Protest: Demonstration to protest against Government bail outs of property developers

utyh2ikcq9z76b

Is anyone goint to this protest??

WHAT: Peaceful demonstration to protest against Government bail outs of property developers.

WHERE: Outside the Dail at the junction of Molesworth Street and Kildare Street in Dublin 2

WHEN: Thursday 25th September at 1:30 p.m.

As per this thread:

http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=13560&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

they have a facebook group too

http://www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=35567892564&ref=nf

jackal

Im going. Half day booked off work.

pwd

in my opinion this will do no good because the government is corrupt

pwd

pwd wrote: »

in my opinion this will do no good because the government is corrupt

Yes but its got to be tried, the future of the country depends on it, no exaggeration.

dodgyme

I think anyone who works in town and ever once moaned about being fleeced by the usual suspects should take there lunch break to coincide with the protest

bugler

I heartily endorse this protest and/or service.

I think anyone who works in town and ever once moaned about being fleeced by the usual suspects should take there lunch break to coincide with the protest

Well put, dodgyme. Now tell your colleagues!

Tigger

pwd wrote: »

in my opinion this will do no good because the government is corrupt

of course they are corrupt

might do some good tho

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/6271/propertydevtvz2.jpg

tHE vAGGABOND

WHAT: Peaceful demonstration to protest against Government bail outs of property developers.

Sorry to be the devils advocate here for a sec - but I think you should be clearer exactly who and what you are protesting against? What bailouts...

I *assume* its the recent aid Cowan announced, which we have a 3 page thread on here. But without giving us details it sounds to me like a Socialist Workers Party rent a crowd demo, which many of us would not be seen dead at.

jimmycrackcorm

I'd go if it was a protest against the eu bailouts of farmers. But I guess those capitalist builders are the fashion these days.

pwd

Tigger wrote: »

of course they are corrupt

might do some good tho

I think your signature describes this situation.

gurramok

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

Sorry to be the devils advocate here for a sec - but I think you should be clearer exactly who and what you are protesting against? What bailouts...

I *assume* its the recent aid Cowan announced, which we have a 3 page thread on here. But without giving us details it sounds to me like a Socialist Workers Party rent a crowd demo, which many of us would not be seen dead at.

Yes, assumption correct. It's about the proposed 'incentives' for FTB's(from media leaks on the subject) which really ends up in the developers pockets instead of reducing the prices.

I doubt there are many Financial services workers of whom many are members of the PIN in the SWP!!

Dalfiatach

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

Sorry to be the devils advocate here for a sec - but I think you should be clearer exactly who and what you are protesting against? What bailouts...

I *assume* its the recent aid Cowan announced, which we have a 3 page thread on here. But without giving us details it sounds to me like a Socialist Workers Party rent a crowd demo, which many of us would not be seen dead at.

I completely understand your concern here, so just to be clear:

This is a protest planned and organised by the posters on the Property Pin, and the posters on the Property Pin alone. And nearly everyone who posts regularly on the Pin works in financial services, manufacturing, IT or the civil service.

This is not a Swimmie/Sticky/People Before Profit/whatever-cover-name-they-are-using-this-week nutjob front. This is a protest by hardworking educated taxpaying citizens. There is absolutely no involvement - overt, covert or otherwise - by any mainstream political party or existing fringe protest rent-a-mob.

This is for taxpayers who have had enough of their hard-earned taxes being wasted, thrown away, trousered and siphoned off to bail out reckless speculators and bandit builders.

loyatemu

how can you protest a policy that hasn't been published yet? no-one knows for certain what Biffo is planning - in which case, as the Vaggabond says above its just going to be a rent-a-crowd "Down with this sort of thing" type demo...

bugler

Then it is a pre-emptive protest.

There are strong indications this has been agreed by the Cabinet. Plus the way the Green TDs are squirming and weaselling in their responses to queries suggests it is a done deal.

Oh rest assured the government will come out with this scheme and lie through their teeth and claim it is not an effort to inflate house prices. But anyone with any intelligence can see that it is.

arctictree

loyatemu wrote: »

how can you protest a policy that hasn't been published yet? no-one knows for certain what Biffo is planning - in which case, as the Vaggabond says above its just going to be a rent-a-crowd "Down with this sort of thing" type demo...

I think this is the perfect time for arranging this type of protest. Let the Govt know that we dont want them implementing any poilicies which will bail out the developers/banks while trying to pretend that it is to help FTB's. Let them know that we are not stupid and we can see through their veiled promises.

What FTB's want is lower house prices, full stop. They dont want elaborate schemes to enable them get higher value loans for overpriced properties.

IMO, if this was done after the budget, it would be extremely difficult to change.

plasmaguy

I am afraid, having put all their eggs into the property market, the government have no choice but to bail out the builders, since a fair percentage of our tax revenue comes from the property sector.

If we weren't so dependent on revenue from the property market, I would say give the market a couple of years to settle at the bottom. Unfortunately that would mean running large budget deficits for a number of years along with cutbacks across all sectors including health. So the choice is between high property prices or high budget deficits.

plasmaguy

plasmaguy wrote: »

I am afraid, having put all their eggs into the property market, the government have no choice but to bail out the builders, since a fair percentage of our tax revenue comes from the property sector.

If we weren't so dependent on revenue from the property market, I would say give the market a couple of years to settle at the bottom. Unfortunately that would mean running large budget deficits for a number of years along with cutbacks across all sectors including health. So the choice is between high property prices or high budget deficits.

