Proposed "Free" Water Allowances

feicim

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0601/breaking3.html


Minister for the Environment reckons a 60 litre water allowance per person per day is "generous".

An electric shower uses roughly 8-10 litres per minute....

5/6 minute shower = all your allowance used up

If you have a modern toilet each flush is 6 litres a time...

10 number 1's or 2's per day = all your allowance used up

If you wash your hands after you go to the loo thats another 3-5 litres each time....

brushing your teeth...
dishwasher...
washing your clothes...

To be realistic an allowance of about 150-160 litre a day might be called generous.

By mentioning the 60 litre allowance the government is putting misinformation out there, to cod people into thinking that they could get by comfortably on 60 litres a day.

By the time people cop on that each household will be paying for at least 100 litres of water per person per day on top of the free allowance it will be too late, the 60 litre allowance will likely have come in under the radar, thanks to our unscrupulous or ignorant minister for the environment.

This seems like the kind of stunt our last shower (no pun intended) of wasters would pull...



If curious you can estimate your own water usage here....

http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=cal/WaterFootprintCalculator

Overheal

Its funny, because you think people shower.

loldog

People in developed societies use far too much water. It's not just the water either, it's the energy used to pump it, heat it, filter it, dispose of it. We're at peak oil, people are going to have to get used to the idea of finite resources.

.

Nijmegen

Well, while I daresay the government is lining us up for a shafting here, from a purely conservationists point of view this will be a positive step: We will likely introduce more water friendly infrastructure.

These days I can use a perfectly servicable waterless urinal in McDonalds, yet when I flush my jaxs at home I use as much water for one job as two.

Of course, the biggest ecological saving might come from the government finally fixing the water pipes that lose 50% of treated water to begin with.

seamus

feicim wrote: »

If curious you can estimate your own water usage here....

http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=cal/WaterFootprintCalculator

That's crap actually, first off because it has tonnes of countries, but not Ireland. But also because it adds a base figure. Select "United Kingdom" as the country and slot in zeroes all the way down and it tells you that you use more than 800,000 litres of water every year. So fine if you're trying to calculate your net effect on the world, but useless if you're trying to figure out how much water you use at home on a daily basis.

This is better:
http://www.taptips.ie/water-usage-calculator.htm

100L per day would be generous. 60l per day is "about enough", but most people will go over that amount over the long-term

In reality the aim should be to get people to reduce their water usage rather than maintain it, so aiming a little under what's necessary is probably the best tactic.

ednwireland

Nijmegen wrote: »

Of course, the biggest ecological saving might come from the government finally fixing the water pipes that lose 50% of treated water to begin with.

not a hope once charges are in they will just put up the price

bmaxi

I don't, in principle, have a problem paying for water but we all know this will just be another tax. The government must be thanking all the Gods for the ECB/IMF for giving them the excuse to impose what would have been politically suicidal water and property taxes. It seems that every opportunity to impose unpopular decisions will be met with the same "the ECB/IMF forced us" refrain. Be warned Enda and Eamon, it won't wash. As a matter of fact, far from the financial crisis signalling the demise of FF, I can see it being the demise of FG/Labour.
60 litres per person per day is borderline sufficient but that's not the point. The point is that you pay for what is over and above sufficient. You can turn the shower on and off while you are in rather than have it run all the time, you can use dual siphons in your toilet for ones and twos. My biggest problem is paying for the ****e that trickles out of my tap, purporting to be water.
One thing, above all else we must avoid, is privatisation of the water supply.

cavedave

Here are some figures i posted before. The references are in the original link.

1. The generally agreed amount of free water per person per day is between 40 and 50 liters. "in Flanders everyone has the right to a minimal supply of 15 m³ (41 liter/capita/day) of free water per person per year."

2. In England and Wales our drinking water costs around 2p for 10 litres.

3. Irish houses have a lot of people in them. And there are about 1.3 million houses in Ireland.

4. Irish people use 150 liters each "91% of Irish people have no idea how much water they use, despite using on average, over 150 litres a day".

5. Metering drops usage about 20%.

So one back of the envelope a persons chargableusage of 80 liters (150->120 when metered - 40 free as a right) should be about 16 pence a day (or 20 cent) or say 70 euro a year from each person. With 60 litres free at UK prices you would get less than 70 euros per person per year.

Avns1s

Let me add another perspective.

First of all, there is no such thing as free water. All water has a cost. The cost of putting plant and pipework in place, the cost of treatment, the cost of maintenance and repairs, upgrades and so on.

