Homelessness: The disgrace that is Varadkar and the Government

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

In a world context, you are the 1%

Let's get real here, houses are property, property is wealth. Anyone who owns a house in Ireland, even on a mortgage, is rich by global standards.

The homeless and the poor don't own houses, don't have property and aren't wealthy.

You are rich, pay the LPT.

Unless you sell the house it is just a place to live and costs you to maintain it.

I am not rich even by Irish standards.

end of the road

blanch152 wrote: »

In a world context, you are the 1%

Let's get real here, houses are property, property is wealth. Anyone who owns a house in Ireland, even on a mortgage, is rich by global standards.

The homeless and the poor don't own houses, don't have property and aren't wealthy.

You are rich, pay the LPT.

many of us are not rich. the lpt must be abolished. the only reason most people pay it is because revenue are involved. if they weren't, we wouldn't be paying it, i can assure you.

jimmycrackcorm

hatrickpatrick wrote:

I've said this repeatedly and I'll keep saying it - until the government embarks on a social housing program on the scale of the Herbert Simms projects of the 1930s and the tenement clearances of later decades, I will regard them as choosing to preside over this crisis rather than attempting to fix it. Simple as that.

The left don't want that because they don't want to create ghettos. The noose around their neck is that while it could provide the key solution to social housing, their mantra prevents then from dealing with the linked anti social behavior because they can't make problem tenants homeless.

hatrickpatrick wrote:

I'm not opposed to property tax, by the way - far from it. I just do not believe that it should apply to the property one lives in.

Taxing hard work is unfair in comparison to taxing an unproductive asset. Even more so in the case when you inherit it. But the most pursuing argument is that wealthy people cannot avoid it.

MayoSalmon

end of the road wrote:

many of us are not rich. the lpt must be abolished. the only reason most people pay it is because revenue are involved. if they weren't, we wouldn't be paying it, i can assure you.

Yeah I think you can say that for most taxes. Taxation is theft and is taken by force and intimidation. Government will literally put you in prison if you don't pay.

LPT is one of the fairest taxes we have in this country and taxes people's home according to its value. If you own a property especially in Ireland you have wealth and the government as always wants some of that wealth. The more wealth you have in your property the more you will pay and vice versa. It's a progressive tax and the fact the left don't like it just confirms their populist lunacy.

end of the road

i disagree, it's a regressive tax that takes money from people who cannot afford to pay. it doesn't just target the genuinely wealthy.

The Rape of Lucretia

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Yeah I think you can say that for most taxes. Taxation is theft and is taken by force and intimidation. Government will literally put you in prison if you don't pay.

LPT is one of the fairest taxes we have in this country and taxes people's home according to its value. If you own a property especially in Ireland you have wealth and the government as always wants some of that wealth. The more wealth you have in your property the more you will pay and vice versa. It's a progressive tax and the fact the left don't like it just confirms their populist lunacy.

So is this the theory :
- you earn money, and so pay tax on that income
- if you spend it on a consumable (food, holiday, cinema ticket, etc) you pay no more tax on it
- if you spend it on something that could resold, it is termed wealth, and so you must pay tax, for ever, for not having spent it on a consumable
- if you spend the after tax income on a house, then you will be taxed on it : the consequence being that either :

+ your income is effectively being double taxed to fund you staying in your house and maintaining your wealth at a steady level
or
+ you pay the wealth tax by trading down your house standard every few years to free wealth from it to hand back to the govt : so double taxing the income you earned in the first place to buy it.

So the government's policy is basically incentivising people to go to McDonalds and the cinema rather than buy homes for themselves ?

Wanderer78

Thankfully our homeless problem isn't really that bad, compared to other countries!

markodaly

end of the road wrote: »

i disagree, it's a regressive tax that takes money from people who cannot afford to pay. it doesn't just target the genuinely wealthy.

Property tax is actually one of the easiest and best way to target the wealthy. It should be increased in theory, but no one wants to go near that.

FrancieBrady

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Thankfully our homeless problem isn't really that bad, compared to other countries!

It doesn't augur well for the future of Leo when he downplayed such a serious and tragic crisis with old and bogus figures. Either by clumsy research or design.

Idbatterim

Could the trolling be stopped. 51% thieved on labour which is discretionary to an extent and .18% on lpt. It's pathetic. The rate of tax generated here on income tax is a joke. Lpt water charges should have been in operation on far higher levels than they were at. Reduce marginal rates. Stop taking people out of tax net. They are contributing nothing in direct taxes anyway ...

