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]

1356793

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,568 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Yeah it's all Leo:


    Willie apparently makes the same calls every year around budget time so come election time he can call to pensioners doors and show off to them


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,019 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Willie apparently makes the same calls every year around budget time so come election time he can call to pensioners doors and show off to them


    It is the shallowest level of politics.


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


    Good loser wrote: »
    Too many houses once and too few houses now.


    The market adjusted then and would now too if left alone.


    In the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s that's what happened.


    The State/LAs can build all the houses they want - provided they pay for them.


    Social welfare takes 30% of the budget excl houses. If we are to spend vast amounts of money on housing, money on social welfare will have to be cut back or taxes raised or both (preferably).


    This was not the case in those earlier decades - that is SW took much less then and Govt could afford the social housing.

    I don't believe the public coffers were over flowing in the 1930's. If we can find money to exacerbate the housing crisis we can surely find it to quell it's growth, if the will was there.
    Yet we'd need spend less on Social Protection and interfere with the housing market less if we built our own.
    Which is the cheaper option, building our own for renting to those who need it verses buying off the market, paying a private landlord or hotel?
    We're wasting tax payer money to service a growing crisis.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,019 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    I don't believe the public coffers were over flowing in the 1930's. If we can find money to exacerbate the housing crisis we can surely find it to quell it's growth, if the will was there.
    Yet we'd need spend less on Social Protection and interfere with the housing market less if we built our own.
    Which is the cheaper option, building our own for renting to those who need it verses buying off the market, paying a private landlord or hotel?
    We're wasting tax payer money to service a growing crisis.

    The simplest solution is to increase the LPT to pay for Social Housing. Only those who own houses already pay the LPT. Therefore, as in all good socialists traditions, we see a redistribution in wealth from those who have, to those who have not.

    The failure of certain local authorities to maintain the levels of LPT is a disgrace. I hope that the review being undertaken by government allow for further upward revision of LPT to help the housing crisis.

    Unlike many of the other hare-brained ideas put out there to solve the issue, this is an important step to finding the necessary funding.


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


    blanch152 wrote: »
    The simplest solution is to increase the LPT to pay for Social Housing. Only those who own houses already pay the LPT. Therefore, as in all good socialists traditions, we see a redistribution in wealth from those who have, to those who have not.

    The failure of certain local authorities to maintain the levels of LPT is a disgrace. I hope that the review being undertaken by government allow for further upward revision of LPT to help the housing crisis.

    Unlike many of the other hare-brained ideas put out there to solve the issue, this is an important step to finding the necessary funding.

    Sounds like an option.
    Sadly I think there isn't much will to build social housing in any meaningful number otherwise we'd be seeing builds already under way.


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


    Sounds like an option.
    Sadly I think there isn't much will to build social housing in any meaningful number otherwise we'd be seeing builds already under way.

    Agreement with blanch?
    Sounds like an option? A skewed tax based on home valuation and location causing the amount of tax to be contributed.?
    Tell me now, what would be the difference of agreement with a household charge for water to alleviate the funding of that service as opposed to housing?
    Sounds a bit hypocritical to me based on your feelings as regards that service?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,833 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    does anyone else here think this scenario is very plausible? the election comes, FG biggest party, FF go in with them, into coalition, but they split the ministries evenly?


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


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    does anyone else here think this scenario is very plausible? the election comes, FG biggest party, FF go in with them, into coalition, but they split the ministries evenly?

    Personally I'd doubt it. I can't see either agreeing to anything other than a confidence and supply arrangement, I'd be surprised if they left the door open to SF to Bethe main opposition party while both of them become the target.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,019 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Edward M wrote: »
    Agreement with blanch?
    Sounds like an option? A skewed tax based on home valuation and location causing the amount of tax to be contributed.?
    Tell me now, what would be the difference of agreement with a household charge for water to alleviate the funding of that service as opposed to housing?
    Sounds a bit hypocritical to me based on your feelings as regards that service?


    I would favour both, but in a reformed LPT, which allows for greater variance by local authorities, the valuation issue would be less of a problem.


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


    blanch152 wrote: »
    I would favour both, but in a reformed LPT, which allows for greater variance by local authorities, the valuation issue would be less of a problem.

    I'm not arguing your point at all really, there's merit in it.
    I live in a four bed in Cavan, value 130k or so, move that 50 miles east and its crazy the difference.
    Just Matt agreeing to a higher household charge for his pet as opposed to another, when financing one would free up money to finance the other seems a bit off to me?


