No refund for families who have paid water charges

BoatMad wrote: »

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

So you're saying that the revenues the state raises make no difference to the budget balance? Can we just abolish all taxes then? Since as you've pointed the revenues we raise make no difference to the level of services the Government provides.

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)

Hence my argument that if we eliminate a revenue stream we end up with less fiscal space.

Bruthal wrote: »

Not really, no.

Are you in favour of eliminating the income tax, VAT and other sources of revenue then seen as eliminating sources of revenue doesn't increase the deficit?

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.

I'm in favour of eliminating the deficit through spending cuts and increased revenues. You're clearly not in favour of anything apart from complaining about the way the Government does things. Or maybe if you were Taoiseach we suddenly wouldn't have to raise revenue to pay for Government spending.

Bruthal wrote: »

Sorry about that. But you choose to read/post.

Good luck anyway.

no the lefts whinging is getting boring, boards is fine

BoatMad wrote: »

i really think you are being deliberately dense. The state runs a current budget deficit as allowed by Eurozone fiscal rules. There is no advantage to " balancing the budget" in a era when you need to spend " some " money after the last 5 years . we need a mildly expansionary fiscal position to " keep the recovery going:"

I merely said that it if wanted current tax take could moire then absorb water charges, as it is the current revenue take from the public by IW, is only a fraction iof what IW is. in essence water is being paid for by existing taxes

with an increasing fiscal space, that means no additional ( note additional ) taxes are needed to " carry " IW.

The fact that we have a debt of 100% of GDP suggests that there would be some advantage to running a surplus. Reducing the debt burden would boost economic growth.

The economy is growing rapidly. We don't need an expansionary fiscal policy to keep it going. Within reason the economy will continue expanding regardless of fiscal policy.

To give us the same amount of fiscal space we need to raise additional revenue to offset the elimination of another source of revenue or we need to reduce spending whether it be existing or planned.

only if the total tax take is static , at present it is growing as a result of additional taxes added over the last few years

By definition if you make an expenditure or revenue change then the size of the fiscal space will change. If you eliminate a source of revenue then the fiscal space will be smaller then it otherwise would have been.

you are engaging in a reducto ab absurdum debating practice - stop that

I'm genuinely puzzled by your arguments. How can one eliminate a source of revenue without affecting the budget balance?

It would not be a good thing in the era of cheap money to eliminate the budget deficit and there is no need to do so. The state has no issues with the availability of credit while it remains inside the euro and therefore it does have som degree of latitude

So we should increase the size of the deficit then? Should we increase the debt burden beyond 100% of GDP? Should we continue to pile on debt until credit conditions aren't as favourable and we have little to no wiggle room?

Bruthal wrote: »

The deficit is decreasing, and as said, your point is absurd. Work the rest out for yourself.

And the deficit would increase if we eliminated water charges. What would you do to offset the reduced revenue?

I only see you complaining that we dont have enough taxes.

I'm complaining about eliminating a source of revenue and not making up for it somehow. I'm perfectly happy to eliminate a source of revenue if it is offset entirely by spending cuts negating the need for additional revenue. What spending cuts do you propose to negate the need for additional revenue?

If you were, the deficit would be gone by the weekend.

I could if you gave me a little help identifying spending cuts. Could you give me an example of any spending cuts I could implement if I were Taoiseach?

Suryavarman wrote: »

The fact that we have a debt of 100% of GDP suggests that there would be some advantage to running a surplus. Reducing the debt burden would boost economic growth.

reducing debt actually reduces economic activity , there is no particular monetary advantage is reducing the "capital", once we can service the interest in a low interest rate environment, it would deb better to use the capital elsewhere

paying down debt removes government expediture from the economy, not a goo thing at present , Governments budgets bear no relation to housewives ones

The economy is growing rapidly. We don't need an expansionary fiscal policy to keep it going. Within reason the economy will continue expanding regardless of fiscal policy

.


3% or so is not rapid, its a fragile recovery , it needs to be cemented in. major changes in fiscal policy could cause shocks that cause it to falter.