Keeping our eggs in the same basket will ruin the economy. All we did was create debt, we didnt bring wealth into the country only debt!

We need to spend this tax money creating a better economy not trying to burden ourselves with more debt.

It was bad enough getting loans for overpriced property but now they want EVERYBODY to pay for the loans.

Enough is enough, spend the money on hospitals of education or starting indigenous business.

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1014800.shtml

plasmaguy wrote: »

If these moves by the government loosen the lending criteria any more, then this could have serious long term side effects. We could actually be looking at an Irish Subprime bubble in the making. If those people who avail of these assistance programs are unable to get credit from lending institutions it may be for the very good reason that they don't have the ability to repay.

If the government gives them easy credit which they cannot repay, then longer term we would be looking at subprime problems similar to the US, with foreclosures, builders owed money, financial institutions unable to recover their money. It could cause a crisis in our own banking system.

I think the government should look very carefully at the longer term impact of giving aid to the subprime market.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57361177&postcount=91

Your contradicting yourself?

El Stuntman

plasmaguy wrote: »

I am afraid, having put all their eggs into the property market, the government have no choice but to bail out the builders, since a fair percentage of our tax revenue comes from the property sector.

If we weren't so dependent on revenue from the property market, I would say give the market a couple of years to settle at the bottom. Unfortunately that would mean running large budget deficits for a number of years along with cutbacks across all sectors including health. So the choice is between high property prices or high budget deficits.

this is arrant nonsense plasmaguy, we need to wean ourselves off the crack cocaine of property speculation (it adds no long-term value and actually detracts from the real economy) and onto the boring Bovril of actually making stuff that people want and selling it to the rest of the world. If that causes some short-term pain for the developers (and their bought political proxies in FF), so be it. Shelter (and that's all that housing is) is not a sound basis to build your economy on and we should be happy that its importance to Ireland's is falling rapidly.

Now all we need to do is sit back, do nothing and let property assume its rightfully diminished role in our economy - anything that attempts to distort this rebalancing is theft of taxpayer's funds (taking money away from the frontline services that you mention and giving it to big property developers\speculators), plain and simple.

People will start buying houses again when the prices deflate to normal levels (i.e. about 200k for a standard 3 bed semi-d in Dublin and maybe 140k for a 2 bed apartment) - prices falling is good news for FTBs!

dodgyme

Now I could be wrong here but this is Ireland so I probably amn't.

If the government want to bail out the builders, one measure they will do is pretend to help the FTB in the budget. Basically without government intervention the FTB is in a really strong position in a falling market however in ireland the market only determines the price when the developers is fleecing the jackass. When this is not happening the developer and its FF minders need to pull the wool over our eyes. By helping the FTB, the markets is then possibly stimulated and the prices start to stop falling at a decent rate and thus helps the builders get a better price for the development. The gov will say this measure will help FTB and retain jobs and wealth etc. My attitude is that when things were going up no one helped those getting fleeced. The gov didnt protect anyone then nor should they now. I dont care if the taxes go up as a result, it cant be worse then cosy cartells. Thats why the protest is important. It shows the feeling on the street.

swiss

I will make an effort to attend this (work committments may get in the way), but I would encourage anyone concerned about the impact of this proposed bailout to show up and lend their support to this protest. Its more effective than complaining about the situation on a bar stool, it actually shows to the government and the media that you care enough about the situation to make your opposition to it known.

Pa ElGrande

In case there is any doubt about the governments intention to attempt to put a floor on house prices, here are the press snippets from the last few weeks.

Building industry will lobby State to aid first-time buyers
Barry O'Halloran, Thursday, September 4, 2008

Mr Parlon said that the new date would allow lobby groups such as the CIF to put their case to Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan.
The federation intends to ask the Government to encourage first-time house buyers into the property market through a joint ownership scheme, under which the State could take equity in new homes for a period of seven to 10 years in return for subsidising the purchasers' deposits.
He explained that in the current climate, banks are only willing to lend 80 per cent of a property's value. This means that anyone wishing to buy a house priced at €300,000 needs €60,000 up front, which many first-time buyers cannot afford.
The CIF is suggesting that the State, through the Department of the Environment's Housing Finance Agency, takes a 10 per cent share in the property when it is bought, cutting the buyer's deposit to €30,000, which Mr Parlon said is affordable. After seven to 10 years, the purchaser can then begin to repay this.
"The big carrot for the Government is that they get €35,000 to €40,000 in VAT when the house is bought," Mr Parlon added.

Budget will not weaken house market - Lenihan
Ronan McGreevy, Friday, September 5, 2008

Ms Coughlan said: " . . . we have seen a decline in house prices which is what a lot of young people wanted to hear, but the difficulty is the access to mortgages that were previously available.
"All of that is being considered by the Minister for Finance and the Government. The Minister spent a considerable period of time with the construction industry over the weekend and he will be taking into consideration many of these issues, not just for first-time buyers, but those who are moving on and expanding."

Cowen's resolve will be tested again in coming days
Stephen Collins, Saturday, September 6, 2008

One powerful vested interest that will have to be resisted at all costs is the construction industry. Any hint that taxpayers' money is being used to bail out the country's fat-cat developers, under the guise of helping first-time buyers, will undermine the Government's credibility. It will also do nothing for the economy, except prolong the downturn up to and beyond the next election.


