Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

1235793

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,834 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Matt a mate of mine is moving into a garage next week. Was paying E800 a month rent including bills. Barely spent any time there, the odd few nights a week. Other friends of mine are putting up log cabins in their parents garden, an option that short of being given a "free house" is actually streets ahead of any other option. I hear these idiots saying "work harder" living in Dublin "isnt realistic" well it is for many people who have never worked as hard or were handed everything to them or bought when prices were a pittance during the recession or in the eighties, nineties etc... or have inherited!

    The situation is a total disgrace and there are are simple solutions... I think there are now big problems, where workers are living in sheds, garages etc and the likes of Ca$h can be given a lifestyle, with no stress when she has been permanently housed, guaranteed income that would probably equate to a working couple having to earn what? 100k a year?!


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,039 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    This comes up as a derailment any time something uncomfortable for government is raised. In short, it's been covered.

    Agreed they should all be vetted and policed. Another failure for Leo. He's top man now, so what evs.

    Even with current arrears, do you think social housing is a better alternative to selling off homes cheaply to have them rented back to us, renting off private landlords, giving cheap loans of tax payer money to developers and buying homes at market rate to use as social housing?

    That isn't sufficient.

    You seem to think there is corruption and wrongness everywhere in government except in the area of expenditure on social needs.

    The reality is that there are systemic flaws in social aid that sees money going to people who don't deserve it. This is at the expense of people who do deserve it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,684 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Who controls planning in Dubin?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    Matt a mate of mine is moving into a garage next week. Was paying E800 a month rent including bills. Barely spent any time there, the odd few nights a week. Other friends of mine are putting up log cabins in their parents garden, an option that short of being given a "free house" is actually streets ahead of any other option. I hear these idiots saying "work harder" living in Dublin "isnt realistic" well it is for many people who have never worked as hard or were handed everything to them or bought when prices were a pittance during the recession or in the eighties, nineties etc... or have inherited!

    The situation is a total disgrace and there are are simple solutions... I think there are now big problems, where workers are living in sheds, garages etc and the likes of Ca$h can be given a lifestyle, with no stress when she has been permanently housed, guaranteed income that would probably equate to a working couple having to earn what? 100k a year?!

    I think they are two separate issues. Because the state/LA's mismanage, either purposefully or by incompetence, the running of the country regarding housing, looking to those deemed in need of state aid to pick up the slack might make some folk feel good but it won't solve the problem. We'll simply have those reliant on state aid and those deemed the most vulnerable in a worse position and the crisis will continue as is.
    Sticking Cash in a privately rented apartment is wrong in my opinion. We can argue we have to put her somewhere and that's the only option. That's on the state/LA's. There are numerous policies can be brought in or adjusted to tackle such people, (cut off child benefit after one child IMO) if we had social housing we could be saving the tax payer money on private set rent.
    Working tax payers needing state aid, living in a garage, moving back in with parents is one thing. The state/LA's not policing welfare as much as we might like is another. For every wan reported on in the media there's millions going to private landlords and on cheap loans to private developers for private profits. You can dislike all of these things. It's a false argument to put forward if you don't like current housing policy you support welfare being sky high for anyone who wants it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    That isn't sufficient.

    You seem to think there is corruption and wrongness everywhere in government except in the area of expenditure on social needs.

    The reality is that there are systemic flaws in social aid that sees money going to people who don't deserve it. This is at the expense of people who do deserve it.

    You just quoted me saying it needs to be policed and vetted.

    I'm sure Leo lost interest after he left the department and I'm sure there are chancers. I'm sure there might be places we can place cuts. What has that got to do with piss poor housing policy and the states/LA's inability or reluctance to change it and address the crisis?
    You've not answered my query.
    Even with current arrears, do you think social housing is a better alternative to selling off homes cheaply to have them rented back to us, renting off private landlords, giving cheap loans of tax payer money to developers and buying homes at market rate to use as social housing?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,039 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    You just quoted me saying it needs to be policed and vetted.

