Proposed "Free" Water Allowances

Overheal

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.

Not everyone consumes the same amount of water though either. To put it another way why didn't ESB show up as a flat 1% income tax? And if it had what would the consumption habits of people really have been? Run electric heaters all winter? Because everyone needs to stay warm right?

user1842

Nijmegen wrote: »

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.

Tax the rich to benefit the poor, is that not the point of our taxation policy. Why change it now.

If you break down tax that way. All the tax we pay can be view as consumption.

Overheal

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Tax the rich to benefit the poor, is that not the point of our taxation policy. Why change it now.

If you break down tax that way. All the tax we pay can be view as consumption.

Kinda. But you can't quantify most things the government does. How do you quantify how much I benefit from military defense? How much, and who, benefits from police presence? I could go on. Many government services are impossible to nickel and dime. Not so in the case of consumable commodities such as water, electricity, gas, fuel, cigarettes, tobacco, tolling*, etc.

*People complain about the M50, but roads are improving from what I understand. And have you ever been to New England? They toll the **** out of you, but them roads are absolutely immaculate.

Nijmegen

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Tax the rich to benefit the poor, is that not the point of our taxation policy. Why change it now.

If you break down tax that way. All the tax we pay can be view as consumption.

Well, that's a different debate. Raise income tax from 30% (as it is) to 50% effective (Germany), and you hit everyone, and get diminished returns from lack of spending, confidence, and the fact that a lot of folks would just move somewhere else.

Anyway, a water tax is consumption based. Income taxes are not. I pay much more tax than a person who claims social welfare, despite having never (touch wood) in my working life taken a cent from it. I pay but I don't consume.

BrianD

feicim wrote: »

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

Nearly all the water usage that you describe here does not have to come from the mains water system.

You could set up a rainwater system to collect water from your roof that would cover all the above. There would be an initial capital outlay and it does depend on your dwelling type and site specific criteria.

Of course, during dry spells your rain water reserve will run low so you will need to switch to mains.

unit 1

BrianD wrote: »

Nearly all the water usage that you describe here does not have to come from the mains water system.

You could set up a rainwater system to collect water from your roof that would cover all the above. There would be an initial capital outlay and it does depend on your dwelling type and site specific criteria.

Of course, during dry spells your rain water reserve will run low so you will need to switch to mains.

Actually I would prefer to use mains water for most of the above.
Say the crow sitting on your roof had a curry last night:D, would you fancy using that harvested water for anything other than flushing your loo, I don't think so. The only realistic use for harvested water is flushing the loo, and don't forget if it's stored for long periods it can become rank, adding to costs, to rectify this.
Quite frankly sensible usage is the key, full loads of washing and dishes, dual flush loos, and no washing the car or lawn.
BTW if they produce 1 million litres and lose half of it in the ground (most leakage is almost certainly on the supply side) and rig the billing to cover this cost, then no matter what they say you are paying for the water you do not get. In fact if they recoup all of this cost then there is actually no incentive to fix leaks. Fixing leaks has to have a carrot and stick approach, charging for something to recoup costs only does not do this and only maintains the status quo.

user1842

I think they will have to enshrine in legislation that revenue gained from water charges will be used on water infrastructure and maintenance.

If the above happens I would fully support metering.

Boulevardier

"Well, that's a different debate. Raise income tax from 30% (as it is) to 50% effective (Germany), and you hit everyone, and get diminished returns from lack of spending, confidence, and the fact that a lot of folks would just move somewhere else"

Nijmegen, that is nonsense. If that is true, why have Germans not emigrated in droves? I cannot believe that there are still people out there who are arguing against our having higher income tax on the better off. The arguments against it are patently bogus.

Anyway, I think that if this thread has shown anything, it has shown prety clearly that water metering has a lot more to do with outdated and discredited neoliberalism that it has to do with the environment.

keithclancy

Nice to see its at least making people aware.

We have metered water here, just like for Gas and Electric.

