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

Would you consider voting a Majority Fianna fail for the next government?

Options
1…1920212224

Comments

  • Options
    #692
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,158 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Amprodude wrote: »
    The people of this country never fail to amaze me, latest opinion poll of all things having FF at 27%. What are people thinking? The current government are bad but surely we can't vote for FF after the mess they made of this country. Crazy stuff.

    People will vote for them because people are stupid. I know there's going to be folks who will call that pretentious drivel, they're stupid too.


  • Options
    #693
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    tayto lover wrote: »
    No it does not deserve to be mocked at all.
    But continue to vote as Daddy did and put "The Party" before all.

    It must be so easy to be you.
    I mean you've bypassed the part where people expend the effort to find out what someone believes before vomiting out the uninspired clichés that you fervently believe pass for a damning judgment and just go for pasting your own shitty misconceptions onto anyone you don't like.

    oh, to be capable of such craven simplicity, how easy life would be.....


  • Options
    #694
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Anynama141 wrote: »
    Are you sure about that? :confused:

    Are you arguing that a house that a purchaser would stump up 550k for when we had 10% stamp duty would only have had to pay 500k for the property if stamp duty were not being charged?
    Think about what you're saying. What you're saying, to extend this principle, is that if Vat had never been introduced, retail goods prices would be what they are now. You're also effectively saying, using this template, that retailers pay Vat, not retail customers.

    Which is nonsense.
    Anynama141 wrote: »
    You pay motor tax after you pay your car*. And the bigger your engine, the more you pay. What's the difference?
    There are a number of excellent arguments in favour of property taxes.

    This would have to go into the "dire" folder.

    Why are you making it so hard for yourselves?
    Of course the above is not a valid argument. I mean if motor tax sets a precedent which establishes that any post-purchase taxation is valid, then a tax on used toilet paper must also be logically valid. Ridiculous kind of stuff.


  • Options
    #695
    MilanPan!c
    Site Banned Posts: 4,415 ✭✭✭MilanPan!c


    darkhorse wrote: »
    Accountability, which we dont have in place as far as politics is concerned.

    I dream that one day we'll live in a democratic Ireland where we can vote out politicians we don't like, and thus hold them accountable.



    Nah... I'm just kidding... that's what we currently have.


  • Options
    #696
    bgrizzley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭bgrizzley


    hooradiation wrote: »
    It must be so easy to be you.
    I mean you've bypassed the part where people expend the effort to find out what someone believes before vomiting out the uninspired clichés that you fervently believe pass for a damning judgment and just go for pasting your own shitty misconceptions onto anyone you don't like.

    oh, to be capable of such craven simplicity, how easy life would be.....


    fcuk man, you can give it, but you sure cant take it, lol


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #697
    bgrizzley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭bgrizzley


    MilanPan!c wrote: »
    I dream that one day we'll live in a democratic Ireland where we can vote out politicians we don't like, and thus hold them accountable.



    Nah... I'm just kidding... that's what we currently have.


    try and vote out Michael Lowry see how you fare...:P


  • Options
    #698
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    MilanPan!c wrote: »
    I dream that one day we'll live in a democratic Ireland where we can vote out politicians we don't like, and thus hold them accountable.
    Yes but he said accountability, which is not necessarily synonymous with a General Election every 5 years.

    There are lots of different interpretations of what accountability is and how it can operate.

    Your un-necessarily angry posts in this thread, against anyone making some pretty fair, unremarkable points is a little boring by now.


  • Options
    #699
    FamousSeamus
    Registered Users Posts: 126 ✭✭FamousSeamus


    Going to the op..no I'd never vote for them but sadly FF work off getting the same families to vote for them cause 50 years ago that guys father help you great grandfather etc etc. They couldn't vote for them last time cause they had no good solid reason but were always going to vote for them again saying "well we gave them a chance and there's noone else so we might as well vote for them again"!!

    Sadly majority of Irish people are politically stupid and focus on loyalties to a party more than anything else!!


