Proposed "Free" Water Allowances

Bullseye1

It isn't complicated at all. If you pay income tax it's collected by revenue and the money is spent by government to provide certain services such as water. The deficit is largely due to overspend by government on less income with over 300,000 people losing their jobs. If they hadnt lost their jobs we wouldn't be running a deficit. The tax we pay is now no longer enough to cover water, other government expenditure and social welfare.

Regardless of the deficit there is still a breathtaking amount of wastage in government expenditure. Expecting the remaining workforce to pay the equivilant tax that the other 300,000 people would have been paying is unrealistic and simply won't work. They will simply leave as is already happening. It's not just people out of work emigrating its people in jobs who feel they already over pay in taxes wih very poor and substandard benefits.

heyjude

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

If money from our taxes, collected on the basis of a promise by a former government, that it would be used to pay for water supplies, is now to be used for something else and I am then asked to pay Irish Water(a state owned entity) for my water supplies, then yes I do feel like I am paying for this water twice. I would feel the same way, if, hypothetically, money I was paying to support public service broadcasting(tv licence) was diverted by the government to pay for something else and RTE announced that its tv channels were to be available only to those paying a monthly subscription. In both cases, you are continuing to have to pay the same tax/licence and were being asked to then pay extra to avail of the same service that you already enjoyed.

The cost of supplying water does not have to increase at all, but you are paying taxes for the water that is currently supplied, now you are being asked to continue to pay these taxes(which will be used for something else instead) and then pay a separate fee for your water, plus a bloated service charge in the form of a payment towards the supply and installation of the meter.

heyjude

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Regardless of the deficit there is still a breathtaking amount of wastage in government expenditure.

The 30-50% of treated water that leaks from pipes before it reaches any consumer being a good example and if these leaks were fixed the cost of supplying water would be greatly reduced(perhaps halved) and they wouldn't need to spend another €400-500m installing meters.

Bullseye1

Meters should have been installed by developers during the construction boom. Another failure by the planners.

oscarBravo

heyjude wrote: »

If money from our taxes, collected on the basis of a promise by a former government, that it would be used to pay for water supplies, is now to be used for something else and I am then asked to pay Irish Water(a state owned entity) for my water supplies, then yes I do feel like I am paying for this water twice.

I pay income tax, and I pay VAT. Does that mean I'm paying for water twice?

A previous government can "promise" what it wants, but it can't bind future governments to that promise. It makes logical sense that water should be paid for based on usage by the consumer. It makes no logical sense that tax revenue that was previously used to pay for water should be refunded to taxpayers at a time when the country is struggling under a crushing deficit burden.

The "paying for it twice" argument is nonsense.

I would feel the same way, if, hypothetically, money I was paying to support public service broadcasting(tv licence) was diverted by the government to pay for something else and RTE announced that its tv channels were to be available only to those paying a monthly subscription. In both cases, you are continuing to have to pay the same tax/licence and were being asked to then pay extra to avail of the same service that you already enjoyed.

It's still a nonsense argument. Anyone would swear you were getting an itemised invoice with your P60 with a line item showing how much of your tax went to pay for your water.

It's annoying to have to keep repeating this, but the message doesn't seem to be getting through: you haven't been paying for your water. The government has been paying for your water out of tax revenue. When you actually are paying for your water, the government will pay for something else out of your tax revenue, so you will not be paying twice for water, and the question of whether or not you "feel" you're paying for it twice doesn't have any bearing on whether or not you are.

Bullseye1

And who do you think is paying the government taxes? It doesn't come out of thin air. Governments don't generate money, they collect it from us. We do pay for water.

Seraphim1

ballygowan etc will surely treble in price, if the free stuff from your tap is going to be charged for then the stuff that that we already collectively spend thousands on every day will definitely jump on the bandwagon. This paying for water lark is just madness.:D

oscarBravo

Bullseye1 wrote: »

And who do you think is paying the government taxes? It doesn't come out of thin air. Governments don't generate money, they collect it from us. We do pay for water.