Really does make you think about your water usage, have had people over from Ireland and they'll brush their teeth but leave the tap running the whole time

Even when having a shower I'd turn it off when using shampoo or shower gel.

Best idea (if you want the extreme verision) is to go camping and use a solar shower (+ shower tent) and then you'll realise how much you use quite quickly !! and how much you really need.

I.E. 5 liters of water in a Solar shower did 3 1/2 showers
If its you'll find you drink almost as much as you can carry

You can also save water with just changing your shower and tap heads,

E.G.
http://www.tapmagic.co.uk/products.html

Overall I think its a good thing, we have good, clean water .. and good pressure in a country thats pretty much flat.

Nijmegen

Boulevardier wrote: »

"Well, that's a different debate. Raise income tax from 30% (as it is) to 50% effective (Germany), and you hit everyone, and get diminished returns from lack of spending, confidence, and the fact that a lot of folks would just move somewhere else"

Nijmegen, that is nonsense. If that is true, why have Germans not emigrated in droves? I cannot believe that there are still people out there who are arguing against our having higher income tax on the better off. The arguments against it are patently bogus.

Anyway, I think that if this thread has shown anything, it has shown prety clearly that water metering has a lot more to do with outdated and discredited neoliberalism that it has to do with the environment.

Firstly, you can't simply raise income taxes on the 'better off' - you raise tax on everyone, and the better off simply pay most of all.

If you want a German style system that's fine, but you introduce it slowly - an overnight jump of 66% in income taxes across the board (from 30% to 50%) would kill the economy stone dead.

It's an argument about what kind of a state you want to live in: A moderate tax one like Ireland, where we all (on average) pay 30%, or Germany where we all (on average) pay 50%, and get service provision to match. Do you want to earn less but have the government provide more, or earn more and spend it yourself?

I'd rather spend it myself thank you, and I felt the same when I entered the workforce at 15 without an arse in my trousers as I do now, after being successful. (There was, by the by, a time when Ireland had income taxes like Germany: The '70's and 80's. We got as high as 60%.)

Water metering is, in the end, another step to plug our deficit and meet the targets set by our lenders. I agree it has bugger all to do with ecological water management.

Boulevardier

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.

Nijmegen

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......

BrianD

unit 1 wrote: »

Actually I would prefer to use mains water for most of the above.

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.

Say the crow sitting on your roof had a curry last night:D, would you fancy using that harvested water for anything other than flushing your loo, I don't think so. The only realistic use for harvested water is flushing the loo, and don't forget if it's stored for long periods it can become rank, adding to costs, to rectify this.

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.

jakdelad

i hope the new water rate is set at about 700 euro per house
then you will see a different attitude here
then the squealing will start
next up property tax has to good for al least 5oo euro a year
lets keep pumping it to them banks
while the bankers go grinning to the golf course

jakdelad

Boulevardier wrote: »

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.

lower classes??? social betters
who the ****k are you ???

cavedave

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?

Boulevardier

It is a reference to attitudes which FreudianSlippers appeared to be expressing. Even if he did not mean it, I suspect that there are people on this thread who do hold them.

Bullseye1

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

BrianD

Bullseye1 wrote: »

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

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.

Overheal

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.

feicim

Overheal wrote: »

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.

we don't really need to irrigate our gardens in ireland... we have plenty of rain.

Ireland has a plentiful water resource, its not suffering from a water scarcity as such - the water tax is not about conservation or saving the environment - thats a red herring.

The irish state is strapped for cash so this is just one of the many schemes that will be conjured up to extract more taxes from the public.
The government is afraid to raise income tax so it has to find a load of other little taxes to make up the balance.

Taxes that have a "green" flavour have the pretense of a high moral ground so are more favourable to the gubberment.

A tax like this may have an added revenue generating benefit i.e. people spending money on rainwater harvesting equipment...

Its all about cutting costs to free up funds to service our massive national debt... not about the environment.

unit 1

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

Macha wrote: »

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.