  • Options
    #700
    MilanPan!c
    Site Banned Posts: 4,415 ✭✭✭MilanPan!c


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    Yes but he said accountability, which is not necessarily synonymous with a General Election every 5 years.

    There are lots of different interpretations of what accountability is and how it can operate.

    Your un-necessarily angry posts in this thread, against anyone making some pretty fair, unremarkable points is a little boring by now.

    A few things.

    You might think someone repeatedly lying about being too stupid to answer your questions wouldn't frustrate you, but I'd guess it'd annoy you at least a little.

    You might also be reading "angry" into my sarcasm. That happens.

    Finally regarding different definitions of accountable, the poster in question seems to agree with my definition, except that he thinks the only sorts of elections that hold people accountable are ones driven by a referenda. Begging the question: if no one called a referenda to oust a pol, would darkhorse want an end to all other elections?

    In other words, elections are only a way to hold someone accountable if they're driven by referenda, maybe, but maybe not...

    It's a load of crap.

    And one of his dozens of silly posts (which he'll probably claim he's too stupid to understand himself, if he even remembers he wrote it) which don't bear any scrutiny.

    It's also a passive aggressive insult: ie only people that want referenda driven special elections care or demand accountability.

    As if.


  • Options
    #701
    Anynama141
    Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Anynama141


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    Think about what you're saying. What you're saying, to extend this principle, is that if Vat had never been introduced, retail goods prices would be what they are now. You're also effectively saying, using this template, that retailers pay Vat, not retail customers.

    Which is nonsense.
    I'm talking specifically about property prices. If someone is willing and able to pay - say - 550k for a property including stamp duty, wouldn't they be willing and able to pay 550k without stamp duty? :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #702
    Anynama141
    Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Anynama141


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    Your un-necessarily angry posts in this thread, against anyone making some pretty fair, unremarkable points is a little boring by now.
    How do you think your patronising tone is coming across?


  • Options
    #703
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    MilanPan!c wrote: »
    It's also a passive aggressive insult: ie only people that want referenda driven special elections care or demand accountability.

    As if.
    I'm not sure who actually suggested this. But in fact, depending on someone's interpretation of the word accountability, that can be a perfectly reasonable position to take.

    If I take the position that accountability is X + Y + Z, then the sum is what I deem "real accountability".
    And you take the position that accountability is Z,
    Then I could quite rationally draw the conclusion that you are not interested in real accountability. That is true from my perspective.
    Anynama141 wrote: »
    I'm talking specifically about property prices. If someone is willing and able to pay - say - 550k for a property including stamp duty, wouldn't they be willing and able to pay 550k without stamp duty? :confused:
    They could be prepared to pay that... for a better property. Just like any consumption tax.


  • Options
    #704
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    Anynama141 wrote: »
    You pay motor tax after you pay your car*. And the bigger your engine, the more you pay. What's the difference?

    *Unless you are a Freeman.

    Or a senator.


  • Options
    #705
    MilanPan!c
    Site Banned Posts: 4,415 ✭✭✭MilanPan!c


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    I'm not sure who actually suggested this. But in fact, depending on someone's interpretation of the word accountability, that can be a perfectly reasonable position to take.

    If I take the position that accountability is X + Y + Z, then the sum is what I deem "real accountability".
    And you take the position that accountability is Z,
    Then I could quite rationally draw the conclusion that you are not interested in real accountability. That is true from my perspective.


    They could be prepared to pay that... for a better property. Just like any consumption tax.

    I could go around claiming that accountability meant a hamburger in a shoe, but it wouldn't make it so.

    The person in question has a long history I trolling when it comes to this topic, and I respond to their lies and other ridiculous responses as I see fit.

    Saying that a democracy has to have recall elections for it to be "accountable" is frankly absurd. No political historian or scientist would agree.

    Would, for example, a democracy that had elections every 24 hours, but no recall mechanism be "accountable"?

    Trying to judge the "purity" of a democracy based on how close it's policies are to what someone imagines happens in Switzerland, so that you can win an argument is basically just BS.