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


    Edward M wrote: »
    Agreement with blanch?
    Sounds like an option? A skewed tax based on home valuation and location causing the amount of tax to be contributed.?
    Tell me now, what would be the difference of agreement with a household charge for water to alleviate the funding of that service as opposed to housing?
    Sounds a bit hypocritical to me based on your feelings as regards that service?

    Is this a point scoring exercise?
    What part of 'sounds like an option' confuses you? I believe Blanch was considering LPT as a funding source. That would be an option.
    I don't like the TV licence but there it is and a source for funding RTE.
    The water charge is a completely different ball game as we already pay. Your analogy would work if we were hit with an LPT charge aside from property tax we already pay. Not to mention the addition of a dubious quango set up.
    Edward M wrote: »
    I'm not arguing your point at all really, there's merit in it.
    I live in a four bed in Cavan, value 130k or so, move that 50 miles east and its crazy the difference.
    Just Matt agreeing to a higher household charge for his pet as opposed to another, when financing one would free up money to finance the other seems a bit off to me?

    Who did what now?
    What do you mean 'for my pet'? Is the idea of social housing up for derision? What's your solution to the housing crisis and how would you fund it?


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


    Is this a point scoring exercise?
    What part of 'sounds like an option' confuses you? I believe Blanch was considering LPT as a funding source. That would be an option.
    I don't like the TV licence but there it is and a source for funding RTE.
    The water charge is a completely different ball game as we already pay. Your analogy would work if we were hit with an LPT charge aside from property tax we already pay. Not to mention the addition of a dubious quango set up.



    Who did what now?
    What do you mean 'for my pet'? Is the idea of social housing up for derision? What's your solution to the housing crisis and how would you fund it?

    I'd have water charges for a start, and use the money saved from that towards other services, housing being one of them.
    There are other ways of doing it, increasing property tax is another way too, but I feel it needs to be inclusive of all society, not just the people already in the tax net.
    Social welfare perhaps needs to be tweaked too, our welfare bill is huge.


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


    Edward M wrote: »
    I'd have water charges for a start, and use the money saved from that towards other services, housing being one of them.
    There are other ways of doing it, increasing property tax is another way too, but I feel it needs to be inclusive of all society, not just the people already in the tax net.
    Social welfare perhaps needs to be tweaked too, our welfare bill is huge.

    I don't believe we'd have anything left over form the water charge, quite likely it would not cover itself.
    Social welfare rates are based on the cost of living. I don't think it's an easy tweak. What about all the millions we saved from Leo's welfare fraud campaign? The cost of living includes rent. We subsidise rents because people can't afford it, working people too. We can't cut that. Well we could and then watch the hotel bills go up as more join the 'emergency'.
    I know it's a small amount on the grand scheme but I wonder were the money for the Pope's gig came from (32m), the holy money tree?


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


    I don't believe we'd have anything left over form the water charge, quite likely it would not cover itself.
    Social welfare rates are based on the cost of living. I don't think it's an easy tweak. What about all the millions we saved from Leo's welfare fraud campaign? The cost of living includes rent. We subsidise rents because people can't afford it, working people too. We can't cut that. Well we could and then watch the hotel bills go up as more join the 'emergency'.
    I know it's a small amount on the grand scheme but I wonder were the money for the Pope's gig came from, the holy money tree?

    Maybe we should cancel all other life till we get the housing sorted?
    We fund arts, sport and other innesential stuff really, give tax breaks to all sorts of stuff.
    Basically maybe a few tweaks in all these things could go to housing.
    But my point was that I can't see the sense in saying that an increase in lpt could have More of an affect than charging for water, basically the same people + perhaps affected and more money raised.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,019 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    I don't believe we'd have anything left over form the water charge, quite likely it would not cover itself.
    Social welfare rates are based on the cost of living. I don't think it's an easy tweak. What about all the millions we saved from Leo's welfare fraud campaign? The cost of living includes rent. We subsidise rents because people can't afford it, working people too. We can't cut that. Well we could and then watch the hotel bills go up as more join the 'emergency'.
    I know it's a small amount on the grand scheme but I wonder were the money for the Pope's gig came from (32m), the holy money tree?


    Since when are social welfare rates based on the cost of living?

    And it isn't just rates, the eligibility criteria need to be examined carefully.


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


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Since when are social welfare rates based on the cost of living?

