No refund for families who have paid water charges

Water John

You had me confused for a small while Jimmy.
Politics is the art of the possible. Whatever gets the deal done, within limits would be my philosophy. Lets adjust other taxes to create the space for water charges.
Once its up and running and the water utility is all grown up it makes its own case to the people for a revenue increase.

Nomis21

cml387 wrote: »

I've paid water charges but will not be paying the next bill (Shane Ross reckons I'd "be a fool" to pay it).

God help any government attempting to bring in a "broadcasting charge " for example.

FG did a "Quite Forget" on the broadcasting charge because of all the trouble over the Water.

The broadcasting charge would have been even more unfair as it is to pay for RTE which a large percentage of people without TV's would not watch/listen to it.

seamus

The broadcasting charge will go in without a whimper if they do it correctly.

That is, change the TV licence to the broadcasting charge, same price, same method of obtaining one. Six months later you cross check it against the LPT database and send out a notification to everyone who hasn't paid.

That way, the 82% of households which currently pay the TV licence anyway will be unaffected, it's only the other 18% who will have to pay up. There's not enough in that 18% to get any kind of critical mass for protests.

However, if they try to introduce a new process, a higher price, etc, then you may have trouble brewing.

Suryavarman

xz wrote: »

So 40% of us are scroungers ? or are 40% of us just brave enough to say NO, I don't mind paying for a water infrastructure, but I'm not paying IW for it.

There's nothing brave about not paying your way in life.

Arkady wrote: »

Or if you want to put it truthfully instead : People won't pay twice for a pint or twice for water, especially to pay off some private billionaires private debts somewhere, so they can stay billionaires.

People aren't being asked to pay twice for water. They're being asked to pay once through water charges even though the amount they'll pay doesn't even fully cover the cost of water. People are basically being asked to half pay for water.

Bruthal

seamus wrote: »

The broadcasting charge will go in without a whimper if they do it correctly.

That is, change the TV licence to the broadcasting charge, same price, same method of obtaining one. Six months later you cross check it against the LPT database and send out a notification to everyone who hasn't paid.

That way, the 82% of households which currently pay the TV licence anyway will be unaffected, it's only the other 18% who will have to pay up. There's not enough in that 18% to get any kind of critical mass for protests.

However, if they try to introduce a new process, a higher price, etc, then you may have trouble brewing.

In reality, an extra property tax

BoatMad

gladrags wrote: »

Water does fall freely from the sky.

Is it supposed to be any other way?

As for money from trees,tell that to the Irish taxpayers,who will pay back billions,for bank debts.

Not to mention paying the crooks hundreds of billions,for their wreckless destruction of their homes via useless mortgages.

Irish people will never actually pay back the bank debts

Bruthal

Suryavarman wrote: »

.People aren't being asked to pay twice for water

They are really, since they have been paying for it anyway.
USC, motor taxes etc, where is all that going?

Introduced the USC, then tell people they want everything for free.

BoatMad

They are really, since they have been paying for it anyway.
USC, motor taxes etc, where is all that going?

The state of the water infrastructure is clearly the result that the Irish people have NOT been paying for it.

As for USC, motor taxes, You understand how the states pays for health , education , etc

I find it bizarre that the people that are arguing against water charges are equally screaming for more public services , yet they will not play any more tax for it .

Its simply an entitlement culture that all, nothing else, what is despicable, is the cynical politicians that have hitched their wagons to this entitlement culture and are promising the suns moon and stars , while all the same time avoiding being in Government

seamus

Bruthal wrote: »

They are really, since they have been paying for it anyway.
USC, motor taxes etc, where is all that going?

You're right. The state does nothing but provide water. All of the tax we pay is used to provide water.

Bruthal

BoatMad wrote: »

The state of the water infrastructure is clearly the result that the Irish people have NOT been paying for it.

Yes. The infrastructure appeared itself I suppose. But how ever it got there, it was more likely incompetence than lack of money. They were able to install water meters quick enough when required.

As for USC, motor taxes, You understand how the states pays for health , education , etc

You understand they are 2 examples of many taxes. And where all the extra money taken off everyone went. And how in sure you have someone in mind to blame for the state the country got into. I guess it's not either your fault, or the fault of bad water pipes.