Yes, we do - indirectly. Once we're paying for water directly, we will no longer be paying for it indirectly, and as such will not be paying for it twice.

Again, I'm struggling to understand what aspect of this is so immensely complicated that so many people are unable to wrap their heads around it.

Bullseye1

I've never said we would be paying for it twice. I'm just saying we are already paying for it. The water tax is just that another tax (they are afraid to call it a rise in income tax). The incompetent politicians in this country are incapable of running a country properly and therefore require more money from the dwindling workforce. They would be better served trying to get 300,000 back to work.

oscarBravo

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I've never said we would be paying for it twice.

Then I'm not sure why you're arguing with me, because I'm arguing with the people who claim we'll be paying for it twice.

I'm just saying we are already paying for it.

And I've pointed out that we're not paying for it, except indirectly, and that when we're paying for it directly, we won't be paying for it indirectly.

The water tax is just that another tax (they are afraid to call it a rise in income tax).

It's not a rise in income tax. It's pretty easy to tell that it's not a rise in income tax, because income tax is levied on income, which water charges won't be.

It's also not really a tax, any more than my electricity bill is a tax. We'll be paying for a resource in proportion to our usage of that resource, which strikes me as consistent with all known principles of fairness.

Bullseye1

oscarBravo wrote: »

And I've pointed out that we're not paying for it, except indirectly, and that when we're paying for it directly, we won't be paying for it indirectly.

This is typical politician speak. We the tax payer provide the money that is needed to treat the water in order that it is fit for human consumption. We do pay for it. This "except indirectly" is nonsense. The money we are borrowing from the IMF has to be paid back by us the tax payer.

Up until 2014 we have been provided water by local authorites and has been covered by general taxation. The local authorities responsible for providing the water (given money from the central government, which is collected from the tax payer) have been negligent in their duty to maintain the water infrastructure. Its estimated that up to 40% of water is lost through leaks and disintegrating pipes. We are essentially being taxed more money to fix these leaks due to incompetence by County Managers and government in general.

Essentially we are getting a lot less for our taxes than we have been previously and this is not helped by the huge numbers unemployed. People in this country would be happy to pay similar taxes the Swedes pay if we got the same level of services they get. We simply don't get anywhere near the level of services most European countries get and are never likely to get them.

Chips Lovell

We're not paying for our water at the moment, at least not all of it. Since we ran a 13.4 per cent deficit last year, we only paid for 86.6 per cent of our water. The rest is covered by borrowing, which we'll have to pay back with interest.

Water network needs a huge amount of investment to become more efficient and stop leakage loss. Where are we going to get that money from if not raising revenues from water charges?

Bullseye1

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

We're not paying for our water at the moment, at least not all of it. Since we ran a 13.4 per cent deficit last year, we only paid for 86.6 per cent of our water. The rest is covered by borrowing, which we'll have to pay back with interest.

Water network needs a huge amount of investment to become more efficient and stop leakage loss. Where are we going to get that money from if not raising revenues from water charges?

We pay for the water through taxes paid into central government. The government then allocates money to local authorities to provide the service of providing water. The money comes from the tax payer and to say otherwise is not true.

The money we borrow from the IMF is a loan. Not a gift. We will also pay this back, we the tax payer. The government does not generate its own money.

I agree that currently that taxes are not covering everything, hence the deficit but at the end of the day we will pay those loans back.

Fix the leaks and get the 300,000 people back to work.

If local authorites or government was a business they would have been folded up by now. Its like pumping money into a black hole.

Chips Lovell

Bullseye1 wrote: »

We pay for the water through taxes paid into central government. The government then allocates money to local authorities to provide the service of providing water. The money comes from the tax payer and to say otherwise is not true.

The money we borrow from the IMF is a loan. Not a gift. We will also pay this back, we the tax payer. The government does not generate its own money.

I agree that currently that taxes are not covering everything, hence the deficit but at the end of the day we will pay those loans back.

Isn't that what I just said?

donegal_man

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

.......................
Water network needs a huge amount of investment to become more efficient and stop leakage loss. Where are we going to get that money from if not raising revenues from water charges?