    And it isn't just rates, the eligibility criteria need to be examined carefully.

    Since always. Any rise is based on the cost of living. We can go round and round but the cost of living is the presiding factor.

    http://www.thejournal.ie/social-welfare-fiver-increase-3639019-Oct2017/

    I would suggest there are many areas need another look at. The sick, elderly and poor shouldn't always be the suggested first stop IMO.


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


    Edward M wrote: »
    Maybe we should cancel all other life till we get the housing sorted?
    We fund arts, sport and other innesential stuff really, give tax breaks to all sorts of stuff.
    Basically maybe a few tweaks in all these things could go to housing.
    But my point was that I can't see the sense in saying that an increase in lpt could have More of an affect than charging for water, basically the same people + perhaps affected and more money raised.

    Simply pointing out money can be found when the will is there. We cancelled christmas the Christmas bonus in the past. It seems sometimes that only funding to assist the tax payer requires fantasy money.

    We could tax vulture funds adequately. We could heavily tax property companies. We could cancel AIB paying no tax on profits for the next 30 years. I'm sure there's lots of things, but let's look at the most disadvantaged in society first or new charges for people some of who are already strapped.


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


    Simply pointing out money can be found when the will is there. We cancelled christmas the Christmas bonus in the past. It seems sometimes that only funding to assist the tax payer requires fantasy money.

    We could tax vulture funds adequately. We could heavily tax property companies. We could cancel AIB paying no tax on profits for the next 30 years. I'm sure there's lots of things, but let's look at the most disadvantaged in society first or new charges for people some of who are already strapped.

    We could double Corporation Tax - another daft idea!


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


    Since always. Any rise is based on the cost of living. We can go round and round but the cost of living is the presiding factor.

    http://www.thejournal.ie/social-welfare-fiver-increase-3639019-Oct2017/

    I would suggest there are many areas need another look at. The sick, elderly and poor shouldn't always be the suggested first stop IMO.

    I guess you're not aware that the cost of living in July 2018 is lower than it was in July 2008.

    Social welfare has been increased from €15.5 bn in 2007 to €19.8 bn in 2016.


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


    Good loser wrote: »
    We could double Corporation Tax - another daft idea!

    What's the daft idea? Why so dismissive? Do you suggest we go after the sick, elderly and poor? That'll solve everything? Very odd attitude. Seems pretty aggressive for a discussion on possible solutions to a crisis.

    Good loser wrote: »
    I guess you're not aware that the cost of living in July 2018 is lower than it was in July 2008.

    Social welfare has been increased from €15.5 bn in 2007 to €19.8 bn in 2016.

    Rent is cheaper now than in 2008? Everything is?

    There seems to be a hate for all on welfare. If you feel some are on it who shouldn't be or some are getting too much that's on government. Talk to your representative. Haranguing those in need of income support, rent aid, children, the sick, elderly and poor because government are doing a bad job of policing, allocating tax monies is on them. However I'd start with AIB paying no tax on profits for the next 30 years before I started cribbing about waste on the poor and working tax payers on low income. Or are some tax payers more important than others?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,019 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    What's the daft idea? Why so dismissive? Do you suggest we go after the sick, elderly and poor? That'll solve everything? Very odd attitude. Seems pretty aggressive for a discussion on possible solutions to a crisis.




    Rent is cheaper now than in 2008? Everything is?

    There seems to be a hate for all on welfare. If you feel some are on it who shouldn't be or some are getting too much that's on government. Talk to your representative. Haranguing those in need of income support, rent aid, children, the sick, elderly and poor because government are doing a bad job of policing, allocating tax monies is on them. However I'd start with AIB paying no tax on profits for the next 30 years before I started cribbing about waste on the poor and working tax payers on low income. Or are some tax payers more important than others?


    That is ridiculous hyperbole.

    It is not hating welfare to suggest that those who work should be rewarded better than those who are on social welfare. Society only has a finite amount of resources and the allocation of them should be fair and based to a certain extent on what you contribute.


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


    blanch152 wrote: »
    That is ridiculous hyperbole.

    It is not hating welfare to suggest that those who work should be rewarded better than those who are on social welfare. Society only has a finite amount of resources and the allocation of them should be fair and based to a certain extent on what you contribute.

    I was asking why the seemingly aggressive undertones on that posters comments regarding welfare. You cannot chime in on that.