What we'd do to get good times rolling once again
By Nick Webb and Shane Ross, Sunday September 07 2008

Mick Bailey, managing director of Bovale Properties, may be a member of Fianna Fail but is "more interested in ensuring that the national interest is protected in the current crisis".
"We are one of the best economies in the EU but the big swing towards building in the last 12 years has been accompanied by huge hype. I would like to see three measures to boost confidence.
"The first-time buyer should be put on the [property] ladder again. We should also limit ourselves to building 35,000 houses a year, max.
"The government should eliminate VAT for all first-time buyers. They should remove all local authority levies from those striving to get on to the property ladder.
"And the banks who are responsible for the boom/bust should guarantee them seven-year mortgages at 2.75 per cent. They should also offer all purchasers 90 per cent mortgages. That should give the construction industry the kick-start it now needs."

How will the Budget impact first-time buyers?
Tuesday September 09 2008

The minister may also wish to focus on increasing the level of mortgage interest relief for first-time buyers.
However, the aforementioned changes may not be enough to reignite the first-time buyer market. The minister may have to look further afield at non-tax issues to relieve the strain, particularly in relation to obtaining an apt level of mortgage finance.

Desperately seeking salvation from rubble of the downturn
Sunday, September 14, 2008 By Cliff Taylor

The key issue here - in the short term at least - is not land supply, but whether the government could introduce some kind of financing scheme which would attract low and middle-income first-time buyers. Buyers are holding off for two reasons. First, many still cannot afford to buy a house - even at the lower prices which now prevail.

This is partly due to the tightening of bank lending rules and the disappearance of the 100 per cent mortgage. The second, more prosaic, reason is that buyers are expecting prices to fall further, and many feel it is better to wait it out.

The first step to be announced looks likely to be a major expansion of the local authority loan scheme. Local authorities provide loans to lower to middle-income earners with funds provided by the Housing Finance Agency and raised by the NTMA. The eligibility criteria will be loosened significantly with a view to helping significant numbers of first-time buyers who are currently struggling to raise bank finance.

A report published earlier this year, entitled Increasing Affordable Housing Supply, is also now being studied to try to map away forward. The report, commissioned by the AHP and to which a number of government departments contributed, provides a detailed review of how the various schemes have operated and offers a range of recommendations.

However, the report also looked at how the state could develop a more effective financing mechanism, a factor which is likely to be the central point of any new initiative.

To replace the various shared ownership and reduced price structures used in current schemes, the report recommended a simple equity arrangement. Under this, the state - through the local authority - would pay for a shareholding in the house being purchased. The amount involved would vary, but might typically range from 15 to 40 per cent.

The purchaser would fund the rest, normally through an ordinary bank mortgage. Mechanisms would be established to allow home owners to buy out the state equity if they wished over a period of years. The state stake would then have to be repaid when the house was sold, at the prevailing market conditions at that time.


Cabinet plans new loans for first-time buyers
Sunday, September 14, 2008 By Ian Kehoe, Cliff Taylor and Niamh Connolly

A major expansion of local authority mortgage lending to low and middle-income first-time buyers is expected to form the first step in a government programme of economic initiatives.
The move, which will be announced shortly, comes after the government established a high-level cabinet committee to tackle the deepening economic crisis and develop a range of new policies to stimulate the economy. The group, chaired by Taoiseach Brian Cowen, will be responsible for ‘‘initiatives to stimulate economic recovery’’.
A select number of senior members of cabinet, including Mary Coughlan, the Tánaiste and enterprise minister, and Brian Lenihan, the Minister for Finance, will also sit on the committee.


Davy says case for public intervention in Irish mortgage market is persuasive; At least 40,000 new completed unsold units
By Finfacts Team, Sep 15, 2008

Target is to clear overhang of unsold housing stock

Davy says it is crucial that sales pick up to clear the excess stock. It estimates that there are at least 40,000 new completed unsold units (houses and apartments) on the market with a total value of close to €10bn. In 2008, about 5,000 new units have been sold: for the full year we are heading for total sales of only 10-15% of the 2005 and 2006 level.


Parties prepare economic cures
Sunday, September 21, 2008 By Niamh Connolly, Political Correspondent

Ahearne also advised the parliamentary party against state agencies subsidising low-interest home loans while house prices were falling. Cowen and finance minister Brian Lenihan had previously announced plans to offer help to low-paid first-time buyers for affordable and local authority housing.
Both Lenihan and Cowen insist that the move would not interfere with the necessary correction in the housing market. But some backbenchers have privately voiced concern about state subsidies or low-interest credit that would discourage developers from lowering their prices further.
A persistent view expressed by backbenchers is that the public believes prices are falling to sustainable levels and the government should not interfere to bail out the construction industry.

Primetime
September 23, 2008

Pat Carey and Richard Bruton on Primetime lastnight. Bruton saying the property market should be completely left alone. Carey mumbled that it was not possible to do nothing.

Be in no doubt about the motives of a political party that is strongly influenced by the construction industry by way of funding and decision making. This is a bailout wrapped up as helping first time buyers, it's true intention is to put a floor on property prices, by dipping into the taxpayers pocket without their permission (this was not on the governments election manifesto in 2007). It should be resisted.

dodgyme

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

is a bailout wrapped up as helping first time buyers, it's true intention is to put a floor on property prices, by dipping into the taxpayers pocket without their permission .

A nice summary of the point I made rather awkwardly above.

bugler

Karl Deeter aka MortgageBroker from www.mortgagebrokers.ie/blogs will be on Q102 this evening at 6.30 pm discussing the protest.

plasmaguy

Deleted User wrote: »

Keeping our eggs in the same basket will ruin the economy. All we did was create debt, we didnt bring wealth into the country only debt!