Currently, the cost of this is met by the taxpayer, i.e. most of us here, so we are already paying for water.

However, some of us live in rural areas and are already metered and paying an annual fee for water. So, in this scenario, those of us in that setting are paying for our own water supply AND paying something towards the supply of water to those that have "free water".

Now, I don't think this is remotely fair, and put together with the fact that anything that's "free" is deemed to have no value and is ultimately wasted to some extent by a large proportion of the population, I for one am strongly in favour of water charges.

Bottle_of_Smoke

feicim wrote: »

If you wash your hands after you go to the loo thats another 3-5 litres each time....

What? that's nonsense. Could easily wash your hands with 300-400ml of water.

Think of a 2L bottle of milk. If that were water are you actually telling me you'd need 2-3 of those to wash your hands?

Nijmegen

If the governments down through the years were so concerned about the price of supplying water, they'd have been replacing water pipes on an ongoing basis instead of getting into a situation where about 50% of the capitals water mains are pre-1940's (according to Dublin City Council's own website.)

This is a smash and grab operation, simple as.

Macha

And the years of underinvestment are the reason we needed water charges back then as well as now.

We do not have a permanent government. Apart from some individuals, the politicians that failed to invest over decades and the politicians in power today are not the same people. The governments through the years weren't bothered because they knew that the long-term damage of underinvestment wouldn't crystallize under their watch. That's the joy of 5-year terms of office for national governments.

We are one of the only countries in Europe that doesn't have water charges and this measure is well overdue.

Boulevardier

It would be extremely unwise for people, whether they agree or not with water charges, to take any comfort from a "free allowance." This allowance can be reduced anytime the government wishes, and if water is privatised, you may count on such a reduction happening in order to suit the corporates.

I suspect that any apparently generous free allowance at the outset will be used to lull and neutralise oposition. Nobody should fall for it.

Macha

Where is your evidence that the free allowance will be taken away, other than a personal hunch?

Boulevardier

I didnt say it will be taken away, I said it will be reduced.

Obviously I have no proof of this. If I had I would publicise it pretty fast. However, I personally beleive it will happen, and I also firmly believe it would be most unwise for anyone to assume it will not happen.

Overheal

feicim wrote: »

10 number 1's or 2's per day= all your allowance used up

How often are you thinking the average person goes to the toilet? I certainly don't need to go more than 3 times a day. Maybe if you are drinking like a fish.

If you wash your hands after you go to the loo thats another 3-5 litres each time....

Its funny Ireland is the first place I ever saw a sink with 2 different taps for Hot and Cold - because you're meant to fill the basin, not run it straight through. Saves loads of water.

brushing your teeth...

Or shaving. See my last.

dishwasher...
washing your clothes...

Do you need to do this daily? For each member of the household? Even if a family of 5 needs to run the dishwasher constantly, that's still water use divided among the allowance of 5 people. And if you live alone and you need to run the dishwasher everyday, something is wrong. No one person needs to run a load of laundry for themselves each day of the week.

Boulevardier

I have always had "waterworks" problems, and even with approprtate meds I need to "go" several times a day. However, I usually do not flush at night - I flush it all in the morning. I can do that because I live on my own, but I don't think a house-partner, especially a female one, would put up with it.

Overheal

And so you may incur a cost to all this flushing, similar in an abstract way to a medical expense for a medical condition.

Macha

Water saving efforts are so simple but the reality is hardly any households have them installed. Now would be a good time to invest in a company like this one:

http://www.meconwml.com/

Toilets should come with these things pre-installed.

Overheal

If thats the thing with the half-flush and full-flush buttons: yes, those are good investments.

Vizzy

Macha wrote: »

Water saving efforts are so simple but the reality is hardly any households have them installed. Now would be a good time to invest in a company like this one:

http://www.meconwml.com/

Toilets should come with these things pre-installed.

There are 2 other options that are way cheaper.

One is called "Hippo the water saver" (google it) they are about €10 for three

Or still too expensive ?
Put a small building block in the cistern !

Both options simply cut down on the amount of water in the cistern and hence reduces the amount you can flush.

Scofflaw

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

What? that's nonsense. Could easily wash your hands with 300-400ml of water.

Think of a 2L bottle of milk. If that were water are you actually telling me you'd need 2-3 of those to wash your hands?

I think that's the point, though - that if you wash your hands by running the tap or filling the sink you use a heck of a lot more water than you need to.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Macha

Vizzy wrote: »

There are 2 other options that are way cheaper.