To give us the same amount of fiscal space we need to raise additional revenue to offset the elimination of another source of revenue or we need to reduce spending whether it be existing or planned.

dude, if tax revenues are increasing , then the fiscal space is increasing, even adding back lost revenue from IW, would have little impact. ( IW is only generating about 10% of its funding at present from charges anyway )

all that happens is the rate of fiscal rate growth is slowed a little by the financial impact of IW. but its not reduced

By definition if you make an expenditure or revenue change then the size of the fiscal space will change. If you eliminate a source of revenue then the fiscal space will be smaller then it otherwise would have been.

yes but in fact the fiscal space is sufficiently large without or without water charge revenue so that it doesnt make a lot of difference

I'm genuinely puzzled by your arguments. How can one eliminate a source of revenue without affecting the budget balance?

your mixing up current and capital, interest and principle .Governments have in reality no need to pay down debt, they just need to be able to " service " it. remember they create money in a flat currency

So we should increase the size of the deficit then? Should we increase the debt burden beyond 100% of GDP? Should we continue to pile on debt until credit conditions aren't as favourable and we have little to no wiggle room?

The absolute size of ones debt is of little concern, ( the USAs is mammoth ), the markets value Irish euro bonds, by evaluating the debt to GDP ratio as does the Eurozone. AT present with a growing GDP , rising tax revenues , we are capable of accelerating that reduction of the principle , if we wanted to , which we dont .

Hence we are not piling on debt at present , with or without iW charges

And the deficit would increase if we eliminated water charges. What would you do to offset the reduced revenue?

The increase is more then offset by the growth in fiscal space, as a result of tax revenue growth and GDP increases

I'm complaining about eliminating a source of revenue and not making up for it somehow. I'm perfectly happy to eliminate a source of revenue if it is offset entirely by spending cuts negating the need for additional revenue. What spending cuts do you propose to negate the need for additional revenue?

where we in a falling or static tax revenue case, you argument would have validity, at present it has none.

I could if you gave me a little help identifying spending cuts. Could you give me an example of any spending cuts I could implement if I were Taoiseach?

you are badgering the witness, councillor

Jack Killian wrote: »

Rubbish. They already got the LPT - where do you think that came from ? The magic money tree ?

more healy Ray-isms

" they" didnt get anything , you'd payed yourself to have more tax revenue so it could in time generate more public services , facilities , help the disadvantage, provide education and all the myriad of things taxes pay for

" They " didnt get anything, there is no "they ", theres just " us" all of "us"

the reality is taxes increase until you pay for all the services you demand. to do otherwise is what happened in 2008.

BoatMad wrote: »

reducing debt actually reduces economic activity , there is no particular monetary advantage is reducing the "capital", once we can service the interest in a low interest rate environment, it would deb better to use the capital elsewhere

paying down debt removes government expediture from the economy, not a goo thing at present , Governments budgets bear no relation to housewives ones

Reinhart and Rogoff found that increased debt to GDP ratios result in lower growth. Admittedly people have found methodological flaws in that study. Debt to GDP doesn't inhibit growth as much as the authors found but the central point still stands. Higher debt to GDP ratios result in lower growth.

Paying down debt does not remove expenditure from the economy. It reallocates it. Instead of paying interest to foreign creditors the Government can now spend it in Ireland.

3% or so is not rapid, its a fragile recovery , it needs to be cemented in. major changes in fiscal policy could cause shocks that cause it to

Real GDP increased by 6% last year and is projected to increase by 4% next year. I don't think maintaining water charges constitutes a major change in fiscal policy. In fact it's the opposite. Nor would immediately balancing the budget. Unless the multiplier is 4 or more then the economy would continue to grow if we balanced the budget tomorrow.

dude, if tax revenues are increasing , then the fiscal space is increasing, even adding back lost revenue from IW, would have little impact. ( IW is only generating about 10% of its funding at present from charges anyway )

all that happens is the rate of fiscal rate growth is slowed a little by the financial impact of IW. but its not reduced

You clearly do not know what the fiscal space is. If you eliminate a source of revenue then the fiscal space increases at a slower rate thereby making the fiscal space smaller than it otherwise would be.

your mixing up current and capital, interest and principle .Governments have in reality no need to pay down debt, they just need to be able to " service " it. remember they create money in a flat currency

I'm doing nothing of the sort. You're just trying to show off what you learned in your introduction to macroeconomics class and you aren't doing a very good job at it.

