What can we expect?
(Muppet and Seafoid, you should avoid this thread, it's going to have happy thoughts in it.)
7 Years of brutal budgets and finally one that shouldn't hurt.
Cut in Top rate of tax.
Entry level for USC to be raised.
Water tax credits.
Might see reduction in excise on wine?
Will the pension levy be phased out?
Double Irish to be phased out.
Windfall tax to be dropped?
Job creation incentives?
Some Capital investment.
If they are going to do stuff like that, why not simply reverse the water charges?
It was part of the bailout I believe. I don't think it's a bad thing (personally) that our water is metered, the lad in the job with me, his three kids take half and hour each day for their shower, I'm not happy about paying for that. (which I currently am through ordinary taxes)
All these"allowances" numbers and the like are bollix with an army of clerks to administrate it all. If there is a concerned about children or pensioners then add a couple of Euro to the children's allowance or pension.
Quote from: gerrykeegan on October 14, 2014, 10:35:26 AM
What can we expect?
(Muppet and Seafoid, you should avoid this thread, it's going to have happy thoughts in it.)
7 Years of brutal budgets and finally one that shouldn't hurt.
Cut in Top rate of tax.
Entry level for USC to be raised.
Water tax credits.
Might see reduction in excise on wine?
Will the pension levy be phased out?
Double Irish to be phased out.
Windfall tax to be dropped?
Job creation incentives?
Some Capital investment.
I think there'll be some enhanced incentive scheme for executives assigned to Ireland to make it more attractive to transfer top people in - the basis for this being a team should be built around them when they get to Ireland.
The "double Irish" getting the chop will help Ireland from a reputational point of view. No longer will US politicians be able to blame Ireland for US MNCs availing of US tax loopholes.
Quote from: gerrykeegan on October 14, 2014, 11:52:51 AM
It was part of the bailout I believe. I don't think it's a bad thing (personally) that our water is metered, the lad in the job with me, his three kids take half and hour each day for their shower, I'm not happy about paying for that. (which I currently am through ordinary taxes)
But the bailout is over is it not? We're economically independent again or so we're told? No troika looking over Noonan's shoulder any more. They're the baddies. Michael and Inda are the goodies.
Fcukin liars the whole lot of them. Fix the leaks and don't allow a private company to screw us for a basic human right - that would be a start.
Congrats on the U21B hurling award BTW!
The budget is like giving the kids an extra tenner.
What will they spend it on ?
Quote from: seafoid on October 14, 2014, 02:45:19 PM
The budget is like giving the kids an extra tenner.
What will they spend it on ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEwVpWFyy3M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEwVpWFyy3M)
Quote from: magpie seanie on October 14, 2014, 01:56:38 PM
Quote from: gerrykeegan on October 14, 2014, 11:52:51 AM
It was part of the bailout I believe. I don't think it's a bad thing (personally) that our water is metered, the lad in the job with me, his three kids take half and hour each day for their shower, I'm not happy about paying for that. (which I currently am through ordinary taxes)
But the bailout is over is it not?
Not till it's all paid back - around 2042 I understand.
Quote from: AZOffaly on October 14, 2014, 11:36:32 AM
If they are going to do stuff like that, why not simply reverse the water charges?
I'd say its the lump of sugar to help the medicine go down initially, but the sugar will be phased out once you're used to the medicine.
Why penalise entrepreneurs for taking on extra employees?
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on October 14, 2014, 02:49:49 PM
Quote from: seafoid on October 14, 2014, 02:45:19 PM
The budget is like giving the kids an extra tenner.
What will they spend it on ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEwVpWFyy3M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEwVpWFyy3M)
Fabliss
Quote from: AZOffaly on October 14, 2014, 11:36:32 AM
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.
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 14, 2014, 06:00:09 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on October 14, 2014, 11:36:32 AM
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?
Water charges are not going to be reversed. Over the long term there might even be investment in the water supply system because it's really crap.
Quote from: magpie seanie on October 14, 2014, 06:09:56 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 14, 2014, 06:00:09 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on October 14, 2014, 11:36:32 AM
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.
We're already paying €1,200,000,000 per year from general taxes for our water. This new charge is just an extra tax
Quote from: Jim Vaughan on October 14, 2014, 07:36:32 PM
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?
