Irish Water - Tax or Charge for service?

BoJack Horseman

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

Which is far more eloquently put than any politician ever has!

Every time they face the media making the case, they are rabbits in a headlight.

The merit for a single utility manager vs the 30 or so LA's paid directly by usage is irresistible.
Incredibly the argument has been lost though by an inept cowardly government.

Chips Lovell

listermint wrote: »

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.

I can't really see it creating mass difficulties to be honest. It's been stressed all along that enforcement measures are targeted at the "won't pays" rather than the "can't plays" and there's considerable scope for assisting those in genuine hardship.

Essentially it's the same approach as with other utilities. If a minority find themselves in difficulty, you focus on helping them rather than scrapping the entire system.

Quin_Dub

listermint wrote: »

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.

I don't see how that is much different to taxes though..

In theory , taxes could continue to increase to meet the costs of water (and/or everything else).

If you are talking about Privatisation that's a different matter.. I would have significant issues with any attempts to privatise the provision of Water.. but under the current model it's still wholly State owned.

listermint

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I can't really see it creating mass difficulties to be honest. It's been stressed all along that enforcement measures are targeted at the "won't pays" rather than the "can't plays" and there's considerable scope for assisting those in genuine hardship.

Essentially it's the same approach as with other utilities. If a minority find themselves in difficulty, you focus on helping them rather than scrapping the entire system.

Where has it been stressed, I mean if its been 'stressed' it has only been via lip service through interviews with the likes of Alan Kelly. But there is no where in writing to indicate what you are saying is true.

There are plenty out there in genuine hardship, just because you would not interact with them on a daily basis does not mean they are not there.

You should try volunteering it will open your eyes greatly to what its like specifically in the city. But small towns too. People dont have the money there to be paying 700 Euro plus bills when this cap is gone. And even if it remains its lip service and cant recover the cost of the payments system itself. IW is just abysmal in pretty much everything it was setup to achieve.

listermint

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I don't see how that is much different to taxes though..

In theory , taxes could continue to increase to meet the costs of water (and/or everything else).

If you are talking about Privatisation that's a different matter.. I would have significant issues with any attempts to privatise the provision of Water.. but under the current model it's still wholly State owned.

Expenditure needs to be moved to accommodate water provision. We have an over stocked Civil Service for the size of the Island for one, We need to get people back to work without leaving them in this limbo where its easier to stay on Welfare with Medical cards than it is to go to work. Cost of childcare is insane which again is preventing people who otherwise would work from doing so.

Removing water from central taxation was low hanging and lazy policy from the government they only did it because they were told it was the easiest path to reach the debt payments. But easiest does not mean best or brightest.

I dont claim to have all the answers that is what we pay ministers and their consultants for.

fliball123

Deleted User wrote: »

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

add in the 1/2billion that will be slapped back on for irish water and the public sector pay rises acroos the board..by the end of the year spending will be back to 2008 levels

Quin_Dub

listermint wrote: »

Expenditure needs to be moved to accommodate water provision. We have an over stocked Civil Service for the size of the Island for one, We need to get people back to work without leaving them in this limbo where its easier to stay on Welfare with Medical cards than it is to go to work. Cost of childcare is insane which again is preventing people who otherwise would work from doing so.

Removing water from central taxation was low hanging and lazy policy from the government they only did it because they were told it was the easiest path to reach the debt payments. But easiest does not mean best or brightest.

I dont claim to have all the answers that is what we pay ministers and their consultants for.

I don't disagree that there are other, potentially more effective ways of "balancing the books" that are however politically more difficult..

• Public Sector productivity
• Public expenditure "value for money" - e.g. Improved Procurement processes etc.
• Staffing levels or perhaps Staffing distribution - We might need 1000 people in Department X , but do we have the right numbers in the specific roles within that group etc

However , it doesn't alter the fact that something like Water needs to be charged by use - The implementation of that solution is a wholly different discussion.

Chips Lovell

listermint wrote: »

There are plenty out there in genuine hardship, just because you would not interact with them on a daily basis does not mean they are not there.

You should try volunteering it will open your eyes greatly to what its like specifically in the city. But small towns too. People dont have the money there to be paying 700 Euro plus bills when this cap is gone.