We need to spend this tax money creating a better economy not trying to burden ourselves with more debt.

It was bad enough getting loans for overpriced property but now they want EVERYBODY to pay for the loans.

Enough is enough, spend the money on hospitals of education or starting indigenous business.

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1014800.shtml



http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57361177&postcount=91

Your contradicting yourself?

Nope...I am in favour of some way of stimulating the housing market because unfortunately at the present time for good or bad, we depend on it for a large part of our tax revenue.

I wouldn't be in favour of helping the subprime market with cheap money because that creates a subprime bubble.

I would however be in favour or something like stamp duty reform.

Like I say we are presented with a real (not armchair economist) choice between high budget deficits and relatively high property prices. I didn't create this problem, FF, speculators and builders created it, so please don't go giving out to me for telling it as it is.

plasmaguy

El Stuntman wrote: »

this is arrant nonsense plasmaguy, we need to wean ourselves off the crack cocaine of property speculation (it adds no long-term value and actually detracts from the real economy) and onto the boring Bovril of actually making stuff that people want and selling it to the rest of the world. If that causes some short-term pain for the developers (and their bought political proxies in FF), so be it. Shelter (and that's all that housing is) is not a sound basis to build your economy on and we should be happy that its importance to Ireland's is falling rapidly.

Now all we need to do is sit back, do nothing and let property assume its rightfully diminished role in our economy - anything that attempts to distort this rebalancing is theft of taxpayer's funds (taking money away from the frontline services that you mention and giving it to big property developers\speculators), plain and simple.

People will start buying houses again when the prices deflate to normal levels (i.e. about 200k for a standard 3 bed semi-d in Dublin and maybe 140k for a 2 bed apartment) - prices falling is good news for FTBs!

OK fair enough let the property market fall slowly and very slowly ie approx .8% a month to a level where people feel comfortable coming back in again.

However it may take 3 years of such slow decline before the market picks up. That means 3 years of approx 10 billion deficits which equals 30 billion of debt.

That is the simple alternative...do you think 30 billion extra of a national debt over 3 years is a positive thing? I know I don't.

Like I say, for good or bad, the government have put themselves in a corner and are now left with no choice but to prop up the property sector.

It's too simplistic and facile to say let the market collapse...that would mean people with 100,000s of negative equity around their necks as well as massive annual budget deficits meaning closures of hospital beds and hospitals and cutbacks in services to the vulnerable and needy.

The national interest is served unfortunately in this case by keeping property prices at a stable level and demand at a stable level to get tradesmen, blocklayers, etc off the dole.

plasmaguy

However I would add that if we as a nation are to learn anything from the last 10 years it's that every government should be compelled by all means possible to keep the annual rise in house prices in line with or below the rate of inflation.

Because when you have house prices that rise 3-4 times the rate of inflation and with the knowledge that eventually these house prices will come down again, then you are putting half the country in danger of a negative equity situation.

SimpleSam06

plasmaguy wrote: »

Nope...I am in favour of some way of stimulating the housing market because unfortunately at the present time for good or bad, we depend on it for a large part of our tax revenue.

This is the part about government handouts/tax relief/whatever that makes no sense. None. They want to increase the tax revenue by giving first time buyers grants out of... tax revenue. Hmm. So the only ones that will really benefit will be developers and builders? Hmm.

plasmaguy wrote: »

I wouldn't be in favour of helping the subprime market with cheap money because that creates a subprime bubble.

We're way beyond a subprime bubble at this stage.

plasmaguy wrote: »

Like I say we are presented with a real (not armchair economist) choice between high budget deficits and relatively high property prices.

This is a temporary situation, and the long term benefits of removing the property crutch from the economy far outweigh whatever short term deficits might exist.

plasmaguy wrote: »

OK fair enough let the property market fall slowly and very slowly ie approx .8% a month to a level where people feel comfortable coming back in again.

Do you think anyone can tell the market how fast or slow to rise or fall?

plasmaguy wrote: »

However it may take 3 years of such slow decline before the market picks up. That means 3 years of approx 10 billion deficits which equals 30 billion of debt.

On the other hand if sweeping reforms are brought into the public sector, expenses could be considerably reduced. I like that solution better.

plasmaguy wrote: »

That is the simple alternative...do you think 30 billion extra of a national debt over 3 years is a positive thing? I know I don't.

The whole bubble was largely a transfer of debt from public to private hands in effect anyway. Meh.

plasmaguy wrote: »

Like I say, for good or bad, the government have put themselves in a corner and are now left with no choice but to prop up the property sector.

There are always alternatives. That the current crop of wahoos who suckled at charlie's teat are unable to see them is no surprise.

plasmaguy wrote: »

It's too simplistic and facile to say let the market collapse...that would mean people with 100,000s of negative equity around their necks as well as massive annual budget deficits meaning closures of hospital beds and hospitals and cutbacks in services to the vulnerable and needy.

Hahah, ah me oh my, we've been pumping the public sector with cash for the last eight years with no appreciable improvement in services or healthcare. They could stand to have a few billion lopped off here and there. As for negative equity, you reap what you sow, and you can't balance the scales on the backs of the rest of the country who wasn't stupid enough to go blowing the next thirty years of their life on getting on "the ladder".

plasmaguy wrote: »

The national interest is served unfortunately in this case by keeping property prices at a stable level and demand at a stable level to get tradesmen, blocklayers, etc off the dole.