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?
Quote from: Jim Vaughan on October 14, 2014, 08:26:41 PM
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.
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 14, 2014, 09:17:57 PM
Quote from: Jim Vaughan on October 14, 2014, 08:26:41 PM
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.
Quote from: Jim Vaughan on October 14, 2014, 08:26:41 PM
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.
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 14, 2014, 07:39:56 PM
Quote from: Jim Vaughan on October 14, 2014, 07:36:32 PM
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?
Quote from: mikehunt on October 14, 2014, 09:37:27 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 14, 2014, 09:17:57 PM
Quote from: Jim Vaughan on October 14, 2014, 08:26:41 PM
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.
QuoteSo 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.
Quote from: magpie seanie on October 14, 2014, 10:07:22 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 14, 2014, 07:39:56 PM
Quote from: Jim Vaughan on October 14, 2014, 07:36:32 PM
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?
Quote from: mikehunt on October 14, 2014, 09:37:27 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 14, 2014, 09:17:57 PM
Quote from: Jim Vaughan on October 14, 2014, 08:26:41 PM
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.
Quote from: armaghniac on October 14, 2014, 10:32:13 PM
QuoteSo 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.
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 14, 2014, 11:00:15 PM
Quote from: mikehunt on October 14, 2014, 09:37:27 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 14, 2014, 09:17:57 PM
Quote from: Jim Vaughan on October 14, 2014, 08:26:41 PM
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!!
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 14, 2014, 11:05:27 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 14, 2014, 10:32:13 PM
QuoteSo 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.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 14, 2014, 11:12:50 PM
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.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 14, 2014, 11:12:50 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 14, 2014, 11:00:15 PM
Quote from: mikehunt on October 14, 2014, 09:37:27 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 14, 2014, 09:17:57 PM
Quote from: Jim Vaughan on October 14, 2014, 08:26:41 PM
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.
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 14, 2014, 11:28:01 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 14, 2014, 11:12:50 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 14, 2014, 11:00:15 PM
Quote from: mikehunt on October 14, 2014, 09:37:27 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 14, 2014, 09:17:57 PM
Quote from: Jim Vaughan on October 14, 2014, 08:26:41 PM
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.
I'd actually
All ' investment' has been in fixing large leaks and problems/outages rather than planned replacement according to my pal
Has been like this for decades
It's a home that the charge for water is for conservation reasons - they are leaking half the filtered water
There isn't as big an issue with effluent piping
As for the regulator- you seem to think this is a simple task and a fait acomplit - do you recall the financial regulator and it's lack of policies procedures and actual regulations?
Likewise for health service etc
Not a great track record in regulation here - who regulates the regulators!!!
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 14, 2014, 10:49:45 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on October 14, 2014, 10:07:22 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 14, 2014, 07:39:56 PM
Quote from: Jim Vaughan on October 14, 2014, 07:36:32 PM
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?
Did you notice an improvement in your local services since the introduction of the LPT? Did you buy that fairy story too?
Quote from: magpie seanie on October 15, 2014, 11:58:42 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 14, 2014, 10:49:45 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on October 14, 2014, 10:07:22 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 14, 2014, 07:39:56 PM
Quote from: Jim Vaughan on October 14, 2014, 07:36:32 PM
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?
Did you notice an improvement in your local services since the introduction of the LPT? Did you buy that fairy story too?
Don't be cynical. Someone has to fund the payoffs to failing executives.
Quote from: magpie seanie on October 15, 2014, 11:58:42 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 14, 2014, 10:49:45 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on October 14, 2014, 10:07:22 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 14, 2014, 07:39:56 PM
Quote from: Jim Vaughan on October 14, 2014, 07:36:32 PM
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?
Did you notice an improvement in your local services since the introduction of the LPT? Did you buy that fairy story too?
I never claimed you'd see an improvement. Maybe there will be an improvement in the long term, maybe there won't. The point that seems to be lost on a lot of people is that as a country, Ireland was spending more than it was taking in tax. That's called a deficit. The deficit is bridged by increasing income / taxes, and / or reducing spending.