    I'm sure Leo lost interest after he left the department and I'm sure there are chancers. I'm sure there might be places we can place cuts. What has that got to do with piss poor housing policy and the states/LA's inability or reluctance to change it and address the crisis?
    You've not answered my query.


    Policed and vetted isn't enough.

    If there are rules that say Denis O'Brien is entitled to a medical card, child benefit for any children and free water for his swimming pool, shouldn't we be entitled to suggest that the rules should be changed because the benefits are going to the rich?

    There is a certain preciousness about the suggestion that the only things wrong with social benefits in Ireland is that they aren't high enough and that there is only a small level of fraud. The reality is that the social benefit structure in Ireland is in need of massive reform so that those who should benefit the most do actually benefit the most and those that don't need it but who get it because of lazy rules should be excluded. That means it isn't just about policing and vetting, it is about changing the rules, and restructuring and reforming the whole system.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,834 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    can responsibility be taken off the local authorities? you simply take them out of the equation. Come up with a plan for a site, and there should be minimum densities. Let developers build the schemes, there is then X amount of social and affordable or cost plus rental, plus private, whatever!


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,039 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    can responsibility be taken off the local authorities? you simply take them out of the equation. Come up with a plan for a site, and there should be minimum densities. Let developers build the schemes, there is then X amount of social and affordable or cost plus rental, plus private, whatever!



    https://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/green-light-given-for-313-new-homes-in-cherrywood-37241858.html


    Here is another example of local authorities refusing to address the housing crisis. Rather than taking 9 apartments off the top of these blocks, why aren't they pressing the builders to go up another floor or two? Cherrywood is on the LUAS line, with little development of historical value nearby, there is no reason not to go high-rise.


  • Registered Users Posts: 277 ✭✭Nitrogan


    A lot of the discussion around housing now is eerily similar to the late '90s. All we need now is a populist Bertie style government to release the handbrake and off we go again, boom and tragic bust. It will be the bankers, developers, public sector unions etc. to blame in the aftermath rather than the feckin eijets who wanted instant solutions to issues which take time to solve.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,834 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    blanch152 wrote: »
    https://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/green-light-given-for-313-new-homes-in-cherrywood-37241858.html


    Here is another example of local authorities refusing to address the housing crisis. Rather than taking 9 apartments off the top of these blocks, why aren't they pressing the builders to go up another floor or two? Cherrywood is on the LUAS line, with little development of historical value nearby, there is no reason not to go high-rise.

    dont even get me going on the height issue. With current regulations, the cost of building apartments is a joke. Nobody on even the average industrial wage could come close to affording a new apartment. Densities need to be increased, the dual aspect requirement has to go, lift core ratio is no doubt another expensive joke. The other issue that is at times like these, developers go for luxury apartments (as it is most profitable), when demand is screaming out for reasonably affordable ones.

    There is a mix of apartments and sizes specified in developments. There needs to be a far broader mix in my opinion. There is a serious need for compact one beds and studios in Dublin, people with long hours and active social lives, will gladly take a smaller place that is their own, that share. Also I would legalise living structures in back gardens, for a minimum of five years. (subject to conditions of course) It can be reviewed after that...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,834 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Nitrogan wrote: »
    A lot of the discussion around housing now is eerily similar to the late '90s. All we need now is a populist Bertie style government to release the handbrake and off we go again, boom and tragic bust. It will be the bankers, developers, public sector unions etc. to blame in the aftermath rather than the feckin eijets who wanted instant solutions to issues which take time to solve.

    you think the housing crisis will be solved the way things are right now? solved for who?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭Edward M


    People the state deems in need of tax payer funded state aid, the poor, sick, elderly, the working tax payer who can't get by. Who do you think it is and do you have any input in regards of social housing being a better alternate to what we have now or how we might find funding?

    Ran out of road with AIB onto the definition of most vulnerable, beats discussing the housing crisis I suppose.

