Water charges revisited?

The Bishop Basher

fxotoole wrote: »

Do those countries have adequate funding to provide water to the whole country during droughts?

I've no idea. I was just making an observation that the presence of water charges do not magically eliminate water shortages and it would be misleading and dishonest to suggest otherwise..

Coz wrote: »

This is because of poor investment over the years and our 3 contributions to Water Services being frittered away and not spent where they should be.

In a nut shell..

It seems some people won't be happy till they've given the government every last cent they earn to flitter away on their behalf.

We have a mantra in work. Spend it like it's your own. So we do..

The waste i see in this country every day sickens me. We don't need more taxes. We need to eliminate the waste, broaden the tax base and start using the tax take far more efficiently.

Do that first and we might entertain a conversation about paying more but then if they did it efficiently in the first place they wouldn't need to ask for more.

phater phagan

I went to university in West Texas, not known for its high level of rainfall, and subject to long periods of extreme hot weather. Despite this I never had my water turned off due to weather. I'm bemused at why a month of good weather here produces such disruption of water services.

McMurphy

BarryD2 wrote: »

Furthermore FG or whoever is in power should NOT appropriate more of the general tax take towards water infrastructure across their coming budgets. Like many rural dwellers we've been paying for our water for many years and we also pay general tax.

I've read lines like this getting trotted out on these threads countless times now.

The thought of a rural dweller paying for their own water supply and general taxation simultaneously is quite noble, I'm sure we'll all agree.

What these lads often forget to mention is that they qualify for an annual subsistence grant from the govt, which would be funded by the rest of us taxpayers, not to mention the heavily subsidised lpt.

I'm just waiting for someone to come along and whinge that part of their tax is paying foe the treatment of cancer patients, while they themselves are fit and healthy.

fxotoole

Rennaws wrote: »

I've no idea. I was just making an observation that the presence of water charges do not magically eliminate water shortages and it would be misleading and dishonest to suggest otherwise..

My point is if they funded their water infrastructure properly, they'd be able to deal with droughts. Same with Ireland.

fxotoole

phater phagan wrote: »

I went to university in West Texas, not known for its high level of rainfall, and subject to long periods of extreme hot weather. Despite this I never had my water turned off due to weather. I'm bemused at why a month of good weather here produces such disruption of water services.

Because our water infrastructure is from the Victoria era, and a large cohort of people refuse to pay more taxes to help improve it, and then complain about how **** the infrastructure is. I'm guessing West Texas have a modern infrastructure and some sort of local authority tax?

The Bishop Basher

fxotoole wrote: »

Because our water infrastructure is from the Victoria era, and a large cohort of people refuse to pay more taxes to help improve it, and then complain about how **** the infrastructure is.

That's your opinion.

Another opinion is that a large cohort of people are already paying taxes for water and have grown tired of watching our government squander our hard earned tax dollars while they still try stick the arm a bit deeper looking for more cash that just isn't there. They've already taken it all.

A large cohort of people, probably the same cohort, are also sick and tired of watching the same business men, previously found to be involved in suspect dealings regarding state contracts, get more massively lucrative government contracts while living abroad and avoiding tax liabilities here.

Then take into account the fiasco that is Irish Water itself. From the get go the expenditure was out of control. €70,000,000 on consultant fees alone :eek:
A senior appointment of a man with appalling credentials in large public infrastructural projects. Bonus's being paid without a single target delivered. And who remembers those leaked powerpoint slides about how they were going to con us all into getting on board ?

The entire setup reeked of mismanagement and waste from the outset.

That aside though, when a large cohort of people influence government policy it's called democracy. If you don't like the outcome, you're well within your rights to go get a larger cohort and change it. I gave up a huge amount of annual leave and personal time to protest as did many others I know.

I make no apologies for the fact that we were successful. It was time well spent and i'll do it again if I have to

fxotoole wrote: »

I'm guessing West Texas have a modern infrastructure and some sort of local authority tax?

Do you mean like our family home tax that currently funds Irish Water and not all those local facilities for which we were told it was absolutely essential ?

How are we funding them by the way because round here the taps are still running and the street lights are still lighting which is at odds with what all the pro water tax people were saying would happen 3 years ago.

