Irish Water must stay on State balance sheet—Eurostat

LuckyLloyd

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What a ridiculous idea!

How on earth could it be important to 'force' the Government to make mistakes? Explain to me like I'm five how making our Government make bad choices* is a good idea.

*which cost us money

If I want IW as currently constituted to fail and be redrawn then I logically want to pressure the government to be forced to revisit it.

BoJack Horseman

Happyman42 wrote: »

Will FG/LAB be going to the country soon?

The Dáil term is 5 years.

So, you can to the sums on that one.

Larbre34

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think you will see this happening more and more, speeding up the tailspin to the ground.

Will FG/LAB be going to the country soon?

Hard to be sure, but one more knock, like for instance the banking inquiry collapsing or Siteserv something, something and it will no longer be up to them.

Not a good time to be a low profile Govt backbencher, damned if they do, damned if they dont.

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

If I want IW as currently constituted to fail and be redrawn then I logically want to pressure the government to be forced to revisit it.

Doesn't answer the question.

You said that protests force pressure, and that pressure forces mistakes.

The logical conclusion is that a protester might want the Government to make mistakes.

Why would you want our Government to make mistakes?

nice_guy80

€500 million knocked off the budget give away...

Enda will kick the election into 2016 now to ensure the USC reductions start appearing in people's pay packets

phater phagan

I imagine that the chances of an election being called before the statutory term is nil and zero.

LuckyLloyd

Deleted User wrote: »

Doesn't answer the question.

You said that protests force pressure, and that pressure forces mistakes.

The logical conclusion is that a protester might want the Government to make mistakes.

Why would you want our Government to make mistakes?

Because I want IW to fail in such a way that it is pulled back to the drawing board. As such, I am not interested in them making decisions that keep a fundamentally flawed ship afloat.

The ultimate mistake was the creation of IW in its current guise and we need that reversed imo (and the opinion of the protest movement). And we need to force further mistakes to see the fundamental one reversed.

You know this of course, but are looking to achieve a buzzword victory.

LuckyLloyd

phater phagan wrote: »

I imagine that the chances of an election being called before the statutory term is nil and zero.

I don't think going the full statutory term is an option. Fighting an election in the wake of the 100 year anniversary of the rising would not be helpful to FG imo and the longer a dead duck parliament sits in session the greater the risk of something unforeseen rearing its head.

FreudianSlippers

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I'll wait till confirmation from Eurostat and details on the reasoning, but if it is down to the government cutting rates and introducing the grant, they've really painted themselves into a corner on this one. Aside from it seeming to please no one, there's little prospect of them being able to abolish the grant or increase rates prior to the next election.

Same. There is little-to-no point in speculating until the decision is published. The key will be IMHO whether they reviewed the initial billing model of an allowance and payment over same; as opposed to the capped/grant system they put in place as a result of the protests.

Either way, keeping Irish Water on the books until 2017 is not good for the taxpayer - although they claim it won't have an impact on the budget this year, it's logical the government will be more cautious this year considering there will certainly be an impact next year.

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Because I want IW to fail in such a way that it is pulled back to the drawing board. As such, I am not interested in them making decisions that keep a fundamentally flawed ship afloat.

The ultimate mistake was the creation of IW in its current guise and we need that reversed imo (and the opinion of the protest movement). And we need to force further mistakes to see the fundamental one reversed.

You know this of course, but are looking to achieve a buzzword victory.

Not really. That's why I'm asking. It reads as though you're more interested in a Government failing than in it making good beneficial decisions.

What is the alternative proposal for the funding of the maintenance and development of the Water provision facilities in Ireland that you'd support?

Which proposal are you hoping the protests can force the Government to change to?

Barely There

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Fighting an election in the wake of the 100 year anniversary of the rising would not be helpful to FG imo

Nor indeed legal.

Latest date an election can be held is the 02nd April - Anniversary of 1916 rising is 23rd April.

Barely There

Barely There wrote: »

Nor indeed legal.

Latest date an election can be held is the 02nd April - Anniversary of 1916 rising is 23rd April.