I find it bizarre that the people that are arguing against water charges are equally screaming for more public services , yet they will not play any more tax for it .

Yet, here we all are, paying more taxes. How many more fo you want?

Its simply an entitlement culture that all

I'm sure you feel entitled to something, sometime. I guess if the broadcast charge comes in, you will be straight in with the auto reply, saying people think they are entitled to live in a house without paying that new charge.

With government ministers great pension entitlements etc, it starts at the top, this entitlement thing you and other posters go on.about.

BoatMad

Bruthal wrote: »

Yes. The infrastructure appeared itself I suppose. But how ever it got there, it was more likely incompetence than lack of money. They were able to install water meters quick enough when required.

Incompetence is a easy charge to throw around, because even the most capable can be called "incompetent" when they dont do what you "want".

I know people in local Authorites that were responsible for water infrastructure, they were very "competent ", what they would tell you to a man and women, was that with the removal of Rates, funding of water infrastructure fell and never recovered

You understand they are 2 examples of many taxes. And where all the extra money taken off everyone went. And how in sure you have someone in mind to blame for the state the country got into. I guess it's not either your fault, or the fault of bad water pipes.

We are still a relatively low tax economy compared to many countries, yet we demand top notch services, you cant have both .

Yet, here we all are, paying more taxes. How many more fo you want?

all we are doing is making up for the loss of stamp duty actually

I'm sure you feel entitled to something, sometime. I guess if the broadcast charge comes in, you will be straight in with the auto reply, saying people think they are entitled to live in a house without paying that new charge.

I dont agree with the broadcast charge, because I think the concept in the internet age of a tax payer funded TV station " to be nonsense, in the same vein as I thought having a " national " airline was also nonsense

Bruthal

seamus wrote: »

You're right. The state does nothing but provide water. All of the tax we pay is used to provide water.

And people in houses have nothing to spend their money on, but more and more tax.

BoatMad

Bruthal wrote: »

And people in houses have nothing to spend their money on, but more and more tax.

If they stopped " asking for free stuff" , they could play less tax

Suryavarman

Bruthal wrote: »

They are really, since they have been paying for it anyway.
USC, motor taxes etc, where is all that going?

Introduced the USC, then tell people they want everything for free.

Bruthal wrote: »

Yes. The infrastructure appeared itself I suppose. But how ever it got there, it was more likely incompetence than lack of money. They were able to install water meters quick enough when required.


You understand they are 2 examples of many taxes. And where all the extra money taken off everyone went. And how in sure you have someone in mind to blame for the state the country got into. I guess it's not either your fault, or the fault of bad water pipes.


Yet, here we all are, paying more taxes. How many more fo you want?


I'm sure you feel entitled to something, sometime. I guess if the broadcast charge comes in, you will be straight in with the auto reply, saying people think they are entitled to live in a house without paying that new charge.

With government ministers great pension entitlements etc, it starts at the top, this entitlement thing you and other posters go on.about.

The Government is running a deficit and it must make up for the shortfall either through spending cuts or additional revenue. The Government has elected to raise additional revenue by introducing water charges. This money can then be allocated specifically for the water infrastructure.

This is a much better system than the previous one where funding came from a number of different taxes and nothing was ever done about the sorry state of the water infrastructure.

Bruthal

Suryavarman wrote: »

The Government is running a deficit....

The Government has elected to raise additional revenue by introducing water charges.

They have done that a few times now. Maybe some peoples limits are different than others. Boards seems to have a few limitless ones for extra taxes. There are a few that like that phrase "sense of entitlement". I wonder how many indulged in the ssia scheme, and not a complaint about lack of money put into the water infrastructure from them then?

BoatMad

Bruthal wrote: »

They have done that a few times now. Maybe some peoples limits are different than others. Boards seems to have a few limitless ones for extra taxes. There are a few that like that phrase "sense of entitlement". I wonder how many indulged in the ssia scheme, and not a complaint about lack of money put into the water infrastructure from them then?