  • Options
    #706
    Anynama141
    Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Anynama141


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    They could be prepared to pay that... for a better property. Just like any consumption tax.
    It's a simple, straight question: can you please answer it honestly?


  • Options
    #707
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    MilanPan!c wrote: »
    I could go around claiming that accountability meant a hamburger in a shoe, but it wouldn't make it so.
    Of course not. Nobody suggested there is one single definition for accountability, how could that even be so? The term is hugely subjective.
    Anynama141 wrote: »
    It's a simple, straight question: can you please answer it honestly?
    The question was answered. You didn't understand the answer. So I'll expand on it.

    If stamp duty were wiped out, all that would happen would be the purchasers of properties would initially purchase more valuable properties as the cost of purchasing a property would decrease, and new entrants to the property market would arrive at the bottom of the market. Eventually enough new houses will appear on the market and, ceteris paribus, a new market equilibrium will be reached, with average house prices essentially returning to normal.


  • Options
    #708
    Anynama141
    Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Anynama141


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    The question was answered. You didn't understand the answer. So I'll expand on it.

    If stamp duty were wiped out, all that would happen would be the purchasers of properties would initially purchase more valuable properties as the cost of purchasing a property would decrease, and new entrants to the property market would arrive at the bottom of the market. Eventually enough new houses will appear on the market and, ceteris paribus, a new market equilibrium will be reached, with average house prices essentially returning to normal.
    Where does this new supply of more valuable properties suddenly materialise from? :confused:

    Listen, if you are going to try to patronise people, you'd better be damned good at your basic economics. It seems you are not.

    What would actually happen is that, as 550k is the price the market will bear for that house, if you scrap stamp duty the house will still sell for 550k. Your answer is complete bunk, I'm afraid.


  • Options
    #709
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Anynama141 wrote: »
    Where does this new supply of more valuable properties suddenly materialise from? :confused:
    eh, house building, house improvements, more activity on the market (downsizing).
    Listen, if you are going to try to patronise people, you'd better be damned good at your basic economics. It seems you are not.
    Is your difficulty with the concept of house building or market equilibrium?


  • Options
    #710
    MilanPan!c
    Site Banned Posts: 4,415 ✭✭✭MilanPan!c


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    eh, house building.


    Is your difficulty with the concept of house building or market equilibrium?

    Sorry, are you suggesting we re-inflate the housing bubble?

    And who will BUY all these new houses?


  • Options
    #711
    Anynama141
    Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Anynama141


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    eh, house building.
    Eh...so a day later a couple of thousand houses would be immediately built? Like, finished?
    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    Is your difficulty with the concept of house building or market equilibrium?
    I've no issue with either. But you seem to have difficulty with short-term supply constraints.

    Your idea that everybody jumps up the value chain is laughable, as the guys buying at the top suddenly find that they've jumped right off the chain.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #712
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    bgrizzley wrote: »
    fcuk man, you can give it, but you sure cant take it, lol

    At least wait until the person wearing the skirt you've been hiding behind comes back before you lean out to try and take another pot shot.


  • Options
    #713
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Anynama141 wrote: »
    Eh...so a day later a couple of thousand houses would be immediately built? Like, finished?
    No that's why market equilibrium takes time to establish. That's why I used the word "initially". That's why I explained the process of equilibrium arising as a process. Did you read that at all?

    Demand increases in response to a stamp duty reduction, because the price of purchasing a property is lower for those who are expected to benefit. That's why Fianna Fáil issued preferential stamp duty regulations for groups like young buyers - are you saying that it had no effect? it didn't increase demand? Fianna Fáil are not to blame for these measures??


  • Options
    #714
    Anynama141
    Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Anynama141


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    No that's why market equilibrium takes time to establish. That's why I used the word "initially". That's why I explained the process of equilibrium arising as a process. Did you read that at all?
    So you were 'honestly' answering a question that I didn't even ask?

    I was asking about the day before and the day after stamp duty is scrapped. So do you agree that the property will sell for 550k on either day, as that is the price the top bidder is willing to pay regardless of where the cash is going?


