€490m meant for local services diverted to Irish Water

donegal__road

Phoebas wrote: »

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.

and what about the bonuses?

Phoebas

donegal__road wrote: »

and what about the bonuses?

Yeah - they're nothing like what happened in the CRC. I thought you were just venting.

Daith

Phoebas wrote: »

Yeah - they're nothing like what happened in the CRC. I thought you were just venting.

Sure but because they're not as bad doesn't mean it's right. They're a semi state body who's policy is no bonuses getting bonuses. In a monopoly no less.

donegal__road

I wonder would the public have been as compliant with paying the household charge had they known a sizable chunk of it would be used to pay bonuses to the staff of Irish Water.

This is not defend-able.

ToxicPaddy

This whole stealth tax thing is kinda getting out of hand.

From what I can see, a lot of the anger is geared towards the whole never ending stream of new taxes that seem to be coming online. Yes I know taxes are a necessary evil, but they have to be paid simple as that. If you want the various services you see around you on a daily basis then they have to be paid for.

However, everyday it's another scandal about this waste of millions and that waste of millions by some Government dept or other. It has to work both ways. Like I said, I have no problem paying tax and I know others who feel the same way. Nothing in this life is for free.

I just want to see that I'm actually getting something for it in return.

This whole concept of just piling all the taxes into one big pool of money to be dipped into at will isn't working. Some transparency by every government department would be nice to even give us a rough idea of what's being spent and where.

All these "generic consultant" roles are pure and utter nonsense. Yes, expertise is required to run various areas of government and setup and run projects, but make them accountable. Better still, how about after every major project that's rolled out, a full set of records released to the public?This way, full accountability is available.


Say a new motorway is proposed. The initial costings are done, it's put out to tender. More in-depth costings put on paper. Then the monies allocated. Contracts set out, time issues etc. and penalties if not completed within time and budget.

Once the project is completed, a full balance sheet is then made available to the public and can be questioned if required?

It's a pure pipe dream on my behalf I know, but still, it might get some of those in power to really think before they act.


I would also much prefer that the government just announced that they were combining everything into one single property tax that covered water, property, bin collection, TV license etc with heavy penalties for those who abuse the various resources being provided.

This way, each house hold could budget and plan their expenditure for the coming year. The monies can be then deducted on a monthly basis.

Yes, I know some people will say that there are services that they don't use and why should they pay for it, well a properly designed system will take that into consideration.


There are way too many people being put in charge of projects where they have very obviously failed in the past. It's the same names over and over without any accountability being put in place BEFORE they get the roles.

All the same names keep cropping up again and again, yet when a big scandal breaks over their inability to do the role they were hired to, it's quickly brushed under the carpet, they lay low for a while be before they pop up and it starts all over again.

The whole mindset for greed, waste and complacency within some areas of the Government, both local and national is something that needs to change and until that happens, what we are seeing on an almost daily is never going to stop.

At present, that mindset appears to be ingrained into most of those in the major political parties from grassroots to the very top. Unfortunately and much to the detriment of this country I cannot see it changing any time soon.

Not even charities are safe from their pillaging and abuse of the system.


Ireland may be an attractive place for industry to come due to its tax breaks etc, but its becoming a less and less attractive place to live for the average person who just wants to get a good education, a good job, settle down, raise and family and try and have a half decent life for themselves and their families.

I for one am becoming more and more disillusioned with this country and those running it. I'm seriously thinking I might be better off moving elsewhere as the efforts by me and those around me to hold down a job, pay our taxes, obey the laws of the land and contribute positively to society appear to be wasted. Especially when those we elect to try and run the country as we think it should be run, appear to be doing none of the above and are only interested in lining their own pockets, hiring those lacking in ability to do even the most menial tasks and rewarding them for it.

It may be time to move on and put my efforts and taxes to good use elsewhere.

No Pants

wendell borton wrote: »

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.