Can't the Government run for an extra two years, should they wish?

Maximum term is seven years AFAIK.

Our Benevolent Leaders voluntarily limit Their reign to five years.

Barely There

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Can't the Government run for an extra two years, should they wish?

Not according to the 1992 Electoral Act.

FreudianSlippers

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Can't the Government run for an extra two years, should they wish?

Maximum term is seven years AFAIK.

Our Benevolent Leaders voluntarily limit Their reign to five years.

No, I think you're confusing the Constitutional maximum of 7 years with the legislative maximum of 5 years.

So the Constitution says it must be a maximum of 7 years, but that doesn't prohibit legislation (in this case s10 of the Electoral Act 1963 as amended) from setting a lower amount:

10.—The same Dáil shall not continue for a longer period than five years from the date of its first meeting.

tayto lover

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Irish people refusing to pay for their own water have effectively damaged their own country now. Government should respond by pulling back on any expansion in the budget which they may have to.

You can see how irresponsible such figures would be if anywhere near government. Free for alls and magic money trees don't exist.

I used to take you seriously before I read the above.
Do you think that if they follow the above path and do as you suggest and tell the people why they are doing it, they will be re-elected?

Jawgap

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No, I think you're confusing the Constitutional maximum of 7 years with the legislative maximum of 5 years.

So the Constitution says it must be a maximum of 7 years, but that doesn't prohibit legislation (in this case s10 of the Electoral Act 1963 as amended) from setting a lower amount:

It's effectively a sniff over 5 years - a Dail must dissolve within five years of its first meeting and a poll must held, between the 17th day and 25th day, following the day on which the writs for the election are issued.

The writs for the election are issued by the Clerk of the Dáil on the day the Dáil is dissolved.

So if the Dail was to run full term, it must be dissolve no later than Tuesday 9 March 2016, meaning the next general election must take place no later than Saturday 2 April 2016.

Personally, I reckon they'll go for it in early October - nice giveaway budget then we're all off to the elections!

Graham

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Irish people refusing to pay for their own water have effectively damaged their own country now. Government should respond by pulling back on any expansion in the budget which they may have to.

I agree with your first point but rather than pulling back on expansion in the budget IW should be privatised. That might even see a net contribution to the state coffers which would ideally be used to fund a one or two of the postponed infrastructure projects.

FreudianSlippers

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No, I think you're confusing the Constitutional maximum of 7 years with the legislative maximum of 5 years.

If only someone could change statutory law...

Who could do that?

NorthStars

the dark phantom wrote: »

I always knew they would mess it up, Paying for water infrastructure is one thing but paying for another messy money wasting quango just isn't on, Therefore I never signed up.

I never even got as much as a letter from them anyway.

We've had 2 bills now, both in my wife's maiden name.
Both bills went in the bin, as will any further correspondence from IW.

LuckyLloyd

Barely There wrote: »

Nor indeed legal.

Latest date an election can be held is the 02nd April - Anniversary of 1916 rising is 23rd April.

Cheers. I don't believe FG have any interest fighting this coming election so close to an evocative nationalist / equality anniversary.

LuckyLloyd

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

If only someone could change statutory law...

Who could do that?

I don't think they'd ever consider that tbf. It would be political suicide surely!

NorthStars

I read in the Irish Times that IW has to stay on the state's balance sheet until at least 2020.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/irish-water-must-stay-on-state-balance-sheet-eu-says-1.2299128

I predict that it will be on the state's books forevermore, the charges will be dropped and it will be funded from central taxation. (a central water authority being a good idea in my opinion)
What a waste of time, money and goodwill it will all have been though.

Graham

NorthStars wrote: »

I read in the Irish Times that IW has to stay on the state's balance sheet until at least 2020.

Sell it off now. Straight off the balance sheet, problem solved.

Uncle Ben

Graham wrote: »

Sell it off now. Straight off the balance sheet, problem solved.

You could sell it at a loss, like eh, Siteserv....

Uncle Ben

Dail being recalled. I guess it does matter so.