I'm at a loss as to why you've formed the impression that I don't think there's genuine hardship out there. I'm well aware of it and have never disputed it. What I'm saying is the best approach is to help those people in real difficulties and not scrap the system entirely.

There's plenty of people who struggle to pay their other bills as well. Do you think the best solution to this is stopping charging everyone for gas and electricity?

listermint

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I'm at a loss as to why you've formed the impression that I don't think there's genuine hardship out there. I'm well aware of it and have never disputed it. What I'm saying is the best approach is to help those people in real difficulties and not scrap the system entirely.

There's plenty of people who struggle to pay their other bills as well. Do you think the best solution to this is stopping charging everyone for gas and electricity?

No i didn't say we should stop charging for gas and electricity. But do you think it's OK on top of LPT after the worst depression to hit the Irish economy to load more charges on top of people already at the pin of their collars.

How is that legitimate.

View

listermint wrote: »

No i didn't say we should stop charging for gas and electricity.

But what about those people in hardship that you were mentioning? If they can't afford water, how will they afford (even more expensive) gas and electricity?

listermint

listermint wrote: »

-All people in the country have unlimited amounts of water for paid for via general taxation at source.
Paid for by some people in the country. As an environmentally aware person, I question the need or desire for anyone to have unlimited amounts of water.
-People are not marginalised for their inability to pay.
The 'balancing statement' for this objective benefit is that someone (most likey a lot of someones) will be asked to pay for those unable to pay (same as with IW) but will also be asked to pay for those that use more than their fair share.
-Peoples homes do not get attachment orders against them for a service they have paid for since the started working at whatever age.
And now pay via a new method. Recall the tax decreases and social welfare increases which came into affect at the beginning of the IW model.
-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.
This is not an objective benefit. There is no evidence to suggest that metered charging affects anyone's health, Those who genuinely cannot pay are looked after by a department in our State which accounts for ~35% of all Govt spending, Social Welfare.

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.
We the people, are the 'stakeholders' of the state. If the state can reduce its costs without reducing the services it provides, then we the people benefit. There is no fallacy of conservation. People will stop wastage (and so the total sum cost of the total sum of water provided to Irish households comes down) because people are tight with money, not because of any overwhelming environmental awareness. It's a beautiful positive externality of metered charging that it also benefits the environment!

listermint wrote: »

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'

Again, this is an issue that needs to be brought to Social Welfare. We have an enormous department with an enormous budget. I don't understand why people wish to also embed Social Welfare into other departments. Given the 'reduction in costs due to a reduction in duplication of services ....' logic in my first post, I'd ask you to expand on this ideal of duplicating the costs of Social Welfare in other departments. People talk about 'quangos' etc and bloatedness, but at the same time are actively calling for increased bloat in the PS.

listermint wrote: »

Does it though?, Direct Charging allows for the funding to be increased exponentially to 'deal with the needs of the service'.
But why would it be? It would be increased appropriately. If I said "Tax could be increased exponentially" it would be just as true surely? And under your preferred method of provision, that would have to be the case. Tax would have to rise to deal with the needs of the service.
Something we have witnessed with the 'under' regulation of Electricity for example.
I'm going to have to ask you to cite an exponential increase in Electricity costs.

listermint wrote: »

Expenditure needs to be moved to accommodate water provision. We have an over stocked Civil Service for the size of the Island for one, We need to get people back to work without leaving them in this limbo where its easier to stay on Welfare with Medical cards than it is to go to work. Cost of childcare is insane which again is preventing people who otherwise would work from doing so.

Removing water from central taxation was low hanging and lazy policy from the government they only did it because they were told it was the easiest path to reach the debt payments. But easiest does not mean best or brightest.

I dont claim to have all the answers that is what we pay ministers and their consultants for.

Claim 1 - We have an over stocked Civil Service (I agree).
Solution? Fire them?

Claim 2 - We need to get people working.
Solution? Hire them?

Can you see the paradox that you've posted in two short lines here?