    I'm reading this thread, I throwing the odd comment, but I don't see any solution to the housing crisis on here, just talk of the vulnerable in society being hit or govt trying to hit them again for the solution.
    From what I can see, I see the vulnerable being looked after pretty well here, homelessness is very troublesome and worrying for sure, but the vast majority are at least sheltered.
    I see a lot of vulnerable housed people too, just above the line for a lot of entitlements, struggling to hold on to their homes, commuting long journeys with no prospects of anything different in their future, slaves just to keep their heads above water, that aren't classed as vulnerable at all, a,lot of them classed as middle income earners, always hit and having to drag their load a bit heavier.
    Social/council housing has been a disaster for the most part in towns around where I live and spreading outs bit.
    Good houses destroyed by uncaring and ungrateful Tennant's who had no regard for the help they were given. With rent arrears high, maintainance costs through the roof when they were occupied, and unsocial behaviour of their occupiers, I can see the reasoning for not trying this approach to housing again.
    These type of estates are boarded up in every county in the country.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,834 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    This rubbish that you dont see solutions, there are so many solutions, where do you start?

    I dont even think they require financial solutions as such. They require a change in what and how we build, thats for sure. We need masses of apartments and studios. the "market" would supply that in spades, if it made financial sense for them to do it...

    Ideally though the state would start building again itself... That and encourage the market to supply what we actually need it supply, rather than what makes most financial sense for them to supply. See here we go again, back on the merry go round. The government dont change anything and the onus is on them and then we wonder why nothing changes, its gone beyond a joke!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Policed and vetted isn't enough.

    If there are rules that say Denis O'Brien is entitled to a medical card, child benefit for any children and free water for his swimming pool, shouldn't we be entitled to suggest that the rules should be changed because the benefits are going to the rich?

    There is a certain preciousness about the suggestion that the only things wrong with social benefits in Ireland is that they aren't high enough and that there is only a small level of fraud. The reality is that the social benefit structure in Ireland is in need of massive reform so that those who should benefit the most do actually benefit the most and those that don't need it but who get it because of lazy rules should be excluded. That means it isn't just about policing and vetting, it is about changing the rules, and restructuring and reforming the whole system.

    By policed and vetted I mean rooting out fraud and checking to ensure people need and get what they are due no more no less. I think that about covers it for me.
    Yes rules should be amended as needed. I agree. As I said, I'd cap child allowance after one kid. Have as many as you like but the state won't be paying.
    There is no such thing as free water. Some people get state aid to function, some of them and those who don't pay taxes.

    I agree, who is saying the only thing wrong is it's not high enough? I've seen folk argue it be raised in certain areas in comparison to the cost of living. I've not seen any one FG or FF raise anything just 'cause.

    How do you envisage changing the system? I think the idea of giving state aid to people that need it based on the level of need is an excellent idea and one I'm happy to help fund. What reforms of the whole system are you thinking?
    I think when people look at how tough they may have it they should look to those who set up and run the marvelous economy, not the minority who avail of welfare. Not saying changes mightn't be needed but looking to the worse off to what? If economic policies remain the same and we cut the pension, it will not make any difference to anyone, bar the pensioners.

    You've succeeded in turning a discussion about the housing crisis and social housing/funding into a debate about welfare being the problem. Where do you stand on the current state policies causing the housing crisis to worsen?
    Even with current arrears, do you think social housing is a better alternative to selling off homes cheaply to have them rented back to us, renting off private landlords, giving cheap loans of tax payer money to developers and buying homes at market rate to use as social housing?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    can responsibility be taken off the local authorities? you simply take them out of the equation. Come up with a plan for a site, and there should be minimum densities. Let developers build the schemes, there is then X amount of social and affordable or cost plus rental, plus private, whatever!

    It's government too. Who would organise such a thing? The Councillors are from parties of all stripes. FF/FG are not doing a good job, giving them more authority will mean no change.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    https://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/green-light-given-for-313-new-homes-in-cherrywood-37241858.html


    Here is another example of local authorities refusing to address the housing crisis. Rather than taking 9 apartments off the top of these blocks, why aren't they pressing the builders to go up another floor or two? Cherrywood is on the LUAS line, with little development of historical value nearby, there is no reason not to go high-rise.