This is the same nonsense I see in the US, and its completely unsustainable. You cannot, mid or long term, pay off private debt with public debt. You increase inflation, for the mildest of starts, and destabilise your own economy. Also, do you think Brussels is going to appreciate actions like that?

What you are advocating is stopping the fall in prices and then letting them rise with inflation, using the public debt boogeyman to scare up support, a completely insane plan by any measure. Might I ask you, do you have a property that is currently or will soon be in negative equity?

Dalfiatach

Plus, plasmaguy is worried about the 30bn in deficits we'll run up while the Morkesh settles to it's true level.

How much will this bailout cost? Oh, about €35bn...which will achieve absolutely nothing to keep house prices high, and is only designed to bail out the bankrupt builders so they can offload some of their stock and pay off some of their megadebts to the banks.

House prices will still continue to fall however. You can't re-inflate a burst bubble. All a bailout will do is maybe stabilise prices for 6 months. That's it. They'll still keep falling to their true level, because that's just the iron rule of the market.

Where is the bailout money going to come from? Instead, the Government should let the market fall naturally to a point where FTBs can get sane mortgages again, because it's then and only then that the housing market will start moving again. Use the next couple of years to reorganise and trim the massive waste that occurs in the public sector, end the gouging and price-fixing scams throughout the economy, and use the money that they were going to spend on bailing out builders on encouraging and developing real productive export-led industry instead. Because it is only in productive export-led industry that this country is ever going to make sustainable wealth.

Japan showed what happens when the politicians, builders and banks collude to try and bailout a burst property bubble.

It doesn't work, and you lose a decade and countless billions trying.

It's stupid, stupid, stupid.

SkepticOne

People if they are in the area should make an effort to attend this protest. The economic problems faced by the country have been caused a massive bubble in house prices. As prices rose banks became used to lending larger and larger amounts comfortable in the belief that the properties they were lending for would increase in price. I think we can all see that, inevitably, this would have to come to an end. Credit can't, and indeed should not, expand indefinitely. The earlier and quicker prices correct themselves the less overall pain for the country.

What the government is proposing is to prolong the damage and encourage more people into debt for overpriced properties by further expanding credit, the very thing that caused the damage in the first place. And they are going to do this damage at the tax payers expense.

The consequences will be:
1. More people will end up with unnecessarily high debt.
2. Prices will take longer to settle prolonging the pain.
3. Public finances will be further strained. Other services will have to be cut back to pay for it.

plasmaguy

Ah, I see some people are still beating the 'public sector reform will plug the 10 billion deficit' drum.

As for who benefits from a reduced budget deficit, this is a no brainer...those who lie sick in hospitals benefit, after all I know that's the type of people I want to help.

Yes we are in hoc to the builders in this country, that's as much our fault as theirs. We all need homes to live in, many of us have speculated in the housing market and hence pushed up the prices, some of us actually need a home to live in and have to pay the market value, yes I know that makes us a criminal for wanting to buy our own home.

Without the demand there would be no high house prices.

And yes we can let the property market bomb out and forego the billions in stamp duty while paying billions in social welfare to unemployed tradespersons. But like I keep saying, that will mean, since its FF in government who have no alternative plan, large budget deficits. Large budget deficits mean cutbacks which affect the sick in hospitals. I guess again I will be viewed as dumb for trying to prevent the sick in hospitals suffering because of cutbacks.

Dalfiatach

Yer just ranting now plasmaguy.

Nobody said public sector reform will magically plug the deficit. But there is a billion or two per annum in pure waste that can be purged.

And the fundamental point remains:

Taking a few years of large deficits while we reform waste, cut costs, end price-gouging and price-fixing scams that this country is rife with, and encourage people into creating and building real sustainable export-led industry: all that will leave us in 3-4 years with a more competitive, cheaper, well-balanced economy, albeit with a fairly hefty increased national debt of an extra €30bn or so.

Going the bailout route will achieve nothing, will merely transfer €30 or €40bn of taxpayers money into the developers pockets (on top of the €30bn or so in deficits we'll be running up anyway), will do nothing to help create a balanced economy because everyone will be hoping the construction monster takes off again, will only drag out the decline in house prices over many more years (it will not stop the decline, only slow it temporarily), and will in the end up set us back a decade and twice as much money as just letting it collapse.

A bailout is the worst, most expensive, most damaging thing to do right now.

It doesn't work, costs far more in the long run, and only prolongs the adjustment

The only way to get the property market "moving again" is to allow prices to fall to sane levels. No ifs, ands, or buts about it, end of bloody story.

jackal

So the argument for measures to "help" first time buyers is that we have a deficit due to tax revenues being down, and we need to spend taxpayers money to help other taxpayers pay tax?

Its worse than a zero sum game. It creates no wealth. It is using taxes already collected to generate taxes, minus the profits to be made along the way by the businesses involved.

eh... Houston we have a problem.

SkepticOne

Hopefully the protest will show the powers that be that at least some FTBs want lower prices and less debt rather than the ability to take on extra debt to buy properties that are piling up unsold.

SimpleSam06

plasmaguy wrote: »

sick in hospitals
.
.
.
the sick in hospitals
.
.
.
the sick in hospitals

Since that seems to be the main gist of your argument, did you ever stop to wonder why we haven't seen any apparent increase in health service over the last eight years, despite pumping it to the gills with money, and that maybe "the sick in hospitals" might be better served by cutting out the cruft, greed and waste?