Graham

Uncle Ben wrote: »

You could sell it at a loss, like eh, Siteserv....

Looking at the future capital requirements of IW and the positive effect of a disposal on the State balance sheet you could probably give it away and we'd still be better off.

nice_guy80

Uncle Ben wrote: »

Dail being recalled. I guess it does matter so.

where did you see that?

Uncle Ben

nice_guy80 wrote: »

where did you see that?

Gavin Reilly twitter. Cannot post links sorry.

Riverireland

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

But they weren't

€175 for anyone from minimum wage to 25k
€400 for anyone on the average wage.
€540 for anyone on €50k

The January tax cuts will cost between €400m - €600m..... quite a lot.

A repeat would be reckless & garner no votes.

Whereas, cancelling the water charge wouldn't cost any more, but lock down reelection.

We have very different views on what a lot is. If they were monthly reductions then fair enough but over a year....nothing imo.

Graham

NorthStars wrote: »

You'd sell the whole water infrastructure in Ireland to private business?

Yes, especially when the clueless alternative appears to be turn back the clock a few years, give the water away and pretend like there's no requirement for a massive investment to secure the Nations water supply.

kidneyfan

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Irish people refusing to pay for their own water have effectively damaged their own country now. Government should respond by pulling back on any expansion in the budget which they may have to.

Yes that is precisely what the government should do. They should do this not out of pique but because it is prudent.

Niemoj

In 1997 motor tax/VRT and VAT were increased by I believe 2 and 5 per cent respectively to cover water charges.

Why pay for something twice?

Don't pay, they can't do anything anyway, they'll soon be gone. Yet another farce/waste of money by our government.

kidneyfan

Jawgap wrote: »

Either IW is retained in state ownership and becomes another bloated, inefficient state service or it's placed at arms length and made stand on it's own two feet.

or it's privatised with profit guarantees.
Or it becomes an efficient and effective state service.
Or it becomes a public private partnership.
Or it is run on a cooperative basis.
Or it is privatised on a fee for service basis.

etc.
etc.

Graham

Niemoj wrote: »

In 1997 motor tax/VRT and VAT were increased by I believe 2 and 5 per cent respectively to cover water charges.

Why pay for something twice?

Don't pay, they can't do anything anyway, they'll soon be gone. Yet another farce/waste of money by our government.

Oh that old chestnut again.

That money has long been diverted somewhere else, as is often the case with a nations revenue. Indirectly back to the population. If that hadn't been the case we'd have a properly functioning/maintained water supply that didn't require colossal investment.

ancapailldorcha

Please bear in mind that a higher standard of discussion is required here than in the Café. There are a fair few posts which fall below this standard.

FreudianSlippers

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

If only someone could change statutory law...

Who could do that?

You have quite the optimistic view of our legislative system and its efficiency.

NorthStars

Can anyone clarify this for me?
If IW now remains on the government balance sheet and there is a massive boycott of the bills (say around 50% pay up if they're lucky), will the massive loans, plus interest (said to be around 4.5% while the NTMA can borrow at way lower rates) taken out by IW already have to be paid back through general taxation?
Will the massive subvention from our LGF continue unabated?

IW seems doomed to failure from this moment on as it cannot survive on it's own.

FreudianSlippers

Niemoj wrote: »

In 1997 motor tax/VRT and VAT were increased by I believe 2 and 5 per cent respectively to cover water charges.

Why pay for something twice?

Don't pay, they can't do anything anyway, they'll soon be gone. Yet another farce/waste of money by our government.

I'm guessing you don't know that 5% of motor tax is not €1.2bn?

BoJack Horseman

Niemoj wrote: »

That's a definite misuse of funds then.

Tell it to FF then
Public expenditure exploded since then.
Nothing is ringfenced.

Niemoj

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm guessing you don't know that 5% of motor tax is not €1.2bn?

This article might be of interest to you, funds from motor tax is definitely NOT what should be used to privatise our water!

http://www.thejournal.ie/how-much-will-it-cost-to-set-up-irish-water-1921250-Feb2015/

Jawgap

Uncle Ben wrote: »

Gavin Reilly twitter. Cannot post links sorry.