Water provision was removed from central taxation because the logic of providing unlimited amounts of anything (which was not free) to people of the state (unlimited cost!) was absolute and utter nonsense. The system was open to abuse/over use from all corners. Not only intentional abuse (consider the homes with sprinkler systems & pools), but the unintentional (people not being wholly bothered by the leaking toilet) to the utterly unbeknownst (leaking pipes below houses). Each of these 'offences' cost the state money. Many of these 'offences' and the associated costs are simply removed when metered charging comes into fore.

The Tragedy of the Commons

FreudianSlippers

listermint wrote: »

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.

Which is why the initial system you all rallied against was much fairer to those who genuinely couldn't afford it.

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'

There are very few countries in the world where people are remunerated so highly whilst unemployed, fewer which remunerate people for having children and fewer yet that supply social housing to these people.

Where do we draw the line? How much money do we need to give these people? €50k a year?

listermint

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Which is why the initial system you all rallied against was much fairer to those who genuinely couldn't afford it.


There are very few countries in the world where people are remunerated so highly whilst unemployed, fewer which remunerate people for having children and fewer yet that supply social housing to these people.

Where do we draw the line? How much money do we need to give these people? €50k a year?

Bit of a complex question to ask if im honest, and its something that FG and labour Shy away from since the election. These were the 'tough' parties were they not. So im unsure how you want me to pick and choose a line on where Social Welfare should be drawn. Particularly in a housing crisis, which FG are denying is at the scale it is.

listermint

View wrote: »

But what about those people in hardship that you were mentioning? If they can't afford water, how will they afford (even more expensive) gas and electricity?

Ah right, so by applying more bills on top of existing ones it makes them all easier to pay.

I see. Makes solid sense. Good talk.

View

listermint wrote: »

Ah right, so by applying more bills on top of existing ones it makes them all easier to pay.

I see. Makes solid sense. Good talk.

Were you genuinely interested in reducing the total amount in utility bills those people in hardship have to pay, you would be advocating that either all their utility bills be free or, failing that, at least one of their more expensive utility bills - be it electricity or gas. Instead though your opposition seems solely to be concerned about the cheaper utility - water - being charged for.

Therefore, it would appear you really aren't all that concerned about the difficulties of those people in hardship that you mentioned. Trying to mask personal interest in not paying for water as concern for people in difficulty is a poor argument.

listermint

View wrote: »

Were you genuinely interested in reducing the total amount in utility bills those people in hardship have to pay, you would be advocating that either all their utility bills be free or, failing that, at least one of their more expensive utility bills - be it electricity or gas. Instead though your opposition seems solely to be concerned about the cheaper utility - water - being charged for.

Therefore, it would appear you really aren't all that concerned about the difficulties of those people in hardship that you mentioned. Trying to mask personal interest in not paying for water as concern for people in difficulty is a poor argument.

No you are making those ascertions, Not me. I am trying to mask nothing. Please follow my posts on the matter.

K-9

View wrote: »

Were you genuinely interested in reducing the total amount in utility bills those people in hardship have to pay, you would be advocating that either all their utility bills be free or, failing that, at least one of their more expensive utility bills - be it electricity or gas. Instead though your opposition seems solely to be concerned about the cheaper utility - water - being charged for.

Therefore, it would appear you really aren't all that concerned about the difficulties of those people in hardship that you mentioned. Trying to mask personal interest in not paying for water as concern for people in difficulty is a poor argument.

Not wanting an extra bill introduced seems pretty logical to me.

We already pay for Electricity and Gas so adding an extra bill for people who are struggling isn't that helpful.

That doesn't mean somebody wants free utilities for all, they just don't want an extra one added on.

View

listermint wrote: »

No you are making those ascertions, Not me. I am trying to mask nothing. Please follow my posts on the matter.

Point out where you advocated that the expensive utility bills (either electricity or gas or both) are free.

When you do so I'll happily concede that my point is an assertion.

View

K-9 wrote: »

Not wanting an extra bill introduced seems pretty logical to me.

Of course it is logical if you don't want to pay. That doesn't mean you are "a person in hardship".

K-9 wrote: »

We already pay for Electricity and Gas so adding an extra bill for people who are struggling isn't that helpful.

It would be even more helpful if the expensive utilities were the free ones rather than the cheaper one, wouldn't it? That at least would be logical. After all, if you would struggle to pay the cheaper utility bill, paying the expensive ones must be very difficult, mustn't it?