I beg to differ. Have you been to the west of Ireland?

We are paying motor tax and huge taxes at the pump, a double tax for **** roads that bust my tires and destroyed two rear shocks. And its a flat tax, it has nothing to do with how much you use the roads or the highways. Same with the tv, more tax. TAX TAX TAX people to death or immigration.

This is just another tax, like Victoria;s daylight tax and tax on biscuits, and tax on tea.

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.

Avns1s

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.

feicim

unit 1 wrote: »

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.

+1

The new scheme to bring water to Dublin is designed to be obsolete in 5 - 10 years....

data on page 20 of this report.

http://www.watersupplyproject-dublinregion.ie/uploads/NTS%20_July2010_low%20res.pdf


The Romans and Chinese 2000 years ago seemed to have better capabilities to divert water to where it is required than Ireland today.

Boulevardier

"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.

BrianD

unit 1 wrote: »

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

Can I just ask how you come to the conclusion that water is "inexpensive" to produce? Is this based on international figures or what county councils spend on water infrastructure? If it's the later then clearly the figures don't reflect the true cost of water production as there is the leakage issue and the cleanliness issues.

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

I don't fully agree. Firstly, Ireland - or parts of it - can actually go without rainfall for long periods of time. On the other hand, water usage is constant and habitual. The technology of supplying clean drinking water to the masses may now be a basic engineering task but the management of the supply and demand is not.

Clean drinking water is a limited resource in perfect circumstances (and very finite in less that perfect circumstances) and where a resource is finite then pricing is an effective way to manage demand.

Boulevadier wrote:

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.

Simple solution is to wash your recyclables when you're doing the dishwashing. Having said that I have no idea if "clean" material for recycling is any more usable than "dirty" items.

Noreen1

unit 1 wrote: »

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.

Excellent post.

I know people who paid into a group water scheme as little as 10 years ago. The contribution was towards the cost of laying water pipes, since the Council hadn't done do.

My parents also paid into a group water scheme when they built the family home.

Will these people - and the thousands like them, who paid the infrastructure costs for their water, be exempt from water charges? I think not!

Past experience would indicate that people in rural areas by and large paid the infrastructure costs themselves. Then they were charged "Water rates" - supposedly for Infrastructure costs, re: the repair and upgrade of the network.

Needless to say, the repair/upgrade never happened.

Now people are expected to pay again - ..........
I wonder who will benefit, even if the income is "ringfenced"..........Somehow, I don't think the Council will suddenly decide to rip up, and upgrade the perfectly serviceable pipes that I and my neighbours paid for, or those of many others like us.

35x

Curious that there has been no activity on these posts since 06/2011 even though water charges are still a very live topic.
I am currently paying metered water charges for farm / house supply. As I understand it, the domestic component has an allowance of approx 50,000 gals or 225 cub.m. to create "equality" with the domestic only consumers. Currently, some local authorities are billing quarterly through private contractors and dividing the allowance on a per day basis.
However, if there is an under-quota use in one quarter during the year, it does carry forward to next quarter, and in fact you could end up using under your 225 allowance for the year -say 175 cub.m. - and still end up paying for the 'excess' in that one quarter! Surely, if one is entitled to to 225 per year as per Dept. of Environment data, the Local Authority can hardly manipulate the entitlement on a quarterly basis for their own financial gain.
Have they they legal right to do so? Has anybody out there encountered this situation? I'm researching this at the moment but it's proving difficult to get information on it.

Death and Taxes

Nijmegen wrote: »

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.