    If ever you take the Luas Green line south you'll see another world. Politicians, local and national don't like to spoil their view or that of their voters.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭Edward M


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    This rubbish that you dont see solutions, there are so many solutions, where do you start?

    I dont even think they require financial solutions as such. They require a change in what and how we build, thats for sure. We need masses of apartments and studios. the "market" would supply that in spades, if it made financial sense for them to do it...

    Ideally though the state would start building again itself... That and encourage the market to supply what we actually need it supply, rather than what makes most financial sense for them to supply. See here we go again, back on the merry go round. The government dont change anything and the onus is on them and then we wonder why nothing changes, its gone beyond a joke!

    Affordability, that's the problem really, short of creating another bubble, and we are getting there anyway, there is no solution.
    The biggest problem here is the necessity to own ones own home in our own minds.
    I think investor driven rental markets would be better perhaps, certainly allow for high rise increases, smaller houses built to house families.
    If you look at housing across the water for instance to GB, their houses are far smaller, tighter packed with no frills, just sustainable living spaces.
    Also the mindset that an investor should be nearly expected to work and supply for nothing so the vulnerable should have a home needs to change, these investors need to be encouraged by some gain.
    Let that be tax reductions or something, then so be it. In the end it could be more prudent for the taxpayer overall.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Edward M wrote: »
    I'm reading this thread, I throwing the odd comment, but I don't see any solution to the housing crisis on here, just talk of the vulnerable in society being hit or govt trying to hit them again for the solution.
    From what I can see, I see the vulnerable being looked after pretty well here, homelessness is very troublesome and worrying for sure, but the vast majority are at least sheltered.
    I see a lot of vulnerable housed people too, just above the line for a lot of entitlements, struggling to hold on to their homes, commuting long journeys with no prospects of anything different in their future, slaves just to keep their heads above water, that aren't classed as vulnerable at all, a,lot of them classed as middle income earners, always hit and having to drag their load a bit heavier.
    Social/council housing has been a disaster for the most part in towns around where I live and spreading outs bit.
    Good houses destroyed by uncaring and ungrateful Tennant's who had no regard for the help they were given. With rent arrears high, maintainance costs through the roof when they were occupied, and unsocial behaviour of their occupiers, I can see the reasoning for not trying this approach to housing again.
    These type of estates are boarded up in every county in the country.

    There was talk of looking to those on welfare to garnish some funds for social housing and talk against it. You are discussing welfare reform. Fair enough.

    Social housing has been a disaster? When Dublin was filled with slums did social housing or a can do attitude help us out?
    Now you've an issue with anti-social behaviour. Fair enough.
    Should we close down the Dail every time a TD is found with his hands in the till?

    So carry on as is? Pay private landlords. You know we buy housing off the market to use as social housing, housing the very people ruin social housing? Still stands building our own is the best deal IMO.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Edward M wrote: »
    Affordability, that's the problem really, short of creating another bubble, and we are getting there anyway, there is no solution.
    The biggest problem here is the necessity to own ones own home in our own minds.
    I think investor driven rental markets would be better perhaps, certainly allow for high rise increases, smaller houses built to house families.
    If you look at housing across the water for instance to GB, their houses are far smaller, tighter packed with no frills, just sustainable living spaces.
    Also the mindset that an investor should be nearly expected to work and supply for nothing so the vulnerable should have a home needs to change, these investors need to be encouraged by some gain.
    Let that be tax reductions or something, then so be it. In the end it could be more prudent for the taxpayer overall.

    This is what is destroying the market. Companies and firms buying up housing to rent to the state or whomever. This creates high rents and a shortage of housing stock buyers can afford. We are aiding and abetting in the growth of the crisis with tax payer money. It's disgusting quite frankly.