K-9 wrote: »

That doesn't mean somebody wants free utilities for all, they just don't want an extra one added on.

Ah, but that's the nub of it. If we are motivated by a desire to help people in hardship, we'd tailor a scheme to help them with ALL their utility bills. if we are motivated by a desire to avoid paying, when we - personally - could do so, we'd pretend that sending such bills out to ANYONE in our society - even people such as Michael O'Leary - will be the straw that breaks the camel's back, reducing Michael (and, oh, you and I) to penury.

K-9

But you are extrapolating the logic to an extreme conclusion.

Giving people in hardship free electricity bills is a bit of a political non runner and highly unlikely in practice.

Opposing the introduction of a new utility that isn't going to help those already struggling is perfectly fine in that scenario, which is after all the situation we are now in.

Godge

listermint wrote: »

Expenditure needs to be moved to accommodate water provision. We have an over stocked Civil Service for the size of the Island for one,

The state does not have an oversized civil service, in fact the opposite is the case.

http://www.ipa.ie/pdf/cpmr/reports/CPMR_RR7_Comparing_Public_Administrations.pdf

Here is a 2007 report, (I am sure there is a more recent one but I couldn't find it) that put Ireland among the most efficient. The later report was even better because of the cuts that has taken place.

None of that prevents the lazy analyst from making the claim that Ireland's civil service is inefficient.

listermint wrote: »

We need to get people back to work without leaving them in this limbo where its easier to stay on Welfare with Medical cards than it is to go to work. Cost of childcare is insane which again is preventing people who otherwise would work from doing so.

Removing water from central taxation was low hanging and lazy policy from the government they only did it because they were told it was the easiest path to reach the debt payments. But easiest does not mean best or brightest.

I dont claim to have all the answers that is what we pay ministers and their consultants for.

The only way to improve public services while not increasing the tax burden on working people is to impose user charges on services. The prescription charge which medical card holders pay should also have doctor charges and hospital charge etc. This is the system used in most European countries to manage demand for health services, with France being a particularly good example.

Water charges is another way of imposing user charges while also reducing the tax burden on workers which incentivises work. All of this is solidly backed up by economic studies.

By contrast, there is no evidence to suggest that increasing welfare and abolishing water charges will do anything to help people back to work.

Jolly Red Giant

Godge wrote: »

The only way to improve public services while not increasing the tax burden on working people is to impose user charges on services.

This is a load of bollix - water charges are nothing more than than a tax on working people. The way to improve public services is to tax those who can afford it - the 1%

Godge wrote: »

Water charges is another way of imposing user charges while also reducing the tax burden on workers which incentivises work. All of this is solidly backed up by economic studies.

Studies by right-wing economic think-tanks

Godge wrote: »

By contrast, there is no evidence to suggest that increasing welfare and abolishing water charges will do anything to help people back to work.

The only way to help people back to work is to create enough jobs for people who are unemployed - something which the government have failed to do. Low levels of welfare contribute to the race to the bottom - zero-hour contracts - hiring people as 'independent contractors' - etc - all to avoid paying tax by the rich and making appropriate social contributions.

Seth Brundle

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

This is a load of bollix - water charges are nothing more than than a tax on working people. The way to improve public services is to tax those who can afford it - the 1%

Who are the 1%?
How much would be raised from this and who are your sources?
As for "water charges are nothing more than than a tax on working people" - are you suggesting that working people shouldn't pay tax?

Jolly Red Giant

kbannon wrote: »

Who are the 1%?

The richest 300 people in the country have increased their wealth from €50billion in 2010 to €85.5billion by 2014 - in the middle of a world wide recession - and most of them pay diddly-squat tax because of the non-dom tax dodge etc.

kbannon wrote: »

As for "water charges are nothing more than than a tax on working people" - are you suggesting that working people shouldn't pay tax?

working people do pay tax - paye, prsi, usc, lpt, pension levy (if public sector), vat, car tax, insurance levy, government levies of various descriptions etc - and working people cannot afford the accountants or take advantage of tax breaks to avoid paying tax.