One is called "Hippo the water saver" (google it) they are about €10 for three

Or still too expensive ?
Put a small building block in the cistern !

Both options simply cut down on the amount of water in the cistern and hence reduces the amount you can flush.

Well the benefit of the Mecon is that you can let a full flush go through when needed. And sometimes people are more willing to accept something if they know there is flexibility.

Anyway, your suggestions are good and it's whatever works for people.

Boulevardier

Overheal, why the hell should I pay more when I am already paying a substantial amount for my meds? There are thousands of people with similar problems to mine. For their sake, you will have to come up with a less complacent and more compassionate answer than the one you have given.

seamus

Boulevardier wrote: »

For their sake, you will have to come up with a less complacent and more compassionate answer than the one you have given.

Well not really. I'm not being dismissive of your issue, but to a certain extent one needs to be heartless and emotionless when considering countrywide policy. Otherwise tax hikes or 50c levies on medicines would be fraught with worries about hitting those with the least money or the biggest costs and so forth, and we'd never be able to apply them because everyone would have a legitimate excuse as to why they don't have to pay it.

In the case of water metering, my suspicion is that it will be managed by the local authorities and people will be able to apply on an individual basis for an increase in their allowance where they have a genuine requirement for additional water - such as people with medical needs or disabled children.

user1842

Will there be water pipe rental as well as a water charge? Like eircom line rental.

Will this really bring in investment in our water supply? I think not a chance.

What do I pay my taxes for? I dont understand anymore.

I would have thought the cost of a supply of clean water would come from my income tax.

Water is one resource that is not in short supply in Ireland. Its just incompetence that we cannot pipe enough of it.

There should be a massive free allowance. Metering in Ireland should only be used to detect and repair leaks.

seamus

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Will there be water pipe rental as well as a water charge? Like eircom line rental.

Wouldn't work like that as a water source is an essential service to a home. A phone line is not. "Line rental" was historically to fund the cost of maintaining the phone line to your home, as it's not an essential service so such costs should not be funded by the exchquer. Since eircom was privatised it's been used as a cash cow.

Will this really bring in investment in our water supply? I think not a chance.

Depends on how it's managed tbh. If it's paid directly to the exchequer, then probably not. On the other hand, if it's collected by the local council, then it will at least go towards funding local services, including water supply.

I would have thought the cost of a supply of clean water would come from my income tax.

It would, if we paid enough income tax. We don't.

Boulevardier

In other words Seamus, a choice between an unjust system and a bureaucratic nightmare.

The whole thing is, of course, a con. Water costs should be included in council tax. There is no need whatever to bring in charges or metering for household water. Outdoor usage can be controlled by the regulation of sprinklers and hosepipes.

Avns1s

Boulevardier wrote: »

In other words Seamus, a choice between an unjust system and a bureaucratic nightmare.

The whole thing is, of course, a con. Water costs should be included in council tax. There is no need whatever to bring in charges or metering for household water. Outdoor usage can be controlled by the regulation of sprinklers and hosepipes.

And what council tax would that be exactly?

I think you have an overly simplistic understanding of how humans behave, if you think telling people not to wash the car and water the garden will prevent water wastage.

I want a system that rewards those who do not waste a valuable resource that costs money to have in place and conversely, penalises those do waste it. There is no other way other than water meters.

If there was an alternative and we were all absolutely identical in our behaviours and doing what we are told to the letter of the law, then we should have no ESB meters, Gas meters, phone bills, etc. We should all be paying a flat charge ..... or nothing, as somepeople would prefer. (Presumably, those who do not pay tax.)

Nijmegen

Avns1s wrote: »

And what council tax would that be exactly?

I think you have an overly simplistic understanding of how humans behave, if you think telling people not to wash the car and water the garden will prevent water wastage.

I want a system that rewards those who do not waste a valuable resource that costs money to have in place and conversely, penalises those do waste it. There is no other way other than water meters.

If there was an alternative and we were all absolutely identical in our behaviours and doing what we are told to the letter of the law, then we should have no ESB meters, Gas meters, phone bills, etc. We should all be paying a flat charge ..... or nothing, as somepeople would prefer. (Presumably, those who do not pay tax.)

A vital flaw, I believe, is that government has not led the way on good behaviour. I'd feel a lot better about conserving water if I didn't know that half of the stuff is lost in the ground before it gets through pipes to me.