No, if they were serious they would NEVER have abolished domestic rates, or they would have immediatley replaced them with a household services charge.
The only "smash and grab" is by those who want services but want someone else to pay for them.

nesf

35x wrote: »

Curious that there has been no activity on these posts since 06/2011 even though water charges are still a very live topic.
I am currently paying metered water charges for farm / house supply. As I understand it, the domestic component has an allowance of approx 50,000 gals or 225 cub.m. to create "equality" with the domestic only consumers. Currently, some local authorities are billing quarterly through private contractors and dividing the allowance on a per day basis.
However, if there is an under-quota use in one quarter during the year, it does carry forward to next quarter, and in fact you could end up using under your 225 allowance for the year -say 175 cub.m. - and still end up paying for the 'excess' in that one quarter! Surely, if one is entitled to to 225 per year as per Dept. of Environment data, the Local Authority can hardly manipulate the entitlement on a quarterly basis for their own financial gain.
Have they they legal right to do so? Has anybody out there encountered this situation? I'm researching this at the moment but it's proving difficult to get information on it.

Hey, you might have better luck getting an answer in the Farming & Forestry forum here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=845

Seaneh

Overheal wrote: »

Its funny, because you think people shower.

Maybe they don't in Hicksvile, South Carolina, but people do tend to bath in this country...

MadsL

I realise that this an old post - but just to give a US perspective (100 unit private HOA with two 300ft private wells in a desert environment.)

feicim wrote: »

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".

It is. Our monthly allowance (2 bed unit) is 3500 US Gals/month (base cost of $41) = 30 litres per day for the entire unit.

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

Changing the showerhead will bring usage way down. 1.25 gpm head = 4.75 lpm.
US building codes now specify a max of 8 lpm.

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

Then fit a duo flush - easily installable by the most DIY challenged and reduces flushes by approx 3 litres.

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

Alcohol gel.

brushing your teeth...

Don't run the tap - use a mug

dishwasher...

Always run full?
Check its settings, if out of date - replace.

washing your clothes...

Always full loads?

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

That would be far in excess of what is require, and would simply encourage waste.
We rarely go over 3500 gallons per month.

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.

For free. Don't forget we pay $41 a month for that, and we have our own wells.

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.

How would a 160 litre allowance encourage you to save water exactly?

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

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

[/QUOTE]

You can also think about saving water, rather than giving out about it?

VinLieger

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

nice_guy80

crazy that there are three or four executives being paid big salaries for Irish Water even though they have no actual company to run.

MrScootch

Just had a thought; cost of installing water meters into every home and business premises in the entire country vs. cost of calling it a water rate and putting a bill in an envelope once a year...?

Also; what happens if people persistently don't pay their bill? Do we cut off their water supply and deprive them of a basic essential need?

RandomName2

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.

astrofool

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

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.

MadsL

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.

Xantia

What saddens me is that we now have to pay again for what we are paying for already.
That point seems to be missed on most people especially those who are some how now happy to pay for water.

What happens to the money that we are now paying for water?
Will we get a refund from the income tax part that goes to pay for it now?

Furthermore I have to agree that this is just a precursor to privatisation.

My own view on this is that it is certainly European led and water is now a commodity.

They are trading now in stocks and shares in food, water will be next.

I am off to buy a water collection device - I never thought I would live to see the day that we would have to pay (again) for water.

It all started on the late late show when they had a guy on from Ballygowan? in the 70's/80's showing bottled water - he was told it would never catch on....

oscarBravo

Xantia wrote: »

What happens to the money that we are now paying for water?
Will we get a refund from the income tax part that goes to pay for it now?

Yes. Yes, we will. It's a well-known fact that we are already collecting far too much tax, and the government's biggest problem is what to do with the overflowing vaults of cash they're raking in. In fact, the huge budget surplus has been the lead headline in every news bulletin for the last, oh I dunno, five years or so.

Meanwhile, back in reality...


It's rather tiresome hearing the "we're already paying for it" argument wheeled out ad nauseam. If we were already paying for everything, we wouldn't have a structural deficit.

Xantia

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. Yes, we will. It's a well-known fact that we are already collecting far too much tax, and the government's biggest problem is what to do with the overflowing vaults of cash they're raking in. In fact, the huge budget surplus has been the lead headline in every news bulletin for the last, oh I dunno, five years or so.