Wanderer78

Disturbing was the first thing that came to mind when I heard it, we 're in trouble, big trouble regarding this one. We need to prepare for in excess of 10,000 to be homeless, Leo and co. Couldn't give a **** about this issue

end of the road

Idbatterim wrote: »

Could the trolling be stopped. 51% thieved on labour which is discretionary to an extent and .18% on lpt. It's pathetic. The rate of tax generated here on income tax is a joke. Lpt water charges should have been in operation on far higher levels than they were at. Reduce marginal rates. Stop taking people out of tax net. They are contributing nothing in direct races anyway ...

lpt and water charges could not be any higher. it's not affordible for the majority of the populous. if you can afford to pay then you are lucky, many are not so fortunate, and they have to be considered.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It doesn't augur well for the future of Leo when he downplayed such a serious and tragic crisis with old and bogus figures. Either by clumsy research or design.

It doesn't augur well for the future of the country if people want their wealth taxes such as LPT and water charges reduced but also want to have houses built for the homeless.

It is the magic money tree school of economics again.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

the vast majority of people are paying tax in some form and are contributing. the LPT wasn't viable......

Yes the vast majority contribute in some form.

But it has always highly amused me that it is the property owning class that have squealed the loudest and longest when asked to contribute. :pac:

end of the road

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Yes the vast majority contribute in some form.

But it has always highly amused me that it is the property owning class that have squealed the loudest and longest when asked to contribute.

but they have contributed. if the tax was on people having a second property then you would have a point. but it's on the house one owns, for which they have paid for, or will be paying for, they then have to fork out for another bill they can't afford for nothing in return.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

but they have contributed. if the tax was on people having a second property then you would have a point. but it's on the house one owns, for which they have paid for, or will be paying for, they then have to fork out for another bill they can't afford for nothing in return.

The government takes my PAYE from my wages for years now before i see a penny of it and doesnt give a damn whether I can afford it or not.

And its multiples of any old property tax.

LPT in Cavan for a 250k house (big house round my home area) is 405 euro, about 7.78 euro a week. boo hoo :rolleyes:

end of the road

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

The government takes my PAYE from my wages for years now before i see a penny of it and doesnt give a damn whether I can afford it or not.

And its multiples of any old property tax.

LPT in Cavan for a 250k house (big house round my home area) is 405 euro, about 7.78 euro a week. boo hoo

405 euro, about 7.78 euro a week, that someone may not be able to afford, so not boo hoo at all.

blanch152

end of the road wrote: »

but they have contributed. if the tax was on people having a second property then you would have a point. but it's on the house one owns, for which they have paid for, or will be paying for, they then have to fork out for another bill they can't afford for nothing in return.

If they inherited from their parents and it was worth less than €300k when they inherited it, then they didn't ever pay a single penny in tax for the house.

They can collect the dole, pay no mortgage, and live in luxury in a big house and pay zero tax.

hatrickpatrick

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The left don't want that because they don't want to create ghettos. The noose around their neck is that while it could provide the key solution to social housing, their mantra prevents then from dealing with the linked anti social behavior because they can't make problem tenants homeless.

I don't agree. The left is supportive of building council housing, even mixed use developments. It's the neoliberals who insist that we turn to the market for that instead of just hiring some builders to build some feckin' units on the land the state already owns, and then allow the state to set the rents for those units. It's an extraordinarily simple concept with worked in the early 20th century - the reason they won't do it now is entirely based on post-thatcher anti-welfare ideology, nothing more and nothing less.

Taxing hard work is unfair in comparison to taxing an unproductive asset. Even more so in the case when you inherit it. But the most pursuing argument is that wealthy people cannot avoid it.

I disagree with the idea of one's home being regarded as an "asset" and I always have. Subsequent property, absolutely. But the roof over your head should never be something you're at risk of losing, particularly if it's already been paid for. End of story as far as I'm concerned. Nobody should ever be told that they have to lose their home because they cannot afford its value in property tax, just because at one time in their life they could afford it.

I mean for instance would you be in favour of turfing pensioners out of their homes because they can no longer afford to pay an annual fee for the privilege of owning it?