This whole affair is a smash and grab tax effort dressed up as an attempt to change water behaviour, because holding the green baby in your arms makes it more difficult to smack you.

Well, if half Dublin's water infrastructure didn't date back to pre-1940's I'd believe government sincerity in this effort.

user1842

Avns1s wrote: »

I want a system that rewards those who do not waste a valuable resource that costs money to have in place and conversely, penalises those do waste it. There is no other way other than water meters.

How is water a valuable resource in Ireland. It is through total incompetence that we dont have a 1000% redundant water supply.

We should be exporting the stuff.

4.6m people, massive average rainfall, large land area per population.

Its not a valuable resource like gas/oil/coal.

Avns1s

dmclean1842 wrote: »

How is water a valuable resource in Ireland. It is through total incompetence that we dont have a 1000% redundant water supply.

We should be exporting the stuff.

4.6m people, massive average rainfall, large land area per population.

Its not a valuable resource like gas/oil/coal.

If we could just put out buckets and collect the rainwater and expert it then there is a certain logic to what you say. However, you should now that its not that simple.

We have to have equipment for pumping, storing, treating, etc. and all of these are subject to intense regulations and not cheap.

I am sure you don't just want rainwater from the streets, roofs and pavements, being sent to your kitchen sink for any purpose, not least for drinking.

user1842

Avns1s wrote: »

If we could just put out buckets and collect the rainwater and expert it then there is a certain logic to what you say. However, you should now that its not that simple.

We have to have equipment for pumping, storing, treating, etc. and all of these are subject to intense regulations and not cheap.

I am sure you don't just want rainwater from the streets, roofs and pavements, being sent to your kitchen sink for any purpose, not least for drinking.

Come on thats not what I mean. In Ireland it is very cheap compared to other countries to collect and distribute water as water is easy to collect and store in reservoirs close to demand. We have a high proportion of rain days so supply is always there.

Therefore is not a scarce resource.

If I was charged for water, I would demand a proper supply (proper pressure) and drinkable. As I dont have a proper supply why should I pay extra for the service.

Again imo the only reason you should meter water is to detect and stop leaks.

Im sure people will say that paying for water will insure that they invest in water infrastructure. Well based on the past, this will never happen and the money will go into the general tax pot so it is pointless to charge for water, just increase PAYE instead and stop trying to increase tax by the back door.

FreudianSlippers

People who keep saying "sure it rains all the time" are either incredibly dull or not thinking it through.

The water they send to your home must be potable water. This involves treatment and filtering to match up to a European and Irish mandated level of potability.
This is the same water that you shower with, flush your toilet with and drink.

Metered water charges are a MUST. We cannot continue wasting this resource and being ignorant as to the amount of money and work that goes into supplying this water.

Now, IF metered water charges are introduced, this money MUST go back into water infrastructure and nowhere else. That means if there is a surplus we need to get out and laying new pipes, improving quality and pressure.

If you're worried about your charges for water, go out and get a grant to install a grey-water system in your house or a rain-water system. These systems recycle rain water and drain water to things you don't really need potable water for (i.e. flushing toilets, etc.)

Macha

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Come on thats not what I mean. In Ireland it is very cheap compared to other countries to collect and distribute water as water is easy to collect and store in reservoirs close to demand. We have a high proportion of rain days so supply is always there.

Therefore is not a scarce resource.

Do you think the water that comes through your taps is the same quality as rain water? Can you provide some figures to back up the claim that we are "very cheap" compared to other countries? This is something I doubt very much considering our low density population.

dmclean1842 wrote: »

If I was charged for water, I would demand a proper supply (proper pressure) and drinkable. As I dont have a proper supply why should I pay extra for the service.

The system needs investment. Past generations haven't done it - you're stuck making up for it. That's life. But as for quality, if you read the EPA drinking water reports, you'll see that over 97% of public drinking water supplies are perfectly above standard.

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Again imo the only reason you should meter water is to detect and stop leaks.

Why shouldn't people who use more pay more?

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Im sure people will say that paying for water will insure that they invest in water infrastructure. Well based on the past, this will never happen and the money will go into the general tax pot so it is pointless to charge for water, just increase PAYE instead and stop trying to increase tax by the back door.

Then there is no incentive for consumers to use water efficiently. Imagine if all electricity were free.

user1842

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Now, IF metered water charges are introduced, this money MUST go back into water infrastructure and nowhere else. That means if there is a surplus we need to get out and laying new pipes, improving quality and pressure.