The Shannon belongs to the people of Ireland, not just the people in the west of Ireland. If the majority of the people of Ireland want to divert some of the water to where the majority of the people of Ireland live, then it's going to happen.

harryr711

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/pat-flanagan-column-irish-water-3033405

Next they needed a brand for Ireland’s new water company and handed Ernst & Young €4million for “brand development” and to come up with a new name.

€4m for "Irish Water". Money well spent.

This wouldn’t be the first time Tierney burnt a hole in the public’s pocket.

He was Dublin City manager when €95million was handed over to consultants involved in the doomed Poolbeg incinerator.

Ten years on there’s still no incinerator and the cash is gone up in smoke and only the taxpayer gets burned.

He was also Galway city manager when a €1.27million revamp of Eyre Square ended up costing €15million.

So who better to appoint as head of the country’s new water company on a bigger salary than the Taoiseach?

Fantastic track record of the CEO/MD.

In November 2012, Minister Hogan told the Oireachtas Environment Committee the set-up costs of Irish Water would be €10million.

Phil Hogan wasn't that far off in his estimate.


http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/noonan-plays-down-irish-water-controversy-as-cause-du-jour-29922335.html

The Finance Minister said he wasn’t going to have a debate on Irish Water.

“It’s the kind of cause du jour at the moment,” he said.

We're all a bunch of complainers and this is just the complaint of the day, there shouldn't be any debate on Irish Water.

Phoebas

Daith wrote: »

Sure but because they're not as bad doesn't mean it's right. They're a semi state body who's policy is no bonuses getting bonuses. In a monopoly no less.

I didn't say it was good or bad. If they're breaching public pay guidelines without approval then its very bad. Bonuses themselves aren't bad at all.

Stavros Murphy

steddyeddy wrote: »

This crap will keep happening because of attitudes like these. Downplaying any hint of corruption or illegality. Reminds me of the pigs from animal farm.

I console myself with the knowledge that Governments everywhere have supporters, some even have shills. Loads in fact.

If the state decided to start charging people rent to live in their own homes, there would always be a certain group who would say it was a fine, responsible decision based on international best practice. Sadly, there would also be a legion of people who were dopey enough to agree.

After FG have pumped millions upon millions of our money into Irish Water, they'll sell it off at a steep discount to one of their pals, "in the best interest of the people". Then we'll get to pay for Irish water for all eternity. You also need to look at who is getting the money from the set-up funds. It's interesting, but not surprising.

Daith

Phoebas wrote: »

I didn't say it was good or bad. If they're breaching public pay guidelines without approval then its very bad. Bonuses themselves aren't bad at all.

Yes yes approval. Ultimately it's bonuses being paid from the taxpayer to a semi state monopoly. They have no competition. They've a guaranteed source of income from every household in the country.

Just because they have approval doesn't mean it's a good thing. It simply means less taxpayer money going to the water infrastructure which you have pointed out is in a deficit.

It's amazing how Irish Water couldn't use any Board Gais infrastructure to cut costs but quite happily will copy the Board Gais pay scheme.

Phoebas

Daith wrote: »

Yes yes approval. Ultimately it's bonuses being paid from the taxpayer to a semi state monopoly. They have no competition. They've a guaranteed source of income from every household in the country.

Just because they have approval doesn't mean it's a good thing. It simply means less taxpayer money going to the water infrastructure which you have pointed out is in a deficit.

I didn't say I approved of paying these bonuses. I said it was a bad thing if it breaches public pay policy.
Otherwise, I'd be inclined to leave decisions about how they structure remuneration packages to the management of Irish Water.

Daith wrote: »

It's amazing how Irish Water couldn't use any Board Gais infrastructure to cut costs but quite happily will copy the Board Gais pay scheme.

As I recall they said they saved something like €35m in software licences alone by using BGE licencing agreements.

Daith

Phoebas wrote: »

Otherwise, I'd be inclined to leave decisions about how they structure remuneration packages to the management of Irish Water.

Great but it does mean less money for water infrastructure and plugging that deficit you mentioned.

Plus when that water charge gets increased every year im sure you'll be happy with that.