Looking at his feed now and I can't see where Gavin Reilly is saying the Dail is to be recalled.

He's reporting on calls for the Dail and Seanad to be recalled, but there doesn't seem to be any move in that direction.

As a general observation, I'm not sure why they would even want to recall either house of the Oireachtas - it's not exactly an urgent topic requiring legislation to be passed?

Graham

Niemoj wrote: »

This article might be of interest to you, funds from motor tax is definitely NOT what should be used to privatise our water!

http://www.thejournal.ie/how-much-will-it-cost-to-set-up-irish-water-1921250-Feb2015/

What are you suggesting then. As far as I can see our choices as a Country to secure our water supply appear are:

1) Consumers pay Irish Water for water provision based on usage.
2) Increase general taxation to pay for water.
3) Cut public services to pay for water.
4) Consumers pay a private utility company for water provision based on usage.

When considering those options, consider also that we need to incentivise water conservation.

BoJack Horseman

Niemoj wrote: »

This article might be of interest to you, funds from motor tax is definitely NOT what should be used to privatise our water!

This again.

Motor tax primarily is paid to LA's, their biggest expenditure is water/sewage.

Motor tax has always been used to pay for water/sewage.

And the only party to advocate the privatisation of IW changed their mind.

NorthStars

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

This again.

Motor tax primarily is paid to LA's, their biggest expenditure is water/sewage.

Motor tax has always been used to pay for water/sewage.

And the only party to advocate the privatisation of IW changed their mind.

Motor tax and LPT is paid into the LGF.
The LGF now subvents IW to the tune of around €500 million pa.
So far IW has taken in around €30 million in domestic water rates if it's to be believed.
Who's paying for IW?

BoJack Horseman

NorthStars wrote: »

Who's paying for IW?

The same way its been paid the last few decades.

NorthStars

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The same way its been paid the last few decades.

So, the taxpayer is and has been paying all along.
Correct?
Now, the head of Eriva, IW's parent company claimed at the weekend that water infrastructure and provision will require around €600 million pa for the foreseeable future.
FG and FF, in office reduced the amount spent on water from circa €1.2 billion in 2008 to circa €375 million in 2013.
At the end of the day, if IW needs €600 million pa, it will get it and whether it's from direct charges, subvention from the LGF or from general taxation....we pay for our water.

Graham

NorthStars wrote: »

So, the taxpayer is and has been paying all along.

Nowhere near enough for the level of investment and maintenance required.

FreudianSlippers

Niemoj wrote: »

This article might be of interest to you, funds from motor tax is definitely NOT what should be used to privatise our water!

http://www.thejournal.ie/how-much-will-it-cost-to-set-up-irish-water-1921250-Feb2015/

I take it you didn't read that article which clearly states:

The semi-state body received a subvention of €439 million in 2014 and is expected to receive €399 million and €479 million in 2015 and 2016 respectively.

Now I'm not mathematician, but €479m is a hell of a lot less than €1.2bn in my estimates.

FreudianSlippers

Jawgap wrote: »

Looking at his feed now and I can't see where Gavin Reilly is saying the Dail is to be recalled.

He's reporting on calls for the Dail and Seanad to be recalled, but there doesn't seem to be any move in that direction.

As a general observation, I'm not sure why they would even want to recall either house of the Oireachtas - it's not exactly an urgent topic requiring legislation to be passed?

+1 I checked and found nothing of the sort.

NorthStars wrote: »

Motor tax and LPT is paid into the LGF.
The LGF now subvents IW to the tune of around €500 million pa.
So far IW has taken in around €30 million in domestic water rates if it's to be believed.
Who's paying for IW?

You're misunderstanding - that estimated €479m is the 5% of motor tax receipts which is legislatively put aside to contribute to water taxes.

FreudianSlippers

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

are people who say "why pay twice" idiots?

Because we don't pay twice. It's like saying we shouldn't pay income tax because we pay VAT or we shouldn't pay motor tax because we pay tax on fuel.