Do you honestly think that this will happen. If you do, you are one of the below people

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

People who keep saying "sure it rains all the time" are either incredibly dull or not thinking it through.

user1842

Macha wrote: »

Do you think the water that comes through your taps is the same quality as rain water? Can you provide some figures to back up the claim that we are "very cheap" compared to other countries? This is something I doubt very much considering our low density population.


The system needs investment. Past generations haven't done it - you're stuck making up for it. That's life. But as for quality, if you read the EPA drinking water reports, you'll see that over 97% of public drinking water supplies are perfectly above standard.

Why shouldn't people who use more pay more?

Then there is no incentive for consumers to use water efficiently. Imagine if all electricity were free.

The main reason that im against water metering is that the money obtained will not be used to upgrade the water system.

I dont want to be paying for water when on any hot/cold period in Dublin I dont have any.

People here seem to think the once we charge for water suddenly the government will fully upgrade the supply and we will have a world class water infrastructure.

It will be exactly the same a road tax.

seamus

dmclean1842 wrote: »

We have a high proportion of rain days so supply is always there.

We do? How often does it rain in Ireland, on average? How much water can we realistically harvest from rain, per capita/year?

These are the questions you must be able to answer before you can assert that water is somehow simple to collect and not finite. Note that you said water is not scarce. Nobody said it was. But it is finite, and all water however it's collected, costs money to process and move about.

What we do at the moment basically is collect rainwater in reservoirs and lakes and process it. We're lucky that we're one of the few countries with no reliance on desalinisation of seawater to collect our water.

So basically what you're saying is that in order to avoid water charges all we have to do is....build more reservoirs. With what, exactly? It's a chicken and egg scenario. If collection is managed by local authorities, then the funding can go back into the water infrastructure, and water infrastructure improves. Note the "if", as others have said.

user1842

seamus wrote: »

We do? How often does it rain in Ireland, on average? How much water can we realistically harvest from rain, per capita/year?

These are the questions you must be able to answer before you can assert that water is somehow simple to collect and not finite. Note that you said water is not scarce. Nobody said it was. But it is finite, and all water however it's collected, costs money to process and move about.

What we do at the moment basically is collect rainwater in reservoirs and lakes and process it. We're lucky that we're one of the few countries with no reliance on desalinisation of seawater to collect our water.

So basically what you're saying is that in order to avoid water charges all we have to do is....build more reservoirs. With what, exactly? It's a chicken and egg scenario. If collection is managed by local authorities, then the funding can go back into the water infrastructure, and water infrastructure improves. Note the "if", as others have said.

http://www.askaboutireland.ie/reading-room/environment-geography/environmental-information/water/water-in-ireland/

What im saying is that the revenue gathered from metering water will not be used for water infrastructure so what's the point.

This is just a general tax. Just put another 1% on PAYE instead and save all the money it would cost in installing, servicing, billing and reading water meters.

user1842

And actually thinking about. Water metering will probably reduce water infrastructure investment. Is will help stop supply leaks thus increasing the supply and give Dublin County Council the ability to say "sure it will do, dont need to upgrade those lead pipes now" as we have a bit more water now.

Sorry im being negative about this but I cant see the government making anything but a total mess of water charging.

Ideally it would be a good solution

Macha

dmclean1842 wrote: »

The main reason that im against water metering is that the money obtained will not be used to upgrade the water system.

I dont want to be paying for water when on any hot/cold period in Dublin I dont have any.

People here seem to think the once we charge for water suddenly the government will fully upgrade the supply and we will have a world class water infrastructure.

It will be exactly the same a road tax.

We have motor tax, not road taxes but on the subject, the road infrastructure has been improved significantly over the past decade.

The government is losing money on our water to do significant leaks and wastage on both infrastructure and consumer side. They don't have the money to invest and water charges make the most sense. And they've already put out the tender for the formation of Water Ireland, if I'm not mistaken.

I can understand your cynicism but it has to happen.

FreudianSlippers

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Do you honestly think that this will happen. If you do, you are one of the below people

Yes, because that's clearly the message that comes across in my post.

1) That I am saying metered water charges will actually be introduced
2) That I believe in the off chance that this does happen the money will be reintroduced into water infrastructure
3) That I believe we have an endless supply of potable water because "ah sure it never bleedin' stops rainin'"


Clearly, your powers of deduction are far superior and you have gotten to the core of my agenda with your rapier intellect.