Phoebas

Daith wrote: »

Great but it does mean less money for water infrastructure and plugging that deficit you mentioned.

Paying the staff anything at all means less money for water infrastructure (as you don't seem to think that the staff themselves contribute to the infrastructure).

I see bonuses as just one part of a remuneration package that includes base pay, pension contribution, bonus and other stuff like healthcare, professional membership subscriptions or whatever other perks that management think can contribute to recruiting and retaining good staff. Its all coming out of the same pot of money, so I'd tend to leave it to Irish Water management to decide how to structure it.

tayto lover

Victor wrote: »

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.

Did we not also give away our natural gas?
We must be the most generous nation in the world with our natural resources.

Daith

Phoebas wrote: »

Paying the staff anything at all means less money for water infrastructure (as you don't seem to think that the staff themselves contribute to the infrastructure).

I see bonuses as just one part of a remuneration package that includes base pay, pension contribution, bonus and other stuff like healthcare, professional membership subscriptions or whatever other perks that management think can contribute to recruiting and retaining good staff. Its all coming out of the same pot of money, so I'd tend to leave it to Irish Water management to decide how to structure it.

Retaining good staff? The CEO squandered about €100 million with the Poolbeg incinerator.

I do admire your optimism but all I see is another semi state gravy train that has nothing to do with improving water infrastructure in our country.

We shall see but im not confident but the argument is that the water charge is solely there for the infrastructure isn't accurate.

Phoebas

Daith wrote: »

Retaining good staff? The CEO squandered about €100 million with the Poolbeg incinerator.

How are the thousands of Irish Water staff who will be considered for bonus payments in any way responsible for the Poolbeg incinerator?


Are you saying that bonus schemes aren't a useful way of recruiting, motivating and retaining good staff?

Daith

Phoebas wrote: »

How are the thousands of Irish Water staff who will be considered for bonus payments in any way responsible for the Poolbeg incinerator?

Not the point. Your argument that having a bonus scheme and healthcare etc means retaining good staff isn't accurate.

Though we've come a long way from saying the water charge was there for the infrastructure and supporting conservatism to "don't worry what Irish Water are paying their staff, let Irish Water worry about that".

Phoebas wrote: »

Are you saying that bonus schemes aren't a useful way of recruiting, motivating and retaining good staff?

Not at all. It's not a guarantee that you get good staff either.

Off course whether you need to pay staff a bonus in a semi state monopoly with no competition and a guaranteed source of income from every household in the country is another thing.

Phoebas

Daith wrote: »

Not the point. Your argument that having a bonus scheme and healthcare etc means retaining good staff isn't accurate.

That's not exactly what I said, but what's not accurate about it?

I have a bonus scheme where I work and it does motivate me both to hit my targets and to stay with the company.

skywalker

skywalker wrote: »

So their using the proceeds of one unpopular stealth tax to fund the introduction another unpopular stealth tax.

I hope fine gael are wiped out at the next election. Not that it will matter to the current crop at the top of the party, who will all be retired off to Europe or a few cushy board jobs. They have nothing to offer the people of Ireland.

But the flip side is FF. We all know what happened with them. I'm not advocating FG/Labour by any means btw. Just would like to see a new political movement emerge within the country and the electorate finally change their mindset

tayto lover

Deleted User wrote: »

But the flip side is FF. We all know what happened with them. I'm not advocating FG/Labour by any means btw. Just would like to see a new political movement within the country and the electorate change their mindset

Me too.
I am fed up of the politics on offer, the corruption, nest feathering, cronyism, Golden Circle etc.
The country will be ruined entirely if we allow the status quo continue.

Daith

Phoebas wrote: »

That's not exactly what I said, but what's not accurate about it?

I have a bonus scheme where I work and it does motivate me both to hit my targets and to stay with the company.

Great but again there are plenty of companies that don't offer bonus schemes and still retain good staff. Alot of whom aren't being paid by the tax payer too.

keeponhurling

While I agree in principle that people should pay for water like mist other countries, I'm concerned that all these extra charges are making it less and less attractive to work in Ireland, relative to being unemployed.

