***ALL THINGS IRISH WATER/WATER CHARGE RELATED POST HERE***

SaveOurLyric

Banjo String wrote: »

Its not rocket science.

If you're on a 52% tax band, (I'll keep the maths simple here) you would need to earn €1000 pre tax, to pay a €480 bill from Irish Water.

How the utter fcuk can some people not see this? It used to come from income tax, now it comes from your income taxed income.

It's quite simple.

Because there is nothing to see. You are imagining what you think you are seeing.

If (I'll keep the maths simple) you were not paying €480 to Irish water from an earned €1000 pretax, but the government was paying it for you, they would still have to pay water services your €480 share. So they would have to tax you another €480.

SaveOurLyric

Fr. Ned wrote: »

I've never believed our water was free, did you?

No. So why are people getting stroppy now that they can actually see its true cost and have to pay it through a different channel, rather than just part of a cloudy state funding of services from various gross tax revenue ?

dxhound2005

Fr. Ned wrote: »

I've never believed our water was free, did you?

I never believed in the 1977 FF magic beans. Anyone with a titter of wit knew it was a scam and the pigeons have been coming home to roost ever since.

http://www.soldiersofdestiny.org/davidbeggbetrayal.htm


AHERN:—

"Abolishing Rates Was Totally Wrong"

"In retrospect, Ahern believes that the 1977 Manifesto was economic make-believe. Other economic commentators are not as kind in their analysis, claiming the manifesto led to a huge national debt that dominated economic and political life for the following decade and took a further decade to get under control.

"The car tax thing was a nonsense and abolishing rates was totally wrong. All we needed was a waiver scheme. I remember at the time there were a lot of old people—Garda widows and retired teachers—who had huge houses but no money and they were being screwed for rates. All we needed to do was bring in a good waiver scheme for the people who hadn't got the bread. Instead, we abolished rates and here we are, 20 years on, and Dublin Corporation have to do everything on a shoe-string because they can't have a local charge."

Fr. Ned

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

No. So why are people getting stroppy now that they can actually see its true cost and have to pay it through a different channel, rather than just part of a cloudy state funding of services from various gross tax revenue ?

Because now the government want you to pay in both ways.

SaveOurLyric

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Because now the government want you to pay in both ways.

I would be happy paying in ten ways. It makes no difference. At the end of the account you will still have to pay the same amount.

hju6

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

No. So why are people getting stroppy now that they can actually see its true cost and have to pay it through a different channel, rather than just part of a cloudy state funding of services from various gross tax revenue ?

Because the interest on this is the problem

http://www.financedublin.com/debtclock.php

And when LPT and water charges are not enough we will be Cyprused

Bank accounts will be dipped,

hju6

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I never believed in the 1977 FF magic beans. Anyone with a titter of wit knew it was a scam and the pigeons have been coming home to roost ever since.

http://www.soldiersofdestiny.org/davidbeggbetrayal.htm


AHERN:—

"Abolishing Rates Was Totally Wrong"

"In retrospect, Ahern believes that the 1977 Manifesto was economic make-believe. Other economic commentators are not as kind in their analysis, claiming the manifesto led to a huge national debt that dominated economic and political life for the following decade and took a further decade to get under control.

"The car tax thing was a nonsense and abolishing rates was totally wrong. All we needed was a waiver scheme. I remember at the time there were a lot of old people—Garda widows and retired teachers—who had huge houses but no money and they were being screwed for rates. All we needed to do was bring in a good waiver scheme for the people who hadn't got the bread. Instead, we abolished rates and here we are, 20 years on, and Dublin Corporation have to do everything on a shoe-string because they can't have a local charge."

He turned out great didn't he

SaveOurLyric

hju6 wrote: »

Bank accounts will be dipped,

In what ?

bladespin

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

I would be happy paying in ten ways. It makes no difference. At then end of the account you will still have to pay the same amount.

