Water Charges...back on the agenda!

[Duke of Marmalade]

@WolfeTone Unusually I am inclined to agree with you on this one. There is no doubt that household water charges are regressive, almost a poll tax. So I am inclined to think that the only justification for water charges is to put manners on people. Maybe you're right that we have less need for that discipline in this country.

 

[WolfeTone]

Fórsa warning over staff transfer to Irish water

Water transformation policy paper

 

[Purple]

Fórsa warning over staff transfer to Irish water

Once again we see Unions damaging the National interest for no good reason.

 

[WolfeTone]

Once again we see Unions damaging the National interest for no good reason.

How so?

As far as I can see in the links above the union is trying to hold the government to account for its stated public policy. It is the lack impetus to implement the assurances and guarantees within the stated public policy that is of concern for the union.
If anything, the union is doing good service in the national interest.

 

[Purple]

If anything, the union is doing good service in the national interest.

Unions never serve the National Interest, they serve the interest of the members. That's their job.

 

[WolfeTone]

Unions never serve the National Interest, they serve the interest of the members. That's their job.

And their members interests are not part of the national interest?

 

[Purple]

And their members interests are not part of the national interest?

No. The interests of the individual are almost always counter to the national interest. It's in my interest for most people to be poor while I am well off. That way my wealth will go further.

 

[Leo]

[/QUOTE]

If we were all to pay individually for all our public services on a pay as you consume basis we would all be living in a third world country.

How so?

 

[WolfeTone]

The interests of the individual are almost always counter to the national interest. It's in my interest for most people to be poor while I am well off.

This is just silly talk now.
Forsa are not suggesting that anyone should become poor for their own members interest. The opposite in fact. They are trying to protect the standard of living their members already have by holding the government to account to their own stated policy (which the government considers is is in the national interest).

 

[WolfeTone]

How so?

Because nothing would function. Everything would grind to a halt.

Simple example, if I only paid for the services of Gardai when I needed Gardai, criminal investigation would be a disaster. I do not have the resources by myself to pay for a criminal investigation conducted by Gardai if I were ever to need one. I figure it would be the same for most people. In no short-time this place would be bandit country.

Its why nowhere in the civilised developed world operates a system of paying individually for all public services on a pay as you consume basis.

 

[Leo]

Because nothing would function. Everything would grind to a halt.

Simple example, if I only paid for the services of Gardai when I needed Gardai, criminal investigation would be a disaster. I do not have the resources by myself to pay for a criminal investigation conducted by Gardai if I were ever to need one. I figure it would be the same for most people. In no short-time this place would be bandit country.

Its why nowhere in the civilised developed world operates a system of paying individually for all public services on a pay as you consume basis.

Well, your Garda example is of course ridiculous, but criminal investigations of their nature benefit all of society, the Gardai don't engage in a criminal investigation on behalf of a private individual. So you'd only be paying a small share towards the costs of criminal investigations. Any associated victim support services provided directly to you could be charged in that model

Utilities are a very different matter and paying based on consumption leads to much more less waste.

 

[WolfeTone]

the Gardai don't engage in a criminal investigation on behalf of a private individual. So you'd only be paying a small share towards the costs of criminal investigations.

Not on behalf of a private individual, but on behalf of citizens of the State, as you acknowledge.
If I report to Gardai that I have been assaulted they are duty bound to make inquiries into the matter and in doing so, if satisfied that a crime may have occurred they will open an investigation into the matter. I don't have to pay for this in addition to the taxes that I already pay for the provision of this service to others. Not even a small share towards the cost. To implement such a measure risks serious crimes such as assault going unreported.

Utilities are a very different matter and paying based on consumption leads to much more less waste

This is debatable. Personally I see little material difference in the waste that I produce now than say 5 or 10yrs ago. Most produce I buy comes in the same packaging that for the most part has not changed over this timeframe. The only notable exception I can think of is the plastic bag levy which has certainly reduced my usage of plastic bags. To such an extent, that were the levy to be removed I could not envisage myself returning to using the mass amount of plastic bags as before.

Certainly I compartmentalize my waste into general waste, recycable etc, but I am still producing the same level of waste.


Specifically with water, there is also little to no evidence of this.
As I already pointed out, household consumption of water is almost exclusively of necessity - washing, cleaning, cooking food, quenching thirst.

Over indulgences may include filling too much water in the kettle for a cuppa, or someone spending long bouts of time in the shower. But in the round there is little to zero evidence that these 'indulgences' will change with the onset of charges.
Unless of course, charges were set at draconian rates (to be defined by your own level of income), but doing so to save the water on a few cups of tea is an absurdity in a country that has as a natural resource an abundance of water.

 

[Firefly]

I think we need to differentiate between an abundant natural resource and the cost associated with providing it. Sure, we are lucky in Ireland to have plenty rain & thus water. However our water infrastructure is creaking. We have hose bans. We have water boil notices. We have sewerage problems. This is 3rd world.