There's the rub. Will the money raised from the water charge be used to improve the infrastructure and quality of the supply or just to fatten Bord Gais in order to make it more apealing to potential buyers come privatisation?
I hope the former but fear the latter

Chips Lovell

Irish Water isn't included in the bits of Bord Gais that are going to be privatised.

Bullseye1

We hope. The privatisation of Eircom should inform us that anything is possible when it comes to incompetent government.

oscarBravo

Bullseye1 wrote: »

This is typical politician speak. We the tax payer provide the money that is needed to treat the water in order that it is fit for human consumption. We do pay for it. This "except indirectly" is nonsense. The money we are borrowing from the IMF has to be paid back by us the tax payer.

Up until 2014 we have been provided water by local authorites and has been covered by general taxation. The local authorities responsible for providing the water (given money from the central government, which is collected from the tax payer) have been negligent in their duty to maintain the water infrastructure. Its estimated that up to 40% of water is lost through leaks and disintegrating pipes. We are essentially being taxed more money to fix these leaks due to incompetence by County Managers and government in general.

I'm having a great deal of difficulty understanding what your point is. You're arguing with me about whether or not we're paying for water. My point is that, in the sense we are paying for electricity, we're not paying for water; but in the sense that we're paying for road maintenance, we are.

Because I'm "paying for" my water only indirectly, through the general government fund, there's no correlation between the amount of water I use and the amount I pay. I can waste as much water as I want - it doesn't change the amount of tax I pay. This is a bad thing.

When the amount that we pay for this scarce resource becomes correlated with the amount of it that we use - just like electricity, gas, home heating oil, whatever - then people will have an incentive to conserve. This is a good thing.

Essentially we are getting a lot less for our taxes than we have been previously and this is not helped by the huge numbers unemployed. People in this country would be happy to pay similar taxes the Swedes pay if we got the same level of services they get. We simply don't get anywhere near the level of services most European countries get and are never likely to get them.

Sure, whatever. That paragraph wouldn't be out of place in almost any thread on this forum; it's just a complaint about a lack of value for money for our taxes. Taken out of context, nobody would have a clue you were talking about water charges, because it has nothing to do with them.

So can you clear up exactly why you're continuing to argue with me? Are you opposed to water charges? If so, why?

oscarBravo

donegal_man wrote: »

Will the money raised from the water charge be used to improve the infrastructure and quality of the supply...

If I was running a water company I'd take the view that it's not a good thing to spend money on providing a resource only to have that resource leak out before it gets to customers whom I can charge for it. I can't think of any reason why Irish Water would take a different view.

Bullseye1

Leaking water from poor infrastructure won't be a worry for Irish Water. I bet there will be little to zero investment into repairing leaking pipes. It's a money making exercise to get more money from struggling households. No doubt there will be a heavy fee to install a meter which should have been a condition of planning for developers. I'd suggest people install their own well. It will pay for inself in 5 years and the quality is sure to be superior.

Yes I'm against these additional water charges. Between existing income taxes and the property tax it's enough. I'm all for much much smaller government and reduction in the number of local authorities. Now we have a new quango in Irish Water.

oscarBravo

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Leaking water from poor infrastructure won't be a worry for Irish Water. I bet there will be little to zero investment into repairing leaking pipes.

Do you have anything to back up these assertions?

It's a money making exercise to get more money from struggling households.

Well, yes, in part. Getting more money from struggling (and non-struggling) households is something that pretty much has to happen when you have a massive structural deficit.

Yes I'm against these additional water charges.

So you believe that a household that uses ten times as much water as another shouldn't pay for that extra usage? You reject utterly the "polluter pays" principle?

Between existing income taxes and the property tax it's enough.

If it was enough, we wouldn't have a deficit.

Bullseye1

The biggest individual polluters are the local Authorites wih all those leaks. I can see larger families being punished simply because they have more people taking showers etc.

