Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Goodbye Free Water Today's The Last Day

12346»

Comments

  • #252
    FullblownRose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭FullblownRose


    josip wrote: »
    As a business owner, my business has been funding the provision of water services in my local authority area since 1999.
    I'm very happy that it will now change to a fair, "user pays" system, instead of the less fair, "businesses pay for all types of users" system.

    Users already pay, Josip. This will mean households are paying twice-over.


  • #253
    josip
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,423 ✭✭✭✭josip


    FullblownRose wrote: »
    Users already pay, Josip. This will mean households are paying twice-over.

    Please explain how water users are already paying proportionately for what they consume?


  • #254
    FullblownRose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭FullblownRose


    josip wrote: »
    Please explain how water users are already paying proportionately for what they consume?

    It's something I've been meaning to do, actually. I need to ask my accountant about my U.S.C, and ask him to explain where it goes, i.e how much of it is for water.

    All I know at present is that I'm being already charged for the provision of water. I don't mind paying for water.

    As to proportionality, the method of evaluating the cost of water for the new charges is very unclear- how do they cost it? This information ought to have been provided in the application pack. You can't expect people to pay for something without giving a breakdown of the charges.


  • #255
    josip
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,423 ✭✭✭✭josip


    FullblownRose wrote: »
    It's something I've been meaning to do, actually. I need to ask my accountant about my U.S.C, and ask him to explain where it goes, i.e how much of it is for water.

    Is USC revenue ring fenced for certain purposes?
    I though it went into the "pot"?
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0006/sec0003.html
    I'm sure your accountant will know


  • #256
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    FullblownRose wrote: »
    It's something I've been meaning to do, actually. I need to ask my accountant about my U.S.C, and ask him to explain where it goes, i.e how much of it is for water.

    I'd imagine he'd love to bill you for such an inane query.

    He may invite you back to tell you what VAT receipts get spent on!


  • #257
    FullblownRose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭FullblownRose


    josip wrote: »
    Is USC revenue ring fenced for certain purposes?
    I though it went into the "pot"?
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0006/sec0003.html
    I'm sure your accountant will know

    I don't know. X amount is taken for taxes and I do not know how that money's allocated. It is common knowledge that people already pay for water. Maybe you know more about it?


  • #258
    FullblownRose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭FullblownRose


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    I'd imagine he'd love to bill you for such an inane query.

    He may invite you back to tell you what VAT receipts get spent on!

    You are very good at giving both offensive, and inane opinions yourself. My accountant is paid to deal with it, as I don't have time to worry about it-and we are on good terms, why should he mind breaking it down for me?
    Not everyone is as arrogant as you seem to be.

    As you are more knowledgable, why not give a quick summary of it yourself?


  • #259
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    FullblownRose wrote: »
    You are very good at giving both offensive, and inane opinions yourself. My accountant is paid to deal with it, as I don't have time to worry about it-and we are on good terms, why should he mind breaking it down for me?
    Not everyone is as arrogant as you seem to be.

    As you are more knowledgable, why not give a quick summary of it yourself?

    Pay me!

    Best of luck with your accountant.
    Be sure to post his USC breakdown whevever you can!


  • #260
    Not2Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 318 ✭✭Not2Good


    FullblownRose wrote: »
    It's something I've been meaning to do, actually. I need to ask my accountant about my U.S.C, and ask him to explain where it goes, i.e how much of it is for water.

    All I know at present is that I'm being already charged for the provision of water. I don't mind paying for water.

    As to proportionality, the method of evaluating the cost of water for the new charges is very unclear- how do they cost it? This information ought to have been provided in the application pack. You can't expect people to pay for something without giving a breakdown of the charges.

    My understanding is that the USC was initially created to replace the PRSI as the PRSI system was getting too complicated and the USC was meant to be a simplistic social security charge replacing PRSI (which had too many rates and prsi contribution classes). As you all know , PRSI is still alive and kicking in all its glory and cost but eventually the USC was brought in a one of the 'austerity' measures running parallel with income tax, prsi so it ended up an additional 'tax'. How it is used, it was meant to be applied to social security benefits but I understand that it goes in the general' pot' and spent by the government in many ways etc etc


  • #261
    Geuze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,039 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Not2Good wrote: »
    My understanding is that the USC was initially created to replace the PRSI as the PRSI system was getting too complicated and the USC was meant to be a simplistic social security charge replacing PRSI (which had too many rates and prsi contribution classes). As you all know , PRSI is still alive and kicking in all its glory and cost but eventually the USC was brought in a one of the 'austerity' measures running parallel with income tax, prsi so it ended up an additional 'tax'. How it is used, it was meant to be applied to social security benefits but I understand that it goes in the general' pot' and spent by the government in many ways etc etc

    USC did not replace PRSI.

    USC replaced the former health levy and income levy.

    USC is not linked to social benefits in any way, even though the S stands for social.


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    Geuze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,039 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    josip wrote: »
    Is USC revenue ring fenced for certain purposes?

    No, it's an income tax.


  • #263
    Geuze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,039 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Here is a breakdown of public spending:

    http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/gfsa/governmentfinancestatisticsapril2014/#.VDKQzvldWSo

    Expenditure TE 70,371

    Compensation of employees D1 18,423
    Use of goods and services plus taxes payable P2 + D5 + D29 8,300
    Depreciation (Consumption of fixed capital) K1 2,302
    Interest (excluding FISIM) D41 7,407
    Subsidies D3 1,495
    Social benefits D62 + D631 28,559
    Other current transfers D7 2,150
    Capital transfers D9 1,953


  • #264
    Not2Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 318 ✭✭Not2Good


    Geuze wrote: »
    USC did not replace PRSI.
    .
    That is what I said!. It was meant to replace prsi but PRSI remained!


  • #265
    Not2Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 318 ✭✭Not2Good


    Geuze wrote: »
    USC did not replace PRSI.

    USC replaced the former health levy and income levy.
    The health levy and income levy were 'strands' of prsi i.e. they were like supplements to prsi earmarked for specific area of SW expenditure.

    Its irrelevant anyway as they are all forms of tax albeit with PRSI it goes towards short term or ling term benefits (which income levy and health levy didn't).


  • #266
    Geuze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,039 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    FullblownRose wrote: »
    It is common knowledge that people already pay for water. Maybe you know more about it?

    Yes, of course, taxes + borrowings pay for the 1.2bn costs.

    The Govt collect taxes and then pay grants to the councils to run the water service.

    From 2015 on, the Govt will spend less as people will pay directly.

    So borrowings will fall.


  • #267
    Geuze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,039 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Not2Good wrote: »
    That is what I said!. It was meant to replace prsi but PRSI remained!


    I see your point.

    But it was never suggested that PRSI would be replaced by the USC.


  • #268
    Not2Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 318 ✭✭Not2Good


    Geuze wrote: »
    I see your point.

    But it was never suggested that PRSI would be replaced by the USC.

    Yes it was, initially, they have been trying to remodel and revamp and simplify the PRSI system for many years now and USC was intended to do it but instead it came in as an additional (controversial ) wide sweeping charge


Advertisement