No refund for families who have paid water charges

BoatMad · 07-03-2016 03:21PM

Bruthal wrote: »

Yes. The infrastructure appeared itself I suppose. But how ever it got there, it was more likely incompetence than lack of money. They were able to install water meters quick enough when required.

Incompetence is a easy charge to throw around, because even the most capable can be called "incompetent" when they dont do what you "want".

I know people in local Authorites that were responsible for water infrastructure, they were very "competent ", what they would tell you to a man and women, was that with the removal of Rates, funding of water infrastructure fell and never recovered

You understand they are 2 examples of many taxes. And where all the extra money taken off everyone went. And how in sure you have someone in mind to blame for the state the country got into. I guess it's not either your fault, or the fault of bad water pipes.

We are still a relatively low tax economy compared to many countries, yet we demand top notch services, you cant have both .

Yet, here we all are, paying more taxes. How many more fo you want?

all we are doing is making up for the loss of stamp duty actually

I'm sure you feel entitled to something, sometime. I guess if the broadcast charge comes in, you will be straight in with the auto reply, saying people think they are entitled to live in a house without paying that new charge.

I dont agree with the broadcast charge, because I think the concept in the internet age of a tax payer funded TV station " to be nonsense, in the same vein as I thought having a " national " airline was also nonsense

Bruthal · 07-03-2016 03:24PM

seamus wrote: »

You're right. The state does nothing but provide water. All of the tax we pay is used to provide water.

And people in houses have nothing to spend their money on, but more and more tax.

BoatMad · 07-03-2016 03:31PM

Bruthal wrote: »

And people in houses have nothing to spend their money on, but more and more tax.

If they stopped " asking for free stuff" , they could play less tax

Suryavarman · 07-03-2016 03:48PM

Bruthal wrote: »

They are really, since they have been paying for it anyway.
USC, motor taxes etc, where is all that going?

Introduced the USC, then tell people they want everything for free.

Bruthal wrote: »

Yes. The infrastructure appeared itself I suppose. But how ever it got there, it was more likely incompetence than lack of money. They were able to install water meters quick enough when required.

You understand they are 2 examples of many taxes. And where all the extra money taken off everyone went. And how in sure you have someone in mind to blame for the state the country got into. I guess it's not either your fault, or the fault of bad water pipes.

Yet, here we all are, paying more taxes. How many more fo you want?

I'm sure you feel entitled to something, sometime. I guess if the broadcast charge comes in, you will be straight in with the auto reply, saying people think they are entitled to live in a house without paying that new charge.

With government ministers great pension entitlements etc, it starts at the top, this entitlement thing you and other posters go on.about.

The Government is running a deficit and it must make up for the shortfall either through spending cuts or additional revenue. The Government has elected to raise additional revenue by introducing water charges. This money can then be allocated specifically for the water infrastructure.

This is a much better system than the previous one where funding came from a number of different taxes and nothing was ever done about the sorry state of the water infrastructure.

Bruthal · 07-03-2016 04:47PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

The Government is running a deficit....

The Government has elected to raise additional revenue by introducing water charges.

They have done that a few times now. Maybe some peoples limits are different than others. Boards seems to have a few limitless ones for extra taxes. There are a few that like that phrase "sense of entitlement". I wonder how many indulged in the ssia scheme, and not a complaint about lack of money put into the water infrastructure from them then?

BoatMad · 07-03-2016 04:52PM

Bruthal wrote: »

They have done that a few times now. Maybe some peoples limits are different than others. Boards seems to have a few limitless ones for extra taxes. There are a few that like that phrase "sense of entitlement". I wonder how many indulged in the ssia scheme, and not a complaint about lack of money put into the water infrastructure from them then?

Charlie McCreevy , was a much maligned in recent years , minister for Finance, but in fact in my view he was one of the better ones.

He argued in the boom times, when Ireland was generating huge tax receipts and was running considerable current budget surpluses, that FF and the people, were likely to engage in an orgy of spending, He created two means of soaking up that money, the National pension Reserve and the SSIA. Both were extremely useful for the task and We would've had to borrow a considerable additional amount of money to fund the pillar banks where it not for the NPR.

Of course history show us that Charlie moved on as he was too conservative for Bertie, and the spend without end began and here we are now.......

Suryavarman · 07-03-2016 05:11PM

Bruthal wrote: »

They have done that a few times now. Maybe some peoples limits are different than others. Boards seems to have a few limitless ones for extra taxes. There are a few that like that phrase "sense of entitlement". I wonder how many indulged in the ssia scheme, and not a complaint about lack of money put into the water infrastructure from them then?

What spending cuts are you advocating to reduce the deficit since you are clearly against additional revenue?

Bruthal · 07-03-2016 05:18PM

BoatMad wrote: »

Incompetence is a easy charge to throw around, because even the most capable can be called "incompetent" when they dont do what you "want".

I know people in local Authorites that were responsible for water infrastructure, they were very "competent ", what they would tell you to a man and women, was that with the removal of Rates, funding of water infrastructure fell and never recovered

When an army makes a mess of a task, its likely the generals that were the problem, not the soldiers.

