Irish Water

chopper6

Tinkersbell wrote: »

Change the record, will you?
It's so lame at this stage, it's laughable.

What is?

chopper6

Welfare is costing nearly 21 billion a year.

Asylum seekers are costing 150 million per year.

The govt wastes 623 million on overseas aid.

Then of course the[EMAIL="http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/business-shadow-economy-costing-state-20bn-a-year-230569.html"] 20 billion[/EMAIL] the black economy generates tax-free each year.



I for one will not feel bad about not paying my water charges...they can get thier pound of flesh off somebody else for a change.

Tinkersbell

chopper6 wrote: »

Welfare is costing nearly 21 billion a year.

Asylum seekers are costing 150 million per year.

The govt wastes 623 million on overseas aid.

Then of course the[EMAIL="http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/business-shadow-economy-costing-state-20bn-a-year-230569.html"] 20 billion[/EMAIL] the black economy generates tax-free each year.




I for one will not feel bad about not paying my water charges...they can get thier pound of flesh off somebody else for a change.

Absolutely.
The 'black economy' as you call it is accepted by the government because the most of the money created by it goes back into the economy.
To say the black economy is 'tax-free' is crazy.

chopper6

Tinkersbell wrote: »

Absolutely.
The 'black economy' as you call it is accepted by the government because the most of the money created by it goes back into the economy.
To say the black economy is 'tax-free' is crazy.

How can the Govt levy tax if income is not being declared?


How can it be anything other than tax free?

Tinkersbell

chopper6 wrote: »

How can the Govt levy tax if income is not being declared?


How can it be anything other than tax free?

What happens to money earned in the 'black economy'?
Where does it go?

chopper6

Tinkersbell wrote: »

What happens to money earned in the 'black economy'?
Where does it go?

Into the pockets of the people involved.

They may then launder it,Invest it,save it,move it offshore or spend it.

You havnt a clue what you're talking about...i found the bit about the Govt tolerating it to be particularly amusing.

Tinkersbell

chopper6 wrote: »

Into the pockets of the people involved.

They may then launder it,Invest it,save it,move it offshore or spend it.

You havnt a clue what you're talking about...i found the bit about the Govt tolerating it to be particularly amusing.

LOL, I'll leave you to it.
Just ask yourself this, if it's such a serious issue why is there no uproar about it from government?
It's tolerated because most of the money involved is spent back into the real economy.
End of story.

golfwallah

antoobrien wrote: »

However to (hopefully) put to bed the link back to the Greeks and the myth that water metering and charges is an austerity measure:

The process was started in 2007 by the department of the environment. I believe the greens, who undermined the water funding system through the revamp of the motor tax rates in 2008, had that one at the time.

Former MEP, Kathy Sinnott, has put another nail in the coffin of the myth that the EU are making us charge for water, according to this Irish Times article:

EU directives are binding. Member states must implement them through national legislation. Article 9 of the water framework directive requires charging for domestic water. There is one exemption. It is known within the European Commission as the “Irish Exemption” because it was won by the Irish and only Ireland qualifies for it. It is found in article 9.4 of the directive.
In 2000, the Irish government brokered this exemption and the inclusion of article 9.4 which formally and legally absolves Ireland and only Ireland from the requirement to charge for domestic water.

It would seem that the government "forgot" to inform the debate on this one!

FreudianSlippers

Tinkersbell wrote: »

LOL, I'll leave you to it.
Just ask yourself this, if it's such a serious issue why is there no uproar about it from government?
It's tolerated because most of the money involved is spent back into the real economy.
End of story.

Your economic views are shockingly under-thought.

Icepick

chopper6 wrote: »

Asylum seekers are costing 150 million per year.
The govt wastes 623 million on overseas aid.

Neither of that is a waste.

Sobko

Icepick wrote: »

Neither of that is a waste.

While it's admirable to help those less fortunate charity should start at home. Far too many people living rough on the streets and the idea of borrowing money and paying vast sums in interest to continue supporting these charities is not sustainable.

Icepick

Sobko wrote: »

While it's admirable to help those less fortunate charity should start at home. Far too many people living rough on the streets and the idea of borrowing money and paying vast sums in interest to continue supporting these charities is not sustainable.

There is 48 billion of charity at home.

View

golfwallah wrote: »

Former MEP, Kathy Sinnott, has put another nail in the coffin of the myth that the EU are making us charge for water, according to this Irish Times article:


It would seem that the government "forgot" to inform the debate on this one!

What Ms Sinnott forgot to mention is that Irish Water and its associated debt should NOT - if the government hasn't mucked up its set up at this stage as a result of the protest - count as National Debt which means Ireland would have a lower national debt and hence lower borrowing costs.