Appeal to emotion, -1.

jackal wrote:

Its worse than a zero sum game. It creates no wealth. It is using taxes already collected to generate taxes, minus the profits to be made along the way by the businesses involved.

Those profits would seem to be the point of the operation. If the construction industry funds these politicians so well that they are willing to turn against the good of the country, perhaps we should cut the pay of the politicians completely and let them go off and form their own country where they could legislate free houses for all, as many as you can handle, and 95% tax rates for all as well, anyone welcome.

regi

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Since that seems to be the main gist of your argument, did you ever stop to wonder why we haven't seen any apparent increase in health service over the last eight years, despite pumping it to the gills with money, and that maybe "the sick in hospitals" might be better served by cutting out the cruft, greed and waste?

Appeal to emotion, -1.

And what about the people in hospital who aren't sick but injured instead? I think we should feel something for them too :-)

bill_ashmount

Best of luck to everyone on the protest.

ionapaul

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Best of luck to everyone on the protest.

+1 - I wish I could make it but I can't; have been emailing my TDs at least. I'm letting the Green Party know that if they remain in government and this bailout goes through, they'll never EVER get any vote (be it last preference) from me.

plasmaguy

Dalfiatach wrote: »

Yer just ranting now plasmaguy.

Nobody said public sector reform will magically plug the deficit. But there is a billion or two per annum in pure waste that can be purged.

And the fundamental point remains:

Taking a few years of large deficits while we reform waste, cut costs, end price-gouging and price-fixing scams that this country is rife with, and encourage people into creating and building real sustainable export-led industry: all that will leave us in 3-4 years with a more competitive, cheaper, well-balanced economy, albeit with a fairly hefty increased national debt of an extra €30bn or so.

Going the bailout route will achieve nothing, will merely transfer €30 or €40bn of taxpayers money into the developers pockets (on top of the €30bn or so in deficits we'll be running up anyway), will do nothing to help create a balanced economy because everyone will be hoping the construction monster takes off again, will only drag out the decline in house prices over many more years (it will not stop the decline, only slow it temporarily), and will in the end up set us back a decade and twice as much money as just letting it collapse.

A bailout is the worst, most expensive, most damaging thing to do right now.

It doesn't work, costs far more in the long run, and only prolongs the adjustment

The only way to get the property market "moving again" is to allow prices to fall to sane levels. No ifs, ands, or buts about it, end of bloody story.

Ah, the Robert Mugabe school of economics...encourage the contraction of our economy...sure we can survive on a budget of 5 billion a year if we just trim down the public sector...yup...hospital beds, who needs them....

Sure why do we need tax revenue at all...why don't we turn down certain forms of revenue because we don't like it...vat on cigerettes, we should turn down that because obviously its immoral and unsustainable to take revenue from those sectors...

Yup lets just keep contracting our economy and while we are at it ban the buying and selling of houses.

And let's keep running irresponsible deficits ala the US Republican school of economics until we are a 100 billion or maybe a trillion in debt, so long as people can get cheap houses who cares...let our grandchildren pay off the debt....

let me say this one more time so even someone like you can understand it...i am not in favour of the current scheme of giving money to assist the subprime market...i am in favour however of ordinary people like you and I being able to buy houses, as soon as possible..

Please read back over my other posts before jumping on one of my posts and saying I argued for this or that...it can be annoying to be accused of being in favour of something when I have said I am not in favour of that particular thing.

And no I'm not ranting, I'm proposing responsible economics of balancing budgets...while you are advocating irresponsible economics of running up massive deficits....

plasmaguy

plasmaguy wrote: »

Ah, the Robert Mugabe school of economics...encourage the contraction of our economy...sure we can survive on a budget of 5 billion a year if we just trim down the public sector...yup...hospital beds, who needs them....

Sure why do we need tax revenue at all...why don't we turn down certain forms of revenue because we don't like it...vat on cigerettes, we should turn down that because obviously its immoral and unsustainable to take revenue from those sectors...

Yup lets just keep contracting our economy and while we are at it ban the buying and selling of houses.

let me say this one more time so even someone like you can understand it...i am not in favour of the current scheme of giving money to assist the subprime market...i am in favour however of ordinary people like you and I being able to buy houses, as soon as possible..

Please read back over my other posts before jumping on one of my posts and saying I argued for this or that...it can be annoying to be accused of being in favour of something when I have said I am not in favour of that particular thing.

Why do you seek to destroy our economy?

plasmaguy

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Since that seems to be the main gist of your argument, did you ever stop to wonder why we haven't seen any apparent increase in health service over the last eight years, despite pumping it to the gills with money, and that maybe "the sick in hospitals" might be better served by cutting out the cruft, greed and waste?

Appeal to emotion, -1.

Those profits would seem to be the point of the operation. If the construction industry funds these politicians so well that they are willing to turn against the good of the country, perhaps we should cut the pay of the politicians completely and let them go off and form their own country where they could legislate free houses for all, as many as you can handle, and 95% tax rates for all as well, anyone welcome.

Please grow up...sick and dying in hospital is not something you should try to lessen just so you can prove a point...

I have made the clear argument which you and others seem incapable or getting, and instead seem intent on shooting the messenger of this argument, that you either decide between irresponsible economics of massive deficits and in turn cutbacks across all vital public services or else you wait until house prices collapse so selfish people can get a cheap house.

