Budget 2015

[Maguire01]

If they are going to do stuff like that, why not simply reverse the water charges?

Presumably to broaden the range of income sources. And because there's a logic to water charging, hence the vast majority of developing countries charging for it.

What is this logic? The tools need it so they'll have to pay for it?

Logic in terms of:
The money generated from charges being ring-fenced for the delivery of water and investment in the infrastructure.

People paying on the basis of what they use, so people who use less water don't subsidise those who use more.

People with wells, private water supplies and/or septic tanks don't have to contribute to a service they don't benefit from.

[Jim Vaughan]

We're already paying €1,200,000,000 per year from general taxes for our water. This new charge is just an extra tax

[Maguire01]

We're already paying €1,200,000,000 per year from general taxes for our water. This new charge is just an extra tax

So the money that did go to water (from general taxation) will now go to other public services, and the water charges will help reduce the deficit between what the government takes in and what it spends. No?

[Jim Vaughan]

it will go to other public services after the bonuses are paid to the Irish Water staff, after the water regulator is paid and after the overstaffed system is paid. That should leave a lot for general services? Remember HSE?

[Maguire01]

it will go to other public services after the bonuses are paid to the Irish Water staff, after the water regulator is paid and after the overstaffed system is paid. That should leave a lot for general services? Remember HSE?

Eh, no. Only the money from charges will go to Irish Water. The money formerly taken from general taxation will no longer go to Irish Water.

[mikehunt]

it will go to other public services after the bonuses are paid to the Irish Water staff, after the water regulator is paid and after the overstaffed system is paid. That should leave a lot for general services? Remember HSE?

Eh, no. Only the money from charges will go to Irish Water. The money formerly taken from general taxation will no longer go to Irish Water.

The last thing that will be done with the money charged for water is to invest in an efficient water system. Yes we need investment but if you think that's where this money will be going you've been asleep for the last few years.  This is another HSE style set up with far too many employees on inflated salaries. Efficiency will be a swear word in this place.

[foxcommander]

it will go to other public services after the bonuses are paid to the Irish Water staff, after the water regulator is paid and after the overstaffed system is paid. That should leave a lot for general services? Remember HSE?

I wonder how Angela Kerins from Rehab can get her snout in this trough?
Plenty more like her that will.

Frank Flannery needs a new income.

Anyone know how much Fergus Finlay earns from Barnardos? Doubt he does that for free.

[magpie seanie]

We're already paying €1,200,000,000 per year from general taxes for our water. This new charge is just an extra tax

So the money that did go to water (from general taxation) will now go to other public services, and the water charges will help reduce the deficit between what the government takes in and what it spends. No?

Do you still believe in Santa?

[armaghniac]

it will go to other public services after the bonuses are paid to the Irish Water staff, after the water regulator is paid and after the overstaffed system is paid. That should leave a lot for general services? Remember HSE?

Eh, no. Only the money from charges will go to Irish Water. The money formerly taken from general taxation will no longer go to Irish Water.

The last thing that will be done with the money charged for water is to invest in an efficient water system. Yes we need investment but if you think that's where this money will be going you've been asleep for the last few years.  This is another HSE style set up with far too many employees on inflated salaries. Efficiency will be a swear word in this place.

Yet nobody seems bothered about efficiency, people are ranting pointlessly about the very concept instead of ensuring that it is run efficiently.

So the money that did go to water (from general taxation) will now go to other public services, and the water charges will help reduce the deficit between what the government takes in and what it spends. No?

I think it should be clear that if the government does not spend money on one thing that it will spend it on something else, it is also clear that the government income does not cover its expenditure. Now you may not agree with what the government spends the money on, but the widespread talk of double taxation is puerile, if the money isn't raised this way it will  have to be raised some other way.

[Maguire01]

We're already paying €1,200,000,000 per year from general taxes for our water. This new charge is just an extra tax

So the money that did go to water (from general taxation) will now go to other public services, and the water charges will help reduce the deficit between what the government takes in and what it spends. No?

Do you still believe in Santa?

So where will the money go?

[Maguire01]

it will go to other public services after the bonuses are paid to the Irish Water staff, after the water regulator is paid and after the overstaffed system is paid. That should leave a lot for general services? Remember HSE?

Eh, no. Only the money from charges will go to Irish Water. The money formerly taken from general taxation will no longer go to Irish Water.

The last thing that will be done with the money charged for water is to invest in an efficient water system. Yes we need investment but if you think that's where this money will be going you've been asleep for the last few years.  This is another HSE style set up with far too many employees on inflated salaries. Efficiency will be a swear word in this place.