Johnnycanyon

El Tarangu wrote: »

While I 100% agree with you, I'm sure it won't happen. Paul Murphy's rent-a-mob would only be delighted for a chance to get out and about to jump on a bandwagon in the current sunny weather; I can't see either the current government or the next government (which I presume will be coalition of either FF or FG along with some strange bedfellows, with a very narrow majority) risking the political capital needed to go after the sacred cow of "free" water.

There never has or never will be free water in this country.

Edward M

Johnnycanyon wrote: »

There never has or never will be free water in this country.

I think his quote is actually making that point, but its a perception politicians use on the gp to garner votes.
There has been in general huge underfunding of the system, hence the leakages we have now.
The investment needed will never be enough taken from general taxation, we just can't afford the billions needed.
A charge for usage would enable a water company to borrow the investment required without affecting state borrowing or spend.
The state could still continue to pay the cost of running the service and delivering the water while the charges would fund the work needed by servicing the loans.
Its easy to cry when the service is curtailed and rationed, but paying for the service is a crying job too.
You can't have your cake and eat it!

aido79

Rennaws wrote: »

Really


It's amazing that my tap still works at all but work it does..

This here is the biggest problem among people against water charges. The mentality is that regardless of how much water is lost through leaks the onus will always be on the government to supply you with water. It doesn't matter how many other services have to fight for the money from the overall general taxation fund.

Does it not make even a little bit of sense to you to take the huge cost of supplying water to a majority of the homes in the country off the government books so that more of this money can be used for things like health and housing?

General taxation is not the bottomless pit of money that some people seem to think it is.

blanch152

aido79 wrote: »

This here is the biggest problem among people against water charges. The mentality is that regardless of how much water is lost through leaks the onus will always be on the government to supply you with water. It doesn't matter how many other services have to fight for the money from the overall general taxation fund.

Does it not make even a little bit of sense to you to take the huge cost of supplying water to a majority of the homes in the country off the government books so that more of this money can be used for things like health and housing?

General taxation is not the bottomless pit of money that some people seem to think it is.

For some people, water charges were the only government charge that they were actually going to see themselves pay.

Yes, they paid VAT, which is invisible, but apart from that, they didn't pay income tax, most of them didn't pay USC, and those that did, hated that they had to pay it.

In reality, there is a cohort of 15-25% of the population who don't visibly pay any taxes and weren't prepared to pay water charges, which is what brought them down.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Let me remind you that you proclaimed there was literally No water right now.

Stop trying to shift the goalposts.

I am pretty certain that you were one of those who told us that Ireland didn't have a water supply problem. Well, people were very wrong about that, as this week shows us.

There is more to come, this water supply issue will only get worse over the next few years. I said this at the time, but nobody listened. I don't like being right about the problems with the water supply, but chickens do come home to roost.

Demand measures i.e water charges, will have to come back on the table.

blanch152

Rennaws wrote: »

In your opinion..

The protesters, myself included, felt differently.

You only seem to like democracy when people agree with you which isn't how it works.

We won. The refunds are being processed. Water charges are off the table.

Move on..

Yes, you felt differently, so here we are, with water shortages and no demand measures in place. So to repeat my post, the water charges protests were stupid, misguided, ignorant, dangerously populist, crazy and wrong, As has been shown by recent events.

blanch152 wrote: »

Of course protest is a democratic right.

But that doesn't mean that a particular protest isn't stupid, misguided, ignorant, dangerously populist, crazy or wrong. And the Irish Water protests were all of those.

FreudianSlippers

Many people who pay little to no tax are more than happy to ensure their services are paid for through taxation.

We are mobile, we work in a digital world, we have good jobs... we don't need to be tax resident here.

Best of luck.

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

It wasn't just a one off 80 million cost as you well know. A nice expensive call centre has to be paid along with performance bonuses etc etc. Now again, FG and their incompetence is what has caused the present mess despite you seeking to apportion blame everywhere except where it belings

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Pay rises in the public sector would in my opinion be a topic for a different thread. Didn't TD's get an extra 5 k last year? Not huge money but would fix a few leaks too.