If the street protests and the governments response to them messed its setup up, then Irish Water debt counts as national debt and we get to pay higher borrowing costs.

In other words, MORE of your tax monies will go to paying interest to bond holders.

mikep

What Ms Sinnott also failed to mention was that the "exemption" can only apply once objectives of the directive are not compromised...

Water services also include waste water treatment, 50% of the IW charge per household..

golfwallah

mikep wrote: »

What Ms Sinnott also failed to mention was that the "exemption" can only apply once objectives of the directive are not compromised...

Water services also include waste water treatment, 50% of the IW charge per household..

If you read Kathy Sinnott's Irish Times article for which I provided a link (but not the entire article), you will see that she did not fail to mention it:

At that time I was assured by the EU Commission that the “Irish Exemption” was ours to keep. Brussels could not take it away. In fact it could only end if Ireland cancelled it. This exemption belongs to us, the people of Ireland. It protects us from having an essential resource financially controlled by private or public interests.
Mass protests
The Irish people in mass protests across the entire country have made it clear that we do not agree to domestic water charges. Although the “Irish Exemption” is not widely known, the Irish people in their absolute rejection of water charges have also made it clear that they do not agree with cancelling this valuable exemption. Once gone this exemption is gone for good. It is evident from our Government’s actions and statements that it is attempting to cancel this exemption without our consent or knowledge.

golfwallah

View wrote: »

What Ms Sinnott forgot to mention is that Irish Water and its associated debt should NOT - if the government hasn't mucked up its set up at this stage as a result of the protest - count as National Debt which means Ireland would have a lower national debt and hence lower borrowing costs.

If the street protests and the governments response to them messed its setup up, then Irish Water debt counts as national debt and we get to pay higher borrowing costs.

In other words, MORE of your tax monies will go to paying interest to bond holders.

In all fairness, Kathy Sinnott’s Irish Times article provides additional information in relation to the Water Charges issue that most people would not have known about – and that we have been misled by government on the issue.

It simply shows that, despite promises of openness, transparency, etc., we, the electorate, have been led to believe by government that the EU required it to charge for domestic water:

Despite all that has been said about water charges three very important issues have been strangely absent from the debate.
First, the Government claims it must charge for domestic water because it is required to in the EU water framework directive. This is not true.
EU directives are binding. Member states must implement them through national legislation. Article 9 of the water framework directive requires charging for domestic water. There is one exemption. It is known within the European Commission as the “Irish Exemption” because it was won by the Irish and only Ireland qualifies for it. It is found in article 9.4 of the directive.
In 2000, the Irish government brokered this exemption and the inclusion of article 9.4 which formally and legally absolves Ireland and only Ireland from the requirement to charge for domestic water.
This Bertie Ahern government stood up to Brussels and insisted that the Irish people have the water they need uncharged. Among other points it took great pains to explain our water-soaked climate to officials from dryer member states.
As an MEP I brought this to the public attention in 2008 when the last government was introducing water charges for schools. On April 17th of that year minister John Gormley stated in the Dáil that “The only exemption available to Ireland, and availed of, is contained in article 9.4 and relates to dwelling houses using water for ordinary household purposes”.
At that time I was assured by the EU Commission that the “Irish Exemption” was ours to keep. Brussels could not take it away. In fact it could only end if Ireland cancelled it. This exemption belongs to us, the people of Ireland. It protects us from having an essential resource financially controlled by private or public interests.

On the other hand, we all know about the argument that a large part of the rationale for setting up Irish Water was that its borrowings would not

count as National Debt which means Ireland would have a lower national debt and hence lower borrowing costs.

However, the problem now is that this rationale for not counting IW debt as part of the national debt has yet to be accepted and that a formal decision on this issue is months away.

I think it fair to say that we would all like to have lower interest charges on government debt – but we also want honesty and openness from our political leadership. Haven’t we had enough of sleight of hand from previous administrations, which just leads to an even bigger problem of lack of trust in political leaders by the electorate?

Godge

golfwallah wrote: »

In all fairness, Kathy Sinnott’s Irish Times article provides additional information in relation to the Water Charges issue that most people would not have known about – and that we have been misled by government on the issue.

It simply shows that, despite promises of openness, transparency, etc., we, the electorate, have been led to believe by government that the EU required it to charge for domestic water:

No Kathy Sinnott's article only provides her uneducated opinion that there was no obligation from the EU to require domestic charges. The educated legal opinions of this world have the opposite opinion.

mikep

Golfwallah I did read the whole article and she doesn't mention that the exemption can only apply "where this does not compromise the purposes and the achievement of the objectives of this Directive".
The bit in quotation marks is from the actual directive, which I also have read in full...