Seth Brundle

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The richest 300 people in the country have increased their wealth from €50billion in 2010 to €85.5billion by 2014 - in the middle of a world wide recession - and most of them pay diddly-squat tax because of the non-dom tax dodge etc.

Did you forget to include a source for this?
Also, by taxing these 300 people further, how much money will it make?

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

working people do pay tax - paye, prsi, usc, lpt, pension levy (if public sector), vat, car tax, insurance levy, government levies of various descriptions etc - and working people cannot afford the accountants or take advantage of tax breaks to avoid paying tax.

Hang on, the tax reductions in the last budget negated the cost of water so your argument remains invalid!
Nothing to do with accountants!

Leonard Hofstadter

Anyway, we know that the Sinn Féin MEPs are in favour of water charges which are (and this is the important bit so there is no misunderstanding from the loony left) proportional to the amount of water being used. Ironic really as it was none other than Right2Water who got this report commissioned, and now the report they got commissioned backs the Government's stance on the issue!

ressem

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

This is a load of bollix - water charges are nothing more than than a tax on working people. The way to improve public services is to tax those who can afford it - the 1%

Over the last 30 years since water rates were scrapped, the councils have chosen to fail at investing in water infrastructure.
They received surplus money during the property bubble. Many received a windfall from landfill charges when rubbish collection was privatised.

And now the councils have the ability to vote for property tax reductions, most are cutting to the maximum allowed, rather than saving some for crisis housing.

Political posturing by the lot. Not different to the 'no new taxes' BS of the US republican party.

Potholes in estates might be an eyesore, but they should not have been funded excessively while water treatment became overloaded and in cases contaminated.
(Remove the legal claim fear, and many of us could throw in some temporary tarmac-in-a-bag to keep the road drivable)

Even Gerry Adams thinks that his third rate of tax will only bring in 448 million. (Morning Ireland Friday 11th, 51 minutes in)

The only way to help people back to work is to create enough jobs for people who are unemployed - something which the government have failed to do.

Such as water infrastructure which was neglected until Irish Water.
Building social housing, about which all political parties will continue to display gross hypocrisy by refusing to allocate it priority and funding.

Reducing pay increases to increase hiring to reduce the load upon the most hard pressed public sector workers. Perhaps pay should be less in cheaper parts of the country or with lower workloads.

oscarBravo

captainspeed wrote: »

Anyway, we know that the Sinn Féin MEPs are in favour of water charges which are (and this is the important bit so there is no misunderstanding from the loony left) proportional to the amount of water being used. Ironic really as it was none other than Right2Water who got this report commissioned, and now the report they got commissioned backs the Government's stance on the issue!

I think you're misunderestimating their skill at doublethink: just because they voted for it, doesn't mean they support it. Apparently.

View

K-9 wrote: »

But you are extrapolating the logic to an extreme conclusion.

I am pointing out the flaw in the logic.

K-9 wrote: »

Giving people in hardship free electricity bills is a bit of a political non runner and highly unlikely in practice.

It was highly unlikely that we would abolish domestic rates (which covered water charges) but we stupidly did so anyway even though the rich and wealthy could easily have afforded them.

K-9 wrote: »

Opposing the introduction of a new utility that isn't going to help those already struggling is perfectly fine in that scenario, which is after all the situation we are now in.

Were that the primary motivation, it would be logical to campaign for a welfare package to receive any suffering that people in hardship might suffer. There would no need to oppose water charges per se since those not in hardship could pay them (with varying degrees of easy or difficulty). You can be sure very many such households could and would with the wherewithal to pay extra income tax were the Oireachtas to decide to increase the basic rate of income tax by one or two percent. As one political commentator pointed out about the household charge, it the charge cost the average household around a tenth of the cost of the VAT rises in the budget it was introduced, yet the VAT rise got barely noticed whereas the cheaper household charge was greeted as if it were destitution incarnate.

jimmycrackcorm

Back to the OP, is it a tax or a charge?

I say it is a tax because it hasn't been distinctly unlinked from existing taxation. I.e. the government should have specifically reduced taxation to say we are not going to fund water from general taxation because of the consumer consumes and polluter pays principle. The government could then have contributed an amount towards the concept that people should have basic water availability.

Badly marketed charge IMO.