Water Charges for households!

R Paul

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
29
Should we introduce water charges for households?

Clean, safe, drinking water costs money to produce and distribute. We currently do an dreadful job in this area - the EPA report on water standards is grim reading. In addition, Forfas estimates that over 40% of the water supply pumped around the water system are lost due to leaks in the pipes.

Now, in theory, all this should be done out of our taxes under the current system, but, given the above, the system clearly isn't working well. Were an explicit water charge (as opposed to the implicit one in your taxes) introduced (along with a corresponding decrease in your taxes), how would it effect things? Would there be increased political pressure for improvements in the areas above and would it result in increased water conservation?

Pros and Cons anyone?
 


Oppenheimer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
1,461
R Paul said:
Should we introduce water charges for households?

Clean, safe, drinking water costs money to produce and distribute. We currently do an dreadful job in this area - the EPA report on water standards is grim reading. In addition, Forfas estimates that over 40% of the water supply pumped around the water system are lost due to leaks in the pipes.

Now, in theory, all this should be done out of our taxes under the current system, but, given the above, the system clearly isn't working well. Were an explicit water charge (as opposed to the implicit one in your taxes) introduced (along with a corresponding decrease in your taxes), how would it effect things? Would there be increased political pressure for improvements in the areas above and would it result in increased water conservation?

Pros and Cons anyone?
No - we can afford to waste...not sure where we are with 40%, i.e., is that too much given the rainfall we get but I agree we should get it to be more efficient. Better thing to do would be to have water buttes in the attic spaces of new homes with water filter/deionisers on them to clean up the water or not and just use that water for the toilet system...mass customisation better than cleaning up the miles of pipes!
 

goosebump

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
4,940
R Paul said:
Should we introduce water charges for households?

Clean, safe, drinking water costs money to produce and distribute. We currently do an dreadful job in this area - the EPA report on water standards is grim reading. In addition, Forfas estimates that over 40% of the water supply pumped around the water system are lost due to leaks in the pipes.

Now, in theory, all this should be done out of our taxes under the current system, but, given the above, the system clearly isn't working well. Were an explicit water charge (as opposed to the implicit one in your taxes) introduced (along with a corresponding decrease in your taxes), how would it effect things? Would there be increased political pressure for improvements in the areas above and would it result in increased water conservation?

Pros and Cons anyone?
I already pay for my water, as do hundreds of thousands of people who don't live in towns and cities.
 

R Paul

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
29
goosebump said:
R Paul said:
Should we introduce water charges for households?

Clean, safe, drinking water costs money to produce and distribute. We currently do an dreadful job in this area - the EPA report on water standards is grim reading. In addition, Forfas estimates that over 40% of the water supply pumped around the water system are lost due to leaks in the pipes.

Now, in theory, all this should be done out of our taxes under the current system, but, given the above, the system clearly isn't working well. Were an explicit water charge (as opposed to the implicit one in your taxes) introduced (along with a corresponding decrease in your taxes), how would it effect things? Would there be increased political pressure for improvements in the areas above and would it result in increased water conservation?

Pros and Cons anyone?
I already pay for my water, as do hundreds of thousands of people who don't live in towns and cities.
I know that is the case. That just means though that you are being double charged. You are directly charged for the water you receive and, in addition, via your taxes, you help pay the "water charges" of others who get their water provided without receiving a bill, like you do. Such a double standard, isn't really defensible but it is the current system. Would you favour a change? :)
 

stewiegriffin

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
839
Whatever way its done it should be handled by a national body rather than councilors .Water is as basic as it gets as regards our health and well being . If water is going to become a commodity of sorts , I certainly wouldnt trust them with it . There has been talk of supplying the east coast with water from the shannon and already certain groups are talking like they own the shaggin thing . :roll: A transparent national strategy is needed not more business opportunities for gombeen men and their friends .
 

Podolski

Active member
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
104
When Fianna Fáil abolished rates after the 1977 election they increased PAYE tax by 1.5% and increased VAT by a similar amount in order to make up the shortfall. The money thus collected was to have been paid on to local authorities in the form of a Rate Support Grant (RSG). Those extra taxes are still levied meaning that people already pay for local authority services, including water through their PAYE taxes and their VAT. Any additional charge would be double taxation. It is not the fault of householders that the amount collected through these taxes is no longer transferred to local authorities.