She also conveniently left this bit out "Water is not a commercial product like any other but,rather, a heritage which must be protected, defended and treated as such."

Actually on second reading of her article all that she needed to add to make it more sensationalist was " Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children"

Irelands recored on implementing the directive is not good as can be seen in the EPA urban waste water report...go have a read..http://epa.ie/pubs/reports/water/wastewater/uwwreport2012.html

One project which I am familiar with is the provision of a new waste wtaer treatment system for Crosshave/Carrigaline in Cork which has been delayed repeatedly, a good way to demonstrate that we meet the rerquirements of the directive don't you think??

FreudianSlippers

golfwallah wrote: »

If you read Kathy Sinnott's Irish Times article for which I provided a link (but not the entire article), you will see that she did not fail to mention it:

I'm not really sure what you're reading there, but she makes no mention of it. In fact she is flat out misleading - the "Irish Exemption" is an exemption for all Member States that comply with the rest of the directive and that have "existing practices" that do not go against the spirit of the Directive.

At the time (some time between 1997 and 2000), it was clarified that Ireland not charging for domestic rates was an acceptable "existing practice" - it was never stated by anyone other than Ms Sinnott (and without any supporting evidence) that it would have to be "cancelled" by Ireland. Failure to comply with the Directive automatically "cancels" the exemption under Article 9.4 regardless of what Ms Sinnott thinks.

It's worrying that an MEP has such a loose grasp on Directives and EU Law.

FreudianSlippers

golfwallah wrote: »

In all fairness, Kathy Sinnott’s Irish Times article provides additional information in relation to the Water Charges issue that most people would not have known about – and that we have been misled by government on the issue.

It simply shows that, despite promises of openness, transparency, etc., we, the electorate, have been led to believe by government that the EU required it to charge for domestic water:

I already explained the Directive in the (for whatever reason) other politics thread on UÉ.

Regardless of this and my belief that we have already lost of Article 9.4 exemption due to multiple failures to comply with the Directive, we are contractually bound to implement water charges due to the Troika MoU.

mikep

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Regardless of this and my belief that we have already lost of Article 9.4 exemption due to multiple failures to comply with the Directive, we are contractually bound to implement water charges due to the Troika MoU.

+1

FreudianSlippers

Three water protesters committed to prison for 28 days each, with prison terms suspended for 6 months on the condition that they now abide by the Orders.

Fair sentence against them IMO.

Rightwing

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Three water protesters committed to prison for 28 days each, with prison terms suspended for 6 months on the condition that they now abide by the Orders.

Fair sentence against them IMO.

Ridiculous sentence imo.

golfwallah

Failure to bring up issues like Article 9.4 is just one more symptom of the covert approach to the setting up and roll out of Irish Water. Government simply handed the whole kit and caboodle over to bureaucrats and vested interests to be implemented (e.g. Phil Hogan’s “I don’t micromanage”). The result – sweetheart deals to transfer local authority staff to Irish Water, overblown consultancy costs, very poor communications and high taxes and charges.

Now that the government parties have had such negative reaction in the European and local elections and then the water protests, they are scrambling to regain some sort of control over proceedings.

My main bone of contention is the lack of transparency / openness to the taxpayer, when key decisions on huge amounts of spending (such as on Irish Water) are made behind closed doors by a very limited selection of stakeholders with vested interests – i.e. the civil service, public service unions, government and local authority management. Of course, the taxpayer – the one key vested interest who has to pay for it all is left out of this decision making process.

In Ireland, there is no representative of the taxpayer. It should be the TDs we elect to look after our interests on key matters of national importance. Local re-election priorities, however, make TDs more concerned with bringing “goodies” home to their own “home” constituents, like local hospitals, Garda stations, schools, roads, etc. We have no provision for electing representatives to parliament on the most important issues that affect all taxpayers on a National Level, like how much we have to pay in income tax, household charges and now water charges! This representational vacuum is willingly filled by sectional vested interests, like the unions and public service management, who make sure that their interests are looked after first, regardless of overall costs or of who has to pay for it.

I think Michael O’Leary hit the nail on the head yesterday, speaking about the mess made of Irish Water and the gargantuan taxes required to pay for our badly run public services – see this report in thejournal.ie.

FreudianSlippers

golfwallah wrote: »

Failure to bring up issues like Article 9.4 is just one more symptom of the covert approach to the setting up and roll out of Irish Water.

