Gilmore supports Water Charges!!

paulp

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
7,248
Surely this shows that Gimore and Labour are not just "sitting on the fence" as FF are accusing them of in relation to all policies and austerity measures!
yes, it's good to see some clarity on some issues finally.

He is also clearly against cuts in social welfare rates and children's allowance and is against property tax.

Also, he is against hitting middle income ireland and won't raise taxes for middle earners.

It will be interesting to see fully costed pre-budget document, as I'm finding it extremely difficult to see how they are going to close the gap.
 


tenderloins1

Active member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
211
Twitter
@electionlit
What is the annual cost for group water schemes or the like that operate down the country?
Are they already not paying for water?

I also think that if the proposed fee were a flat rate then the instinct of "I paid for it so I'm going to get my value" may come in and people will be using more water. So it ending up counter productive as a water saving exercise.
Thats why (if brought in) it has to be metered with decent allowances for each member of the household (messy I know) before you have to pay any charges at all.

And just for the memories A 1994 Gilmore Anti Water Tax Leaflet .
 

CarnivalOfAction

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
16,393
According to today's Irish Times Eamon Gilmore favours Water Charges!!

He's a long way from his old days of fighting elections on the slogan of "NO SERVICE CHARGES"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is manna from heaven for the Shinners!!!
Letter in today's Examiner from a "Dessie Ellis"

Is this the Cllr Ellis who ran for the Shinners?

We need to save water before we tax it | Irish Examiner

I APPEAL to Fine Gael and Labour to rebuff the approaches being made by a desperate Government to provide cover for their disastrous mishandling of the economy.

The budget deficit, caused by the failure of successive Fianna Fáil-led governments to implement a fair, progressive tax system simply can’t be reduced to 3% by 2014 without decimating our economy and society.

The latest kite being flown to raise funds is charging for water. Since hardly any meters are installed, this is likely to be a flat charge of several hundred euro per year. Such a tax is very regressive as it hits the least well off proportionally much harder.

If the Government really was serious about conserving water, it would harness a tiny fraction of the €50bn being wasted on greedy banks to use unemployed building workers to repair the leaking pipes which cause 40% of all treated water to be lost.

During the very cold spell last winter, a sea of water was lost by burst pipes — the inlets from the mains being too close to the surface due to light touch building regulation. An even greater ocean was wasted by householders letting their taps running to prevent frozen pipes. Again, if only 0.1% of the bank bailout was invested in properly insulating these pipes, it would not only reduce wastage, but also provide a badly needed jobs and spending stimulus.

Dessie Ellis
Dunsink Road
Finglas
Dublin 11
 

kerdasi amaq

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
4,652
Is Eamon Gilmore tendering for election donations for his party? Are there foreign water companies looking to buy a fully metered water provision system?

It must be worth nothing to them without meters.
 

myksav

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
23,381
Should need a license as on what basis can anybody know you are not polluting ground water ?
Odie, most rural people (as opposed to those who moved to rural areas from urban) who have their own septic tank also have their own wells aren't interested in drinking contaminated water. Or contaminating others water supply.
Their septic tanks, even the old ones, generally don't pollute the ground water/watertable.
We know not to poop on our doorstep or in our wells, because we've had to handle the problem ourselves. There's an underlying awareness of where the flush ends up.
Urban-to-rural people don't have that awareness, their awareness ends at the U-bend.
 

anewbeginning

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
4,616
What is the annual cost for group water schemes or the like that operate down the country?
Are they already not paying for water?

I also think that if the proposed fee were a flat rate then the instinct of "I paid for it so I'm going to get my value" may come in and people will be using more water. So it ending up counter productive as a water saving exercise.
Thats why (if brought in) it has to be metered with decent allowances for each member of the household (messy I know) before you have to pay any charges at all.

And just for the memories A 1994 Gilmore Anti Water Tax Leaflet .
And the opposite side of the coin to that is the existing situation where people might say, water is free, so you can use as much as you like.

There is nothing to stop someone now running a tap all day or running their garden hose all day. But 99.9% of people don't do that nor would they do that with a flat rate. Why be put off doing something because of the .1% of people in society?

To implement the metering infrastucture will take years and hundreds of millions of up front investment. And it will penalise people with large familes, including poor people with large families. Metering would be completely regressive.