The absolute size of ones debt is of little concern, ( the USAs is mammoth ), the markets value Irish euro bonds, by evaluating the debt to GDP ratio as does the Eurozone. AT present with a growing GDP , rising tax revenues , we are capable of accelerating that reduction of the principle , if we wanted to , which we dont .

Hence we are not piling on debt at present , with or without iW charges

I know that the absolute size is of little concern. Hence why I used a relative measure.

If we were to reduce the debt level at a faster rate we would have more flexibility in the next recession with regards fiscal policy. We would be able to borrow cheaper and we would be able to borrow a greater amount. We would also have more flexibility in current budgets instead of allocating over 10% of the budget to interest payments.

Paying down debt does not remove expenditure from the economy. It reallocates it. Instead of paying interest to foreign creditors the Government can now spend it in Ireland.

huh, its a fiat currency , the Eurozone can create as much as it likes within reason and stability. we do not in effect borrow Euros from foreign creditors .

you are confusing that with the gold standard

governemnts in essence pay interest to in effect ( and this is a gross simplification ) to ensure their is " value" in their fiat currency. in other words , the interest paid acts as a brake on fiat currencies simply creating too much money for free.

You clearly do not know what the fiscal space is. If you eliminate a source of revenue then the fiscal space increases at a slower rate thereby making the fiscal space smaller than it otherwise would be.

You have answered my point, if you grow from 2 to three and reduce 3 to 2.75, you have still grown the fiscal space to 2.75, it has not reduced . what a fiscal space "would have been , is somewhat an issue in conjecture anyway, errors in growth projections alone are enough to swallow the 10% of IW charges currently being collected

If we were to reduce the debt level at a faster rate we would have more flexibility in the next recession with regards fiscal policy. We would be able to borrow cheaper and we would be able to borrow a greater amount. We would also have more flexibility in current budgets instead of allocating over 10% of the budget to interest payments.

where this our own free floating currency , i would agree with you , however fiscal policy is now virtually completely controlled by the fiscal stability compact, as is credit supply and money supply by the Eurozone

The interest on loans made by the CBI/ECB accuses back to the state anyway. remember its a fiat currency. Our money supply is entirely controlled by both the compact and ECB /Eurozone rules . increasing taxa allows us to spend more domestically but money supply is out of our control ( as we found in 2008)

loans made by states outside the eurozone are real money , but most of these are paid off

Water John wrote: »

It is getting very confusing. Who collects and gets the revenue from commercial connections at this point?
These varied systems are operated by different companies in each LA. Some are long term meter reading and billing contracts.

all commercial water rates are now paid to IW.

the breaking of any commercial contract can be done, the costs have to be evaluated and some could be prohibitive

Water John wrote: »

Of course the other way of looking at that is, that most LA's had already a billing system in place that could easily have been extended to domestic metering.
And, none of them had to get in specialist software companies. Amazingly, they were able to use, off the shelf packages, which a good few private water schemes use too.

the attempt to rehabilitate LAs is amazing, there was widespread accusations of inefficiency and poor management for decades

to suggest that an entity like Dublin city council could have added water meeting reading to its list, is a joke. remember SUSIE

returning water to 24 seperate entities is just madness and much madness as IW.

Had to have a standard as they were always accountable at the monthly County Council meeting.

neither the staff not a county manger is " accountable " to county councillors in fact. he participates in County council meetings thats about it in reality

I supplied IT to county councils, theres no way they could have taken on widespread water meter reading and billing, the IR issues alone would have sunk it.

Suryavarman wrote: »

LPT doesn't pay for water though. That goes towards funding local authorities. The local authorities are no longer in charge of water so the LPT is definitely not going towards the provision of water.

In a sense, it does.

All LPT and all motor tax is paid into the LGF, Local Govt Fund.

The LGF makes grants to local councils.

So all your LPT and motor tax goes to local councils, yes.

In the past some of the grants were used by councils to run water services.

Now councils get less grants, but the LGF pays a subvention to IW, to help pay for water services.

So when you hear that water is still partly paid for by taxation, this is what is meant - the LGF make a 439m subvention to IW.

The IW charges are not enough to cover the costs of all 1,000+ water plants.


http://www.environ.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/local_government_fund_accounts_2014_-_english.pdf