Meanwhile, back in reality...


It's rather tiresome hearing the "we're already paying for it" argument wheeled out ad nauseam. If we were already paying for everything, we wouldn't have a structural deficit.

1. Yes we are actually collecting far too much tax from the same people over and over and over.

2. Meanwhile, back in reality - the FACT that we are already paying for it is not an argument it is a FACT - go to your nearest tap and turn it on - I presume that water comes out. I am paying for that FACT.

3. I did not participate in gambling away our country - I am not paying for the debts.

Cedrus

Xantia wrote: »

1. Yes we are actually collecting far too much tax from the same people over and over and over.

The exchequer balance does not support this tabloid theory.

Xantia wrote: »

2. Meanwhile, back in reality - the FACT that we are already paying for it is not an argument it is a FACT - go to your nearest tap and turn it on - I presume that water comes out. I am paying for that FACT.

A FACT is that I could go to town in the morning with a flexible friend and come home with a laptop, an iPhone, an entire new wardrobe and a small cute puppy. This does not mean I have paid for any of it, or am deserving of any of it. The nation, the government, the people, are in hock. We need to dig ourselves out of it because no-one else will.

Xantia wrote: »

3. I did not participate in gambling away our country - I am not paying for the debts.

If you were below the voting age or otherwise debarred from voting then you are in the clear. However if you ever voted for the soldiers of destiny, or didn't vote against them, then you are as culpable as they.

oscarBravo

Xantia wrote: »

I did not participate in gambling away our country - I am not paying for the debts.

I didn't mention debts, I mentioned the structural deficit. The fact that you can't seem to tell the difference puts a fairly large hole in your argument; type the word "fact" in capital letters repeatedly won't make up for that, I'm afraid.

Xantia

Mr Oscar Bravo
You are correct - you did not mention debts - however what you did say speaks volumes.

Please correct me if I am wrong (which I am sure that you will) but you said - "It's rather tiresome hearing the "we're already paying for it" argument wheeled out ad nauseam. If we were already paying for everything, we wouldn't have a structural deficit."

Firstly it is not an argument - I as a worker and I assume your good self are paying right now for water to be delivered to our taps, otherwise it would not flow, this has nothing to do with a structural anything it is just how it is.
Again I reiterate - I am already paying for this water, why do I have to pay again?
Your answer to that question as far as I can make out is that we have a structural deficit which still does not explain why I and others are going to pay again for water.

However I do now take from your statement that the payments we will make for water are going to pay off debts or a deficit as you put it.

Let us take the Bin charges situation, The local authority collected the bins from the doorstep which we paid for via our taxes. The service was privatised or sold off and we as end users are now paying through the nose for waste, recycling etc. to be collected. There was no refund to our taxes for the money that we are already paying for that service.
Where did that money go? Was it to fund Minister Gilmore's Wine cellar? Why didnt it go to fund the deficit?

oscarBravo

Xantia wrote: »

I as a worker and I assume your good self are paying right now for water to be delivered to our taps, otherwise it would not flow, this has nothing to do with a structural anything it is just how it is.
Again I reiterate - I am already paying for this water, why do I have to pay again?

You're not paying for water; you're paying tax into a general government fund, and the government is paying for your water. The same government is also paying for police, army, a health service, social welfare, etc etc etc. Unfortunately, the amount of tax being collected is a long way short of the amount the government is spending on all those other things.

The argument - and it most certainly is an argument - that you shouldn't have to pay for water twice is predicated on the rather bizarre idea that once you are paying directly for the water you use, the government will continue to spend the money that it's currently spending to provide you with water on providing you with water. That's self-evidently untrue.

When you are paying for the water you use, then the taxes that you pay can be used to help bridge the shortfall between what the government spends and what it earns, which is known as the budget deficit.

However I do now take from your statement that the payments we will make for water are going to pay off debts or a deficit as you put it.

You use the words "debt" and "deficit" as if they meant the same thing, but they don't.

