€490m meant for local services diverted to Irish Water

Phoebas

Cienciano wrote: »

Funny that the government could afford to pay for these services from other forms of taxation before they decided to pay off bondholders

We've been running a massive deficit for the last few years. Before that we were living in an unsustainable bubble funded by property related taxes.

We haven't been able to 'afford' these services for a long time.

Phill Ewinn

Phoebas wrote: »

We've been running a massive deficit for the last few years. Before that we were living in an unsustainable bubble funded by property related taxes.

We haven't been able to 'afford' these services for a long time.

And now we have an "extra" €480m to just throw at metering.

Was the problem metering? No.

Do the Arabs need fvxking sand meters? No.

Likewise with us.

Daith

Phoebas wrote: »

We've been running a massive deficit for the last few years. Before that we were living in an unsustainable bubble funded by property related taxes.

We haven't been able to 'afford' these services for a long time.

Is that down to funding or mismanagement of the services though? We've seen public bodies and semi state bodies squander money (the Poolbeg incinerator is just one that comes to mind).

Now we have Irish Water who are paying bonuses to their staff all funded by the taxpayer in some way. In a monopoly.

I don't doubt that we need to pay for water but I do doubt whether it is a genuine deficit or general incompetence and the tax payer is paying for it.

Not to mention no one can give an answer whether people who's drinking water is unsuitable will get it treated properly.

Phoebas

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

And now we have an "extra" €480m to just throw at metering.

Was the problem metering? No.

Do the Arabs need fvxking sand meters? No.

Likewise with us.

The lack of metering is part of the problem with the water supply.
Metering will help to address two big issues.
1. Conservation - charging by usage will encourage conservation.
2. Leakage - measuring usage helps to locate where the leaks are.

I'm afraid I didn't quite understand the Arabs/sand point.

Phill Ewinn

Phoebas wrote: »

The lack of metering is part of the problem with the water supply.
Metering will help to address two big issues.
1. Conservation - charging by usage will encourage conservation.
2. Leakage - measuring usage helps to locate where the leaks are.

I'm afraid I didn't quite understand the Arabs/sand point.

Conservation? You pulling my leg?

Processing and storage maybe, maybe. Conservation. Jesus wept!

Victor

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

And now we have an "extra" €480m to just throw at metering.

You seem to be confused. The €490m is to run (and expand) the entire system for the year. Metering is only a small part of that.

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Conservation? You pulling my leg?

Processing and storage maybe, maybe. Conservation. Jesus wept!

If 25% of your natural gas was venting to the air through leaks, would you not try to find those leaks? That is what conservation means.

Phoebas

Daith wrote: »

Is that down to funding or mismanagement of the services though?

Down to mismanagement of the entire economy I'd say.

Cookie_Monster

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Conservation? You pulling my leg?

Processing and storage maybe, maybe. Conservation. Jesus wept!

you do know treating water is not free right, and has a substantial cost in provision, a cost which increases with volume?

Daith

Phoebas wrote: »

Down to mismanagement of the entire economy I'd say.

It's ok though now isn't? I mean property prices are going up now!

Daith

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

you do know treating water is not free right, and has a substantial cost in provision, a cost which increases with volume?

This is the point no? Where the tax payer not paying for the treatment before anyway? Are we paying the same taxes for the treatment and the Irish water bill?

Phoebas

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Conservation? You pulling my leg?

Processing and storage maybe, maybe. Conservation. Jesus wept!

Again, I don't understand your point. Why do you think I'm joking about water conservation?

I'm also not sure by how you feel metering will help with processing and storage, but maybe there's a benefit I haven't thought of.

Phoebas

Daith wrote: »

It's ok though now isn't? I mean property prices are going up now!

I wouldn't think that rising property prices are a sign of good management of the economy

Victor

Daith wrote: »

This is the point no? Where the tax payer not paying for the treatment before anyway?

No, we were paying part of the bill and bondholders were paying the rest.

Cookie_Monster

Daith wrote: »

This is the point no? Where the tax payer not paying for the treatment before anyway? Are we paying the same taxes for the treatment and the Irish water bill?

So we can just waste it regardless and incur higher costs just because 'we already pay for it'?

regardless of whether its paid for out of tax or user charges, why should the aim not be to reduce unnecessary usage and hence cost to provide?

Daith

Phoebas wrote: »

I wouldn't think that rising property prices are a sign of good management of the economy

It's more the Irish mentality that rising property prices means the economy is recovery but off topic

Daith

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

So we can just waste it regardless and incur higher costs just because 'we already pay for it'?

regardless of whether its paid for out of tax or user charges, why should the aim not be to reduce unnecessary usage and hence cost to provide?

The issue for me is that we are still paying the same tax and the Irish water charge. Your use of "whether" is the clincher.

Likewise if the public bodies didn't waste large sums of money would we need this?

I agree with conserving water and that costs are necessary but can see why it's a double tax and people are paying for it twice.

If the money from our taxes is going to something else instead yeah sure but we never have that level of transparency.

Phoebas

Daith wrote: »

This is the point no? Where the tax payer not paying for the treatment before anyway? Are we paying the same taxes for the treatment and the Irish water bill?

We've been running a huge deficit for years now and before that bug chunks of our services were funded by unsustainable boom era property based taxation. Even before that we haven't been putting proper investment into the water infrastructure.
So we really haven't been paying the full cost for treatment for a long time now.