Because the Article 9.4 exemption is manifestly irrelevant. Even if it was accepted that Ireland may still have an exemption under Article 9.4 of the Water Framework Directive (and that's arguable at best), it makes no difference to our legal obligation to charge for water pursuant to the terms of the Troika MoU.

I think Michael O’Leary hit the nail on the head yesterday, speaking about the mess made of Irish Water and the gargantuan taxes required to pay for our badly run public services – see this report in thejournal.ie.

Vitally, what MOL does not agree with is what many people here (including yourself I believe?) advocate, which is funding water by increasing tax on middle earners. He has explicitly called for a reduction!

golfwallah

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Because the Article 9.4 exemption is manifestly irrelevant. Even if it was accepted that Ireland may still have an exemption under Article 9.4 of the Water Framework Directive (and that's arguable at best), it makes no difference to our legal obligation to charge for water pursuant to the terms of the Troika MoU.


Vitally, what MOL does not agree with is what many people here (including yourself I believe?) advocate, which is funding water by increasing tax on middle earners. He has explicitly called for a reduction!

By concentrating on detail and arguable legalities versus contractual obligations around the EU Water Directive, you are missing the points I am making regarding:
• Government failure on two way communications with the general public that would prompt informed debate and decision making regarding water services.
• Government lack of empathy with voters as regards the increasingly inequitable burden of taxation on income, property and for provision of water.
• Government lack of transparency to keep people in the dark, e.g. “behind the door” decision making on Irish Water, The Croke Park Agreement, Haddington Road, etc. to suit the unions and the Labour Party. We also had the squashing of the ESRI Report on how our over-generous social welfare system is acting as a disincentive to work – see here.

The attitude among those in power is that “we know best” on complex issues – as a substitute for communicating the facts simply to the ordinary people of Ireland in a way that they can understand. There is an old adage that “you have two ears and one mouth” – those in power need to listen more than they preach, if they want to bring people along with the decision making process. They could then create a suitable forum to listen to the feedback from the people to better create a general feeling that “we are all in this together” as regards services and what we are prepared to pay for.

No – instead what we have is a political situation where various well organised but unelected sectional vested interests get their way. It’s that I object to – not to paying water charges based on a well controlled and fair cost base that the majority of people understand and accept.

And I do believe it is possible to put across these issues in a simple way – but that requires a level of effort and expertise that those in power, with a few exceptions (e.g. Leo Varadkar and Simon Coveney) seem unwilling to embrace.

It’s also possible to exercise better control of all public service costs – without resorting to more unfair taxes on the squeezed middle, which you seem to think is the only option available. But again this would require our leaders to listen and act on what the majority of voters want on National issues. This is what Ryanair does a lot more than government and why it is so successful!

Rightwing

golfwallah wrote: »

By concentrating on detail and arguable legalities versus contractual obligations around the EU Water Directive, you are missing the points I am making regarding:
• Government failure on two way communications with the general public that would prompt informed debate and decision making regarding water services.
• Government lack of empathy with voters as regards the increasingly inequitable burden of taxation on income, property and for provision of water.
• Government lack of transparency to keep people in the dark, e.g. “behind the door” decision making on Irish Water, The Croke Park Agreement, Haddington Road, etc. to suit the unions and the Labour Party. We also had the squashing of the ESRI Report on how our over-generous social welfare system is acting as a disincentive to work – see here.

The attitude among those in power is that “we know best” on complex issues – as a substitute for communicating the facts simply to the ordinary people of Ireland in a way that they can understand. There is an old adage that “you have two ears and one mouth” – those in power need to listen more than they preach, if they want to bring people along with the decision making process. They could then create a suitable forum to listen to the feedback from the people to better create a general feeling that “we are all in this together” as regards services and what we are prepared to pay for.

No – instead what we have is a political situation where various well organised but unelected sectional vested interests get their way. It’s that I object to – not to paying water charges based on a well controlled and fair cost base that the majority of people understand and accept.

And I do believe it is possible to put across these issues in a simple way – but that requires a level of effort and expertise that those in power, with a few exceptions (e.g. Leo Varadkar and Simon Coveney) seem unwilling to embrace.

It’s also possible to exercise better control of all public service costs – without resorting to more unfair taxes on the squeezed middle, which you seem to think is the only option available. But again this would require our leaders to listen and act on what the majority of voters want on National issues. This is what Ryanair does a lot more than government and why it is so successful!

Good post. 'We will follow you to the grave' being the perfect example.

The Govt have done well on the bigger issues but failed miserably on the smaller ones, it is for this reason that they will be punished.