Sir, – The characterisation by columnist Fintan O’Toole of the recent budget as “the fourth regressive budget in a row” simply does not stand up to scrutiny (“The Irish Water debacle: why the State is heading towards being ungovernable”, Opinion & Analysis, November 5th) .
While the default setting of armchair generals like Fintan O’Toole is to criticise and denigrate everything that this Government, and particularly the Labour Party does, surely the general public has a right to expect a contribution that is somewhat more balanced and more factual than what I read.
Mr O’Toole claims that the combined impact of the tax and welfare measures and of water charges would reduce the income of the lowest income households by 1 per cent. Given that the Government has not yet completed the process of determining the precise details around charging for water – how much households will end up paying, how much they will receive in allowances, how it will be dealt with in terms of tax relief, what kind of supports they can expect from the Department of Social Protection, etc – I can only conclude that Mr O’Toole is in possession of some kind of crystal ball and that he knows more about the final outcome of these deliberations than any of the Government Ministers dealing with the matter!
Leaving that to one side, it seems to have conveniently escaped Mr O’Toole’s attention that as a result of this budget, the tax burden on high-earners has been increased, while the burden on lower earners has been reduced!
The facts are that as a result of Budget 2015: the 1 per cent of all earners on over €200,000 will account for 21 per cent of all taxes paid in 2015. This is up from 19 per cent in 2014. The 6 per cent of all earners on over €100,000 will account for 44 per cent of all taxes paid in 2015. This is up from 42 per cent in 2014. The 76 per cent of all earners on under €50,000 will account for 20 per cent of all taxes paid in 2015. This is down from 21 per cent in 2014. The benefit of decreasing income tax for high earners is capped at €70,000. A further 80,000 low-paid workers will be exempt from the universal social charge.
It also must have escaped his notice that as part of Budget 2015, there was a massive increase in investment in social housing. Alan Kelly announced that we would be investing €800 million in housing, so that we can begin delivering 7,500 family homes in 2015 and a total of 40,000 family homes in the coming years – the single biggest social housing announcement in the history of the State.
The social impact of initiatives like this may not be captured by the analytical models that think tanks, research groups and commentators have come to rely on, but in the real world they have a real impact on actual families.
In addition, spending on homelessness will increase by 20 per cent to €55 million, something that as a Labour TD I would warmly welcome.
Ahead of the budget, we said that we would take steps to reduce the pressure on working families, and to that end, we increased child benefit and introduced the new back-to-work family dividend, a scheme that will provide additional financial support to help jobseekers with families return to work. On top of that, all long-term welfare recipients will receive a Christmas bonus of 25 per cent of their weekly payment in light of the costs associated with this period.
While it may not chime with his consistently critical attitude to Labour, Mr O’Toole should out of fairness acknowledge these positive and progressive measures in a budget that took this country another step along the road to both economic and social recovery. – Yours, etc,
DEREK NOLAN, TD
Leinster House,
Dublin 2.
A chara, – The serialised Irish Water story makes for gripping reading from overseas. Judging by Simon Coveney’s remark that there is no chance Irish Water will be scrapped (“Clarity on water charges to come ‘shortly’, says Kenny”, November 3rd), we will surely now get to see what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. – Is mise,
EOIN Ó COLGAIN.
Port Jefferson,
New York.
Sir, – So Enda Kenny is promising us “clarity” and Alan Kelly is promising “changes” to the water-charging regime and that charges will be “modest”. All we have to do is give the Government a week or so to work things out and all will be okay. We’ll see what transpires, but if I was a Government TD I would be very worried indeed for my job.
I bet a lot of people in the Coalition are wishing they were in Big Phil’s happy position right now.
Some of them must feel like the Egyptians following the Israelites across the Red Sea – very, very afraid of water. – Yours, etc,
LIAM COOKE,
Coolock,
Dublin 17.
Sir, – Those who think that they can walk on the stuff inevitably drown. – Yours, etc,
DENIS O’DONOVAN,
Cork.
Sir, – In the old days when people needed water, they got it by boring a well. Today, the Government and the media are solving the problem by boring us all to death. – Yours, etc,
SEAMUS McKENNA,
Dublin 14.
Sir, – Following a marked drop in pressure in my cryptosporidium-infested water, I phoned my local county council office. I was advised that my water problem was now in the care of Irish Water and I was given an 1890 number to call.
On calling this number, a pleasant lady with an accent from the southern hemisphere answered. She requested my postcode and I explained that we do not have such a facility in Ireland, let alone in rural western areas. She seemed puzzled. Having given her my rural postal address, she asked which city was involved. I explained patiently that no city has risen from the limestone grasslands of Co Roscommon, despite the miracles promised by non-party and traditional party politicians. My plea to send out the local water maintenance man, who lives nearby and always dealt efficiently and speedily with such problems, was in vain. – Yours, etc,
Dr MÁIRE
NÍ CHONCHUBHAIR,
Boyle,
Co Roscommon.
Sir, – Yes, there are problems with the establishment of the new organisation that will manage our public supply of water.
Among these are the fact that the complete business model was not thought through before operations began – particularly administration, adequate and equable allowances, and billing; the level of salaries paid to a group of senior executives; a bonus scheme completely lacking in credibility; a level of overmanning that the new organisation has been obliged to inherit; and a reactive rather than a balanced approach to communications.
Some of these are problems that have become endemic in public administration in Ireland, such as remuneration systems, and some are correctable by the management of Irish Water or their political masters, such as ensuring that there is no charge for a level of usage that covers all normal personal and household needs.
The disservice arises, however, because of the refusal to address the problems that Irish Water was established to deal with; and the various red herrings that have been introduced into the debate.
That we need an organisation to correct the historical problems of investment, maintenance, quality and management of the public water supply is incontrovertible and is being ignored. Doing nothing or reverting to what has failed is not an option.
The red herrings include the idea that there is some kind of double-counting involved – that we are paying twice for water. Of course that portion of general taxation previously allocated to our water supply is now being spent on other things. But new taxes would have to be raised for those other things if that were not the case.
Another is that Irish Water is already a private enterprise or that it is particularly susceptible to such a development. It is perfectly legitimate to advocate that it should never be privatised.
But this issue is not unique to Irish Water. It also applies to our public transport and, especially, power supplies.
If the political leaders of the protest seriously wanted to solve the problems of those who feel threatened by the establishment of Irish Water in its present form, they would be accepting the need for an organisation such as Irish Water, accepting that some of its shortcomings are endemic in the Irish public service (and perhaps addressing these), and spelling out how those problems that are particular to Irish Water can be solved within the context of the need for such an organisation.
They should also admit that abolishing charges will jettison the opportunity to collect revenue for excessive or discretionary usage.
The absence of such rigorous analysis and proposed alternatives, and the presence of simplistic slogans, must raise questions about political credibility and responsibility. – Yours, etc,
JOHN CASEY,
Bray,
Co Wicklow.