Daith

Phoebas wrote: »

We've been running a huge deficit for years now and before that bug chunks of our services were funded by unsustainable boom era property based taxation. Even before that we haven't been putting proper investment into the water infrastructure.
So we really haven't been paying the full cost for treatment for a long time now.

Again it goes to my point that it could be general mismanagement of public funds leading to this.

Phoebas

Daith wrote: »

Again it goes to my point that it could be general mismanagement of public funds leading to this.

'general mismanagement of public funds' is a very broad term so I suppose it could be used to explain part of the problem.
I tend to think that the problems with water are more down to lack of strategic planning (over decades), but this could also be attributed to 'general mismanagement'.

gotBass

Paying for the water is unavoidable.
In a few years we will have water routed from the Shannon in Dublin area. Who will pay , not government because they will want ppp to soften the cost upfront. So theyes are going to privatise the water eventually by having "drought type events" then say it'll cost a fortune, then we can get it done with private help, because EU project money is drying up. Next thing you know our water charges are 1k per year on average and the agency in charge answers to nobody. Oh but the good news is that some people well get transferred to cushy numbers and some higher political types will get directorship, will Service improve only my some internal managers kpi. Pucker up people this is going to hurt.

Daith

Phoebas wrote: »

'general mismanagement of public funds' is a very broad term so I suppose it could be used to explain part of the problem.
I tend to think that the problems with water are more down to lack of strategic planning (over decades), but this could also be attributed to 'general mismanagement'.

I'm absolutely in agreement here. It's just if say that mismanagement and lack of strategic planning is still happening even with Irish water then it's going to be the tax payer who's screwed regardless of how much water they conserve.

We are also getting charged if we dont use enough water right? Minimum price?

Phoebas

Daith wrote: »

I'm absolutely in agreement here. It's just if say that mismanagement and lack of strategic planning is still happening even with Irish water then it's going to be the tax payer who's screwed regardless of how much water they conserve.

We are also getting charged if we dont use enough water right? Minimum price?

No. The pricing structure hasn't yet been decided by the regulator. Personally I think its more likely that they'll go with a standing charge as that would be a more common model for other services that have large fixed costs.

Even if there is minimum pricing, its not right to suggest that people will pay 'regardless of how much water they conserve'.

listermint

There is a fair few recent posters here attempting to rationalise the implementation of Irish water inc. It does in part read as if they are apologists for this redirection of funds and new taxation stream.

However I fear that is more so the case that they are delusional, people need to remember that throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it or make it go away,we don't live in some psuedo socialist capitailist eutopia here where increasing funds via direct taxation cures ills. You only have to look at our health service to comprehend the scale of bad management and in cases down right corruption.

This is Ireland after all, we have form in doing things badly.

I ask victor this, do you envisage Irish water coming in and resolving our leaks issue all togethet, do you envisage the service charge to stay at an affordable level , do you envisage this entity as a whole remaining in 'we the peoples hands' or will it become another log on the fire that is our national assets.


Its been quite clear from the start that this organization has been extremely cloak and dagger its not even a year in existence and it is before the committee for expenditure to explain its financial outlays. If this doesn't ring warning bells with posters then I really wonder to people have their heads in the sand.

It looks as though this organization will just be the latest in a line of gravy trains with lax accountability, poor service and all round complete aggravation.

Phoebas

listermint wrote: »

There is a fair few recent posters here attempting to rationalise the implementation of Irish water

Bring rational should have no place in After Hours

Daith

Phoebas wrote: »

Bring rational should have no place in After Hours

I just admire people's optimism here. With Irish Water and its funds we can manage our water infrastructure and improve it. Households with dirty water will be relieved as Irish Water will fix it.

I'm just a cynical old cnut who thinks nothing much will change except you get a new bill in the door and every year it increases.

Eight Ball

The most shocking aspect of this is that people are surprised by it. This sort of stuff is par for the course in the banana republic.

Phoebas

Eight Ball wrote: »

The most shocking aspect of this is that people are surprised by it.

Most of the surprise is faux.

wendell borton

gotBass wrote: »

Paying for the water is unavoidable.
In a few years we will have water routed from the Shannon in Dublin area. Who will pay , not government because they will want ppp to soften the cost upfront. So theyes are going to privatise the water eventually by having "drought type events" then say it'll cost a fortune, then we can get it done with private help, because EU project money is drying up. Next thing you know our water charges are 1k per year on average and the agency in charge answers to nobody. Oh but the good news is that some people well get transferred to cushy numbers and some higher political types will get directorship, will Service improve only my some internal managers kpi. Pucker up people this is going to hurt.

They can try, but there should be serious opposition from the people of the west who get forgotten when it comes to job creation and investment yet are expected to give up resources due to inept and corrupt planning.

donegal__road

The plan is that water charges will be increased if people are not using as much as expected, which means that Irish Water must have a baseline figure that must be reached annually.

We were initially told by the E.U. that the introduction of water metering was for environmental purposes. Meters were meant to encourage people to be more careful with their usage. It is obvious now that it is instead focused on revenues.

The other issue is this... normally a company would be up and running, and turning a profit before the management would start to issue bonuses to board members. Irish Water has only only cost money so far, yet the management are planning to award themselves bonuses.





.

Phoebas

donegal__road wrote: »

The plan is that water charges will be increased if people are not using as much as expected, which means that Irish Water must have a baseline figure that must be reached annually.

That's not the plan; that is just one option being considered by the regulator. The charging structure (to be decided by the regulator, not by the company) hasn't been decided yet.