Charlie McCreevy , was a much maligned in recent years , minister for Finance, but in fact in my view he was one of the better ones.

He argued in the boom times, when Ireland was generating huge tax receipts and was running considerable current budget surpluses, that FF and the people, were likely to engage in an orgy of spending, He created two means of soaking up that money, the National pension Reserve and the SSIA. Both were extremely useful for the task and We would've had to borrow a considerable additional amount of money to fund the pillar banks where it not for the NPR.

Of course history show us that Charlie moved on as he was too conservative for Bertie, and the spend without end began and here we are now.......

Suryavarman

Bruthal wrote: »

They have done that a few times now. Maybe some peoples limits are different than others. Boards seems to have a few limitless ones for extra taxes. There are a few that like that phrase "sense of entitlement". I wonder how many indulged in the ssia scheme, and not a complaint about lack of money put into the water infrastructure from them then?

What spending cuts are you advocating to reduce the deficit since you are clearly against additional revenue?

Bruthal

BoatMad wrote: »

Incompetence is a easy charge to throw around, because even the most capable can be called "incompetent" when they dont do what you "want".

I know people in local Authorites that were responsible for water infrastructure, they were very "competent ", what they would tell you to a man and women, was that with the removal of Rates, funding of water infrastructure fell and never recovered

When an army makes a mess of a task, its likely the generals that were the problem, not the soldiers.

BoatMad wrote: »

Charlie McCreevy , was a much maligned in recent years , minister for Finance, but in fact in my view he was one of the better ones.

He argued in the boom times, when Ireland was generating huge tax receipts and was running considerable current budget surpluses, that FF and the people, were likely to engage in an orgy of spending, He created two means of soaking up that money, the National pension Reserve and the SSIA. Both were extremely useful for the task and We would've had to borrow a considerable additional amount of money to fund the pillar banks where it not for the NPR.

Im sure the "sense of entitlement" posters I mention, collected their entitlement all the same, without much thought of any possible benefits beyond their own.

and the spend without end began and here we are now.......

Yes, here we are.

Bruthal

Suryavarman wrote: »

What spending cuts are you advocating to reduce the deficit since you are clearly against additional revenue?

I think most are paying plenty of additional revenue over the last few years. Did you not notice?

Do you believe the deficit is increasing there where you are?

BoatMad

Bruthal wrote: »

I think most are paying plenty of additional revenue over the last few years. Did you not notice?

Do you believe the deficit is increasing there where you are?

correct, no futher increases in tax or charges over that envisaged by the last Gov are necessary

Zubeneschamali

BoatMad wrote: »

Charlie McCreevy , was a much maligned in recent years , minister for Finance, but in fact in my view he was one of the better ones.

He argued in the boom times, when Ireland was generating huge tax receipts and was running considerable current budget surpluses, that FF and the people, were likely to engage in an orgy of spending

This is ridiculously far from reality. Charlie famously said he would spend it when he had it, he slashed taxes and Government spending shot up by 50% in 3 years!

BoatMad

Bruthal wrote: »

When an army makes a mess of a task, its likely the generals that were the problem, not the soldiers.

Thats a convenient Shibboleth, the reality as any reading of war history shows, is its the plan, the army, the leaders, the terrority, the opponents and so fourth that actually causes the mess. rarely is any one factor the case.

Im sure the "sense of entitlement" posters I mention, collected their entitlement all the same, without much thought of any possible benefits beyond their own.

Given 75% of it was their own money I dont see why not. It was actually a good thing for the country at the time as McCreevey was trying to slow the boom, by encouraging savings

BoatMad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is ridiculously far from reality. Charlie famously said he would spend it when he had it, he slashed taxes and Government spending shot up by 50% in 3 years!

Yes but I listened to his Dail speeches, he outlined the reason for both the NPR and SSIA and both were in essence to take " money off the table ". Spending shot up still of course. because he was FF.

Water John

Claire Byrne live tonight on water charges.

Bruthal

BoatMad wrote: »

Thats a convenient Shibboleth, the reality as any reading of war history shows, is its the plan, the army, the leaders, the terrority, the opponents and so fourth that actually causes the mess. rarely is any one factor the case.