Taxes on transactions I absolutely approve of, but I have massive difficult in accepting ongoing, recurring taxes on things which are already bought and paid for. I have the same issue with motor tax, for what it's worth, but obviously a home is far, far more fundamental to the human way of life than a car, so it's a far more pressing issue. I will never agree with asking people to pay a recurring, never-ending charge for the place that they live in.

hatrickpatrick

blanch152 wrote: »

If they inherited from their parents and it was worth less than €300k when they inherited it, then they didn't ever pay a single penny in tax for the house.

They can collect the dole, pay no mortgage, and live in luxury in a big house and pay zero tax.

What if they inherited it at a young age having lived in it their entire lives, and they are hard working citizens whose current level of employment can't sustain such a recurring tax? It's utterly inhumane to force them to sell up and move under circumstances like these.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

It doesn't augur well for the future of the country if people want their wealth taxes such as LPT and water charges reduced but also want to have houses built for the homeless.

It is the magic money tree school of economics again.

Nobody is talking about magic money trees (that is just a derogatory crutch used shortly before you attempt to switch the focus to other parties) we are talking about a fair taxing regime.

The LPT is an unfair tax because the wealth in my house is not a cash asset until it is sold. The LPT does not take into account therefore my ability to pay it.

In that sense it is unfair.
I don't have a problem paying taxes by the way.

I admire the ability of the irish "left" to lift the burden of taxation off the obviously wealthier property owning people (they own houses for god sakes!) and land it on everyone else.

I rented for years completely unable to afford a house and many of my friends still do.

What you are proposing is that tax will not be levied on property owners, and the shortfall in taxation stuck on PAYE, including my friends who work but cannot afford to buy. (coz they can afford it?)


On a related point right now house prices are rising, rents are rising and the only people really hurt by this are renters and buyers. Most who have not bought a house in years are not affected by the rising prices and they do not really notice them or feel the financial pressure.

I think the LPT should be regularly reviewed and rise in line with house prices.
This would put on a more realistic level of political pressure to resolve the housing crisis, a financial incentive for voters to really look at planning issues, take a keen interest in what their politicians are doing and lessen the constant objections to anyone building anything in their area.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What if they inherited it at a young age having lived in it their entire lives, and they are hard working citizens whose current level of employment can't sustain such a recurring tax? It's utterly inhumane to force them to sell up and move under circumstances like these.

If they inherited at a young age, lucky them.

They wont have paid out thousands of euros in rent for years like the rest of us, and then paid out thousands to a mortgage for 30 years.

Wombatman

seamus wrote: »

Forget for a second, your rhetoric about bankers. Forget about your hatred of Fine Gael and your bias against anything a civil servant might say. Bear in mind that I'm pretty lefty, I strongly support the government providing homes to the homeless.

Clear your mind, read what she actually said and answer truthfully - is she wrong? And if so, why?

Consider that all of those outraged by her comments have, in some respect, an interest in homelessness. CEOs and others who's salary is dependent on there being a charity to run. No homeless people = no charity = no paycheque.
She, on the other hand, is a director of an entity that exists whether there are 10 or 10,000 homeless people.

The "economic crash" cannot be blamed for all our woes. Our homeless rate during the crash was one of the lowest in history. Collapsed rents and an abundance of property meant homeless rates were on the floor. Repossessions have been, and still are, very low.

In any case, her statements were primarily in relation to rough sleepers - those who avail of the food and street shelter provided by homeless charities.

In a discussion on immigrants in the Med recently, someone pointed out to me that Australia starting saving boats, and then bringing their occupants home again rather than into Aus. And as a result, the number of people who attempted to migrate into Aus by illegals boats plummeted because you were no longer guaranteed to land there.
Now, I disagreed with it's relevance to that discussion, but the evidence remained - sometimes if you offer people a safety net, they will intentionally jump into it.

So applying the same thought to rough sleepers, it would seem likely that if someone knows that PMcV or SVP will be along later on with a sambo, a cup of coffee and maybe a dry sleeping bag, then they might be more inclined to go out on the street rather than stay in homeless accommodation. And if they've been at it a long time, then the actions of these charities are not helping that individual, and may in fact be hindering them from accepting longer-term help in getting off the street.

So, in all honesty - is she wrong?

I believe she is absolutely wrong. Take a seventeen year old sleeping rough for example, how can years of bad behaviour be at play here?

Some people genuinely believe that it the fault of homeless that they are homeless, and are happy to leave it at that. Do you?

There is a direct correlation between spiralling rent increases and an increased in the number of homeless. It puts a strain on all homeless services and people miss out. How are increasing rents down to the destitute individuals "bad behaviour"?