Simplistically put, and I feel I must put it simplistically for most people, it's a choice between cutbacks and waiting for the property market to collapse. You can't have your cake and eat it, you must decide which you want, those are the tough decisions needed in government, and I can see that you wouldnt be able to make those tough decisions, only voice your opinion on the internet.

And again if you read my previous posts I am not in favour of helping the subprime market with the current scheme, but I am in favour of helping FTBs anyway possible.

Unfortunately waiting 4 or 5 years for the property market to reach the bottom is absolutely not an option for the government.

plasmaguy

Deleted User wrote: »

Why do you seek to destroy our economy?

I'm trying to save our economy and our public finances, the finances that are spent on hospitals..

It's the others with their acceptance of huge deficits and hence huge cutbacks are trying to destroy our economy.

The government and the country, including everyone who has purchased a house, and I presume there are some people like that on this thread, have backed themselves into a corner. Now they have no choice but to prop up the property market, and I mean no choice...there is no other choice, everything else is pie in the sky...no green technology is going to plug the hole in the public finances, no alternative industry, nothing is going to plug the hole...we have no fall back position, no parachute...we are stuck with property like it or not as money maker....we cannot wave our hands and say right lets get money from something else within the next 6 months, that's just fantacising to do that...economics is not about fantacising it's about the here and now...

So yeh shoot the messenger for telling the truth...that will get yee a long way...

SimpleSam06

plasmaguy wrote: »

I have made the clear argument which you and others seem incapable or arguing, and which instead seem intent on shooting the messenger of this argument,

Every single post you have made recently has mentioned sick people in hospitals. Every. Single. One. Sometimes more than once in the same post. This is a style of debate called "appeal to emotion", and is normally used by those with nothing else to offer in the way of realistic points.

Then you make this statement about shooting the messenger. What "message" are you delivering and from whom, exactly? Are you bringing the light of harsh reality to our warm and fuzzy debates here? I don't think so.

I think what you are doing is advocating any and all measures that can be taken in order to stop house prices falling any further. This looks suspiciously like someone in negative equity or soon to be in negative equity trying to talk themselves out of a bad situation.

Everyone is aware of the seriousness of the economic situation. Many people have ideas and suggestions to counteract the issues in the mid and long term. Short term is a hopeless case, courtesy of the incompetence of the government over the last eight years. So its the mid to long term we should be dealing with, damage control.

Of course, its easier to just keep repeating "sick people in hospitals" than to deal with the many excellent points they have raised.

plasmaguy wrote: »

or else you wait until house prices collapse so selfish people can get a cheap house.

Yes, not like those trojan martyrs who sacrificed themselves on the balance sheets of the banks in a selfless effort to bring economic power to the nation. Oh wait, no, my mistake, many of them were quick buck merchants who thought theuy'd never have to work a day in their lives again.

plasmaguy wrote: »

I am in favour of helping FTBs anyway possible.

No, I don't think thats what you are in favour of at all.

plasmaguy wrote: »

and the need for balanced budgets you would know that.

Yes, pity the government couldn't have thought of that eight years ago.

plasmaguy

plasmaguy wrote: »

I'm trying to save our economy and our public finances, the finances that are spent on hospitals..

It's the others with their acceptance of huge deficits and hence huge cutbacks are trying to destroy our economy.

The government and the country, including everyone who has purchased a house, and I presume there are some people like that on this thread, have backed themselves into a corner. Now they have no choice but to prop up the property market, and I mean no choice...there is no other choice, everything else is pie in the sky...no green technology is going to plug the hole in the public finances, no alternative industry, nothing is going to plug the hole...we have no fall back position, no parachute...we are stuck with property like it or not as money maker....we cannot wave our hands and say right lets get money from something else within the next 6 months, that's just fantacising to do that...economics is not about fantacising it's about the here and now...

So yeh shoot the messenger for telling the truth...that will get yee a long way...

you want to use taxes to enable people to pay taxes and to take on more debt. Its not productive its counter productive. It doesnt generate money it sends it out of the country.
It doesnt make sense. The money should be spent to enable us to generate money........

Again I ask why do you seek to destroy our economy?

plasmaguy

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Every single post you have made recently has mentioned sick people in hospitals. Every. Single. One. Sometimes more than once in the same post. This is a style of debate called "appeal to emotion", and is normally used by those with nothing else to offer in the way of realistic points.

Then you make this statement about shooting the messenger. What "message" are you delivering and from whom, exactly? Are you bringing the light of harsh reality to our warm and fuzzy debates here? I don't think so.

I think what you are doing is advocating any and all measures that can be taken in order to stop house prices falling any further. This looks suspiciously like someone in negative equity or soon to be in negative equity trying to talk themselves out of a bad situation.

Everyone is aware of the seriousness of the economic situation. Many people have ideas and suggestions to counteract the issues in the mid and long term. Short term is a hopeless case, courtesy of the incompetence of the government over the last eight years. So its the mid to long term we should be dealing with, damage control.

Of course, its easier to just keep repeating "sick people in hospitals" than to deal with the many excellent points they have raised.


Yes, not like those trojan martyrs who sacrificed themselves on the balance sheets of the banks in a selfless effort to bring economic power to the nation. Oh wait, no, my mistake, many of them were quick buck merchants who thought theuy'd never have to work a day in their lives again.


No, I don't think thats what you are in favour of at all.


Yes, pity the government couldn't have thought of that eight years ago.

