Water charges revisited?

blanch152

Coz wrote: »

I've not been able to follow every post on this thread so forgive me if this has already been covered.

A major concern many had was that IW was destined to be privatised. Go down that route and water poverty is only a few years away. The business will be all about the bottom line.

I absolutely subscribe to water conservation but if a PLC is providing the service, the more people conserve, the more they have to charge.

Yes, the Government said privatisation was not in the cards, yet they refused to put measures in place to ensure that it couldn't be.

The idea that Irish Water was destined to be privatised is a complete urban myth spread by irresponsible populist politicians and swallowed by some gullible people out there.

The legislative basis of Irish Water was little different to that of any semi-State company, and by diluting it in response to the gullible, the government made a serious mistake which ended up with Irish Water being unable to borrow other than on-book.

Those irresponsible populist politicians who stoked up the masses have to carry the blame for this mess.

View

Rennaws wrote: »

Coz wrote: »

Yes, the Government said privatisation was not in the cards, yet they refused to put measures in place to ensure that it couldn't be.

Because they were lying.

If the government were (or are) lying then there is nothing to stop them trying to privatise the water system immediately, either as a complete IW package or by selling it off on a local authority by local authority basis.

The only real argument to support such a move though would be to get away from all the political nonsense that has occurred when the state decided to directly, rather than indirectly, charge for water.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Yet again people are forgetting that the charging system in place was abolished by FG, on the recommendations of an expert commission put in place by FG.

The haimes made of Irish Water begins and ends with them, so it is fantasist and a farce trying to accost anyone and everyone else for the haimes, from protesters to the shinners, and from FF to PBP.

I don't envisage any political party being completely and utterly dense enough to try reinforcing them, prob in generation or two.

Difficult to swallow and accept I imagine, but thems the facts.

No matter how many times you say it, it simply isn't true. The commission was a FF dreamchild and part of the price they demanded for supporting FG. That is only one aspect of the revisionism you have got wrong.

Rennaws wrote: »

Correct. I pay the government for this service and I expect to receive it. I pay the top rate of tax across the board get practically nothing in return. Water is one of the few services I actually benefit from. I'm not paying for it a third time. Not then, not now, not ever.

Except we never paid for water services ever. That is why we have such a crap infrastructure (together with the incompetence of local authorities over a century).

Rennaws wrote: »

It's certainly one of a number of options but it also depends on which problem you're trying to fix.. as I said above, I already pay well over 50% of every euro I earn in direct and indirect taxation yet despite this we're in the midst of a catastrophic housing crisis and our public services are in total disarray. All of this while we're also increasingly paying separately for those same services.

There isn't enough income to pay for everything. Whether it comes from you or from those that never pay is the question.

Let us remember a few things. We were told by water charges protestors that Irish Water would be privatised after the election. It didn't happen.

We were told by water charges protestors that there would never be a water shortage in Ireland. They got that wrong as well.

Now some of them are back here saying it is all FG's fault. Laughable and pathetic.

As someone who supported water charges, I predicted it would never be privatised. I also predicted that if the charges were abolished, there would be water shortages because of the lack of demand-side measures, the constrained supply in Dublin, and the lack of money for investing in fixing leaks. All has come to pass.

The Bishop Basher

blanch152 wrote: »

Those irresponsible populist politicians who stoked up the masses have to carry the blame for this mess.

No.

Enda, Phil and all their incompetent colleagues carry the blame for this mess.

View wrote: »

If the government were (or are) lying then there is nothing to stop them trying to privatise the water system immediately, either as a complete IW package or by selling it off on a local authority by local authority basis.

They can't privatise water because it would be political suicide.

blanch152 wrote: »

Except we never paid for water services ever. That is why we have such a crap infrastructure (together with the incompetence of local authorities over a century).

That's a blatant lie. We paid twice for water services. The government went off chasing rainbows with the cash and now they've come crying for more. You're just making stuff up now.

blanch152 wrote: »

There isn't enough income to pay for everything. Whether it comes from you or from those that never pay is the question.

Of course there isn't. If we're not wasting it we're giving it away to Europe or refusing it from Apple. We're incapable of handling our own finances.

But we do need to broaden the tax base and lower the burden on the rest of us because the current tax system is blatantly unfair.

blanch152 wrote: »

As someone who supported water charges, I predicted it would never be privatised. I also predicted that if the charges were abolished, there would be water shortages because of the lack of demand-side measures, the constrained supply in Dublin, and the lack of money for investing in fixing leaks. All has come to pass.

As i've said a few times on this thread, we have major infrastructural upgrades underway as we speak. These are being paid for from general taxation. The sky hasn't fallen in and the taps are still running. Stop lying.