This once again shows how stupid and laughable the opposition to water charges was.

5k for 166 TDs, adds up to 80k, a drop in the ocean, just like the money for a poor driver to be a board member (still the snobbery about that goes on);. The lies continue too. The 80m for consultants was a once-off cost. Why is it being conflated with the call centre costs and the performance bonuses and the "etc." that we don't know what it is? Because of the desperation to sling the blame at everyone except the idiotic protestors.

I really hope a Government Minister steps up after these water shortages and tells the country how FG lost seats in the election and that FF demanded an end to water charges having run scared after SF and Paul Murphy et al. as well as the destruction of Labour. I hope they explain that is how we ended up with no water charges and no water supply this summer and how that needs to change after the next election with the reintroduction of water charges.

FG would get my number 1 then, rather than the number 3 or 4 they have been used to.

FreudianSlippers

Rennaws wrote: »

Really

Good luck with that..

The Bill might already be an Act (I'm not positive on that) but not enacted. The Bill has definitely cleared the relevant stages for enactment with cross-party support.

aido79

blanch152 wrote: »

For some people, water charges were the only government charge that they were actually going to see themselves pay.

Yes, they paid VAT, which is invisible, but apart from that, they didn't pay income tax, most of them didn't pay USC, and those that did, hated that they had to pay it.

In reality, there is a cohort of 15-25% of the population who don't visibly pay any taxes and weren't prepared to pay water charges, which is what brought them down.

This thing about everyone paying taxes that got repeated on the old water threads is a bit of a red herring too.

Its a bit like if you go to the supermarket and on the way in you are handed a voucher for €100 by the manager. You then grab a trolley and put €100 worth of groceries in it and head up to the checkout and hand over the voucher and walk out with the groceries. Have you actually spent money in the shop? Have you paid VAT on the groceries?
I would say no to these questions since you were given the money for little to no effort on your part but others would see it as them having a right to that voucher. They might even think they should have got a voucher of a higher value.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

5k for 166 TDs, adds up to 80k, a drop in the ocean, just like the money for a poor driver to be a board member (still the snobbery about that goes on);. The lies continue too. The 80m for consultants was a once-off cost. Why is it being conflated with the call centre costs and the performance bonuses and the "etc." that we don't know what it is? Because of the desperation to sling the blame at everyone except the idiotic protestors.

The 5 k applied to the grade in the CS TD salaries are linked to so a little bit more than 80k. What lies are your referring too? perhaps FS's claim that there is 'literally no water ' . Or are you making an unfounded allegation?
As for your voting intentions yes of course you only give FG a 3rd or 4th preference, but why you feel it's necessary to say this is a mystery to be honest.
It's late goodnight.

FreudianSlippers

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The 5 k applied to the grade in the CS TD salaries are linked to so a little bit more than 80k. What lies are your referring too? perhaps FS's claim that there is 'literally no water ' . Or are you making an unfounded allegation?
As for your voting intentions yes of course you only give FG a 3rd or 4th preference, but why you feel it's necessary to say this is a mystery to be honest.
It's late goodnight.

I may be guilty of hyperbole, but I'm not guilty of talking nonsense.

FreudianSlippers

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Pay rises in the public sector would in my opinion be a topic for a different thread. Didn't TD's get an extra 5 k last year? Not huge money but would fix a few leaks too.

Just to repeat for clarity: fixing the Dublin water infrastructure will cost five billion Euro, fixing the nation's water infrastructure will cost thirteen billion Euro.

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The 5 k applied to the grade in the CS TD salaries are linked to so a little bit more than 80k. What lies are your referring too? perhaps FS's claim that there is 'literally no water ' . Or are you making an unfounded allegation?
As for your voting intentions yes of course you only give FG a 3rd or 4th preference, but why you feel it's necessary to say this is a mystery to be honest.
It's late goodnight.

you are talking nonsense once again. The cost of fixing water is billions, yet you use a 5k increase for TDs as reason for opposing water charges. Really this is just silly now. I got a zero wrong, so whether it is 80k or 800k is a hill of beans in the context of fixing the water supply. As usual, the permanently outraged have fixed their sights on the wrong target.