A flat rate would be far better and more equal.
 

anewbeginning

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
4,616
Is Eamon Gilmore tendering for election donations for his party? Are there foreign water companies looking to buy a fully metered water provision system?

It must be worth nothing to them without meters.
+1

The taxpayer will pay for the installation costs of metering, and in a few years it will be privatised and probably sold to someone like National Toll Roads, who will then make the profits.
 

Rocky

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
8,528
That is sane. To be fair everything else isn't, which is this thread is fairly funny. The country has a massive debt and Gilmore says he wants to cut €3 Billion of that this year and he is going to do that pretty much solely with water charges. It doesn't make a bit of sense and now he is also getting attacked for supporting water charges.

I think this thread could be a sign of the future for Labour.
 

myksav

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
23,381
Water charges are applied throughout Europe with the exception of Ireland. It does not come for free, it has to be treated as safe to drink and there is a lot of money being invested in this area. Ditto for property charges throughout Europe.
People in Ireland may not like to hear it but people in Ireland are paying a lot less taxation compared to European norms and Ireland is living well beyond its means. If the government doesn't have severe cuts in current expenditure and raises a lot more tax in the upcoming budget, the IMF will do it in the new year and the upcoming budget will seem like a walk in the park.
"It does not come for free, it has to be treated as safe to drink and there is a lot of money being invested in this area."

That made me laugh. :) I had the water from my well tested for quality and had it compared with a sample of the local towns water. Turned out that my well water was much cleaner and safer to drink than the towns water. Plus no chlorine or fluorine.
 

Rocky

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
8,528
"It does not come for free, it has to be treated as safe to drink and there is a lot of money being invested in this area."

That made me laugh. :) I had the water from my well tested for quality and had it compared with a sample of the local towns water. Turned out that my well water was much cleaner and safer to drink than the towns water. Plus no chlorine or fluorine.
And if only everything could stick a well out the back of their house, which would actually cost money. I wish you well trying to implement that for the 1 million people living in Dublin.
 

myksav

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
23,381
Applying a charge has an influence on the demand placed on the system. How supply is organised to meet that demand is a separate matter.

Take an example. Let's say a city has a daily demand of 60ML and a leakage rate of 40%. To meet that demand a production capacity of 100ML/day is required. Now lets say that the daily demand increases to 80ML. The simplistic choice is between reducing leakage from 40% to 20% and keeping production capacity at the same level, or increasing production capacity from 100ML to 133ML. Whichever costs less in the long term (taking account of future operating costs associated with production) is the option to follow.

In reality the solution will be somwhere in the middle assuming there is some low lying fruit on the remediation side. For example by replacing some larger primary mains it could be possible to reduce leakage by say 5% for example. By doing that the increase in capacity required is reduced.

However the bottom line is that whatever the cheapest way to deliver the supply required to meet demand, then that is the way to go. Water charges will serve to reduce demand however they are not relevant in deciding how demand should be met.
The problem with just increasing production to account for leakage is that there is an upper limit on how much water you can pull from the ground. Apparently Dublin has reached that point already and wants to take water from about 2/3 the way across the country.
 

grainne whale

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
554
The problem with just increasing production to account for leakage is that there is an upper limit on how much water you can pull from the ground. Apparently Dublin has reached that point already and wants to take water from about 2/3 the way across the country.
Dublin's water is taken from the surrounding rivers, the extra intake from the Shannon is to cater for population growth.
 

myksav

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
23,381
Water metering sounds great in principle and I know it's a closely held ideal of Green Party members and John Gormley.

But it's a clearly anti family measure.

If you have a family with 3 or more kids, look at all the water usage. Baths, showers, washing of clothes, use of toilets, washing of teeth, washing of dishes, drinking water, etc etc.

A family could use 10 times more water than a single person.

People don't want to use water and most people don't waste water if they can't help it. But if you are in a family situation there is no alternative. Does Gormley want people to stop taking showers, washing their teeth, etc? Because in very poor families that will probably happen, and poor families often have bigger families than middle class familes.

Gormley thinks people are flushing water down the sink just for the craic. He's out of touch with the real world, where its unavoidable for people to use water. But it's not just Gormley, the other political parties and economists are also out of touch.