As for predicting water shortages ? They happen all over the world including countries with a charge so your prediction is about as impressive as me predicting rainfall sometime this winter..

blanch152

Rennaws wrote: »

That's a blatant lie. We paid twice for water services. The government went off chasing rainbows with the cash and now they've come crying for more. You're just making stuff up now.

If we paid twice for it, how come it isn't fit for purpose?

Rennaws wrote: »

As i've said a few times on this thread, we have major infrastructural upgrades underway as we speak. These are being paid for from general taxation. The sky hasn't fallen in and the taps are still running. Stop lying.

As for predicting water shortages ? They happen all over the world including countries with a charge so your prediction is about as impressive as me predicting rainfall sometime this winter..

The taps may be running but the hosepipes aren't.

These water shortages will get worse, mark my words. We are one burst old pipe away from a crisis.

theyoungchap

My objection to water charges starts and finishes with the bloated quango they set up to pay for it.

The first thing which should have been done was added to property tax, and 250 quid per household (which was the rough figure) set aside for repair of old mains pipes ONLY.
Once that is done, give people the option of a meter, and if they fall below certain consumption targets, then they get a rebate of some/all of their 250 quid. That way if you want to fill the paddling pool, you pay for it.

Unfortunately, we have ended up with the worst of every world. A bloated quango, which only the tax payer is paying for, which is costing us a fortune and nothing being done about the crumbling water infrastructure. Meanwhile, Paul Murphy and his ilk tells people water charges were abolished - instead, the private sector tax payer is paying the full bill. Galling.

I honestly think we need a massive outage or shortage in Dublin, a situation where masses of people need to go to the local tanker for water, to finally make people realise we need a sensible debate about water rather than a debate fuelled by political one-upmanship and point scoring. Watch the protest politicians disappear "on holiday" for a few weeks while that would unfold.

Seth Brundle

Rennaws wrote: »

Correct. I pay the government for this service and I expect to receive it. I pay the top rate of tax across the board get practically nothing in return. Water is one of the few services I actually benefit from. I'm not paying for it a third time. Not then, not now, not ever.

Rennaws wrote: »

That's a blatant lie. We paid twice for water services. The government went off chasing rainbows with the cash and now they've come crying for more. You're just making stuff up now.

In what way have we paid for water twice?
Funding for water services may have been taken from a number of sources but that does not directly mean that we paid for it multiple times - to suggest so is deliberately misleading.
Given the crap state of the water network, we've not paid enough once to maintain it!

The Bishop Basher

blanch152 wrote: »

If we paid twice for it, how come it isn't fit for purpose?

You would have to pose that question to all the previous finance ministers who decided to use that money elsewhere..

Probably lobbing a few quid at the grey vote or giving guards another pay rise.

Whatever the reason, we paid as requested and they spent it elsewhere..

Now they need to go figure out how to budget properly.

blanch152 wrote: »

The taps may be running but the hosepipes aren't.

As with every other country on the planet in times of drought.

blanch152 wrote: »

These water shortages will get worse, mark my words. We are one burst old pipe away from a crisis.

Yep, heard that 3 years ago too.

We're currently getting a very significant upgrade to our infrastructure here so if water shortages get worse it won't be due to lack of infrastructural funding.

Oh and we had a major burst pipe some months ago.. It was fixed. We all survived.

Your nonsense is really being exposed here..

View

Rennaws wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

Those irresponsible populist politicians who stoked up the masses have to carry the blame for this mess.

No.

Enda, Phil and all their incompetent colleagues carry the blame for this mess.

View wrote: »

If the government were (or are) lying then there is nothing to stop them trying to privatise the water system immediately, either as a complete IW package or by selling it off on a local authority by local authority basis.

They can't privatise water because it would be political suicide.

The Oireachtas is free to privatise or nationalise anything as and when it sees fit.

It is only “political suicide” for the politicians if they do it in the 18 months or so before a General Election. If they do it immediately after a general election, there will be few people voting on the basis of that decision come the next GE.

After all, if the Oireachtas had privatised the water system back in, let’s say, 2009, and it was now all owned by companies such as (French water company) Suez, how many people would be casting their votes based on that decision at the next general election?

BarryD2

blanch152 wrote: »

As someone who supported water charges, I predicted it would never be privatised. I also predicted that if the charges were abolished, there would be water shortages because of the lack of demand-side measures, the constrained supply in Dublin, and the lack of money for investing in fixing leaks. All has come to pass.

It has come to pass and will continue to be an ongoing problem. A chronic shortage in public water supplies with lengthy outages for domestic customers is what will knock sense into people.

The concept of reasonable usage as understood by many is laughable. There needs to be a public education programme to help people understand what is reasonable use and what is wanton waste. And if people want to waste above reasonable limits, then let them pay for their extravagance for every extra litre they use.