The army is the local authority personnel. The generals are those running it. No mention of wars was made. You believe it was well run during the time charlie was struggling to think of ways to spend his surplus obviously.

Given 75% of it was their own money I dont see why not.

Yes, you were entitled to, i guess...

Bruthal

BoatMad wrote: »

correct, no futher increases in tax or charges over that envisaged by the last Gov are necessary

Is the deficit increasing?

BoatMad

Bruthal wrote: »

Is the deficit increasing?

No, the tax raised , can either be banked in the way of paying down loans, or released ( frugally ) in expansing a limited number of public services to the very needy.

Mostly it should be banked for the rainy days coming in my opinion

BoatMad

Bruthal wrote: »

The army is the local authority personnel. The generals are those running it. No mention of wars was made. You believe it was well run during the time charlie was struggling to think of ways to spend his surplus obviously.

No, he was far from perfect , but he was actually a very competent minister and a great man for cutting through the civil service

the trouble was the men in the trenches in FF are prone to " give-aways "

The fact is if service failures were just a function of leaders , then changing them would solve things, yet despite multiple changes of leaders , with visions from across the left to the right , things like Health and Water and any number of other things are not fixed.

Therefore , you can conclude that theres more to it then just bad leaders or blaming them.

Bruthal

BoatMad wrote: »

Mostly it should be banked for the rainy days coming in my opinion

From the deficit, to rainy days now.

Bruthal

BoatMad wrote: »

No, he was far from perfect , but he was actually a very competent minister and a great man for cutting through the civil service

the trouble was the men in the trenches in FF are prone to " give-aways "

The men in the trenches are the ones with shovels, not the ones in suits commanding them.

BoatMad

Bruthal wrote: »

The men in the trenches are the ones with shovels, not the ones in suits commanding them.

everyone is a leader at some level. often leaders in reality have little power too.

Its convenient to blame leaders , history and the public loves a scapegoat, in the same way that its madness to think that John Tierney was the problem in IW, or that his pension was the cause of our woes.

The reality is different , as I said if changing leaders was all that was needed, Ireland would be a workers paradise by now.

BoatMad

Bruthal wrote: »

From the deficit, to rainy days now.

yes, we are reducing our current deficit, its well within EU requirements, but the world outlook is far from stable or expansionary. We would be wise to either pay down certain debt or in my case I would suggest investment in growth generating aspects of the economy, mainly infrastructure. ( which is essentially banking for the future)

I would be very slow to expand public services to soak up the tax overtake, much of the tax take excess is corporate tax, VAT and certain consumption taxes, that are very difficult to rely on

Bruthal

BoatMad wrote: »

everyone is a leader at some level. often leaders in reality have little power too.

Its convenient to blame leaders , history and the public loves a scapegoat, in the same way that its madness to think that John Tierney was the problem in IW, or that his pension was the cause of our woes.

The reality is different , as I said if changing leaders was all that was needed, Ireland would be a workers paradise by now.

Im talking more about the government(s) than an individual.

Tierneys pension will be no more to blame for water problems than if an individual doesnt pay their water charges.

BoatMad

Im talking more about the government(s) than an individual.

Governments are made up of quite ordinary people , taking decisions often with little room for maneouver

Suryavarman

Bruthal wrote: »

I think most are paying plenty of additional revenue over the last few years. Did you not notice?

Do you believe the deficit is increasing there where you are?

If you get rid of water charges then the deficit is going to increase. So I'll repeat myself. What spending cuts do you advocate to reduce the deficit considering you are against additional revenue?

BoatMad

Suryavarman wrote: »

If you get rid of water charges then the deficit is going to increase. So I'll repeat myself. What spending cuts do you advocate to reduce the deficit considering you are against additional revenue?

The state tax take is sufficient on current tax receipts and I would include a modicum of water charges in that , and more then capable of meetings its spending needs, There is " fiscal space"

the property tax is not a huge contributor and will slowly rise over the coming decade as well.