    On your point, it's not about rewarding. Welfare payouts are based on need. If you don't like the metric used to measure need, fair enough.
    We aren't in competition with these people and it's not necessarily an either or. The idea that people worse off than the majority of society should be the first stop in accruing funding for housing for the same demographic seems odd to me. It smacks of begrudgery and blame. Those with the least should give more is a road to nowhere. Sure we can always trim any excess.
    It seems AIB will be contributing nothing from their profits for the next 30 years, but let's glean a few euro off the most vulnerable in society and leave that lay.

    Additional:

    Here's fun, how about all the banks supported and bailed out by the tax payer give the government low/no interest loans to build social housing?
    If the tax payer can give private developers loans for private builds surely private banks can loan private money for public builds? Or does it not work out both ways because the market or something?

    If Johnny feeds two kids instead of three how many dinners will it take to finance one social housing build?


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


    What's the daft idea? Why so dismissive? Do you suggest we go after the sick, elderly and poor? That'll solve everything? Very odd attitude. Seems pretty aggressive for a discussion on possible solutions to a crisis.




    Rent is cheaper now than in 2008? Everything is?

    There seems to be a hate for all on welfare. If you feel some are on it who shouldn't be or some are getting too much that's on government. Talk to your representative. Haranguing those in need of income support, rent aid, children, the sick, elderly and poor because government are doing a bad job of policing, allocating tax monies is on them. However I'd start with AIB paying no tax on profits for the next 30 years before I started cribbing about waste on the poor and working tax payers on low income. Or are some tax payers more important than others?

    Are you serious? You said social welfare rates were based on cost of living.
    I gave stats that showed your claim was a lie.

    And you come back with this rant! The kind of rubbish Boyd Barrett and Sinn Fein constantly get away with in radio interviews.


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


    Good loser wrote: »
    Are you serious? You said social welfare rates were based on cost of living.
    I gave stats that showed your claim was a lie.

    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


    #keeptherecoverygoing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,679 ✭✭✭✭markodaly



    Here's fun, how about all the banks supported and bailed out by the tax payer give the government low/no interest loans to build social housing?

    Why would they do that, when the government can borrow cheaper than a bank?

    Anyway, they can't.

    People are not yet used to the new reality here. This is not 2008 where the government of the day could go out an borrow/spend billions on the latest populist offering to buy votes. Those days are gone.

    There are new strict fiscal rules in place, that all EU member states must adhere to.

    FG or whoever is in power cannot borrow billions without cutting somewhere else.
    We cannot take on new debt, so forget about it. So ignore all the snake oiled sales men that promise you utopia by borrowing more money.


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


    Good loser wrote: »
    Are you serious? You said social welfare rates were based on cost of living.
    I gave stats that showed your claim was a lie.

    And you come back with this rant! The kind of rubbish Boyd Barrett and Sinn Fein constantly get away with in radio interviews.

    They are. Find me a minister who said 'We'll raise welfare for the craic, sure they don't need it'? The reasoning for raising state aid is always related to and because of the cost of living. Do not accuse me of lying.
    FYI: you didn't supply any link to any stats. You didn't answer my queries. Rent is cheaper?

    I don't understand the aggressive tone.

    I disagree in seeking funding for social housing by cutting welfare. It may need trimming but we've other fish such as AIB paying no tax on profits for the next 30 years we could be looking at before we go after the sick, elderly, poor and those working availing of state aid.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭Red_Wake


    Good loser wrote: »
    Are you serious? You said social welfare rates were based on cost of living.
    I gave stats that showed your claim was a lie.  

    And you come back with this rant! The kind of rubbish Boyd Barrett and Sinn Fein constantly get away with in radio interviews.

    They are. Find me a minister who said 'We'll raise welfare for the craic, sure they don't need it'? The reasoning for raising state aid is always related to and because of the cost of living. Do not accuse me of lying.
    FYI: you didn't supply any link to any stats. You didn't answer my queries. Rent is cheaper?

    I don't understand the aggressive tone.

    I disagree in seeking funding for social housing by cutting welfare. It may need trimming but we've other fish such as AIB paying no tax on profits for the next 30 years we could be looking at before we go after the sick, elderly, poor and those working availing of state aid.
    They have estimated they will not be paying tax on profits for up to 30 years. This is due corporations being allowed to stockpile previous years' losses and write them off against future tax bills. It's available to any corporation, so is not unique to AIB.

    Do you disagree with this policy in itself, or just in relation to AIB. You keep bringing up the 30 year timeframe a set number, when it is an estimate.