The difference should be that Irish Water is subject to economic regulation, therefore the level of charges is set by the regulator based on the money required to deliver the service and invest in the infrastructure. Generally such regulation defines what the company should have to deliver in terms of investment, e.g. so many treatment works, so many km of water main etc. There's also generally a split, defined by the regulator, between what they can spend on operational activity and capital investment. It shouldn't be comparable to the HSE model.

[Maguire01]

So the money that did go to water (from general taxation) will now go to other public services, and the water charges will help reduce the deficit between what the government takes in and what it spends. No?

I think it should be clear that if the government does not spend money on one thing that it will spend it on something else, it is also clear that the government income does not cover its expenditure. Now you may not agree with what the government spends the money on, but the widespread talk of double taxation is puerile, if the money isn't raised this way it will  have to be raised some other way.

You're agreeing with me then.

[lynchbhoy]

it will go to other public services after the bonuses are paid to the Irish Water staff, after the water regulator is paid and after the overstaffed system is paid. That should leave a lot for general services? Remember HSE?

Eh, no. Only the money from charges will go to Irish Water. The money formerly taken from general taxation will no longer go to Irish Water.

The last thing that will be done with the money charged for water is to invest in an efficient water system. Yes we need investment but if you think that's where this money will be going you've been asleep for the last few years.  This is another HSE style set up with far too many employees on inflated salaries. Efficiency will be a swear word in this place.

The difference should be that Irish Water is subject to economic regulation, therefore the level of charges is set by the regulator based on the money required to deliver the service and invest in the infrastructure. Generally such regulation defines what the company should have to deliver in terms of investment, e.g. so many treatment works, so many km of water main etc. There's also generally a split, defined by the regulator, between what they can spend on operational activity and capital investment. It shouldn't be comparable to the HSE model.

It's started already ( turning this company into a new hse clone)

Employees have 'had' to be taken in from bird gais etc and as part of this , their public sector pay, holidays, entitlements, bonuses, overtime etcetera etc have had to be guaranteed - from what I've been told by a company working with/for the new water crowd

The gov have known about the obsolete water pipe network for years and are still to address this. Could have been attempted instead/along with the water meter installations!!

[armaghniac]

So the money that did go to water (from general taxation) will now go to other public services, and the water charges will help reduce the deficit between what the government takes in and what it spends. No?

I think it should be clear that if the government does not spend money on one thing that it will spend it on something else, it is also clear that the government income does not cover its expenditure. Now you may not agree with what the government spends the money on, but the widespread talk of double taxation is puerile, if the money isn't raised this way it will  have to be raised some other way.

You're agreeing with me then.

I didn't want to admit to agreeing with you directly.

Employees have 'had' to be taken in from bird gais etc and as part of this , their public sector pay, holidays, entitlements, bonuses, overtime etcetera etc have had to be guaranteed - from what I've been told by a company working with/for the new water crowd

Bord Gais is a semi-state, not much different from Irish Water, more issues might arise with people from local authorities, which had different ways of doing things. It is a bit like the Water Service in NI in the 70s.

[Maguire01]

it will go to other public services after the bonuses are paid to the Irish Water staff, after the water regulator is paid and after the overstaffed system is paid. That should leave a lot for general services? Remember HSE?

Eh, no. Only the money from charges will go to Irish Water. The money formerly taken from general taxation will no longer go to Irish Water.

The last thing that will be done with the money charged for water is to invest in an efficient water system. Yes we need investment but if you think that's where this money will be going you've been asleep for the last few years.  This is another HSE style set up with far too many employees on inflated salaries. Efficiency will be a swear word in this place.

The difference should be that Irish Water is subject to economic regulation, therefore the level of charges is set by the regulator based on the money required to deliver the service and invest in the infrastructure. Generally such regulation defines what the company should have to deliver in terms of investment, e.g. so many treatment works, so many km of water main etc. There's also generally a split, defined by the regulator, between what they can spend on operational activity and capital investment. It shouldn't be comparable to the HSE model.

It's started already ( turning this company into a new hse clone)

Employees have 'had' to be taken in from bird gais etc and as part of this , their public sector pay, holidays, entitlements, bonuses, overtime etcetera etc have had to be guaranteed - from what I've been told by a company working with/for the new water crowd

The gov have known about the obsolete water pipe network for years and are still to address this. Could have been attempted instead/along with the water meter installations!!

The difference should be the role of the regulator.

As for addressing the network issues, that requires more money than has historically been invested. The cost of metering would be a fraction of the cost of upgrading networks (for water AND waste) and treatment works (again for both), a lot less complex and a lot quicker, and provides a basis for funding the required investment thereafter. (Having said that, I don't know that there has been NO investment in the network whilst the meters have been installed, do you?) And the cost of metering is a relative one off, whereas the whole network will require constant investment, expansion etc.