  • Options
    #715
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Anynama141 wrote: »
    So you were 'honestly' answering a question that I didn't even ask?

    I was asking about the day before and the day after stamp duty is scrapped. So do you agree that the property will sell for 550k on either day, as that is the price the top bidder is willing to pay regardless of where the cash is going?
    No. I'm not sure how clearer this can be.

    Why on Earth would the cost to the buyer remain the same the next day, or the next week, or the next month? That makes no sense. A shift downwards on the price axis means there must be a quantity shift to the right, eventually to be met by an adjusted supply curve and a new equilibrium taking account of all market participants.

    Any other result would mean that Fianna Fáil's stamp duty interventions on the market could never have succeeded.


  • Options
    #716
    Anynama141
    Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Anynama141


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    No. I'm not sure how clearer this can be.

    Why on Earth would the cost to the buyer remain the same the next day, or the next week, or the next month? That makes no sense. A shift downwards on the price axis means there must be a quantity shift to the right, eventually to be met by an adjusted supply curve and a new equilibrium taking account of all market participants.
    So a seller who is bidding against the rest of the market and is willing and able to pay 550k will suddenly only have to pay 500k the day after stamp duty is scrapped?

    You seriously believe that? :confused:


  • Options
    #717
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Anynama141 wrote: »
    So a seller who is bidding against the rest of the market and is willing and able to pay 550k will suddenly only have to pay 500k the day after stamp duty is scrapped?

    You seriously believe that? :confused:
    If he is representative of most people, he won't want to deal with the same seller. He'll try to deal with a seller of a more valuable property.

    In reality, stamp duty amendments are targeted at specific home-owners, and the pace of equilibrium is increased in advance of stamp duty amendments by the Government giving plenty of prior warning.

    As interesting as this exchange on economics 101 is, what exactly is the point here?

    The *only* possible point of relevance here, that I could imagine, is that you're suggesting Fianna Fáil don't deserve blame for their stamp duty interventions, which apparently didn't alter house prices, ergo they didn't increase demand....


  • Options
    #718
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,652 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    hooradiation wrote: »
    It must be so easy to be you.
    I mean you've bypassed the part where people expend the effort to find out what someone believes before vomiting out the uninspired clichés that you fervently believe pass for a damning judgment and just go for pasting your own shitty misconceptions onto anyone you don't like.

    oh, to be capable of such craven simplicity, how easy life would be.....

    You made a smart-ass comment on the legitimacy of the comment of another poster in what I believe was an effort to get a few laughs and maybe a few thanks.
    Anyone can be a thanks whore.
    Why didn't you practice what you are now preaching and "expend the effort to find out" what he believes without the comment of him having an "overactive martyr gland". It was needless and the craven simplicity is all yours.


  • Options
    #719
    bgrizzley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭bgrizzley


    hooradiation wrote: »
    At least wait until the person wearing the skirt you've been hiding behind comes back before you lean out to try and take another pot shot.


    lol, you need a hug or, if i may be so bold... http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=127


  • Options
    #720
    Anynama141
    Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Anynama141


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    If he is representative of most people, he won't want to deal with the same seller. He'll try to deal with a seller of a more valuable property.
    And he's the only guy in the market with the same idea? :confused: Everyone else in the market behaves differently to him? :D

    You have yet to explain why the day after the stamp duty is removed, everyone is willing to pay less for a property.
    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    As interesting as this exchange on economics 101 is, what exactly is the point here?
    I know it's embarrassing to be shown up in basic economics, especially when you try to condescend to everybody.

    If you want to know what the relevance of it is, perhaps you should ask the guy who introduced the topic?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #721
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Anynama141 wrote: »
    And he's the only guy in the market with the same idea? :confused:
    Not necessarily. Others will buy the same house and now make substantial improvements to it.

    Just to get this straight. You think that a house that costs €500,000 today, will cost €550,000 tomorrow evening, if stamp duty is abolished tonight?

    So why has this never happened, anywhere?


Advertisement