Last night's programme on RTE was clearly promoting the idea of re-introducing water charges. It was promoting the interests of the private water companies who want these charges wo that they can take over our water supply and charge what they like for water - a free resource.

There is a lot of scaremongering going on as part of the pro water charges agenda. Yes, there are problems - huge problems of pollution but these should be dealt with rather than giving up on them and seeking to drain places like Lough Ree. Put a stop to the unbridled growth of Dublin, put polluting farmers and industry out of business and introduce realistic fines for breaches of the law - replace the EPA with a credible body charged with protecting the environment, not granting licences to pollute it.
 

eyeSpy

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
2,548
as i've mentioned on a related thread water harvesting is a good solution for new buildings at least.
it's ridiculous that we use the same water for flushing the toilet as we do for drinking (even though it may actually only be suitable for flushing)
either impose new building regs to include the harvesting capacity or impose pay as you go charges for water and let it happen naturally.
 

sparkey321

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
1,380
goosebump said:
I already pay for my water, .
As do I.

Just posted the cheque actually.

But the water is so hard around here I cannot use to make tea or coffee as it leaves scum. it destroys kettles and appliances and causes havoc with my water boiler. So I end up buying water for tea and coffee making.
 

fatcat

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
14
Water harvesting for all non-drinkable use is essential. Legislation needed to ensure building regulations allow for this.
Despite the rain, water shortage is a major issue. In Barcelona recently and they are importing thousands of gallons in tankers to supply the city.
Yes we all pay for water in general taxation already, however I would be supportive of a specific water charge. I would not however support water privatisation and the handing over of this essential resource to profiteers who would not make health and safety paramount.
 

Aindriu

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
8,621
No, no and no again.
 

flyer

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2007
Messages
45
What do the old Taxes pay for these days. In the past you paid PAYE, PRSI, VAT, Excise duty, Road tax and VRT and in return the state gave you things like Water, Roads, Health care, pension, education for your children, policing, rubbish collection, maintaining your housing estate etc.

Now you still pay PAYE, PRSI, VAT, Excise duty, Road tax and VRT but in addition:

- They propose to charge us for the Water.
- Now we pay tolls on all new or revamped roads
- Now you have to have VHI/Vivas/Quinn to get basic treatment in hospital. And to add insult to injury there is a health levy out of your pay cheque on top of the PRSI.
- Now you have to have a private pension.
- Now you have to pay for the compulsory voluntary contributions, uniforms, PE gear, dozens of books, a lunch fee, after school study fee, building collection, class photo, class trip, class musical, no uniform day, raffles, lines, Tesco sports vouchers, grinds, etc etc, so our children can avail of the "free education".
- Now you pay for private firms to monitor your house alarm because if the alarm does go off the guards will only respond to complaints of noise pollution.
- Now you have pay for private companies to collect your refuse.
- Now you pay for management companies to maintain your housing estate because the council just couldn't be bothered.

On top of that if you move house you have to pay penal stamp duty on your new home because the government takes the attitude that if we can afford to buy a house then they must not have taxed us enough in the first place. And we pay benefit in kind on everything our employers give us to do our job bigger than a bic pen because the only IT system that works in the whole civil service is the blood sucking Tax system.

In spite of all this the government ran up a 5 billion deficit this year. How?
 

DaveM

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
15,963
To be honest I'm leaning more towards a yes, we should pay charges. However I don't think it's a simple yes or no. If domestic water charges are to be brought in then the system must be reformed to ensure the money isn't wasted. For me that means looking at the role of the local authorities, particularly as regards the capaital investment side of things. I think we would be better served by having a body along the lines of the National Roads Authority to oversee the capital programme. This body should also control the collection of revenue and the allocation of payment to local authorities / private contractors who operate infrastucture.
 

Pauli

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
1,181
flyer said:
What do the old Taxes pay for these days. In the past you paid PAYE, PRSI, VAT, Excise duty, Road tax and VRT and in return the state gave you things like Water, Roads, Health care, pension, education for your children, policing, rubbish collection, maintaining your housing estate etc.