That aside, it stands to reason that the money from general taxation that previously went to water will no longer go to water. It follows that it will therefore be used on other public services. Where else can it go?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 15, 2014, 12:15:07 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 14, 2014, 11:28:01 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 14, 2014, 11:12:50 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 14, 2014, 11:00:15 PM
Quote from: mikehunt on October 14, 2014, 09:37:27 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 14, 2014, 09:17:57 PM
Quote from: Jim Vaughan on October 14, 2014, 08:26:41 PM
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.
I'd actually
All ' investment' has been in fixing large leaks and problems/outages rather than planned replacement according to my pal
Has been like this for decades
It's a home that the charge for water is for conservation reasons - they are leaking half the filtered water
There isn't as big an issue with effluent piping
Your pal clearly doesn't know the whole picture though - according to the IW website, work began in 2006 to identify and replace old watermains in Dublin and to date over 140,000m of pipes have been replaced. http://www.water.ie/about-us/project-and-plans/projects/
A quick google shows other schemes around the country in recent years.
But no doubt it will take years, if not decades, to reverse the impact of under investment.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 15, 2014, 12:15:07 AM
As for the regulator- you seem to think this is a simple task and a fait acomplit - do you recall the financial regulator and it's lack of policies procedures and actual regulations?
Likewise for health service etc
Not a great track record in regulation here - who regulates the regulators!!!
I used the word "should" a lot in terms of regulation for a reason. But this is economic regulation - the HSE isn't comparable. The regulator for utilities decides how much a utility company needs to run a service and maintain its assets (networks, works etc.) and approves charges based on that (for example, the regulator dictates that Irish Water needs €Xbn over 5 years for operational expenditure and capital investment, and approves charges necessary to cover those costs) - the utility then has to demonstrate 'outputs', e.g. that it has laid Xkm of pipes, reached certain water quality standards etc.
Yes, Ireland has had serious issues with regulation in the past, but I can't recall issues with regulation of the other utilities (gas and electricity) and that's really the only appropriate benchmark.
Yes you use the word 'should' a lot.
My info is from people ( plural - a friend and those in his company) working with/for the water industry in Ireland for 20 odd years.
You are getting your info from Irish water website and gov spin!!!!!
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 15, 2014, 10:38:54 PM
Yes you use the word 'should' a lot.
My info is from people ( plural - a friend and those in his company) working with/for the water industry in Ireland for 20 odd years.
You are getting your info from Irish water website and gov spin!!!!!
Your right, your "friend" is a lot more reliable. There's no replacement of watermains, it has all been made up. ::)
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 15, 2014, 08:51:33 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on October 15, 2014, 11:58:42 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 14, 2014, 10:49:45 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on October 14, 2014, 10:07:22 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 14, 2014, 07:39:56 PM
Quote from: Jim Vaughan on October 14, 2014, 07:36:32 PM
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?
Did you notice an improvement in your local services since the introduction of the LPT? Did you buy that fairy story too?
I never claimed you'd see an improvement. Maybe there will be an improvement in the long term, maybe there won't. The point that seems to be lost on a lot of people is that as a country, Ireland was spending more than it was taking in tax. That's called a deficit. The deficit is bridged by increasing income / taxes, and / or reducing spending.
That aside, it stands to reason that the money from general taxation that previously went to water will no longer go to water. It follows that it will therefore be used on other public services. Where else can it go?
There are as many middle managers in the HSE as there are GPs in the country. A health service where admin seems to be more important than actually treating the sick. There are multiple number of civil/public service workers in Ireland when compared with a country with a similar demographic in New Zealand. Our Taoiseach earned (not sure if it he still does) more than his counterparts in other major countries like the US, France Germany. Same with most levels of the public/civil service. Overpaid and unaccountable. Where elsein the world would the head of the Financial Regulator go to court and say he didn't keep notes of a meeting with the head of a bank he knew to be in trouble and not only stay out of jail but keep his gold plated pension?
This is why we are running a deficit. Expecting this new water board to do anything but feed from another trough is delusional. The appointment of McNulty by Inda being the most recent case in point about how this country is run. The spokesperson of the waterboard said there were not going to be bonuses but there would be performance related award structures.
Quote from: foxcommander on October 14, 2014, 09:57:31 PM
Quote from: Jim Vaughan on October 14, 2014, 08:26:41 PM
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.