If we hadn't got 300,000 unemployed we wouldn't have a deficit.

oscarBravo

Bullseye1 wrote: »

The biggest individual polluters are the local Authorites wih all those leaks.

...which they don't have the money to fix. So now the cost of delivering the water will be borne by a company with a vested interest in not wasting half of the product it produces for sale. Sounds like a sensible approach to me.

I can see larger families being punished simply because they have more people taking showers etc.

Next thing you know, they'll be punished because they use more electricity and eat more food. What a bizarre concept: paying more for a scarce resource as you use more of it! It'll never catch on.

If we hadn't got 300,000 unemployed we wouldn't have a deficit.

If we had a magic deficit-eating unicorn, we wouldn't have a deficit. We have a deficit because we are spending more than we're taking in in tax revenue, and we don't have a choice about closing that gap.

Solair

I think once the first Irish Water bills hit the door mat, it's going to be a political nightmare for FG/Labour.

It's something, along with property tax, that's very tangible.

Bullseye1

oscarBravo wrote: »

...which they don't have the money to fix. So now the cost of delivering the water will be borne by a company with a vested interest in not wasting half of the product it produces for sale. Sounds like a sensible approach to me. Next thing you know, they'll be punished because they use more electricity and eat more food. What a bizarre concept: paying more for a scarce resource as you use more of it! It'll never catch on. If we had a magic deficit-eating unicorn, we wouldn't have a deficit. We have a deficit because we are spending more than we're taking in in tax revenue, and we don't have a choice about closing that gap.

We do have a choice. It's called reducing the size of the public sector by alot more. We can also reduce social welfare payments substantially. We can reduce the number of local authorities by half, get rid of the Senate, reduce numbers of Dail members, get rid those quangos as promised...etc. if your a business and your making less than your spending you cut your cloth. It's about time the government was run like a business and stand on its own two feet.

Cookie_Monster

oscarBravo wrote: »

...which they don't have the money to fix. So now the cost of delivering the water will be borne by a company with a vested interest in not wasting half of the product it produces for sale.

The councils were over flowing with money in the good times yet for the most part declined to bother with the water infrastructure, sure Dublin and DLRcoco have pipes 100 years plus they know need replacing, that have needed replacing for probably close to 40 years and never bothered fixing them. Why will IW be any different, it'll be cheaper to waste the water indefinitely than fix the piping, even more so when they're forced to cut out fluoride.

We'll be paying twice for the water mark my words, either directly or indirectly, will all the excess and duplicate council staff be let go? with the consolidation and centralisation many will should become redundant but no doubt will be kept on by the councils citing CPA and that'll be one way we're paying for the cost twice.

BTW I am completely pro treating water like gas or electricity and charging for it's use but both ESB (or whatever they're called now) and BG massively overcharge customers, have very high remuneration levels and are inefficient messes, why will IW be any different? They will screw the customer just as much as the others do and just like the others they'll have the regulator aiding them directly.

oscarBravo

Bullseye1 wrote: »

We do have a choice. It's called reducing the size of the public sector by alot more. We can also reduce social welfare payments substantially. We can reduce the number of local authorities by half, get rid of the Senate, reduce numbers of Dail members, get rid those quangos as promised...etc. if your a business and your making less than your spending you cut your cloth.

Not for the first time, I'm at a loss as to what any of that has to do with the thread topic.

It's about time the government was run like a business and stand on its own two feet.

The problem with running the government like a business is that it's not a business. The purpose of a business is to maximise profits for its owners. That's not how I want to see the country run.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The councils were over flowing with money in the good times yet for the most part declined to bother with the water infrastructure, sure Dublin and DLRcoco have pipes 100 years plus they know need replacing, that have needed replacing for probably close to 40 years and never bothered fixing them. Why will IW be any different, it'll be cheaper to waste the water indefinitely than fix the piping, even more so when they're forced to cut out fluoride.

Do you have figures to demonstrate that it would be cheaper for a business to waste have of its product than to invest in preventing that waste?