Keyzer

You're pointing the finger of blame at one man and one government. Extremely naive in my opinion.

The problems this country is currently facing are the result of failures from multiple governments going back decades which will take decades to fix, should someone have the courage to actually stand up and try to make positive changes without fear of not being re-elected.

Leo is one man, he's not a god or a superhero.

Wanderer78

Keyzer wrote:

Leo is one man, he's not a god or a superhero.

Sadly, this government is adding to those previous mistakes, our future is very worrying.

Chips Lovell

I've always found the objections to property tax kind of baffling. They work well in numerous other European countries, e.g. France, Germany, Spain, and, such as in the case of the latter two, many were introduced by socialist governments.

Wanderer78

Baron de Charlus wrote:

I've always found the objections to property tax kind of baffling. They work well in numerous other European countries, e.g. France, Germany, Spain, and, such as in the case of the latter two, many were introduced by socialist governments.

It sounds like a land value tax would be a better approach, but I still have limited knowledge of it

ancapailldorcha

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I've always found the objections to property tax kind of baffling. They work well in numerous other European countries, e.g. France, Germany, Spain, and, such as in the case of the latter two, many were introduced by socialist governments.

Speaking from the UK, I've read that the Conservative party's donors are fanatically hostile to it. David Cameron once referred to it as the best thing for his party as any mention of it always increased party donations.

McMurphy

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I've always found the objections to property tax kind of baffling. They work well in numerous other European countries, e.g. France, Germany, Spain, and, such as in the case of the latter two, many were introduced by socialist governments.

It is important to remember that the LPT we got imposed on us was also opposed by FG right up until they introduced it.

Even in their 2011 manifesto they opposed it (so far as I can tell, because FF proposed it)

Flip flop politics.

They'll prob oppose it again at some stage, most likely when FF resume power and talk about increasing or tweaking it in some way.

Same as it always has been.

Idbatterim

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I've always found the objections to property tax kind of baffling. They work well in numerous other European countries, e.g. France, Germany, Spain, and, such as in the case of the latter two, many were introduced by socialist governments.

I don't at all. The majority of the population want the high earners to pay for everything. Hence we have 51% tax over a low a income ...

Keyzer

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Sadly, this government is adding to those previous mistakes, our future is very worrying.

True.

The current model for governing our country (and most others) from a political perspective is deeply flawed.

The max term for any government in Ireland is 5 years. I firmly believe this is the biggest problem with our country and many others. There seems to be little or no strategic, long-term planning in any shape or form. Tactical measures are implemented (or not in many cases) when and where needed. Politicians are unwilling to make strong and potentially unpopular political decisions for fear of losing votes in the next election.

We should have a strategic, 10-20 year plan set out and agreed by all parties in Dail (I know, you're probably laughing out loud at this statement) covering improvement of all major aspects of society (health, education, transport, economy etc.) regardless of the government in charge vs a 5 year term government doing what they feel is required only to be replaced with another government 5 years later operating on a completely different agenda.

Rinse/repeat ad infinitum.

Idealistic I know but thats my two cents.

seamus

Wombatman wrote: »

I believe she is absolutely wrong. Take a seventeen year old sleeping rough for example, how can years of bad behaviour be at play here?

So you didn't read what she actually said then.

“Let’s be under no illusion here, when somebody becomes homeless it doesn’t happen overnight, it takes years of bad behaviour probably, or behaviour that isn’t the behaviour of you and me,”

That's a valid point. Your typical person doesn't (and won't) find themselves in a secure home with a roof over their heads one night, and sleeping in the street the next. For your seventeen-year-old, whether the cause of their homelessness is addiction, mental illness, or family problems at home is kind of irrelevant. The point is that they have ended up on the streets due to atypical behaviours and many years of such behaviours that have culminated in rough sleeping.

And that going out onto the streets and handing out food and shelter is not going to help them correct or resolve their atypical situation, and may in fact prevent them from seeking real help.

What you may not have read is that the the director of Focus Ireland basically agreed with her! Though he did call out the way she said what she said, as she did herself, he effectively agreed with what she was saying:

Mike Allen, the director of advocacy with homeless charity Focus Ireland acknowledged that some voluntary groups were not helping the homelessness situation.
....he said a lot of the voluntary groups did not know the correct protocol for accessing services and sometimes operated in isolation, even with a degree of rivalry with official teams.