There's a terrible brain drain, I hate to see us educating our young people to university standard and seeing them just leave.

Phoebas

Daith wrote: »

Great but again there are plenty of companies that don't offer bonus schemes and still retain good staff. Alot of whom aren't being paid by the tax payer too.

So to summarise: In some companies bonus schemes are effective and other companies get by perfectly well without them.

So tell me again, why exactly are you against a bonus scheme for Irish Water specifically - do you have some special information that tells you that a bonus scheme as part of the remuneration system in Irish Water isn't likely to be effective?

dxhound2005

Deleted User wrote: »

But the flip side is FF. We all know what happened with them. I'm not advocating FG/Labour by any means btw. Just would like to see a new political movement emerge within the country and the electorate finally change their mindset

The flip side is not FF. It is another coalition possibly involving FF. The other flip side is all the parties and independents who will abolish property tax and water charges if they get elected. There will be at least one, probably several in every constituency promising to do that so there you have your ready made new political movement.

Daith

Phoebas wrote: »

So to summarise: In some companies bonus schemes are effective and other companies get by perfectly well without them.

So tell me again, why exactly are you against a bonus scheme for Irish Water specifically - do you have some special information that tells you that a bonus scheme as part of the remuneration system in Irish Water isn't likely to be effective?

Can you tell me why a semi state body. A monopoly in Ireland with no competition. A body that will be funded and guaranteed by every household in the country needs to pay its staff a bonus?

Do you have any reason to believe that the staff in Irish Water still wouldn't do their job to the best of their ability if they weren't on a bonus scheme?

Phoebas

Daith wrote: »

Can you tell me why a semi state body. A monopoly in Ireland with no competition. A body that will be funded and guaranteed by every household in the country needs to pay its staff a bonus?

I suppose they could have privatised it but I bet more people than not would have a problem with that.
Its hard for the water infrastructure part of the business not to be a monopoly of some kind, especially in a market of this size - I don't think anyone wants to see multiple sets of pipes installed for example. But maybe over time there could be elements of competition introduced.

Daith wrote: »

Do you have any reason to believe that the staff in Irish Water still wouldn't do their job to the best of their ability if they weren't on a bonus scheme?

I take it from the question that you just don't agree with bonus schemes in general. That's fine - arguing the pros and cons of bonus schemes is a bit off topic for this thread.
Suffice to say - the management of Irish Water do see some benefits in having a bonus scheme in the running of their business.

mikhail

Filibuster wrote: »

I think we should live in a socialist utopia where the government takes care of us and provides all our services and asks for no taxes

So do I, but until we have a post-scarcity economy, I'd settle for progressive taxation being used to pay for life's little essentials.

denlaw

Nothing will ever change in this country when people just won't get off they're arses and vote...Wait till the local elections are on in the summer, the same old faces getting the same old jobs, the turn out in 2009 was just over 57% and don't the main parties just know this...

woodoo

Victor wrote: »

And water is a local service, delivered by local government. The only difference this year is that Irish Water will be imposing some standards, possibly centralising purchasing and will be managing the funding.

In 2010 water services cost about X, in 2011 water services cost about X, in 2012 water services cost about X, in 2013 water services cost about X, in 2014 water services will cost about X.

The Local Property Tax isn't the only constituent of the Local Government Fund. It also includes Motor Tax. It is topped up by government grants. http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/LocalGovernmentAdministration/LocalGovernmentFinance/

The main sources of local authority current income are:
* Commercial rates
* Local Government Fund – General-Purpose Grants
* Government grants/subsidies
* Receipts for goods and services

In 2013 local government spending was budgeted at €4,356 million. Local Property Tax yield in 2013 is estimated at €250 million.

I think the disingenuousness of the OP is proved by them failing to to even comment on the article.

They problem is they choose to lie to us. Why should we trust them.

RandomName2

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?

To what extent does it increase with volume?

No, that's a genuine question - I've never ever seen any figures quoted on the subject (biased or no) but I'm actually interested.