There is some small scope of minor increases in public spending and certain selected targeted tax cuts and removing some anomalies , but again all done in a minor way

I see no reason for any additional taxes at present, the tax base is considerably widely then under the previous FF administration

The best Gov at the moment is paradoxically no Gov, perhaps the electorate is prescient

Suryavarman

BoatMad wrote: »

The state tax take is sufficient on current tax receipts and I would include a modicum of water charges in that , and more then capable of meetings its spending needs, There is " fiscal space"

the property tax is not a huge contributor and will slowly rise over the coming decade as well.

There is some small scope of minor increases in public spending and certain selected targeted tax cuts and removing some anomalies , but again all done in a minor way

I see no reason for any additional taxes at present, the tax base is considerably widely then under the previous FF administration

The best Gov at the moment is paradoxically no Gov, perhaps the electorate is prescient

If you reduce revenue then you will need to make up the shortfall from somewhere else. It doesn't matter whether you have fiscal space or not. If you get rid of water charges you suddenly have less fiscal space.

For the budget balance to stay in the same position as it is now you have to make spending cuts or raise additional revenue if you want to get rid of water charges. The previous poster is against raising any more revenue so that means spending cuts would have to be made.

BoatMad

Suryavarman wrote: »

If you reduce revenue then you will need to make up the shortfall from somewhere else. It doesn't matter whether you have fiscal space or not. If you get rid of water charges you suddenly have less fiscal space.

For the budget balance to stay in the same position as it is now you have to make spending cuts or raise additional revenue if you want to get rid of water charges. The previous poster is against raising any more revenue so that means spending cuts would have to be made.

The state if it wished, absorb water charges without having to raise taxes based on the current exchequer tax take.

what are you trying to say, your point is not correct, removing water charges might result in delaying certain increases in public spending ( or panned tax changes ) , they would not cause a reduction in existing services

For the budget balance to stay in the same position as it is now

balance percentages are not constant today we are accelerating in our tax revenue , hence balances are reducing faster then planned ( Hence the fiscal space argument)

Bruthal

Suryavarman wrote: »

If you get rid of water charges then the deficit is going to increase.

Not really, no.

So I'll repeat myself. What spending cuts do you advocate to reduce the deficit considering you are against additional revenue?

And I will repeat myself. We have had a series of additional revenue. Obviously you didnt notice. And the deficit is decreasing.

Obviously you are open to paying all your spare money in tax until the deficit is gone.

Bruthal

BoatMad wrote: »

Governments are made up of quite ordinary people , taking decisions often with little room for maneouver

With a far from ordinary "sense of entitlement"

BoatMad

Bruthal wrote: »

With a far from ordinary "sense of entitlement"

All governing can come across as " entitlement", anyone who has ever " led" anything , knows that leadership provides privilege as well as responsibility. There is always some who will criticise any leader and bandy about " sense of entitlement ".

its a fine sound bite but it applies to anyone in a position of leadership , whether it has any semblance of truth or not.

if the left in this country used less " sound bites " and hold overs from various class warfare college meetings, we might make more progress, as it is all we hear are soundbites, and broad shouts of "corruption , cronyism" etc

its getting boring

Suryavarman

BoatMad wrote: »

The state if it wished, absorb water charges without having to raise taxes based on the current exchequer tax take.

what are you trying to say, your point is not correct, removing water charges might result in delaying certain increases in public spending ( or panned tax changes ) , they would not cause a reduction in existing services

So you're saying that the revenues the state raises make no difference to the budget balance? Can we just abolish all taxes then? Since as you've pointed the revenues we raise make no difference to the level of services the Government provides.

balance percentages are not constant today we are accelerating in our tax revenue , hence balances are reducing faster then planned ( Hence the fiscal space argument)

Hence my argument that if we eliminate a revenue stream we end up with less fiscal space.

Bruthal wrote: »

Not really, no.

Are you in favour of eliminating the income tax, VAT and other sources of revenue then seen as eliminating sources of revenue doesn't increase the deficit?

And I will repeat myself. We have had a series of additional revenue. Obviously you didnt notice. And the deficit is decreasing.

Obviously you are open to paying all your spare money in tax until the deficit is gone.