We'll be paying twice for the water mark my words, either directly or indirectly, will all the excess and duplicate council staff be let go? with the consolidation and centralisation many will should become redundant but no doubt will be kept on by the councils citing CPA and that'll be one way we're paying for the cost twice.

Again and again and again, the same stupid argument. When you're paying directly for water, the tax that used to go towards paying for your water won't be used to pay for your water, it will be used to pay for something else, and you won't be paying twice for water.

I can't see how people are failing to grasp the kindergarten-level reasoning involved here, other than by figuratively sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "la la la I can't hear your stupid logic."

BTW I am completely pro treating water like gas or electricity and charging for it's use...

...as long as you get a tax refund in the precise amount of your water bill (so you're not paying for it twice, like)?

Because that makes perfect sense.

Bullseye1

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not for the first time, I'm at a loss as to what any of that has to do with the thread topic. The problem with running the government like a business is that it's not a business. The purpose of a business is to maximise profits for its owners. That's not how I want to see the country run.

It has everything to do with the topic. The reason they are introducing this additional tax/levy/charge is because they are incapable of balancing the books and are taking the responsibility away from poorly run local authorities and giving responsibility to a commercial body. Funny as that is how you don't want your country run.

Not everything has to be about profits, but as a minimum they should be capable of balancing the books.

The reason people are incorrectly coming to the conclusion that they are paying for water twice is because people like yourself have stated on numerous times that we have not been paying for the water in the past. This is also untrue.

oscarBravo

Bullseye1 wrote: »

It has everything to do with the topic. The reason they are introducing this additional tax/levy/charge is because they are incapable of balancing the books and are taking the responsibility away from poorly run local authorities and giving responsibility to a commercial body. Funny as that is how you don't want your country run.

Tax/levy/charge my backside. I was in Tesco this morning and paid a grocery tax. Then I went to another shop where I paid a food levy.

For someone who does want the country to be run as a business, I don't understand your vehement objection to the idea that we should have to pay for the water we use.

Not everything has to be about profits...

You clearly don't run a business.

...but as a minimum they should be capable of balancing the books.

They're trying. They're attempting to do so by cutting expenditure (and being met with fierce resistance to every cut) and raising revenue (and being met with fierce resistance to every increase).

Just because you personally believe that the government should make thousands more people unemployed (which contradicts your assertion that the deficit is a result of the number that are already unemployed) and slash social welfare just to avoid you having to pay for the water you use doesn't make it the right thing to do.

The reason people are incorrectly coming to the conclusion that they are paying for water twice is because people like yourself have stated on numerous times that we have not been paying for the water in the past. This is also untrue.

Leaving aside that you just conjured up a rather bizarre non-sequitur, if you managed to interpret from my posts that I believed that water magically appeared in our taps without anyone having to pay for it, there's no point even attempting to have a discussion with you, frankly.

Bullseye1

The point is that people claiming that they will be paying for water twice frustrate you. People like you who claim we never paid for it in the first place equally frustrate me. It’s untrue. We have always paid for it, regardless if it’s indirectly paid for. The money used by LAs is money provided to it by the taxes collected by central government. Your talking like it has been provided to us as a gift.

I do run a business. And yes it’s about profit, but for a lot of businesses at the moment it is about staying afloat. My expenditure does not exceed my income. The point I am making is that government should be run more efficiently; you know that is what I am saying yet you condescendingly speak down to people because people don’t agree with your assertions about free water.

With regards reductions in the public sector, yes I believe we employ too many and the numbers need to come down. I never said over night. Employment should be left to the private sector with a small but efficient public sector in the areas needed. Social welfare shouldn’t be cut just because I don’t want to pay water charges (stop trying to suggest I am selfish, I am realistic), it should be cut so that going back to work is more attractive. I know people who won’t go back to work because they will only get €50-100 more a week more than they are currently getting on social welfare.

The ignore button is a wonderful facility. If only it would also hide quoted posts. Don't bother responding to me your now ignored.

oscarBravo

Bullseye1 wrote: »

The point is that people claiming that they will be paying for water twice frustrate you. People like you who claim we never paid for it in the first place equally frustrate me.