    We have depended on the private market too much and quite rightly they are doing what private business does, gouging the state and the tax payer. We are past small piecemeal amendments. We need social housing stock to lower hotel and B&B costs, and reliance on private rentals. We need housing workers can afford. Only this will cool the market, or we could continue as is until the next crash. We are encouraging high rents and high selling prices on the market. If we're going to interfere why not for the publics benefit for once?
    Homes for rent or sale based on income, at no loss to the state. They could be modest and in small pockets throughout the country as needed to quell the crisis. We'd recoup rents based on income and make on sales, even selling at an affordable rate.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭Edward M


    There was talk of looking to those on welfare to garnish some funds for social housing and talk against it. You are discussing welfare reform. Fair enough.

    Social housing has been a disaster? When Dublin was filled with slums did social housing or a can do attitude help us out?
    Now you've an issue with anti-social behaviour. Fair enough.
    Should we close down the Dail every time a TD is found with his hands in the till?

    So carry on as is? Pay private landlords. You know we buy housing off the market to use as social housing, housing the very people ruin social housing? Still stands building our own is the best deal IMO.

    Putting everybody in a house won't solve societal problems, it won takeaway much from the cost of keeping them as is either, by th e time the cost of the housing and maintainance is put together.
    Problems can't be solved just by saying govt needs to provide adequate housing, that's a myth always has been.
    People themselves have to be prepared to make some sort of restitution for the conditions they live in, the biggest problem is too many are sort of telling them and trying to gain support for themselves by convincing others it can be done.
    It can of course, but at the total cost to other taxpayers.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 277 ✭✭Nitrogan


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    you think the housing crisis will be solved the way things are right now? solved for who?

    Yes, for everyone in time if we have patience and plan carefully.

    Restrictions on the height of developments needs to be adjusted, without allowing a free-for-all, and some people claiming to be homeless should be allowed take vacant properties in rural areas temporarily without losing their place on Dublin housing lists.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Edward M wrote: »
    Putting everybody in a house won't solve societal problems, it won takeaway much from the cost of keeping them as is either, by th e time the cost of the housing and maintainance is put together.
    Problems can't be solved just by saying govt needs to provide adequate housing, that's a myth always has been.

    We are talking about helping honest people who need it. No more, no less.
    What societal problems are you talking about now? We were on the housing crisis. You believe paying a landlord enough rent that he pays any personal cost and comes out with profit is cheaper than the state doing the same, renting out stock it owns but at a reasonable rate?
    Any rent could easily result in profit, in the least pay back for the build over time. Same goes for affordable. We'd simply be selling at profit, only cheaper than the market.
    It is not nor ever has been a myth. It worked for decades. We are not talking about everyone gets a house, it's a worsening housing crisis needs cooling.
    Edward M wrote: »
    People themselves have to be prepared to make some sort of restitution for the conditions they live in, the biggest problem is too many are sort of telling them and trying to gain support for themselves by convincing others it can be done.
    It can of course, but at the total cost to other taxpayers.

    Are you talking about fraud? If so we should root it out.
    Now back to housing. So what should a low paid working tax payer do? There's always an inference that anyone less well off isn't taking responsibility for themselves or pretending they are in need of state aid. That is not the case as much as gets bandied about. Again, we don't close down the Dail when a politician gets caught on the take.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭Edward M


    We are talking about helping honest people who need it. No more, no less.
    What societal problems are you talking about now? We were on the housing crisis. You believe paying a landlord enough rent that he pays any personal cost and comes out with profit is cheaper than the state doing the same, renting out stock it owns but at a reasonable rate?
    Any rent could easily result in profit, in the least pay back for the build over time. Same goes for affordable. We'd simply be selling at profit, only cheaper than the market.
    It is not nor ever has been a myth. It worked for decades. We are not talking about everyone gets a house, it's a worsening housing crisis needs cooling.



    Are you talking about fraud? If so we should root it out.
    Now back to housing. So what should a low paid working tax payer do? There's always an inference that anyone less well off isn't taking responsibility for themselves or pretending they are in need of state aid. That is not the case as much as gets bandied about. Again, we don't close down the Dail when a politician gets caught on the take.