BarryD2

Rennaws wrote: »

As i've said a few times on this thread, we have major infrastructural upgrades underway as we speak. These are being paid for from general taxation. The sky hasn't fallen in and the taps are still running. Stop lying..

And that's why any politician looking for votes here next time is going to have to answer why?? Let those who use public water supplies pay for their own upgrades.

The Bishop Basher

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Funding for water services may have been taken from a number of sources but that does not directly mean that we paid for it multiple times

Of course it does.

Where else does the funding come from

The Bishop Basher

View wrote: »

It is only “political suicide” for the politicians if they do it in the 18 months or so before a General Election. If they do it immediately after a general election, there will be few people voting on the basis of that decision come the next GE.

Let them try it so.

blackdog1

theyoungchap wrote:

The first thing which should have been done was added to property tax, and 250 quid per household (which was the rough figure) set aside for repair of old mains pipes ONLY. Once that is done, give people the option of a meter, and if they fall below certain consumption targets, then they get a rebate of some/all of their 250 quid. That way if you want to fill the paddling pool, you pay for it.

I disagree. They should have got rid of property tax and put in water charges. Once property tax was introduced you never actually own your home. Look at the states where there is a huge problem with repossession from not paying your property tax and certain areas of cities are uninhabitable for low income families due to the huge property tax put on highly sought after areas.

Seth Brundle

Rennaws wrote: »

Of course it does.

Where else does the funding come from

How was it paid for several times rather than from several sources?

View

Rennaws wrote: »

View wrote: »

It is only “political suicide” for the politicians if they do it in the 18 months or so before a General Election. If they do it immediately after a general election, there will be few people voting on the basis of that decision come the next GE.

Let them try it so.

How many people cast their ballots on the basis of whether Eircom or Aer Lingus were privatised/sold or whether they should be nationalised again?

View

Rennaws wrote: »

That's a blatant lie. We paid twice for water services. The government went off chasing rainbows with the cash and now they've come crying for more. You're just making stuff up now.

If “the government went off chasing rainbows with the cash“ then the money obviously wasn’t spent on water services, so we clearly didn’t pay twice for water services.

We may have “paid twice” for the health service or something else but that is a different issue.

facehugger99

The is still a huge misunderstanding on the original purpose of IW.

By far and away, it's most important aim was to allow a mechanism whereby money could be borrowed off balance sheet for the necessary investment into the water infrastructure.

In order to do this they needed an entity that could pass the Eurostat market corporation test and show it could raise half its income from non-Government sources - i.e. charges.

Political opportunism was (once again) allowed to trump long-term strategy and we have effectively painted ourselves into a corner for the next few decades.

The sheer scale of investment required to sort the underlying issues with the infrastructure cannot be borrowed nor raised through general taxation. We will do what we've always done continue to apply sticking plasters to a hemorrhaging wound and pass the parcel to a future generation to sort out while hoping for the best.

Meanwhile, the populist politicians who whipped up the outrage and frenzy amongst the ignorant can swan off into the sunset with their gold-plated pensions.

Great little country altogether.

crossman47

facehugger99 wrote: »

The is still a huge misunderstanding on the original purpose of IW.

By far and away, it's most important aim was to allow a mechanism whereby money could be borrowed off balance sheet for the necessary investment into the water infrastructure.

In order to do this they needed an entity that could pass the Eurostat market corporation test and show it could raise half its income from non-Government sources - i.e. charges.

Political opportunism was (once again) allowed to trump long-term strategy and we have effectively painted ourselves into a corner for the next few decades.

The sheer scale of investment required to sort the underlying issues with the infrastructure cannot be borrowed nor raised through general taxation. We will do what we've always done continue to apply sticking plasters to a hemorrhaging wound and pass the parcel to a future generation to sort out while hoping for the best.

Meanwhile, the populist politicians who whipped up the outrage and frenzy amongst the ignorant can swan off into the sunset with their gold-plated pensions.

Great little country altogether.

Spot on. Thats exactly the situation. There was a genuine valid reason for setting up IW but it was handled so ineptly that water charges will not now happen but neither will the necessary investment because no government will do the right thing and raise taxes to fund it. And they shouldn't do it by borrowing more!

Wanderer78

facehugger99 wrote:

Meanwhile, the populist politicians who whipped up the outrage and frenzy amongst the ignorant can swan off into the sunset with their gold-plated pensions.

I wonder did failed economic ideas such as austerity have anything to do with this 'populism'?

FreudianSlippers

aido79 wrote: »

This is pure conspiracy theory stuff here.

Who in their right mind would buy a company that would require a €13billion investment for it to run efficiently with an almost certain chance that most of your customers won't pay and the main reason they won't pay is because you bought the company.
Plumbing apprenticeships would be the most in demand job with the amount of people looking to have their meters bypassed.

