Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

So Are Water Charges Coming In This Year Or Not?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Green Gooner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 148 ✭✭Green Gooner


    In a nation surrounded by the sea and which gets large amounts of rainfall. Its amazing we could be charged for the water.

    It's the poor families who cant afford it I'll pity. Any thing the Greens come up with has cost a bit extra money - they dont give a damn about the poorer section's of our society.


  • Options
    #33
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,001 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Green Gooner wrote: »
    In a nation surrounded by the sea and which gets large amounts of rainfall. Its amazing we could be charged for the water.
    Go. Go drink the seawater. Collect rainwater from your gutter. Wont be long before you realize the problem there...


  • Options
    #34
    Green Gooner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 148 ✭✭Green Gooner


    Overheal wrote: »
    Go. Go drink the seawater. Collect rainwater from your gutter. Wont be long before you realize the problem there...

    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #35
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    If they sorted out the overpayment and unvouched expenses and waste, there would be plenty tax revenue to go around.
    Would there? Would you mind terribly backing that up with some figures?
    deadtiger wrote: »
    As someone already stated the councils seem hell bent on wasting money without getting their own houses in order. Streamline and become effiecient then they can come for more money.
    What level of streamlining and efficiency is necessary before taxes and/or charges can be introduced?
    deadtiger wrote: »
    Well I would expect a far better situation than the current one in certain areas where up to 58% of our drinking water supply is lost through leaks.
    As would I, but the system ain’t gonna get fixed without investment.


  • Options
    #36
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    bmaxi wrote: »
    Perhaps you could point out where I said water should be free of charge. I said it shouldn't be privatised.
    We're talking about water charges, not privatisation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Green Gooner wrote: »
    In a nation surrounded by the sea and which gets large amounts of rainfall. Its amazing we could be charged for the water.
    I’m not sure that we do receive particularly large amounts of rainfall in this country (relative to elsewhere in Europe, for example). What has the sea to do with anything? Are you suggesting desalination plants as a potential solution?
    Green Gooner wrote: »
    It's the poor families who cant afford it I'll pity.
    Ah yes, “the vulnerable”. We can’t go charging “the vulnerable” for public services now can we?


  • Options
    #38
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    djpbarry wrote: »
    What level of streamlining and efficiency is necessary before taxes and/or charges can be introduced?

    A level where we are getting proper service and value for money for taxes already inputted into the system. I am sure you'll agree we are nowhere near that situation at the moment.
    As would I, but the system ain’t gonna get fixed without investment.

    Of course the solution is to pour more money down the drain if you forgive the pun :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #39
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    djpbarry if you bet 500e on a horse and it lost dismally, would you be reluctant to hand over another 500? In this case we weren't betting with our money, we were paying for service that has been dismally managed. Its understandable people dont want to be charged more until they see some evidence that its worth it.


  • Options
    #40
    Green Gooner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 148 ✭✭Green Gooner


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I’m not sure that we do receive particularly large amounts of rainfall in this country (relative to elsewhere in Europe, for example). What has the sea to do with anything? Are you suggesting desalination plants as a potential solution?
    Ah yes, “the vulnerable”. We can’t go charging “the vulnerable” for public services now can we?
    I'm assuming you've lived were I do in the west then, were in rains quite frequently. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #41
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Green Gooner wrote: »
    I'm assuming you've lived were I do in the west then, were in rains quite frequently. :rolleyes:

    Then you should have no difficulty replacing mains water with collected rainwater, which you will not be charged for.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    bmaxi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,859 ✭✭✭bmaxi


    taconnol wrote: »
    We're talking about water charges, not privatisation.

    I'm perfectly aware what we are talking about, I was replying to a poster who favoured the introduction of water charges only in conjunction with privatisation.


  • Options
    #43
    yoshytoshy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,305 ✭✭✭yoshytoshy


    I mentioned privatisation ,I don't know why people think water is for free at the moment.
    None of the vans with water division written on them are donated by bill gates or anything and the blokes driving the said vans aren't voluntary "workers".

    The government are using peoples fear of water shortage ,to get more money.


  • Options
    #44
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    yoshytoshy wrote: »
    I mentioned privatisation ,I don't know why people think water is for free at the moment.
    None of the vans with water division written on them are donated by bill gates or anything and the blokes driving the said vans aren't voluntary "workers".

    The government are using peoples fear of water shortage ,to get more money.

    Not really the case - in fact, the government has simply been "lucky" (if that's really the right word). This has been in the pipeline for quite a while - here is one of the preliminary reports - Economic Analysis of Water Use in Ireland, 2004:
    This analysis of water use forms part of an initial characterisation report required by the Water Framework Directive (WFD) that is being prepared by the relevant local authorities in relation to each River Basin District (RBD) and overseen at the national level by the DEHLG and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The purpose of this report is to make use of currently available information to provide an initial overview of the current and projected future economic benefits and costs associated with the utilisation of water resources in Ireland.