Now you still pay PAYE, PRSI, VAT, Excise duty, Road tax and VRT but in addition:

- They propose to charge us for the Water.
- Now we pay tolls on all new or revamped roads
- Now you have to have VHI/Vivas/Quinn to get basic treatment in hospital. And to add insult to injury there is a health levy out of your pay cheque on top of the PRSI.
- Now you have to have a private pension.
- Now you have to pay for the compulsory voluntary contributions, uniforms, PE gear, dozens of books, a lunch fee, after school study fee, building collection, class photo, class trip, class musical, no uniform day, raffles, lines, Tesco sports vouchers, grinds, etc etc, so our children can avail of the "free education".
- Now you pay for private firms to monitor your house alarm because if the alarm does go off the guards will only respond to complaints of noise pollution.
- Now you have pay for private companies to collect your refuse.
- Now you pay for management companies to maintain your housing estate because the council just couldn't be bothered.

On top of that if you move house you have to pay penal stamp duty on your new home because the government takes the attitude that if we can afford to buy a house then they must not have taxed us enough in the first place. And we pay benefit in kind on everything our employers give us to do our job bigger than a bic pen because the only IT system that works in the whole civil service is the blood sucking Tax system.

In spite of all this the government ran up a 5 billion deficit this year. How?
On nonsense like this for starters;

"Tanaiste Mary Coughlan's pay goes up by €5,984 from €239,341 to €245,325"
(from Monday's Irish Independent)

This is a staggering waste of money!
 

Aindriu

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
8,621
flyer said:
What do the old Taxes pay for these days. In the past you paid PAYE, PRSI, VAT, Excise duty, Road tax and VRT and in return the state gave you things like Water, Roads, Health care, pension, education for your children, policing, rubbish collection, maintaining your housing estate etc.

Now you still pay PAYE, PRSI, VAT, Excise duty, Road tax and VRT but in addition:

- They propose to charge us for the Water.
- Now we pay tolls on all new or revamped roads
- Now you have to have VHI/Vivas/Quinn to get basic treatment in hospital. And to add insult to injury there is a health levy out of your pay cheque on top of the PRSI.
- Now you have to have a private pension.
- Now you have to pay for the compulsory voluntary contributions, uniforms, PE gear, dozens of books, a lunch fee, after school study fee, building collection, class photo, class trip, class musical, no uniform day, raffles, lines, Tesco sports vouchers, grinds, etc etc, so our children can avail of the "free education".
- Now you pay for private firms to monitor your house alarm because if the alarm does go off the guards will only respond to complaints of noise pollution.
- Now you have pay for private companies to collect your refuse.
- Now you pay for management companies to maintain your housing estate because the council just couldn't be bothered.

On top of that if you move house you have to pay penal stamp duty on your new home because the government takes the attitude that if we can afford to buy a house then they must not have taxed us enough in the first place. And we pay benefit in kind on everything our employers give us to do our job bigger than a bic pen because the only IT system that works in the whole civil service is the blood sucking Tax system.

In spite of all this the government ran up a 5 billion deficit this year. How?
Because they couldn't organise a party in the Guinness brewery to save their lives! They are useless, not a business brain amongst them.
 

C&AG

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
37
Website
machinenation.forumakers.com
flyer said:
In spite of all this the government ran up a 5 billion deficit this year. How?
A cosy office for the Ceann Comhairle at only €100,000
IT may well be Ireland's most luxurious office, another poignant memory of this once well-heeled government's unparalleled capacity to spend.

Figures released by the Office of Public Works (OPW) have now revealed that it actually cost more than €100,000 to renovate a small office belonging to the Ceann Comhairle.

The €58,712 cost of redecorating toilets for the use of Fianna Fáil's John O'Donoghue was not the only cost incurred by the OPW as part of their refurbishment programme.

In fact, the Ceann Comhairle's chambers may now well be the most luxurious room in the nation if the rate of spending is anything to go by.

To complement the new toilet facilities, the office was also fitted out with new carpets, curtains and a brand new €1,000 chair. The carpets, supplied by Rugs by Design, were ordered in two batches: the first costing €15,367 and the second setting the taxpayer back €14,367. Curtains fitted on the Ceann Comhairle's windows were similarly magnificent, and cost €11,380, bought from a firm called Gleeson Interiors. The coup-the-grace was the office chair supplied by the firm Ergonomics for the princely sum of €1,058.
And now we're going to be asked to pay water charges so the likes of elected, makeup-wearing gimps like the like of the above can gild their holes with it?