Then stop pretending that I've ever said that, and you can stop being frustrated by it.

The point I am making is that government should be run more efficiently; you know that is what I am saying yet you condescendingly speak down to people because people don’t agree with your assertions about free water.

I'm not speaking down to anyone. I'm pointing out that a claim that we'll be paying twice for water is self-evidently stupid, which you don't seem to disagree with, but you feel the need to argue with me anyway over something I've never actually said.

With regards reductions in the public sector, yes I believe we employ too many and the numbers need to come down. I never said over night. Employment should be left to the private sector with a small but efficient public sector in the areas needed.

None of which has anything to do with water charges.

Social welfare shouldn’t be cut just because I don’t want to pay water charges (stop trying to suggest I am selfish, I am realistic), it should be cut so that going back to work is more attractive. I know people who won’t go back to work because they will only get €50-100 more a week more than they are currently getting on social welfare.

None of which has anything to do with water charges.

It's hard to tell, but your position seems to remain that it is better that we pay for water through income taxes, and that there should be no correlation between the amount of water that's used and the amount that's paid for. If that is your view, I'm at a loss as to why, because you've been so busy arguing with stuff I haven't said that you haven't explained it.

Don't bother responding to me your now ignored.

I guess that's the online equivalent of "la la la I can't hear you la la".

oppenheimer1

heyjude wrote: »

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 ?

You know why the slippery slope fallacy is so called? Its a fallacy.

heyjude

Solair wrote: »

I think once the first Irish Water bills hit the door mat, it's going to be a political nightmare for FG/Labour.

I hope so, especially if as I expect the so called "generous free allowance" turns out to be very miserly and if all the levies, charges etc on your water bill mean that the "extras" actually account for as much of your bill as your actual water usage does. Look at your electricity bill and see how much the various levies and charges total, compared to the cost of your actual electricity usage.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The councils were over flowing with money in the good times yet for the most part declined to bother with the water infrastructure, sure Dublin and DLRcoco have pipes 100 years plus they know need replacing, that have needed replacing for probably close to 40 years and never bothered fixing them. Why will IW be any different, it'll be cheaper to waste the water indefinitely than fix the piping

Exactly what I was thinking. During the boom years, councils around the country seemed to be awash with cash, yet instead of using that money to repair/replace the leaking water pipe network, they spent millions building luxurious new headquarters for themselves. Now we're told that the water infrastructure needs investment and the funds aren't available :rolleyes:

heyjude

heyjude wrote: »

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.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

You know why the slippery slope fallacy is so called? Its a fallacy.

You mean like the fallacy that we were paying for our water through our taxes, as we had been told for over 30 years, only to be told in the last two years that we were actually getting our water for "free" and that we would now have to start paying for it, while at the same time our taxes continue to rise. :rolleyes:

As for the notion that it is fallacy to suggest that charging for metered water will start before all meters have been fitted, that the price charge will increase, that the free allowance will be eliminated, that Irish Water will become a profit generator and that the water pipes will continue to leak on a massive scale, I have a copy of "Transforming water services in Ireland - A guide to the establishment of Irish Water", an explanatory leaflet recently distributed by Bord Gais. It lists the steps leading up to Phase 5 when billing starts and in Phase 1 it says that "local authorities are undertaking surveys of water assets in order to gather information to support the roll-out of water meters, such as identifying where the connection from the mains water supply is connected to each property...The local authorities will provide further communication within their local areas before surveys commence". Well I've seen them surveying my local area, lifting stopcock covers and inspecting them, but we received no communication either before or after the survey, but perhaps the contents of the Bord Gais leaflet is a fallacy too.

There is no mention within the Bord Gais leaflet, of any commitment that nobody would be paying for their water by meter until all meters are fitted, but it says "No household on the public water system will be asked to pay water charges before 2014". Yet how fair is it, that some areas will be paying for their water by actual usage, while other areas pay a flat rate purely because the local council decided to fit their meters later. How will the order is which meters are fitted be decided ? I suspect that some local authority housing estates may be the last to be metered and ultimately may not be metered at all. There is no mention in the Bord Gais leaflet of any free allowance of water.