    People perhaps think of this as a Green initiative under the current government, but it isn't, I'm afraid - it was agreed with our European partners, originally in 2000.

    That's a very good report, by the way - covers more or less everything you might need to know about the economics of water use in Ireland. Certain issues can be laid to rest pretty much straight away:
    Whilst local authorities are in the process of transparently identifying the cost of delivering water and wastewater services to all sectors individually, Government policy and national legislation prohibit direct charges for domestic use. Thus, there is a significant annual shortfall for local authorities in expenditure over receipts in relation to the provision of these services. The source of funding for this deficit is the General Purposes Payments from central funds made to local authorities. As illustrated in Figure E-8, there is a growing gap between the general costs of water services and the costs currently recovered.

    The gap referred to was about €225m in 2003.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #45
    yoshytoshy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,305 ✭✭✭yoshytoshy


    Scofflaw wrote: »

    The gap referred to was about €225m in 2003.

    That just proves that nobody in government had any will to sort this out sooner.

    Maybe set up some semi-state body for water ...
    Uisce Eireann:D


  • Options
    #46
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    deadtiger wrote: »
    A level where we are getting proper service and value for money for taxes already inputted into the system.
    So let’s quantify this in some way; what ‘level’ are we at now and what level need be attained before new taxes/charges can be introduced?
    deadtiger wrote: »
    Of course the solution is to pour more money down the drain if you forgive the pun :rolleyes:
    And how exactly is the water distribution system to be repaired without spending money?
    Laminations wrote: »
    djpbarry if you bet 500e on a horse and it lost dismally, would you be reluctant to hand over another 500? In this case we weren't betting with our money, we were paying for service that has been dismally managed.
    But we’re not directly paying for it – that’s sort of the point. Or to be more precise, individuals consuming large amounts of water are being subsidised by those who do not.
    Green Gooner wrote: »
    I'm assuming you've lived were I do in the west then, were in rains quite frequently. :rolleyes:
    I never said anything about frequency.


  • Options
    #47
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    Plenty of people are already paying for water in this country. The majority of farms, certainly in tipperary are all metered

    Its amazing that some are paying and some aren't.


  • Options
    #48
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    djpbarry wrote: »
    So let’s quantify this in some way; what ‘level’ are we at now and what level need be attained before new taxes/charges can be introduced?


    Here's the problem we need to tackle the whole system of local authorities and the way our services are dealt with. We do not need the number of councils that we have already, the cost duplication is crazy for a country of our size. Merge all the councils into 4 super councils and then with the cost savings upgrade the systems. Stumbling along as well are no longer makes sense and it will have to be dealt with sooner or later.

    Paying more taxes to maintain the cushy status quo should no longer be an option. Looking at things on a microscopic level and talking about levels is not seeing the bigger picture which is we want value for our taxes and we are not getting that.

    I refuse to pay more into this quagmire until I see some real changes with the councils that will ensure the citizens of this country are getting proper value for their hard earned tax Euros.

    And how exactly is the water distribution system to be repaired without spending money?


    It can't be obviously but what exactly are we paying taxes for then?

    I have no issues in the long term paying for usage once I am happy that our monies are being used in the most cost effective manner possible to deliver the best services available. We are light years away from that position now.

    We were promised a more efficient public service by the so-called benchmarking process and that turned out to be a fallacy of the highest order.


  • Options
    #49
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    deadtiger wrote: »
    Here's the problem we need to tackle the whole system of local authorities and the way our services are dealt with. We do not need the number of councils that we have already, the cost duplication is crazy for a country of our size. Merge all the councils into 4 super councils and then with the cost savings upgrade the systems.
    What sort of savings are we talking about here? Can you give a ballpark figure? I’m going to need a fair bit of convincing that “streamlining” and increasing efficiency are going to deliver the sort of savings required (but that’s obviously not to say that increased efficiency should not be targeted).

    As for local government reform, you’re not the first to demand it. However, the one party that was committed to reforming local government (The Greens) was wiped out at the last local elections. Go figure.
    deadtiger wrote: »
    It can't be obviously but what exactly are we paying taxes for then?
    Are we paying enough taxes to cover current expenditure from public accounts and all future infrastructural projects? It seems to me that we are not.
    deadtiger wrote: »
    We were promised a more efficient public service by the so-called benchmarking process and that turned out to be a fallacy of the highest order.
    At the height of ‘the boom’, we were promised better public services (because that’s what the public wanted) with lower taxes (because that’s what the public wanted). As has already been stated, there is something not quite right about such an approach.


Advertisement