BoatMad wrote: »

Charlie McCreevy , was a much maligned in recent years , minister for Finance, but in fact in my view he was one of the better ones.

He argued in the boom times, when Ireland was generating huge tax receipts and was running considerable current budget surpluses, that FF and the people, were likely to engage in an orgy of spending, He created two means of soaking up that money, the National pension Reserve and the SSIA. Both were extremely useful for the task and We would've had to borrow a considerable additional amount of money to fund the pillar banks where it not for the NPR.

Im sure the "sense of entitlement" posters I mention, collected their entitlement all the same, without much thought of any possible benefits beyond their own.

and the spend without end began and here we are now.......

Yes, here we are.

Bruthal · 07-03-2016 05:23PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

What spending cuts are you advocating to reduce the deficit since you are clearly against additional revenue?

I think most are paying plenty of additional revenue over the last few years. Did you not notice?

Do you believe the deficit is increasing there where you are?

BoatMad · 07-03-2016 05:48PM

Bruthal wrote: »

I think most are paying plenty of additional revenue over the last few years. Did you not notice?

Do you believe the deficit is increasing there where you are?

correct, no futher increases in tax or charges over that envisaged by the last Gov are necessary

Zubeneschamali · 07-03-2016 05:52PM

BoatMad wrote: »

Charlie McCreevy , was a much maligned in recent years , minister for Finance, but in fact in my view he was one of the better ones.

He argued in the boom times, when Ireland was generating huge tax receipts and was running considerable current budget surpluses, that FF and the people, were likely to engage in an orgy of spending

This is ridiculously far from reality. Charlie famously said he would spend it when he had it, he slashed taxes and Government spending shot up by 50% in 3 years!

BoatMad · 07-03-2016 05:53PM

Bruthal wrote: »

When an army makes a mess of a task, its likely the generals that were the problem, not the soldiers.

Thats a convenient Shibboleth, the reality as any reading of war history shows, is its the plan, the army, the leaders, the terrority, the opponents and so fourth that actually causes the mess. rarely is any one factor the case.

Im sure the "sense of entitlement" posters I mention, collected their entitlement all the same, without much thought of any possible benefits beyond their own.

Given 75% of it was their own money I dont see why not. It was actually a good thing for the country at the time as McCreevey was trying to slow the boom, by encouraging savings

BoatMad · 07-03-2016 05:55PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is ridiculously far from reality. Charlie famously said he would spend it when he had it, he slashed taxes and Government spending shot up by 50% in 3 years!

Yes but I listened to his Dail speeches, he outlined the reason for both the NPR and SSIA and both were in essence to take " money off the table ". Spending shot up still of course. because he was FF.

Water John · 07-03-2016 06:02PM

Claire Byrne live tonight on water charges.

Bruthal · 07-03-2016 06:10PM

BoatMad wrote: »

Thats a convenient Shibboleth, the reality as any reading of war history shows, is its the plan, the army, the leaders, the terrority, the opponents and so fourth that actually causes the mess. rarely is any one factor the case.

The army is the local authority personnel. The generals are those running it. No mention of wars was made. You believe it was well run during the time charlie was struggling to think of ways to spend his surplus obviously.

Given 75% of it was their own money I dont see why not.

Yes, you were entitled to, i guess...

Bruthal · 07-03-2016 06:15PM

BoatMad wrote: »

correct, no futher increases in tax or charges over that envisaged by the last Gov are necessary

Is the deficit increasing?

BoatMad · 07-03-2016 06:22PM

Bruthal wrote: »

Is the deficit increasing?

No, the tax raised , can either be banked in the way of paying down loans, or released ( frugally ) in expansing a limited number of public services to the very needy.

Mostly it should be banked for the rainy days coming in my opinion

BoatMad · 07-03-2016 06:25PM

Bruthal wrote: »

The army is the local authority personnel. The generals are those running it. No mention of wars was made. You believe it was well run during the time charlie was struggling to think of ways to spend his surplus obviously.

No, he was far from perfect , but he was actually a very competent minister and a great man for cutting through the civil service

the trouble was the men in the trenches in FF are prone to " give-aways "

The fact is if service failures were just a function of leaders , then changing them would solve things, yet despite multiple changes of leaders , with visions from across the left to the right , things like Health and Water and any number of other things are not fixed.

Therefore , you can conclude that theres more to it then just bad leaders or blaming them.

Bruthal · 07-03-2016 06:32PM

BoatMad wrote: »

Mostly it should be banked for the rainy days coming in my opinion

From the deficit, to rainy days now.

Bruthal · 07-03-2016 06:33PM

BoatMad wrote: »

No, he was far from perfect , but he was actually a very competent minister and a great man for cutting through the civil service

the trouble was the men in the trenches in FF are prone to " give-aways "

The men in the trenches are the ones with shovels, not the ones in suits commanding them.

BoatMad · 07-03-2016 06:37PM

Bruthal wrote: »

The men in the trenches are the ones with shovels, not the ones in suits commanding them.

everyone is a leader at some level. often leaders in reality have little power too.