I'm in favour of eliminating the deficit through spending cuts and increased revenues. You're clearly not in favour of anything apart from complaining about the way the Government does things. Or maybe if you were Taoiseach we suddenly wouldn't have to raise revenue to pay for Government spending.

BoatMad

Suryavarman wrote: »

So you're saying that the revenues the state raises make no difference to the budget balance? Can we just abolish all taxes then? Since as you've pointed the revenues we raise make no difference to the level of services the Government provides.

i really think you are being deliberately dense. The state runs a current budget deficit as allowed by Eurozone fiscal rules. There is no advantage to " balancing the budget" in a era when you need to spend " some " money after the last 5 years . we need a mildly expansionary fiscal position to " keep the recovery going:"

I merely said that it if wanted current tax take could moire then absorb water charges, as it is the current revenue take from the public by IW, is only a fraction iof what IW is. in essence water is being paid for by existing taxes

with an increasing fiscal space, that means no additional ( note additional ) taxes are needed to " carry " IW.

Hence my argument that if we eliminate a revenue stream we end up with less fiscal space.

only if the total tax take is static , at present it is growing as a result of additional taxes added over the last few years

Are you in favour of eliminating the income tax, VAT and other sources of revenue then seen as eliminating sources of revenue doesn't increase the deficit?

you are engaging in a reducto ab absurdum debating practice - stop that

I'm in favour of eliminating the deficit through spending cuts and increased revenues. You're clearly not in favour of anything apart from complaining about the way the Government does things. Or maybe if you were Taoiseach we suddenly wouldn't have to raise revenue to pay for Government spending.

It would not be a good thing in the era of cheap money to eliminate the budget deficit and there is no need to do so. The state has no issues with the availability of credit while it remains inside the euro and therefore it does have som degree of latitude

Bruthal

Suryavarman wrote: »

Are you in favour of eliminating the income tax, VAT and other sources of revenue then seen as eliminating sources of revenue doesn't increase the deficit?

The deficit is decreasing, and as said, your point is absurd. Work the rest out for yourself.

I'm in favour of eliminating the deficit through spending cuts and increased revenues. You're clearly not in favour of anything apart from complaining about the way the Government does things.

I only see you complaining that we dont have enough taxes.

Or maybe if you were Taoiseach we suddenly wouldn't have to raise revenue to pay for Government spending.

If you were, the deficit would be gone by the weekend.

Bruthal

BoatMad wrote: »

its getting boring

Sorry about that. But you choose to read/post.

Good luck anyway.

BoatMad

Bruthal wrote: »

Sorry about that. But you choose to read/post.

Good luck anyway.

no the lefts whinging is getting boring, boards is fine

Bruthal

BoatMad wrote: »

no the lefts whinging is getting boring, boards is fine

My bad, I only seen the last bit there. Anyway, have a good evening.

Suryavarman

BoatMad wrote: »

i really think you are being deliberately dense. The state runs a current budget deficit as allowed by Eurozone fiscal rules. There is no advantage to " balancing the budget" in a era when you need to spend " some " money after the last 5 years . we need a mildly expansionary fiscal position to " keep the recovery going:"

I merely said that it if wanted current tax take could moire then absorb water charges, as it is the current revenue take from the public by IW, is only a fraction iof what IW is. in essence water is being paid for by existing taxes

with an increasing fiscal space, that means no additional ( note additional ) taxes are needed to " carry " IW.

The fact that we have a debt of 100% of GDP suggests that there would be some advantage to running a surplus. Reducing the debt burden would boost economic growth.

The economy is growing rapidly. We don't need an expansionary fiscal policy to keep it going. Within reason the economy will continue expanding regardless of fiscal policy.

To give us the same amount of fiscal space we need to raise additional revenue to offset the elimination of another source of revenue or we need to reduce spending whether it be existing or planned.

only if the total tax take is static , at present it is growing as a result of additional taxes added over the last few years

By definition if you make an expenditure or revenue change then the size of the fiscal space will change. If you eliminate a source of revenue then the fiscal space will be smaller then it otherwise would have been.

you are engaging in a reducto ab absurdum debating practice - stop that

I'm genuinely puzzled by your arguments. How can one eliminate a source of revenue without affecting the budget balance?