I too would be in favour of an income tax rise over water metering or property taxes.
A flat rate water charge would bring in about €300 million pa but a 1% increase in each of the tax rates would garner a minimum of €500 million pa.
You also forgot those who already pay for every litre of water they use. Flat rate charges would be double charging those without them accessing the service.
 

anewbeginning

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
4,616
A flat rate water charge would bring in about €300 million pa but a 1% increase in each of the tax rates would garner a minimum of €500 million pa.
You also forgot those who already pay for every litre of water they use. Flat rate charges would be double charging those without them accessing the service.
We are talking only about urban users who don't pay anything. If someone already pays for water, they shouldn't of course pay again.

It would be something similiar to the TV licence scheme. Rural users already paying would be exempt.

By the way, what if someone leaves a tap running by mistake for a couple of days while they are away or a pipe bursts inside their house? Should they also be charged for this water?

There is always significant leakage with water. If you are using a mobile phone and the call gets dropped you get compensation. There is no leakage with ESB, very little with gas.

Water is slightly different to other utilities.
 

Super8

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
712
I'm not paying for water with flouride in it unless the Irish Medicines Board can license it and guarantee it's safety.
 

Chuck de Mawl

Active member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
267
Water charges... use more pay more?

I notice that the people saying 'use more pay more' don't seem to make much reference to the current pricing models already in use.

I'm in my office in Limerick, and the office water is metered, and we get a bill for this.
I'll give you an example of the rates on a bill I have to hand.

Charge per cubic metre 2.30

Supply Charge 75.00 (per quarter)

(This charge was 65.00 per quarter the previous year, and I believe it has gone up again this year by a substantial amount.)

There's two parts to this tale. Firstly, the pipe from the meter to the building was leaking, and we suspect this was caused when the contractor installed it. Obviously they did not check the integrity of the pipes before during or after installation.
The council refused to inspect it the pipe at all, and the inspector they eventually sent out spent less than 5 minutes in our building, trying to convince us that the leak was either in the attic or the wall. (Despite the meter indications showing that it was leaking over 1,000 litres per day which would be obvious if it was running in the wall or into the attic). This guy was part of the dedicated leak inspection team that Limerick City Council were bragging about.

Anyhow, we arranged to have the pipe dug up (how many private homes would do this?) and of course, replaced the pipe, and lo and behold, our water 'usage' dropped down to a normal level for a small office.

After much arguing back and forth, and legal threats over unpaid bills, we told the council to go stuff their bill for over 1,000 euros, and sent them a cheque for what we estimated to be our actual use.

Of this figure, 6% of the charge was for the actual volume of water used, and 94% was for the 'supply charge'

So if we decided to actually waste water enough to double our water use, the bill would increase by just 6%. That's hardly a great deterrent.

I have asked the council to explain the supply charge, and why it increased by 15% one year to the next, and also why the charge for a cubic metre went from 2.00 /cubic litre to 2.30 and then up again.

Meanwhile factories using large quantities of water are not metered.
I'm not sure if they've now based it on estimated use (how?) but at one stage I was told it was based on an estimate of the value of the premises (weird reply to get)

So, one might wonder what the local cola bottling plant pays per cubic meter, considering how much drinking quality water is wasted to produce 1 litre of product.

Also worth considering, that most of us are locked into a system of using drinking quality water to flush the toilet. Only some of us get away with grey water systems and compost toilets (try getting planning permission for that, or indeed trying to sell a house equipped with it)

So, remind me again about this 'use more, pay more' ideal?

What's the system where you are? (and do they display the charging rates on their website?)
 

myksav

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
23,381
And if only everything could stick a well out the back of their house, which would actually cost money. I wish you well trying to implement that for the 1 million people living in Dublin.
Here's the thing, Rocky, if I lived in a town or city, I wouldn't be against paying for my water, I've lived in places with such charges.
However, living well away from the nearest municipal supply for years, we weren't interested in waiting decades (at the time) for connection to a municipal supply so we dug our own well, plumbed it ourselves, pump the water ourselves.

No problem paying for what I recieve, but hell to the idea of paying for something I don't recieve.
 

myksav

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
23,381
Dublin's water is taken from the surrounding rivers, the extra intake from the Shannon is to cater for population growth.
That would mean that Dublin has become a "parasitic*" area, given that the population growth was allowed to exceed the supply limits.

*not trying to be insulting, just using the word in its technical meaning.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top