No, you're actually paying twice the amount now, your tax contribution is not being given back.

SaveOurLyric

bladespin wrote: »

No, you're actually paying twice the amount now, your tax contribution is not being given back.

My tax portion was going to something else anyway. And still is. Its still the same €480 going to Irish water whether I give it to them or the government keeps if from me and give it to them directly.

Banjo String

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

No. So why are people getting stroppy now that they can actually see its true cost and have to pay it through a different channel, rather than just part of a cloudy state funding of services from various gross tax revenue ?

So we "used" to pay via general taxation.

Has it went down any in lieu of it now being paid directly?

dxhound2005

bladespin wrote: »

No, you're actually paying twice the amount now, your tax contribution is not being given back.

That is only logical if you believe in the formula which abolished rates in 1977 and put the cost of all local authority services on to income tax. And the cost of motor/road tax on to income tax. Road tax came back, bin charges came in, property tax came in and now water charges. Only an economic illiterate would still depend on the failed forumla of 1977.

SaveOurLyric

Banjo String wrote: »

So we "used" to pay via general taxation.

Has it went down any in lieu of it now being paid directly?

Yes.

SaveOurLyric

dxhound2005 wrote: »

That is only logical if you believe in the formula which abolished rates in 1977 and put the cost of all local authority services on to income tax. And the cost of motor/road tax on to income tax. Road tax came back, bin charges came in, property tax came in and now water charges. Only an economic illiterate would still depend on the failed forumla of 1977.

Wait a moment. They will explain it simply to you.

bladespin

dxhound2005 wrote: »

That is only logical if you believe in the formula which abolished rates in 1977 and put the cost of all local authority services on to income tax. And the cost of motor/road tax on to income tax. Road tax came back, bin charges came in, property tax came in and now water charges. Only an economic illiterate would still depend on the failed forumla of 1977.

Ok, I understood our taxes had paid for our water up to this, what was paying for it then?

dxhound2005

Banjo String wrote: »

So we "used" to pay via general taxation.

Has it went down any in lieu of it now being paid directly?

Yes it was much higher in the years following 1977. Until the great tax marches changed things.

Satriale

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I never believed in the 1977 FF magic beans. Anyone with a titter of wit knew it was a scam and the pigeons have been coming home to roost ever since.

http://www.soldiersofdestiny.org/davidbeggbetrayal.htm


AHERN:—

"Abolishing Rates Was Totally Wrong"

"In retrospect, Ahern believes that the 1977 Manifesto was economic make-believe. Other economic commentators are not as kind in their analysis, claiming the manifesto led to a huge national debt that dominated economic and political life for the following decade and took a further decade to get under control.

"The car tax thing was a nonsense and abolishing rates was totally wrong. All we needed was a waiver scheme. I remember at the time there were a lot of old people—Garda widows and retired teachers—who had huge houses but no money and they were being screwed for rates. All we needed to do was bring in a good waiver scheme for the people who hadn't got the bread. Instead, we abolished rates and here we are, 20 years on, and Dublin Corporation have to do everything on a shoe-string because they can't have a local charge."

Please dont tell me you are quoting Bertie Ahene to bolster your argument. The irony of ironies!

If he told me it was a fine day i'd be bringing my umbrella!

mikom

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Only an economic illiterate would still depend on the failed forumla of 1977.

The irony.......

Banjo String

dxhound2005 wrote: »

That is only logical if you believe in the formula which abolished rates in [b1977 and put the cost of all local authority services on to income tax. And the cost of motor/road tax on to income tax. Road tax came back, bin charges came in, property tax came in and now water charges. Only an economic illiterate would still depend on the failed forumla of 1977 .

Who said

It is morally unjust and unfair to tax a person's home, and by so doing grind him into the ground. Indeed in cases it could probably be unconstitutional”
“It reminds me of a vampire tax in that it drives a stake through the heart of home ownership, through enthusiasm and initiative, and sucks the life blood of people who want to own their own home and better their position”

Only 17 years after it?

dxhound2005

Satriale wrote: »

Please dont tell me you are quoting Bertie Ahene to bolster your argument. The irony of ironies!