So fecking what if I mention sick people...I am trying to put it in stark terms for people like you who cannot get the picture...I am using sick people in hospital as an example...

Fine if it helps I will use a different example....there will be cutbacks for autistic children...

There will be cutbacks in services to the homeless..

There will be cutbacks in out of hours social services the type of out of hours service that could have prevented several tragedies lately..

There will be cutbacks in everything acorss society, in teacher to student ratios in schools, in unemployment assistance, in help to pensioners.

There will also be a rise in taxes including stealth taxes because you have to balance the budget somehow, you cannot keep running deficits.

The price of everything will rise, we will become uncompetitive, companies will leave the country because of our lack of competitiveness, we will have 300,000 on the dole, then 400,000 and a while later 500,000 on the dole...

The dark days of the 1980's will seem a paradise to what will come.

All as a consequence of running large deficits...

Happy?

Or do you want to keep playing semantics and word games?

plasmaguy

Deleted User wrote: »

you want to use taxes to enable people to pay taxes and to take on more debt. Its not productive its counter productive. It doesnt generate money it sends it out of the country.
It doesnt make sense. The money should be spent to enable us to generate money........

Again I ask why do you seek to destroy our economy?

You are a fool...I have said at least 10 times I don't approve of taxpayers paying money under the current scheme....how many more times do I have to say it before it finally registers with you?

I do approve of stimulating the housing market but not in the current way.

First rule of economics (or economics for dummies)....all consumer spending is good...regardless of what it is spent on...

Anyone who thinks consumer spending is bad for an econonmy is a clown.

plasmaguy

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Every single post you have made recently has mentioned sick people in hospitals. Every. Single. One. Sometimes more than once in the same post. This is a style of debate called "appeal to emotion", and is normally used by those with nothing else to offer in the way of realistic points.

Then you make this statement about shooting the messenger. What "message" are you delivering and from whom, exactly? Are you bringing the light of harsh reality to our warm and fuzzy debates here? I don't think so.

I think what you are doing is advocating any and all measures that can be taken in order to stop house prices falling any further. This looks suspiciously like someone in negative equity or soon to be in negative equity trying to talk themselves out of a bad situation.

Everyone is aware of the seriousness of the economic situation. Many people have ideas and suggestions to counteract the issues in the mid and long term. Short term is a hopeless case, courtesy of the incompetence of the government over the last eight years. So its the mid to long term we should be dealing with, damage control.

Of course, its easier to just keep repeating "sick people in hospitals" than to deal with the many excellent points they have raised.


Yes, not like those trojan martyrs who sacrificed themselves on the balance sheets of the banks in a selfless effort to bring economic power to the nation. Oh wait, no, my mistake, many of them were quick buck merchants who thought theuy'd never have to work a day in their lives again.


No, I don't think thats what you are in favour of at all.


Yes, pity the government couldn't have thought of that eight years ago.

You might find this hard to believe but I don't own a house and so no I wouldn't suffer from negative equity. As a potential FTB I could avail of the current scheme on offer but on principle I won't because I have principles. Does that answer your question?

Like I said in my previous post, encouraging consumer spending is good for an economy, that's the first and most basic rule of economics...surely you know that, if you don't know that then go and read an economics book.

But I repeat I don't approve of the current scheme.

As for bailling out developers, that is also an appeal to emotion, because developers are an emotive term in this country, so yeh you are appealing to people's emotions too and that makes you a hypocrite.

But different to you I am in favour of helping tens of thousands of ordinary tradespersons, ie ordinary human beings with kids and mortgages find employment again..oh sorry am I appealing to emotion again?

And no I am not a FFer, far from it.

subway

The price of everything will rise, we will become uncompetitive, companies will leave the country because of our lack of competitiveness, we will have 300,000 on the dole, then 400,000 and a while later 500,000 on the dole...

The dark days of the 1980's will seem a paradise to what will come.

this is already happening, we have a huge deficit, we have just covered it up by getting poeple to pay huge amounts of money for eveything, hence bringing in more taxes.
people wised up a few months back and now no one is willing to "take one for the team" anymore. i vertainly will not buy an overpriced house becuase its my patriotic duty. i will buy when i can afford it, until then i will rent and if i cant afford the rent i will probably have to leave the country.

just becuase the bank will lend me 450k, that i openly admit, i cannot pay back, and i am not low paid by any stretch of the imaginination, does not mean that i should take it.
hppily tho, the bank wont lend it to me, or to anyone else, so we can now get back to normal.

when people can afford to buy things they will buy them.
when they cant they wont.

a lot of people confuse credit for their own money and will happily take it and spend it.
thats the disconnect we have here. people in 400k houses CANNOT afford them, but they are stuck. the rest of us wont / cant buy 400k houses anymore.

apoliogies for the long disjointed post, feel free to pick it apart

SkepticOne

plasmaguy wrote: »

You are a fool...I have said at least 10 times I don't approve of taxpayers paying money under the current scheme....how many more times do I have to say it before it finally registers with you?

What are you in favour of? How should the market be stimulated without public money?

plasmaguy

SkepticOne wrote: »

What are you in favour of? How should the market be stimulated without public money?

Between you and me? stamp duty reform...

I know that's going to get under the skin of a lot of people on here who will start whinging more about how we would be propping up the property market..

Fine if people want to run up big deficits, yeh, let the mob run the country...like FF appealed to the mob in 1977...

And if we let the mob run the country, what's the first thing they would demand? ....No more taxes! Because taxes are evil right.