? Less and less for your tax money. And being made to feel like you are ungrateful when asking what you are paying for.

I invite you to compare and contrast the previous model to the mooted model. We can do a comparison of the merits. Here is a post where I discuss the merits of the metered charging model.

Could you extend something similar to the previous model which you seem to favour?

I'll just ignore all the privatization stuff thanks.

fliball123

fliball123 wrote: »

so the 2million people working pay just under 18billion in income tax which works out at about 9k a year per person working

Add in about 12billion for VAT for a population of 5million add in 2.4k

http://www.publicpolicy.ie/irelands-fiscal-profile-q4-2014/


if you look at this we pay 11.4k in tax if your working and going about your business as usual. Now what does this money pay for you put up the the site of http://www.publicpolicy.ie/where-does-your-tax-go/#middle-link

A lot of people get phuck all value from some of the above and there are other taxes like property taxes, carbon taxes and road taxes that cover some of these so where is this money going too and why should I have to pay more for water when I pay more than enough for what I rely on from the state.

Its about time the tax payer woke up and started asking the question do we get bang for our buck and unfortunately we dont

Tell me where you want to cut spending so.

We either raise the States incomes (through taxes) - which you seem to be against
Or reduce the States expenditure

Social Welfare accounts for ~ 35% of all State Expenditure btw. Want to hack at that first?

fliball123

Deleted User wrote: »

Tell me where you want to cut spending so.

We either raise the States incomes (through taxes) - which you seem to be against
Or reduce the States expenditure

Social Welfare accounts for ~ 35% of all State Expenditure btw. Want to hack at that first?

Social welfare for a start all of it should be cut by 10% across the board so should public sector pay and pensions as well I would start there

fliball123

fliball123 wrote: »

Social welfare for a start all of it should be cut by 10% across the board so should public sector pay and pensions as well I would start there

I'm no Mystic Meg, but I think you'd have a tougher time getting a majority to buy into that than Kelly et al are having trying to get everyone on board with Irish Water.

I am in favour of a smaller state too, but I think conflating the issues with IW (see thread title) is a bit confusing.

Perhaps a new thread might be in order? "Ireland - Do you get value for your Money Tax?"

fliball123

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm no Mystic Meg, but I think you'd have a tougher time getting a majority to buy into that than Kelly et al are having trying to get everyone on board with Irish Water.

Maybe but like I say spending has not come down since the downturn and by the end of the year we will be spending as much if not more than we were back pre bust 2008. How anyone could say we want more taxes when we are paying out good money on interest for the banking phuck up

BoJack Horseman

fliball123 wrote: »

spending has not come down since the downturn and by the end of the year we will be spending as much if not more than we were back pre bust 2008.

Is public expenditure not well below its 2009 peak of €63bn?

BoJack Horseman

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Is public expenditure not well below its 2009 peak of €63bn?

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ireland/government-spending

listermint

Deleted User wrote: »

I invite you to compare and contrast the previous model to the mooted model. We can do a comparison of the merits. Here is a post where I discuss the merits of the metered charging model.

Could you extend something similar to the previous model which you seem to favour?

I'll just ignore all the privatization stuff thanks.

not into the Privitisation stuff myself however it has its merits and some of the origin of this is embedded in the 'why' of IW. Expenditure is a handy stick to beat this out of.

There are some things in life which i firmly believe the state should be taking care of Healthcare being one and Water and Sanitation is another. And yes i do think they should be paid for via taxes as the benefit all of our population. After all this is fundamental to peoples health. It is and not a conservation issue (never has been) its about getting money off the books, is that a good enough excuse ?

Expenditure well we should be looking elsewhere other than what i see as pillars of a healthy society.

Should we ask people to slop stuff out on the streets? I mean even the Ancient Greeks had provision for Water Supply and Sewerage removal. Why in a modern society such as ours should we not hold these things under state rule and funding ?

Genuine question ?

listermint

listermint wrote: »

not into the Privitisation stuff myself however it has its merits and some of the origin of this is embedded in the 'why' of IW. Expenditure is a handy stick to beat this out of.

There are some things in life which i firmly believe the state should be taking care of Healthcare being one and Water and Sanitation is another. And yes i do think they should be paid for via taxes as the benefit all of our population. After all this is fundamental to peoples health. It is and not a conservation issue (never has been) its about getting money off the books, is that a good enough excuse ?

Expenditure well we should be looking elsewhere other than what i see as pillars of a healthy society.

Should we ask people to slop stuff out on the streets? I mean even the Ancient Greeks had provision for Water Supply and Sewerage removal. Why in a modern society such as ours should we not hold these things under state rule and funding ?