We have a water supply problem that will take decades to solve with money that the Government doesn't have. The only way of doing it is to introduce demand-side measures such as water charges to both reduce demand in the shorter term and create an income to fund infrastructure development in the longer term.

This is simple basic common sense.

Hitman3000

FreudianSlippers wrote:

We don't. There's literally no water right now.

Hyperbolic nonsense tbh. As i said to Blanch goodnight. I'm sure you and a few of the regular posters will keep each other company throughout the wee hours.

FreudianSlippers

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Hyperbolic nonsense tbh. As i said to Blanch goodnight. I'm sure you and a few of the regular posters will keep each other company throughout the wee hours.

That's now the second time you've said that and quoted that post. I've admitted it was hyperbole. Not enough thanks or padding the post count?

Either way... NOT ENOUGH WATER! ATTACK THE POST NOT THE POSTER

Good loser

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, you felt differently, so here we are, with water shortages and no demand measures in place. So to repeat my post, the water charges protests were stupid, misguided, ignorant, dangerously populist, crazy and wrong, As has been shown by recent events.

That summarises the situation perfectly and succinctly. The stupidity was mind boggling. The last and decisive daggers wielded by FF.

Quoting from Saturday View on June 30.

'Irish Water is probably the biggest missed opportunity in this country for 25 years. Along with housing, water infrastructure is the most urgent investment need in the country. IW was the ideal vehicle to raise the money to make that investment. And it was hounded, shamefully I think, by politicians and people who didn't know what they were talking about.'

Coz

Good loser wrote:

' IW was the ideal vehicle to raise the money to make that investment. And it was hounded, shamefully I think, by politicians and people who didn't know what they were talking about.'

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.

aido79

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.

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.

F34

I agree we do need some type of water charge to stop people wasting an expensive to produce resource. I also signed up to Irish water and was willing to pay charges until the facts of how much money they were squandering setting it up.

Massive over spend on consultants, dubious practices on meter installation contracts bonus being paid for no reason other than people showing up to work. The biggest pisser got me was the unit price they came out with would have been one of the highest in the EU.

People say that money currently going to Irish water could be spent on housing or health if it wasn’t being given to Irish water but we would literally be throwing good money after bad we have huge issues with inefficiency across our public sector and Irish water was set up in the exact same way where it’s there to look after it’s em first and foremost rather than the task it was set up to do.

McMurphy

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.

The Bishop Basher

aido79 wrote: »

This here is the biggest problem among people against water charges. The mentality is that regardless of how much water is lost through leaks the onus will always be on the government to supply you with water.

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.

aido79 wrote: »

It doesn't matter how many other services have to fight for the money from the overall general taxation fund.

We elect a government to manage this. Are you saying they're not up to the task ?

aido79 wrote: »

Does it not make even a little bit of sense to you to take the huge cost of supplying water to a majority of the homes in the country off the government books so that more of this money can be used for things like health and housing?

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.

This is the urgent problem. Water charges are a red herring and deflection by the government for not doing their job.

If were not spending money on water and every other service is a shambles, where is it all going ?

We aren't spending the current tax take efficiently enough so why should we reach into our pockets, yet again, to pay for a service that we're already paying for, just because the government aren't capable of doing their job competently.

Fix that problem first and then lets see where we're at..

aido79 wrote: »

General taxation is not the bottomless pit of money that some people seem to think it is.

That goes both ways. They reached the bottom of this money pit some time ago.

The Bishop Basher

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I may be guilty of hyperbole, but I'm not guilty of talking nonsense.

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.

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

It reminds of the introduction of the family home tax when they told us the streetlights were about to go out..

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.

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

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

blanch152 wrote: »

In reality, there is a cohort of 15-25% of the population who don't visibly pay any taxes and weren't prepared to pay water charges, which is what brought them down.

This is the rock you perished on. No doubt that there were welfare scroungers involved but it took a much wider demographic to create the numbers and force the many subsequent u turns.

I've never taken a days dole in my life. There were many more like me at every march. The majority of people i met had never been involved in any kind of protest before.

You underestimated us then and you're doing it again now.

Please, keep doing it..

The Bishop Basher

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.