Barnardos publish their accounts online so you can have a look if you're that interested. It would pay you better than anonymously badmouthing a good charity like Barnardos
Quote from: mikehuntThere are as many middle managers in the HSE as there are GPs in the country. A health service where admin seems to be more important than actually treating the sick. There are multiple number of civil/public service workers in Ireland when compared with a country with a similar demographic in New Zealand.
This is a good example of the type of half baked comment that diverts discussions in this country. There are too few GPs and too many managers. But there are not too many in the public service, as I said class sizes are larger than elsewhere, there are too few GPs, and not enough of a variety of things. You only have to look at the comparative numbers in the 6 counties mentioned early in the week. 26 counties services are not always well run, they may have staff in the wrong place, but are not overstaffed in aggregate.
QuoteThe spokesperson of the waterboard said there were not going to be bonuses but there would be performance related award structures.
Once again a range of successful organisations have performance related award structures. They are quite appropriate if they are directed at actual performance. But here nobody bothers about the detail as they prefer to rant about things in general.
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 15, 2014, 11:15:37 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on October 14, 2014, 09:57:31 PM
Quote from: Jim Vaughan on October 14, 2014, 08:26:41 PM
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.
Barnardos publish their accounts online so you can have a look if you're that interested. It would pay you better than anonymously badmouthing a good charity like Barnardos
Did I badmouth Barnardos?
Obviously you don't know your facts. Finlay pulled in 113k in 2011, no recent figures but doubtful that has decreased much if at all.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/politics/shedding-light-on-the-pay-of-charity-chiefs-168676.html
Quote from: armaghniac on October 15, 2014, 11:52:24 PM
Quote from: mikehuntThere are as many middle managers in the HSE as there are GPs in the country. A health service where admin seems to be more important than actually treating the sick. There are multiple number of civil/public service workers in Ireland when compared with a country with a similar demographic in New Zealand.
This is a good example of the type of half baked comment that diverts discussions in this country. There are too few GPs and too many managers. But there are not too many in the public service, as I said class sizes are larger than elsewhere, there are too few GPs, and not enough of a variety of things. You only have to look at the comparative numbers in the 6 counties mentioned early in the week. 26 counties services are not always well run, they may have staff in the wrong place, but are not overstaffed in aggregate.
QuoteThe spokesperson of the waterboard said there were not going to be bonuses but there would be performance related award structures.
Once again a range of successful organisations have performance related award structures. They are quite appropriate if they are directed at actual performance. But here nobody bothers about the detail as they prefer to rant about things in general.
There was a GP on Radio 1 a few months ago. She mentioned there were 2,060 middle mgrs in the HSE. What they all did she didn't know and she'd never actually met one to ask. That's where I got my half assed point from.
Your argument about class sizes misses the point. The teachers were more concerned about keeping their own nest feathered at the expense of new entrants. Not the only reason but student welfare was far from their minds when the unions signed up to Haddington Road.
If there is a difference between a bonus and a performance related award structure then I'm not interested as I've heard enough business related spoof to keep me going for a while.
Quote from: mikehunt on October 16, 2014, 03:20:02 PM
There was a GP on Radio 1 a few months ago. She mentioned there were 2,060 middle mgrs in the HSE. What they all did she didn't know and she'd never actually met one to ask.
I doubt if GPs have time to go into all the various HSE offices saying " Can I meet a middle manager please?" and then asking them to describe their job and role.
Equally GPs hardly want a situation where "middle managers" are coming in to their busy practices just to introduce themselves.
Quote from: Rossfan on October 16, 2014, 05:24:43 PM
Quote from: mikehunt on October 16, 2014, 03:20:02 PM
There was a GP on Radio 1 a few months ago. She mentioned there were 2,060 middle mgrs in the HSE. What they all did she didn't know and she'd never actually met one to ask.
I doubt if GPs have time to go into all the various HSE offices saying " Can I meet a middle manager please?" and then asking them to describe their job and role.
Equally GPs hardly want a situation where "middle managers" are coming in to their busy practices just to introduce themselves.
Yeah good point. Why would decision makers and resource allocators need to meet the people that deliver front line services.
Hse was made up of the old regional health boards merging
So the positions were covered in triplicate.
They couldn't sack them so most if not nearly all of them remain in situ!