Proposed "Free" Water Allowances

Boulevardier wrote: »

I agree that we should not have a sudden large tax rise. However, a rise to say 48%, kicking in at around 75k, would raise significant revenue without damaging the less well off.

Myself, I think we need to evolve Berlin-wards. Voters would not have countenanced that during the tiger, but that may now start to change. Time will tell.

Our tax wedge on all workers, in the end, is 30%. That's how much income we take out across the board. Germany's is 50%. To get to 50% you'd need to have a tax of over 50% on certain incomes, but also raise tax on all people.

In Germany this idea of people under a certain wage paying little or no income tax wouldn't fly, simple numbers. The idea that before the USC and levies we had half the workforce paying no income tax, wouldn't work.

Now if you'd like to live in a German/Scandinavian type of country - where income tax is 50% of all wages earned, not 30% like in Ireland, and you still pay property taxes, and high VAT etc (as they do) - you feel free and vote for people who will bring in that kind of a policy.

I think you'll find very few others willing to vote for it if presented with a simple breakdown of what a person in Germany or Sweden earns and is taxed on vs in Ireland.

Edit: Also, define 'signifigant' - I recall in '08 (or was it sometime in '09? Ohh the budgets...) or so the unions were calling for no cuts, and a tax expert on the frontline pointed out that to make up the amount they were looking for in taxes alone, a couple on a joint income of €75k or more (so earning more than €37,500 each PA) would have to pay 70% tax on all income over that amount to cover was it €4 or €6 bn? Anyway, that's not signifigant......

jakdelad

It is not a "green" agenda at all. It is an agenda that suits privatisation, and suits those who assume that the lower classes care less about wasting water than do their social betters.
lower classes??? social betters
who the ****k are you ???

He/she is someone using the fairly obvious strawman of putting unappealing views in the mouths of those proposing a water charge to make it less attractive. Did you really misunderstand and think Boulevardier was expressing these views rather than claiming that other secretly held them?

BrianD wrote: »

Do it while you're washing the dishes. QED.

Just going back to the rainwater harvesting. The Irish times reckons the average house could yield 20,000 litres of rainwater per annum. Granted this vary depending on the time of year but that would allow you an average 55 litres per day for non-potable usage.

Combine this with your 60 litre allowance then you have 115 litres free per day. Not going to be the same for everybody and there is the issue that rain water harvesting requires an initial investment that may be out of reach of some people.

I played around with the idea many, many times to supply water to the garden, but was ruled out because - duh - water didnt cost anything. Rainbarrels though and a gravity-fed irrigation system could be the way to go for a lot of people.

BrianD wrote: »

I would prefer a Bentley to my Micra. If you want to use mains water for these purposes then you pay for it. It is disgraceful that drinking water should be flushed down the loo or used for showering.



Absolutely no problem - what do you think happens at the reservoirs? Where do you think it all comes from? The pipes that it flows through to get to your house? The chemicals added?

I can speak from experience. All the water in my parents house is rainwater apart from the water going through the kitchen sink tap. Zero difference - in fact in some cases it may be better quality as it's "soft" as opposed to "hard". If you're using water to the quantities that you describe then your water won't be sitting long enough to get "rank".

You obviously know very little about water cycle other than wasting it and not wanting to pay for it.

I know plenty about water as I work for a coco maintaining its infrastructure. Water is neither expensive to produce or treat, or scarce either. Whats lacking is the absence ot the typical irish ideals of neglect, making do, and downright dishonesty. To take these assertions one by one

Water, in fact good quality water, is relatively plentiful in Ireland, and the treatment, and distribution of such is pretty bacic engineering. The lack of a basic good quality water infrastructure is NEGLECT

Many areas over the years that could not access public water schemes, and with the encouragement of local and national political classes developes their own schemes. Now I can tell you that as many local authorities are taking over these schemes what they have discovered is not a pretty picture. Badly designed poorly constructed and downright shoddy is the order of the day, with the usual paddywhackery excuse of "shure nobody knew anything about water in them days". I'll call this MAKING DO.

Boo hoo poor dublin has no water and wont the new charges (ringfenced:rolleyes:) pay for the new scheme to bring "good quality water" from the shannon. The funny thing is most new housing schemes have already paid developement levies for the provision of these services which have not being provided, I'll call this DISHONESTY

Finally the idea of using potable water for flushing loos is frankly silly if it can be easily avoided. But installing dual supplies, potable and locally harvested rainwater for example in larger housing estates, well we have missed the boat with that one just like with sensible leves of insulation. So sensible usage of what we have is the key, full loads in your appliances, no taps left running, no washing the car or lawn. Again I would like to use mains water for a shower (no I don't drink while I'm in the shower) or to wash mine or my childrens clothes, and yes I am already paying for it.

metrovelvet wrote: »

In the middle of a recession to do this, you will get people not washing their hands, not flushing their toilet, not bathing, which means more disease and more filth and in crumbling healthcare system, that is all you need.

Ahhh come on now. Wouldn't you agree you're just taking the pi$$!!

Seriously though, I think you're gone a bit beyond it with that assertion. IMO it amounts to attemped scaremongering.

"I wonder what impact this will have on the quality of recycling here? We are expected to rinse out cans and bottles. "

I never rinse the cans and bottles which I send for recycling. I have always thought that doing so tends to negate the benefits of recycling; in any case, I am fairly sure the stuff gets rinsed (again) anyway.

Where did the concept of clean filtered water being free come from?
Of course we need to pay for it, i just wish they would fix the pipes so we dont lose so much of it

RandomName2 wrote: »

The water charge is just another property tax.

It doesn't relate to the cost of water supply, or lack of water supply - but rather a means to balance a fiscal deficit produced by the collapse of the property bubble.

Not having water taxation lumped in with some other form of taxation is nicely distracting though due to the irrelevant arguments over semantics that it produces!

Realistically you could just combine water charges, property tax and tv licence fees. Ffs - TV licence fee (and at least to begin with the water charges) will be a fixed sum for every household; so having these separate just increases administrative costs.

It's a means to broaden the tax base to more reliable tax sources so that we can balance our books. It's should also mean, by the metering of the entire system, that we can identify where leaks occur and fix them in a more efficient manner.

monkeypants wrote: »

Please correct me if my math is wrong, but 3500 US gallons is 13,248.94 litres. Dividing that by 31 (days of the month) gives me a daily allowance of 427.39 litres. That sounds like a lot.

No idea what I did there. I brainfarted. You are correct. Apologies for my maths fail.