Bazzo wrote: » I remember reading an article a while back about this. Taxation in Ireland isn't especially high in comparison to the rest of Europe, the difference is that services are pretty poor for what you pay. A sort of worst of both worlds scenario.
Podge_irl wrote: » Which is an incredibly stupid way of paying for it. One way or another, investment in water infrastructure was far, far too low because it was financed through general taxation and other spending was consistently prioritized over it. Whatever we were spending on water wasn't enough. I don't really understand the issue with it being a revenue generating exercise to widen the tax base either to be honest. The tax base in Ireland does seem awfully narrow. Agree the implementation was ham-fisted though. Though I do find it interesting how this is what finally caused people to crack.
Stheno wrote: » Fancy swopping? I'll mod here, and you can take over in the cafe? :pac: If you saw yes and the admins agree I'll buy you tickets to the pro12 final
sydthebeat wrote: » i completely agree with all that. Our tax base is way too narrow and we depend way too much on indirect taxes (which are very high, in response to bazzo above) The reason investment in municipal services dropped off is actually because back around 98' the government stopped finding local authorities centrally which put severe pressure on local authorities to fund themselves through rates and contributions... and obviously affected funding for capital projects as the day to day costs had to be met first. However through all this, general taxation didnt drop, the government just funneled it to other areas.
Erik Shin wrote: » In effect, we've been triple taxed for water...Firstly it was rates...Then a water and sewerage charge...And then Irish water....But we still had to pay the same amount of the other 2 levys as it was....It's frankly laughable that any government or created body thought that was going to work....And yet we are now in a position where the majority of TF's realise it's morally wrong and don't want to implement it...But we are breaking European law if we don't have a separate water charge levy.... it's going to get very interesting indeed over the coming months
irishbucsfan wrote: » +1 Basically we were landed with bad economics based on a paper that was debunked by a masters student (see excelgate) and we never had so much as the slightest hint of an apology, even worse, people still think its true. Unfortunately the biggest problem with the EU/ECB is that its run by the type of people who will make the exact same mistake the next time.
stephen_n wrote: » I don't object to paying for water, I just object to lining Dennis O'Brien's pockets more. If it had been left in the hands of the local council and the money went directly to them. I think the vast majority would have paid it. Handing it over to a for profit company was the real disaster.
mfceiling wrote: » A big problem with taxation in this country is the idea of taking people out of the tax net. If you earn anything you should be contributing. If you earn €10k a year you should be paying something. Even those on social welfare should make a contribution. Even if it was 50 cents a week it would be something. It's laughable to think that people who are earning should be outside the tax take even though they avail of the services that everyone else uses?
Podge_irl wrote: » Disagree that it should be left in the hands of the local council. Water infrastructure should absolutely be handled by a national body.
Zzippy wrote: » Except the same people recently bailed out the Italian banks and insisted on bondholders being burned. We in Ireland are the only patsies who got landed with an economic crash and having to pay the banks' debts in full. Rates have been gone since 1977. I never heard of a water and sewage charge. Irish Water was formed about 25 years after rates were abolished. I don't see how you think we could be paying both at the same time, never mind the charge I've never heard of.
Erik Shin wrote: » You think Rates are gone? That's incredible shall I send you my bills from KCC that i have to pay regularly
Stheno wrote: » Are they rates for a business premises?
stephen_n wrote: » So you are going to ask people in areas with unusable water to contribute, even though the money isn't going to benefit their local area? The for profit model is the main issue, any national authority should not be a private, profit driven entity. Especially one that then incorporates all the council staff anyway.
CMOTDibbler wrote: » Are you the owner of a business premises? Rates for businesses were never abolished.
Erik Shin wrote: » Yes! I've been talking about business all the time...Some didn't read my posts i guess
Erik Shin wrote: » Don't I fckin know it!
CMOTDibbler wrote: » One post. But then you moved on to talking about 'the people'. Easy to see how confusion set in. :pac:
CMOTDibbler wrote: » Businesses basically had to take the brunt of the disastrous household rates abolition back in 1977. Councils had very few trunips left to draw blood from and businesses were it. :rolleyes:
Zzippy wrote: » Everyone else was talking about private use of water - are you complaining that you have to pay commercial rates on a business premises and for water you use at home? If you were trying to claim that is double taxation, that's just ridiculous, and totally disingenuous, as you well know.
CMOTDibbler wrote: » Aren't all semi-state bodies profit driven? The profits pay for investment, otherwise they're just revenue collectors.
Podge_irl wrote: » eh...no. That's what is happening at the moment. With metered rates if your water is unusable you won't be using any. I just mean that the local councils are not the correct bodies to be looking after water infrastructure - the issue needs to be treated on a national level. What is the fundamental difference between water and electricity? I just don't see why they should be treated differently.