+1

The operating revenue of IW is less than €300m with expenses around €700m. There is nobody on the planet that would buy that company.

That aside, let's just say someone did agree to buy that for some crazy reason - the state still own the infrastructure itself and the actual water; privatisation concerns are so far-fetched as they rely on so many outlandish "what if" situations.

FreudianSlippers

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Yet again people are forgetting that the charging system in place was abolished by FG, on the recommendations of an expert commission put in place by FG.

Again, I'm not sure you've read the expert report you keep referencing have you?

FreudianSlippers

Rennaws wrote: »

The problem is you'd be the first on any other thread to be accusing others of hyperbole and telling them they're talking nonsense. It's a little inconsistent.

Yeah... every once in a while I'm inconsistent with my language. You'll admit it's pretty rare for me?

Chalk it up to a mistake and move on.

We are not literally out of water, we are literally in a serious water shortage that could potentially get worse quickly and result in many people being literally without running water.

The other problem is that there so much hyperbole from the pro tax posters, it's difficult to tell fact from fiction..

That's the pot calling the kettle black if I've ever seen it.

There are massive infrastructural projects and upgrades underway as we speak. Our taps are not about to run dry and water charges will not eliminate water shortages in the summer months.

There really aren't in all honestly. A few million being spent is a drop in the Victorian bucket of the billions we need to spend.

Remember peak oil ? We were supposed to have run dry 20 years ago now.

Yes, I'm guilty of hyperbole and I'm the only one guilty of it.

similar stuff. Put simply, these claims from the pro tax posters are nothing but blatant lies.

I'm hardly "pro-tax" by supporting a charging regime at Irish Water. In fact, I think calling me a "pro-tax" poster given my history on this forum is laughable.

facehugger99

crossman47 wrote: »

Spot on. Thats exactly the situation. There was a genuine valid reason for setting up IW but it was handled so ineptly that water charges will not now happen

The ability of our politicians to properly explain the issues was baffling and frustrating in equal measures.

The entire agenda and conversation around the need for charging was dictated by the usual suspects in the 'no way, we won't pay' brigade.

The media were quite happy to run with the bull****.

I said it at the time, the Government should have been buying regular 10 minute airtime slots on the national broadcaster and explaining clearly, consistently and concisely why IW was being set up - not 'how', not 'what'. Have a bloody Powerpoint presentation outlining the requirements and aims!!

The 'message' was all over the place - it was a disgraceful performance.

VinLieger

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I wonder did failed economic ideas such as austerity have anything to do with this 'populism'?

Austerity for a short sustained period is a perfectly acceptable economic theory that worked for us and many other countries.

It has undoubtedly led to other issues but who's to say with any certainty those issues or other worse ones would not exist were other strategies followed to bring us out of the hole we were. Calling it failed after it succeeded in its purpose its hilariously agenda driven and quite simply populist propaganda

FreudianSlippers

Rennaws wrote: »

They can't privatise water because it would be political suicide.

But then wouldn't that be the case either way?

That's a blatant lie. We paid twice for water services. The government went off chasing rainbows with the cash and now they've come crying for more. You're just making stuff up now.

I can't say I missed this old chestnut of not understanding taxation. We didn't pay twice, we barely even paid once.

Half of the money came from taxation to subsidize the allowance, the remainder was the charge - that's paying ONCE.

Of course there isn't. If we're not wasting it we're giving it away to Europe or refusing it from Apple. We're incapable of handling our own finances.

Nonsense of the highest order unfortunately.

As i've said a few times on this thread, we have major infrastructural upgrades underway as we speak. These are being paid for from general taxation. The sky hasn't fallen in and the taps are still running. Stop lying.

You've said it, but it's not supported by any shred of evidence.

FreudianSlippers

theyoungchap wrote: »

My objection to water charges starts and finishes with the bloated quango they set up to pay for it.

Do you have any idea how much we pay the Local Authorities to do it?

FreudianSlippers

Rennaws wrote: »

Of course it does.

Where else does the funding come from

Sorry the onus in this forum is not on us to explain basics such as taxation to you - it's for you to explain to us, using figures which are publicly available, how we have "paid twice".

It doesn't even pass a basic logic test in honesty.

FreudianSlippers

blackdog1 wrote: »

Look at the states where there is a huge problem with repossession from not paying your property tax

There are zero States in the US where your home can be repossessed for failure to pay property tax.

The State can put a lean on your home, but it cannot repossess it.

and certain areas of cities are uninhabitable for low income families due to the huge property tax put on highly sought after areas.

This part is just blatantly untrue.

theyoungchap

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Do you have any idea how much we pay the Local Authorities to do it?

When you say "we pay", what do you mean - who is paying and how are you paying it? General tax, commercial water rates, etc?