FreudianSlippers

dmclean1842 wrote: »

http://www.askaboutireland.ie/reading-room/environment-geography/environmental-information/water/water-in-ireland/

What im saying is that the revenue gathered from metering water will not be used for water infrastructure so what's the point.

This is just a general tax. Just put another 1% on PAYE instead and save all the money it would cost in installing, servicing, billing and reading water meters.

1% on PAYE really only has an impact on the higher earners in society, so the people who are generally wasting the most water really still don't care in the slightest.

user1842

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

1% on PAYE really only has an impact on the higher earners in society, so the people who are generally wasting the most water really still don't care in the slightest.

Ok increase the 20% income tax rate to 21%. Will that get everyone? Use that to pay for the water infrastructure.

Im in favour in installing meter or meter like devices to fix supply side leaks but think this should be taken off general taxation.

Why another state agency? why?

FreudianSlippers

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Ok increase the 20% income tax rate to 21%. Will that get everyone? Use that to pay for the water infrastructure.

Im in favour in installing meter or meter like devices to fix supply side leaks but think this should be taken off general taxation.

Why another state agency? why?

I agree. Honestly, I'm libertarian... I say drop 90% of the government. If we want good water we need a private company.


*won't do anything to our large number of people on the dole!

99nsr125

Boulevardier wrote: »

I didnt say it will be taken away, I said it will be reduced.

Obviously I have no proof of this. If I had I would publicise it pretty fast. However, I personally beleive it will happen, and I also firmly believe it would be most unwise for anyone to assume it will not happen.

We're on a meter, our allowence is 50,000 litres per year.

you'll find that when people are on a meter all leaks will get fixed
real fast and consumption could drop by upto 40%.

I have a refernce somewhere, when I find it I'll edit it in.

Boulevardier

I think that FreudianSlippers represents the real thinking behind water charges and metering.

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.

Avns1s

I am pro water meters and have no "green agenda" or "privatisation agenda".

I have a financial agenda though, and I don't want to be paying for wasted water whether the councils are allowing it to pi$$ into the ground through mains leaks or johnny neighbour is pi$$ing into the sewer through his leaking kitchen tap that he cant be arsed fixing. Simple really!!!

Overheal

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Ok increase the 20% income tax rate to 21%. Will that get everyone? Use that to pay for the water infrastructure.

Why? Do high-earners use more water than dole recipients? This isn't like the Defense budget, you can quantify who is using the resource. The government already levees fuel that you get at the pump. If they taxed Income instead of petrol for road and motor improvements, traffic and emissions safety, Or whatever it is that revenue gets injected into, how would that be fair to a pedestrian? Why bother putting a levee on anything at all? Just raise income tax and leave cigarettes, alcohol, cars, etc. alone, right? That seems fair doesn't it? Only it's not.

Boulevardier wrote:

Overheal, why the hell should I pay more when I am already paying a substantial amount for my meds? There are thousands of people with similar problems to mine. For their sake, you will have to come up with a less complacent and more compassionate answer than the one you have given.

And you pay for the meds, don't you? They aren't all given to you free, the costs aren't all taken out of everyone's tax. People in good health pay less in health expenses than those in poorer health. Similarly those who use more water should logically be spending more on water. I'm sorry if that's not the answer you're looking for but I'm not a fan of pulling punches. If it's a concern for you can you not install a well to operate your toilets?

user1842

Overheal wrote: »

Why? Do high-earners use more water than dole recipients? This isn't like the Defense budget, you can quantify who is using the resource. The government already levees fuel that you get at the pump. If they taxed Income instead of petrol for road and motor improvements, traffic and emissions safety, Or whatever it is that revenue gets injected into, how would that be fair to a pedestrian? Why bother putting a levee on anything at all? Just raise income tax and leave cigarettes, alcohol, cars, etc. alone, right? That seems fair doesn't it? Only it's not.

Everyone needs water thats why a 1% increase here would be ok.

A 1% tax on the 20% bracket effects everyone paying tax roughly equally not just high earners.

Not everyone drives or smokes.

Nijmegen

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Everyone needs water thats why a 1% increase here would be ok.

A 1% tax on the 20% bracket effects everyone paying tax roughly equally not just high earners.

Not everyone drives or smokes.

A water tax is a consumption tax. A 1% increase on income tax would mean that a person earning €60,000 would pay more for their water than somebody earning €30,000 (if water were the reason for the tax increase.)

I got my water for €300 a year, you have to pay €600 for the same service. Hardly fair, unless you get to have twice as long a shower in the morning.