There was no refund to our taxes for the money that we are already paying for that service.
Where did that money go? Was it to fund Minister Gilmore's Wine cellar? Why didnt it go to fund the deficit?

Of course it went to fund the deficit. Are you labouring under the illusion that our deficit is so insignificant that your bin charges alone are enough to compensate for it?

heyjude

When water rates were abolished the Fianna Fail government said that the cost of water would be met out of general taxation, so if you are paying tax you are paying for your water. Irrespective of our general financial position, the fact is that under the new water meter scheme, we will be paying for the water that we were told was being paid for from our general taxes, so unless our taxes are reduced, we will be paying twice for our water, through our taxes and again through our payments to Irish Water.

The primary purpose of imposing water taxes is not to conserve water, I read that in the UK the introduction of meters only led to a 16% fall in water usage, whereas in many areas of this country, 30-50% of treated water is lost before it reaches the customer, so if water preservation was the primary aim, then it would make more sense to spend the €400-€500m on fixing leaking pipes rather than installing water meters.

I believe that, despite promises to the contrary, customers will start to be charged for metered water usage as soon as such meters are installed and not, when all meters have been installed as we were told, and that the income from metering will initially be used to replace state spending, but over a couple of years, the price charged will rise, any free allowance will be eliminated and soon Irish Water will start making profits, while the pipe network will continue to leak billions of litres of water.

The flat rate generous 'free' allowance of water that we have been promised, will be the final nail in the Labour Party's coffin, targetting as it does stay at home mums, the disabled, the elderly and the unemployed. For naturally, if everyone is granted 60 litres a day and in one household, you have two adults who are out at work all day, so their water usage during the day is zero(no toilet flushing etc if you aren't at home), but in a second household you have someone who is house-bound, possibly with health problems, their water usage will be much higher and to suggest that such people install special water saving shower heads, dual flush toilets or external water storage tanks etc. ignores the obvious, which is that if they can't afford the higher costs of water, how could they afford the costs of replacing shower heads, toilet cisterns etc. I assume there won't be any grants for such improvements ? Of course not, they don't want you saving water, they want to charge you for it instead. Believe it or not, no matter how hard people try, some households need to use more water and it isn't just down to how many people live in a house.

Political promises mean nothing anyway, we have been told Irish Water won't be privatised, yet the government are looking to sell off all/some of Bord Gais, the semi-state company that have been given the job of running Irish Water. If Bord Gais is privatised and it is running Irish Water, isn't that just privatisation through the back door ? When Bord Gais were first awarded the task of running Irish Water, they said Irish Water would be a 'very valuable' state asset, I wonder did they mean valuable as in useful or valuable, as in being worth a lot ?

BKtje

So if the government were to come on and say that they have decided to charge for water and that the taxes previously earmarked for water will now be earmarked for something else, you'd be happier? Each government governs differently. Just because one government says one thing doesn't mean that that will be changed at a later date. It's not rocket science.

oscarBravo

heyjude wrote: »

...the fact is that under the new water meter scheme, we will be paying for the water that we were told was being paid for from our general taxes, so unless our taxes are reduced, we will be paying twice for our water, through our taxes and again through our payments to Irish Water.

Let me get this straight: you actually believe that we'll be paying for water twice? As in, the money we give to Irish water to supply us with water will be used to pay for our water, and the money that's currently coming from the exchequer to pay for our water will continue to be used to pay for our water?

You believe that the cost of supplying water will spontaneously double overnight?

I've heard the current government described as a lot of different things, but so stupid that they can't walk and breathe at the same time - which would be the only rational explanation for the behaviour you and others insist on ascribing to them - isn't one of them.

If you're paying directly for your water, then the government isn't going to be paying for it out of your taxes anymore. That means that the money that was coming from your taxes to pay for water won't be used to pay for water anymore; it will be used to pay for something else, most likely the yawning chasm in our public finances.

I mean, Jesus. This isn't exactly complicated.