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


    Red_Wake wrote: »
    They have estimated they will not be paying tax on profits for up to 30 years. This is due corporations being allowed to stockpile previous years' losses and write them off against future tax bills. It's available to any corporation, so is not unique to AIB.

    Do you disagree with this policy in itself, or just in relation to AIB. You keep bringing up the 30 year timeframe a set number, when it is an estimate.

    AIB is the one I read about.
    I think having such policies in place while looking to cut state aid to the most vulnerable in society is a bit much IMO. We're talking no tax on profits for a bank previously aided by the tax payer. This coupled with the tax payer supplying cheap loans to developers shows we have a lot of things we could be looking at in seeking funds for social housing builds. Why not amend such laws? It seems some people are fine with playing with state aid to the most vulnerable but unwilling to look at such things as no tax on profits for banks. I think that's wrong headed.

    What's your thoughts on raising funding for social housing?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭Red_Wake


    Red_Wake wrote: »
    They have estimated they will not be paying tax on profits for up to 30 years. This is due corporations being allowed to stockpile previous years' losses and write them off against future tax bills. It's available to any corporation, so is not unique to AIB.

    Do you disagree with this policy in itself, or just in relation to AIB. You keep bringing up the 30 year timeframe a set number, when it is an estimate.

    AIB is the one I read about.
    I think having such policies in place while looking to cut state aid to the most vulnerable in society is a bit much IMO. We're talking no tax on profits for a bank previously aided by the tax payer. This coupled with the tax payer supplying cheap loans to developers shows we have a lot of things we could be looking at in seeking funds for social housing builds. Why not amend such laws? It seems some people are fine with playing with state aid to the most vulnerable but unwilling to look at such things as no tax on profits for banks. I think that's wrong headed.

    What's your thoughts on raising funding for social housing?
    My thoughts are that social housing is an experiment that failed due to the conflict of interests caused by asking politicians to manage the lives of individuals who can vote them in or out of a job. One only has to look at how many residents are allowed to remain in social housing while not paying their rent to see how much of a priority the councils have made of ensuring it's a sustainable system. Arrears that could have been used to fund others even more vulnerable then themselves were passed over. They truly are an example of the piglets eating the sow.

    Again, would you single out banks as being exempt from writing off previous years' losses against profits, or remove it as a regulation entirely? 

    There is some irony in you talking about wanting to solve the housing issues, while lambasting a bank which went belly up because of it's reckless lending to property developer and builders who were themselves building housing for commercial sale.


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


    Red_Wake wrote: »
    My thoughts are that social housing is an experiment that failed due to the conflict of interests caused by asking politicians to manage the lives of individuals who can vote them in or out of a job. One only has to look at how many residents are allowed to remain in social housing while not paying their rent to see how much of a priority the councils have made of ensuring it's a sustainable system. Arrears that could have been used to fund others even more vulnerable then themselves were passed over. They truly are an example of the piglets eating the sow.

    The system needs policing for sure. Can you think of an alternative, more emergency hotels or more tax payers money paying rent to private landlords? Even with the arrears it's a better deal for the tax payer no?
    The social housing model took us out of the slums, mind the current model has us in hotels, progress?
    Red_Wake wrote: »
    Again, would you single out banks as being exempt from writing off previous years' losses against profits, or remove it as a regulation entirely?

    Again, I would look to amending such things before looking to the most vulnerable. I am not going down the rabbit hole of corporation tax and re-evaluating it nationally for your pleasure. My point is we can look in other places before we look to the tax payers in need of state aid to function, this would be one such area. What if profits far exceed any reported losses? That's an angle were tax might be recouped over the suggested 30 year period. They should not see any benefit from losses accrued and put on the tax payer anyway.
    Red_Wake wrote: »
    There is some irony in you talking about wanting to solve the housing issues, while lambasting a bank which went belly up because of it's reckless lending to property developer and builders who were themselves building housing for commercial sale.

    Hold your horses there chief. Nobody is lambasting AIB for availing of legal taxation policy.
    I'll give you Irony, NAMA loaning tax payer money recouped from failed developers to fund developers for their own private profit. Likely, some of the the very people who created the need for NAMA. Here's another, a bank which went belly up as you say not having to pay tax on any profits for the next 30 years possibly, while some think looking at the poor to fund social housing is a legit proposition.

    Again, any ideas yourself?


Advertisement