Fixing this will require considerable investment. Our options I believe are to:
1. Do nothing
2. Borrow and thereby increase our national debt further
3. Increase taxes ( but which taxes as not everyone pays Income Tax / "Universal" Social Charge)
4. Charge for consumption

Money doesn't grow on trees, so it's about time we stopped pretending it does. If we want clean, safe and reliable water we need to pay for it.

 

[Purple]

Money doesn't grow on trees, so it's about time we stopped pretending it does. If we want clean, safe and reliable water we need to pay for it.

No, we just need to tax "the rich". Don't you know that's the solution to everything?

 

[WolfeTone]

I think we need to differentiate between an abundant natural resource and the cost associated with providing it. Sure, we are lucky in Ireland to have plenty rain & thus water. However our water infrastructure is creaking.

This is fair comment. I do not think anyone is suggesting that investment is not needed on our water infrastructure. In what manner is this investment to occur is the question.

If we want clean, safe and reliable water we need to pay for it

Just to be clear, the safe, reliable water that is already available for most is paid for, lest anyone think the system arrived by itself on one big great giant freebie!?

If you are attached to the public mains and public sewers you might consider that in purchasing your house, the cost of materials required, the labour, planning, etc to attach you to this system was most probably factored into the overall cost of building the house which you may be paying back over time through your mortgage repayments and the cost of that mortgage.
You may have noticed when viewing your home to purchase it had such conveniences as functional sinks, showers, toilets etc. Those things don't grow on trees. There is a cost borne with this functionality which house owners pay for.

Money doesn't grow on trees

It doesnt grow on trees, but it is practically free to borrow at the moment. So it would make sense to take advantage of free money, invest it in an environmentally sustainable water infrastructure, taking advantage of our abundant resource that could act as a calling card for FDI in the years ahead.

Household water charges are silly, ineffective, divisive, regressive and with little to zero evidence that they would change behaviour of household water usage in general.

 

[Purple]

It doesnt grow on trees, but it is practically free to borrow at the moment. So it would make sense to take advantage of free money, invest it in an environmentally sustainable water infrastructure, taking advantage of our abundant resource that could act as a calling card for FDI in the years ahead.

On that I agree, in that if we are going to borrow it should be for Capital projects only.

 

[Leo]

Not on behalf of a private individual, but on behalf of citizens of the State, as you acknowledge.
If I report to Gardai that I have been assaulted they are duty bound to make inquiries into the matter and in doing so, if satisfied that a crime may have occurred they will open an investigation into the matter

So in your paying for Garda resources at point of consumption, you're not an individual beneficiary of a criminal investigation, so you pay a share, and just maybe general taxation is a good way of achieving that.

This is debatable. Personally I see little material difference in the waste that I produce now than say 5 or 10yrs ago. Most produce I buy comes in the same packaging that for the most part has not changed over this timeframe. The only notable exception I can think of is the plastic bag levy which has certainly reduced my usage of plastic bags. To such an extent, that were the levy to be removed I could not envisage myself returning to using the mass amount of plastic bags as before.

Then you are unusual. The clamor to fix leaks on private property here showed just what the effects of charges can do to altering behaviour.

 

[Leo]

If you are attached to the public mains and public sewers you might consider that in purchasing your house, the cost of materials required, the labour, planning, etc to attach you to this system was most probably factored into the overall cost of building the house which you may be paying back over time through your mortgage repayments and the cost of that mortgage.

Surely you know development levies don't come close to covering such costs?

 

[Purple]

Personally I see little material difference in the waste that I produce now than say 5 or 10yrs ago. Most produce I buy comes in the same packaging that for the most part has not changed over this timeframe. The only notable exception I can think of is the plastic bag levy which has certainly reduced my usage of plastic bags. To such an extent, that were the levy to be removed I could not envisage myself returning to using the mass amount of plastic bags as before.

That is unusual. I certainly have changed my behaviour since bin collection was privatised. It was part of an overall awareness of the environmental impact of my shopping and waste disposal decisions. I avoid products with excess packaging, I recycle far more and I consider the carbon miles on the food in the supermarket, as well the general carbon footprint of that food, before I buy it.

 

[WolfeTone]

So in your paying for Garda resources at point of consumption, you're not an individual beneficiary of a criminal investigation, so you pay a share, and just maybe general taxation is a good way of achieving that.

I don't really understand this point.

Then you are unusual. The clamor to fix leaks on private property here showed just what the effects of charges can do to altering behaviour.

Fair point, but I was talking specifically about household consumption of water. An underground water leak is a different matter. It not the actual household consuming the water.
Of course impressing charges on people can change behaviour, but it depends on the specific charge and the specific provision. I would contend that water charges (as proposed last time round) would have had little material effect on household consumption of water.

Surely you know development levies don't come close to covering such costs?

I never said they did.

The system as we know it today did not arrive from a magic money tree. Considerable cost and investment has already been paid for and continues to be paid for.

The crux of the issue is that it the investment to utilise this resource to sustain an environmental standards is insufficient, and how best to raise investment to bring it up to standard. House water charges have proven divisive and I imagine nothing much will change if government considers them again.
So rather than go down that route, what other ways can investment be sourced?