If he told me it was a fine day i'd be bringing my umbrella!

Do you still believe that the country was right to abolish local taxes and put the burden on to income tax? Bertie said it was wrong and yes I happen to agree with him. Would you abolish bin charges, water charge and property tax and do away with motor tax and put the whole lot on to income tax?

seamus

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

If (I'll keep the maths simple) you were not paying €480 to Irish water from an earned €1000 pretax, but the government was paying it for you, they would still have to pay water services your €480 share. So they would have to tax you another €480.

In fact they'd tax you more than €480 because of our progressive taxation system.

To use simple sums, the cost of just running water infrastructure (poorly as it has been done thus far) is €1bn from the exchequer. Which is about 1/40th of the entire income. But of course, that's not coming from the exchequer, it's borrowed money.
In order to cover this cost, the amount of income tax collected would need to be raised by 2.5%.

For a person on the 52% marginal rate of tax with an income of €100k p.a., this would require them to pay more than €1,000 extra per year in income tax if we continue to socialise water costs.

Or, at the assessed rate of water charges of €175.68p.a., they can pay €366 in their pre-tax earnings to Irish Water.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

bladespin

bladespin wrote: »

Ok, I understood our taxes had paid for our water up to this, what was paying for it then?

Little help, quite stuck on this

eeepaulo

The cost of setting up irish water and installing the meters is somewhere around 700 million.

In 9 months time irish water will take in somewhere in the region of 300 million.

Therefore will still be paying for the water system through our general taxation.

Where else is the money is coming from?

hju6

seamus wrote: »

In fact they'd tax you more than €480 because of our progressive taxation system.

To use simple sums, the cost of just running water infrastructure (poorly as it has been done thus far) is €1bn from the exchequer. Which is about 1/40th of the entire income. But of course, that's not coming from the exchequer, it's borrowed money.
In order to cover this cost, the amount of income tax collected would need to be raised by 2.5%.

For a person on the 52% marginal rate of tax with an income of €100k p.a., this would require them to pay more than €1,000 extra per year in income tax if we continue to socialise water costs.

Or, at the assessed rate of water charges of €175.68p.a., they can pay €366 in their pre-tax earnings to Irish Water.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

If your lucky enough to be in that tax bracket, otherwise the poor become poorer

seamus

bladespin wrote: »

Little help, quite stuck on this

I do believe domestic water charges were in existence up until 1977.

seamus

hju6 wrote: »

If your lucky enough to be in that tax bracket, otherwise the poor become poorer

The point was made with the 52% bracket, to be fair

The hardest pressed in this regard are those who earn just over 32k.

People on low incomes aren't affected quite so much by the taxation argument since their incomes are so lightly taxed anyway.

bladespin

seamus wrote: »

I do believe domestic water charges were in existence up until 1977.

Between 1978 and September 2014, cannot figure out how it was paid for if it wasn't free and our taxes weren't paying for it.

dxhound2005

bladespin wrote: »

Between 1978 and September 2014, cannot figure out how it was paid for if it wasn't free and our taxes weren't paying for it.

Seamus told us earlier. The money was borrowed, something like €1 billion a year in recent times. After SW, Health and Education are paid for all the taxes are used up. We have to borrow for everything else.

Fr. Ned

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Seamus told us earlier. The money was borrowed, something like €1 billion a year in recent times.

The same way this quango are going to be borrowing on the markets in years to come?

bladespin

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Seamus told us earlier. The money was borrowed, something like €1 billion a year in recent times. After SW, Health and Education are paid for all the taxes are used up. We have to borrow for everything else.

Ok but weren't our taxes paying for our borrowings, at least up to 2008-IMF etc etc