    I never mentioned fraud.
    What I meant was working the system and the promotion of it for personal gain, be that for votes or other.
    You have highlighted the banks working the system for their own gain, perfectly legally, ifeel a lot of ordinary citizens,do the same.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Edward M wrote: »
    I never mentioned fraud.
    What I meant was working the system and the promotion of it for personal gain, be that for votes or other.
    You have highlighted the banks working the system for their own gain, perfectly legally, ifeel a lot of ordinary citizens,do the same.

    I would guess you are correct. It happens in all walks I'd imagine. We need be more vigilant. Again, the idea is sound IMO. Paying rent to a private landlord, from which he covers costs and makes profit or the state/LA's doing the same but at a lower more reasonable and affordable rate based on income. That's the choice really.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,039 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    I would guess you are correct. It happens in all walks I'd imagine. We need be more vigilant. Again, the idea is sound IMO. Paying rent to a private landlord, from which he covers costs and makes profit or the state/LA's doing the same but at a lower more reasonable and affordable rate based on income. That's the choice really.

    When a tenant doesn't pay his rent, the landlord evicts him, and the property is available to someone who will pay the rent.

    As has been pointed out on this thread and others already, the local authorities don't even collect the rent, let alone evict the non-payers. Until that is tackled, your scheme doesn't work.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,157 ✭✭✭Good loser


    blanch152 wrote: »
    When a tenant doesn't pay his rent, the landlord evicts him, and the property is available to someone who will pay the rent.

    As has been pointed out on this thread and others already, the local authorities don't even collect the rent, let alone evict the non-payers. Until that is tackled, your scheme doesn't work.


    You think Matt has a scheme?? The one constant in all Matt's voluminous and relentless contributions is an absence of figures/numbers/maths. Essentially they contribute nothing to advancing a solution to the crisis; all he is running is a blame game linking FG as best he can to the shortage of housing (in Dublin) through constant repetition of cliched generalities.

    Only suitable for the dustbin - like the AIB trophe.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Good loser wrote: »
    You think Matt has a scheme?? The one constant in all Matt's voluminous and relentless contributions is an absence of figures/numbers/maths. Essentially they contribute nothing to advancing a solution to the crisis; all he is running is a blame game linking FG as best he can to the shortage of housing (in Dublin) through constant repetition of cliched generalities.

    Only suitable for the dustbin - like the AIB trophe.

    On this.

    Did you ever throw up a source for your 'stats' yet?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,190 ✭✭✭christy c


    On this.

    Did you ever throw up a source for your 'stats' yet?

    Is that the cost of living thing? August 2008 to July 2018 is down .6 per cent

    https://www.cso.ie/en/interactivezone/visualisationtools/cpiinflationcalculator/


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    christy c wrote: »
    Is that the cost of living thing? August 2008 to July 2018 is down .6 per cent

    https://www.cso.ie/en/interactivezone/visualisationtools/cpiinflationcalculator/


    Yeah that's it.

    Pay attention to the bolded parts - this is where I asked him to be more specific.

    It's all about context.
    Social Welfare is inclusive of many different payments, not exclusively dole payments. State pensions (it's biggest single expenditure actually) for example come from this budget.

    I didn't actually see the source of your stats, but I'm guessing they're certainly not factoring in minor details like the cost of rental accommodation (you know that crisis we had and is still ongoing that forced the govt to introduce new legislation on private landlords rental % rises etc) energy costs (is anyone here paying cheaper rates of gas or electricity or oil than they were in 2008?) Insurance hikes, and tobacco or alcohol?

    So unless these welfare recipients don't need shelter nor energy - they should be grand so altogether.

    You might want to ask Leo why he fired off more to those on SW than many of those working got by way of tax cuts got in the last budget seeing as how you reckon they should be able to survive on less now than they did in 2008.

    Saying you gave stats without actually posting stats, and providing a source for them, doesn't really cut the mustard I'm afraid G.L
    .


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,190 ✭✭✭christy c


    Yeah that's it.

    Pay attention to the bolded parts - this is where I asked him to be more specific.

    It's all about context.

    I linked to the CPI which I assume answers your questions about what's included? Without having looked in to it I would guess that the main reason for the decrease is the price of oil which peaked in 2008.


Advertisement