If it's not spent transparently then may they be at risk of hanging. People are up to their neck in their own schidt in Ennis, maybe they deserve it, the thick cnts for letting it come to this in the first place.
 

goosebump

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
4,940
R Paul said:
goosebump said:
[quote="R Paul":1lif0j03]Should we introduce water charges for households?

Clean, safe, drinking water costs money to produce and distribute. We currently do an dreadful job in this area - the EPA report on water standards is grim reading. In addition, Forfas estimates that over 40% of the water supply pumped around the water system are lost due to leaks in the pipes.

Now, in theory, all this should be done out of our taxes under the current system, but, given the above, the system clearly isn't working well. Were an explicit water charge (as opposed to the implicit one in your taxes) introduced (along with a corresponding decrease in your taxes), how would it effect things? Would there be increased political pressure for improvements in the areas above and would it result in increased water conservation?

Pros and Cons anyone?
I already pay for my water, as do hundreds of thousands of people who don't live in towns and cities.
I know that is the case. That just means though that you are being double charged. You are directly charged for the water you receive and, in addition, via your taxes, you help pay the "water charges" of others who get their water provided without receiving a bill, like you do. Such a double standard, isn't really defensible but it is the current system. Would you favour a change? :)[/quote:1lif0j03]

Its not a double charge. I live in the country by choice. I don't expect the State to install water mains to facilitate me, so I am happy to pay, and I did get a grant for my well which paid about 40% of the cost of setting it up.

The logic behind water charges has nothing to do with 'paying for water'. The idea is to promote more efficient use. Its ridiculous that someone living in Dublin can leave a tap on all day and not suffer any penalty.

I have to pay energy costs and about €10 per month for softeners for my water, so everybody in my house is aware of the cost of water. As such, taps are never left running, kettles are only filled according to requirements, showers are used instead of baths and all our toilet cisterns are have been loaded with bottles of water to reduce the amount of water used in flushes.
 

Sligoboy

Active member
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
180
goosebump said:
Its not a double charge
It is a double charge, you have already paid taxes to pay for this.

End of discussion.
 

Supermanpolitician

Well-known member
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
1,030
R Paul said:
Should we introduce water charges for households?

Clean, safe, drinking water costs money to produce and distribute. We currently do an dreadful job in this area - the EPA report on water standards is grim reading. In addition, Forfas estimates that over 40% of the water supply pumped around the water system are lost due to leaks in the pipes.

Now, in theory, all this should be done out of our taxes under the current system, but, given the above, the system clearly isn't working well. Were an explicit water charge (as opposed to the implicit one in your taxes) introduced (along with a corresponding decrease in your taxes), how would it effect things? Would there be increased political pressure for improvements in the areas above and would it result in increased water conservation?

Pros and Cons anyone?
Pros.
Seen to be doing something.

Cons.
The "doing something" itself won't be effective as it just makes an essential more expensive for poorer people.
Have been over taxed for as long as I can remember. Road tax doesn't go to improving roads. People price increases haven't meant that people use less petrol getting to work, it just means it's more expensive.
Bin charges were just another tax yet people still produce rubbish. Again it hits the poorest hardest.
We pay enough tax for the maintenence of essential services already. Perhaps not squandering money on evoting machines and having 3 gardai protect a minister's bicycle might allow money to be directed elsewhere.
 

goosebump

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
4,940
Sligoboy said:
goosebump said:
Its not a double charge
It is a double charge, you have already paid taxes to pay for this.

End of discussion.
Yes, clearly every rural house in the country should be attached to water mains free of charge to the householder.
 

Sligoboy

Active member
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
180
goosebump said:
Sligoboy said:
goosebump said:
Its not a double charge
It is a double charge, you have already paid taxes to pay for this.

End of discussion.
Yes, clearly every rural house in the country should be attached to water mains free of charge to the householder.

If they pay their taxes yes they should. The fact they pay into group schemes or sinks wells at their own expense doesn't negate that fact.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top