Cookie_Monster

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you have figures to demonstrate that it would be cheaper for a business to waste have of its product than to invest in preventing that waste? Again and again and again, the same stupid argument. When you're paying directly for water, the tax that used to go towards paying for your water won't be used to pay for your water, it will be used to pay for something else, and you won't be paying twice for water.

the fact that it wasn't done speaks for itself anyway but this aside I do not have concrete figures but remember a piece on the pipework from Blessington to Dublin and that they don't even know where the pipe is any more for a lot of it, that they'd need to shut down the reservoir to fix the pipe work and that that would also involve massive excavation along the route as it's up to 40m underground in places. This would require a new reservoir somewhere to supply south and central Dublin as current capacity is not enough to take Blessington offline while work is done. The very nature of the work required means its cheaper to leave it as is and waste X millions litres a year rather than fix it.

I can't see how people are failing to grasp the kindergarten-level reasoning involved here, other than by figuratively sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "la la la I can't hear your stupid logic." ...as long as you get a tax refund in the precise amount of your water bill (so you're not paying for it twice, like)?

Because that makes perfect sense.

I said nothing about a tax refund, my point being that the costs now associated with water supply will not be eliminated (from the councils) when it's moved from the councils and the massive inefficiency will continue to waste tax payers money. We will continue to pay the legacy costs in the councils (wasted money) as well as the new charges... Paying twice.

BOHtox

Bullseye1 wrote: »

We hope. The privatisation of Eircom should inform us that anything is possible when it comes to incompetent government.

There are now more companies offering better deals and at a lower price. In aviation, Air Lingus was part privatised, more routes were flown and as competition came in, mainly Ryanair, prices plummeted!

Seraphim1

I hear very little mention of charging for waste water. Most of the water that enters a premises is also discharged; the treatment of waste water to ensure it is safe to return to sea, river or other sink is very costly. It is likely that water charges are not just to supply users with consistent, verifiably safe drinking water but are also to treat the effluent from users. Your incoming water (in the majority of households or business') is cleaned to a very high standard and after you have contaminated it the local authorities (in most counties) will clean it up again. That is a service worth paying for. Regardless of views on the taxation / leakage / fairness aspects of water charges, the supply of clean drinking water seems to be unappreciated and under valued by most users. Ireland is one of the few countries in Europe where you don't have to carry your drinking water home with your shopping. Our water supply is on a knife edge balance between available supply and demand especially in the Greater Dublin Area. Sustainable water management would be a better long term solution by the present government than just setting up another type of semi-state to install meters. It seems to be a quick fix easy route (but political suicide possibly) but will never solve our lack of appreciation and respect for water.

amen

that they don't even know where the pipe is any more for a lot of

that they'd need to shut down the reservoir to fix the pipe work

what most countries would do is build a new pipe starting at the the delivery end and build backwards to the supply end and then take the reservoir out of commission for 1-2 days while you connect the pipes.

There are ways to do this. Not cheap but doable.

Cookie_Monster

amen wrote: »

what most countries would do is build a new pipe starting at the the delivery end and build backwards to the supply end and then take the reservoir out of commission for 1-2 days while you connect the pipes.

There are ways to do this. Not cheap but doable.

A new one probably would be cheaper but the same problem remain of the sheer depth of it in places.

TOMs WIFE

I won't be rinsing out any of my milk cartons any more before recycling

bmaxi

BOHtox wrote: »

There are now more companies offering better deals and at a lower price. In aviation, Air Lingus was part privatised, more routes were flown and as competition came in, mainly Ryanair, prices plummeted!

Neither of these are essential to maintain life The experience in the UK should tell us that privatisation of water supply is to be resisted at all costs.
My sister lives in Devon, one of the wettest parts of the UK, she tells me her water supplier increased the price because people aren't using enough water!!!!.
So much for the idea of water being a precious commodity to be conserved, it'll be like everything else once profit and greed get going.