Genuine question ?

Begging the question is not presenting a genuine question.

Let's try and start an actual debate on the merits of the previous model over the IW envisaged one;

The objective benefits of the previous model over the IW (original) model are...

• All people in the country have access to unlimited amounts of water 'free at source'
• All people in the country have access to water disposal services 'free at source'
• ...
• .

List some more positives and we'll step through them and discuss them.

Chips Lovell

It doesn't have to be just one thing. It can be a revenue raising and conservation exercise. Although the conservation element has gone out the window since the government caved and capped rates.

listermint

Deleted User wrote: »

Begging the question is not presenting a genuine question.

Let's try and start an actual debate on the merits of the previous model over the IW envisaged one;

The objective benefits of the previous model over the IW (original) model are...

• All people in the country have access to unlimited amounts of water 'free at source'
• All people in the country have access to water disposal services 'free at source'
• ...
• .

List some more positives and we'll step through them and discuss them.

-All people in the country have unlimited amounts of water for paid for via general taxation at source.

-People are not marginalised for their inability to pay.

-Peoples homes do not get attachment orders against them for a service they have paid for since the started working at whatever age.

-The health of those that cannot afford to pay is not jeopardised, Those of ill health will be afforded the water and waste required to keep them in the condition they are rightly accustomed to.


In fact everything you have stated as a positive is just about the state recouping costs to pay off debt, Lets take the fallacy of conservation off the table just as quickly as Kelly removed it from the requirements to pay.

listermint

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

It doesn't have to be just one thing. It can be a revenue raising and conservation exercise. Although the conservation element has gone out the window since the government caved and capped rates.

Question is why you would want a basic tenant of human existence to be revenue raising?

Just because of the debt, is that the sole purpose ?

Quin_Dub

listermint wrote: »

Question is why you would want a basic tenant of human existence to be revenue raising?

Just because of the debt, is that the sole purpose ?

VAT/Duties on food & clothing?

I know some food and clothing are Vat exempt but how might that be different?

listermint

Quin_Dub wrote: »

VAT/Duties on food & clothing?

I know some food and clothing are Vat exempt but how might that be different?

Fair comment, but has food and clothing ever been 'provided' for by the state. Even back to the Romans / Greeks ?

Waste and water are imperative to a cities well being. But was provided by the state.

Chips Lovell

listermint wrote: »

Question is why you would want a basic tenant of human existence to be revenue raising?

Just because of the debt, is that the sole purpose ?

I've no issue with it. I'd regard my electricity and gas supplies as important as my water supply and I pay on the basis of consumption for them.

listermint

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I've no issue with it. I'd regard my electricity and gas supplies as important as my water supply and I pay on the basis of consumption for them.

Again you have no issue with it, but you probably dont have a problem affording it. There are many out there unbeknownst to you who cannot. And despite all the bleating and the two and frowing about how people will be looked after if they genuinely cant afford to pay. The haphazard implementation of this has left people who are already against the wall even further in misery.

Only listened to George Hook on Newstalk yesterday (the doctor piece) and the message they received from a single mother (completely unrelated to IW) it was about her being completely at the end of her with with financial worries she felt alone in this world. She was texting a radio show for help. George asked here to text him once a week and he would respond. The doctor wanted here to go to the GP. the women was genuinely destressed and no one even knows what she woke up to everyday, she couldnt sleep at night for financial strain.


This is the people who 'do care'

Quin_Dub

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I've no issue with it. I'd regard my electricity and gas supplies as important as my water supply and I pay on the basis of consumption for them.

I see it as shifting from a variable income source (tax) that is not aligned with the variability of the costs to an approach that is aligned to those costs.

Using Income tax , the amount of money collected is linked to the Tax take (and in turn linked to income/employment levels) whereas the private consumption & disposal of water is not greatly impacted by the level of employment/GDP.

Directly charging allows the funding collected to move with the actual needs of the service..

At least that's my view on the basic premise of charging for water.

listermint

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I see it as shifting from a variable income source (tax) that is not aligned with the variability of the costs to an approach that is aligned to those costs.

Using Income tax , the amount of money collected is linked to the Tax take (and in turn linked to income/employment levels) whereas the private consumption & disposal of water is not greatly impacted by the level of employment/GDP.

Directly charging allows the funding collected to move with the actual needs of the service..

At least that's my view on the basic premise of charging for water.

Does it though?, Direct Charging allows for the funding to be increased exponentially to 'deal with the needs of the service'.

Something we have witnessed with the 'under' regulation of Electricity for example.