It would not be a good thing in the era of cheap money to eliminate the budget deficit and there is no need to do so. The state has no issues with the availability of credit while it remains inside the euro and therefore it does have som degree of latitude

So we should increase the size of the deficit then? Should we increase the debt burden beyond 100% of GDP? Should we continue to pile on debt until credit conditions aren't as favourable and we have little to no wiggle room?

Bruthal wrote: »

The deficit is decreasing, and as said, your point is absurd. Work the rest out for yourself.

And the deficit would increase if we eliminated water charges. What would you do to offset the reduced revenue?

I only see you complaining that we dont have enough taxes.

I'm complaining about eliminating a source of revenue and not making up for it somehow. I'm perfectly happy to eliminate a source of revenue if it is offset entirely by spending cuts negating the need for additional revenue. What spending cuts do you propose to negate the need for additional revenue?

If you were, the deficit would be gone by the weekend.

I could if you gave me a little help identifying spending cuts. Could you give me an example of any spending cuts I could implement if I were Taoiseach?

Bruthal

Suryavarman wrote: »

And the deficit would increase if we eliminated water charges. What would you do to offset the reduced revenue?

Start using the well.

BoatMad

Suryavarman wrote: »

The fact that we have a debt of 100% of GDP suggests that there would be some advantage to running a surplus. Reducing the debt burden would boost economic growth.

reducing debt actually reduces economic activity , there is no particular monetary advantage is reducing the "capital", once we can service the interest in a low interest rate environment, it would deb better to use the capital elsewhere

paying down debt removes government expediture from the economy, not a goo thing at present , Governments budgets bear no relation to housewives ones

The economy is growing rapidly. We don't need an expansionary fiscal policy to keep it going. Within reason the economy will continue expanding regardless of fiscal policy

.


3% or so is not rapid, its a fragile recovery , it needs to be cemented in. major changes in fiscal policy could cause shocks that cause it to falter.

To give us the same amount of fiscal space we need to raise additional revenue to offset the elimination of another source of revenue or we need to reduce spending whether it be existing or planned.

dude, if tax revenues are increasing , then the fiscal space is increasing, even adding back lost revenue from IW, would have little impact. ( IW is only generating about 10% of its funding at present from charges anyway )

all that happens is the rate of fiscal rate growth is slowed a little by the financial impact of IW. but its not reduced

By definition if you make an expenditure or revenue change then the size of the fiscal space will change. If you eliminate a source of revenue then the fiscal space will be smaller then it otherwise would have been.

yes but in fact the fiscal space is sufficiently large without or without water charge revenue so that it doesnt make a lot of difference

I'm genuinely puzzled by your arguments. How can one eliminate a source of revenue without affecting the budget balance?

your mixing up current and capital, interest and principle .Governments have in reality no need to pay down debt, they just need to be able to " service " it. remember they create money in a flat currency

So we should increase the size of the deficit then? Should we increase the debt burden beyond 100% of GDP? Should we continue to pile on debt until credit conditions aren't as favourable and we have little to no wiggle room?

The absolute size of ones debt is of little concern, ( the USAs is mammoth ), the markets value Irish euro bonds, by evaluating the debt to GDP ratio as does the Eurozone. AT present with a growing GDP , rising tax revenues , we are capable of accelerating that reduction of the principle , if we wanted to , which we dont .

Hence we are not piling on debt at present , with or without iW charges

And the deficit would increase if we eliminated water charges. What would you do to offset the reduced revenue?

The increase is more then offset by the growth in fiscal space, as a result of tax revenue growth and GDP increases

I'm complaining about eliminating a source of revenue and not making up for it somehow. I'm perfectly happy to eliminate a source of revenue if it is offset entirely by spending cuts negating the need for additional revenue. What spending cuts do you propose to negate the need for additional revenue?

where we in a falling or static tax revenue case, you argument would have validity, at present it has none.

I could if you gave me a little help identifying spending cuts. Could you give me an example of any spending cuts I could implement if I were Taoiseach?

you are badgering the witness, councillor