Its convenient to blame leaders , history and the public loves a scapegoat, in the same way that its madness to think that John Tierney was the problem in IW, or that his pension was the cause of our woes.

The reality is different , as I said if changing leaders was all that was needed, Ireland would be a workers paradise by now.

BoatMad · 07-03-2016 06:40PM

Bruthal wrote: »

From the deficit, to rainy days now.

yes, we are reducing our current deficit, its well within EU requirements, but the world outlook is far from stable or expansionary. We would be wise to either pay down certain debt or in my case I would suggest investment in growth generating aspects of the economy, mainly infrastructure. ( which is essentially banking for the future)

I would be very slow to expand public services to soak up the tax overtake, much of the tax take excess is corporate tax, VAT and certain consumption taxes, that are very difficult to rely on

Bruthal · 07-03-2016 06:42PM

BoatMad wrote: »

everyone is a leader at some level. often leaders in reality have little power too.

Its convenient to blame leaders , history and the public loves a scapegoat, in the same way that its madness to think that John Tierney was the problem in IW, or that his pension was the cause of our woes.

The reality is different , as I said if changing leaders was all that was needed, Ireland would be a workers paradise by now.

Im talking more about the government(s) than an individual.

Tierneys pension will be no more to blame for water problems than if an individual doesnt pay their water charges.

BoatMad · 07-03-2016 07:23PM

Im talking more about the government(s) than an individual.

Governments are made up of quite ordinary people , taking decisions often with little room for maneouver

Suryavarman · 07-03-2016 07:29PM

Bruthal wrote: »

I think most are paying plenty of additional revenue over the last few years. Did you not notice?

Do you believe the deficit is increasing there where you are?

If you get rid of water charges then the deficit is going to increase. So I'll repeat myself. What spending cuts do you advocate to reduce the deficit considering you are against additional revenue?

BoatMad · 07-03-2016 07:36PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

If you get rid of water charges then the deficit is going to increase. So I'll repeat myself. What spending cuts do you advocate to reduce the deficit considering you are against additional revenue?

The state tax take is sufficient on current tax receipts and I would include a modicum of water charges in that , and more then capable of meetings its spending needs, There is " fiscal space"

the property tax is not a huge contributor and will slowly rise over the coming decade as well.

There is some small scope of minor increases in public spending and certain selected targeted tax cuts and removing some anomalies , but again all done in a minor way

I see no reason for any additional taxes at present, the tax base is considerably widely then under the previous FF administration

The best Gov at the moment is paradoxically no Gov, perhaps the electorate is prescient

Suryavarman · 07-03-2016 07:44PM

BoatMad wrote: »

The state tax take is sufficient on current tax receipts and I would include a modicum of water charges in that , and more then capable of meetings its spending needs, There is " fiscal space"

the property tax is not a huge contributor and will slowly rise over the coming decade as well.

There is some small scope of minor increases in public spending and certain selected targeted tax cuts and removing some anomalies , but again all done in a minor way

I see no reason for any additional taxes at present, the tax base is considerably widely then under the previous FF administration

The best Gov at the moment is paradoxically no Gov, perhaps the electorate is prescient

If you reduce revenue then you will need to make up the shortfall from somewhere else. It doesn't matter whether you have fiscal space or not. If you get rid of water charges you suddenly have less fiscal space.

For the budget balance to stay in the same position as it is now you have to make spending cuts or raise additional revenue if you want to get rid of water charges. The previous poster is against raising any more revenue so that means spending cuts would have to be made.

BoatMad · 07-03-2016 07:46PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

If you reduce revenue then you will need to make up the shortfall from somewhere else. It doesn't matter whether you have fiscal space or not. If you get rid of water charges you suddenly have less fiscal space.

For the budget balance to stay in the same position as it is now you have to make spending cuts or raise additional revenue if you want to get rid of water charges. The previous poster is against raising any more revenue so that means spending cuts would have to be made.

The state if it wished, absorb water charges without having to raise taxes based on the current exchequer tax take.

what are you trying to say, your point is not correct, removing water charges might result in delaying certain increases in public spending ( or panned tax changes ) , they would not cause a reduction in existing services

For the budget balance to stay in the same position as it is now

balance percentages are not constant today we are accelerating in our tax revenue , hence balances are reducing faster then planned ( Hence the fiscal space argument)

Bruthal · 07-03-2016 08:06PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

If you get rid of water charges then the deficit is going to increase.

Not really, no.

So I'll repeat myself. What spending cuts do you advocate to reduce the deficit considering you are against additional revenue?

And I will repeat myself. We have had a series of additional revenue. Obviously you didnt notice. And the deficit is decreasing.

Obviously you are open to paying all your spare money in tax until the deficit is gone.

Bruthal · 07-03-2016 08:20PM

BoatMad wrote: »

Governments are made up of quite ordinary people , taking decisions often with little room for maneouver

With a far from ordinary "sense of entitlement"

No refund for families who have paid water charges

Comments