Some people genuinely believe that it the fault of homeless that they are homeless, and are happy to leave it at that. Do you?

Fault? No. Fault and blame are for discrete events, once-off things.
Rough sleeping is not a discrete event, people don't end up on the streets overnight. Do I believe that many rough sleepers choose to sleep on the street? Yes, in the most basic sense.
But for most, the nature of that choice is a result of substance addiction or mental illness which prevents them from availing of a place in a shelter. So to call it a "choice" is facile.

Wanderer78

Keyzer wrote: »

True.

The current model for governing our country (and most others) from a political perspective is deeply flawed.

The max term for any government in Ireland is 5 years. I firmly believe this is the biggest problem with our country and many others. There seems to be little or no strategic, long-term planning in any shape or form. Tactical measures are implemented (or not in many cases) when and where needed. Politicians are unwilling to make strong and potentially unpopular political decisions for fear of losing votes in the next election.

We should have a strategic, 10-20 year plan set out and agreed by all parties in Dail (I know, you're probably laughing out loud at this statement) covering improvement of all major aspects of society (health, education, transport, economy etc.) regardless of the government in charge vs a 5 year term government doing what they feel is required only to be replaced with another government 5 years later operating on a completely different agenda.

Rinse/repeat ad infinitum.

Idealistic I know but thats my two cents.

no, im not laughing at all, in fact i think you re spot on. our short term thinking is having detrimental effects to our economy and our society. sadly i cant see this changing to your model any time soon, this has me worried.

Mr.Micro

Wanderer78 wrote: »

It sounds like a land value tax would be a better approach, but I still have limited knowledge of it

That would upset the farmers. They might have to pay something to the State.

Wanderer78

Mr.Micro wrote: »

That would upset the farmers. They might have to pay something to the State.

even though i know your comment is tongue and cheek, your kinna right. changes are difficult to make in this country, and its probably the same in other countries, due to certain interest groups. we have to try break this some how

flaneur

LPT was forced in by the Troika. There’s absolutely no question about that. They were concerned about Ireland lack of stable income tax base and the unusual situation of having no property tax or wealth tax, which was leaving the state vulnerable.

The same applies to water charges. They somehow seem to have been tagged on as a T&C of the bailout loans.

One of the weirdest aspects was for years and years Ireland had provided the EU with grossly over estimated water consumption statistics, which seem to have made us look like we all sat around pouring water down the drain as a hobby in between lawn watering and car washing parties. Our figures were showing us as in line with parts of the US.

That created a notion in Brussels that we were some kind of water squandering anti environmentalists who had been absolutely ignoring the water conservation directives. Someone took it as an opportunity to kick us into line when we couldn’t say no.

When metering did come in, it proved that Irish people actually used significantly less than the EU average. This was highly predictable - we’ve the same appliances as everyone else, the climate is cool and we don’t generally water lawns or irrigate, we don’t have many private outdoor pools and we even have generally very miserly, low pressure showers compared to most countries (other than the UK).

As for the housing crisis - this is all down to the 2008 crash and the policies that led up to it. Ireland went from building 100,000 housing units at peak to almost zero until very recently. We still have a major problem with financing for mid sized projects as the banks are not in great shape and are very much more conservative.

The state hasn’t built serious quantities of social housing in decades. You’re looking at politics that changed in the 1990s under FF and the PDs. They’re not recent.

The government instead funneled money into private landlords via rent supplement. This suited an agenda at the time and also satisfied NIMBY middle class voters who don’t want to be within 2km or any social house.

Every effort that was made towards building social and affordable housing as part of developments in the 2000s was disrupted by NIMBY behavior and developers just paid council levies to avoid doing it. That money never got spent on social housing but instead got absorbed into expansion of council budgets in other areas.

To be fair to the current lot, Eoghan Murphy also said the state is going to start social housing building and seems to be prepared to come down quite hard on slumlord behavior. I am still waiting to see any action but he has made all the right noises so far.

Health has also been a mess for as long as anyone can remember. It’s a structural disaster and until we deal with the two tier system and the chaotic messy structures, it’s unlikely to change.

I would be cautious though about this notion that we spend the most on health in Europe. We spend more than the UK but less than most Northern European nations (and also France) when you look at it as total spend (all sources) in € or $ per capita. A lot of our “health” budget goes into things that other countries might categorize as social expenditure. Commentators here need to be very careful that they are comparing like with like.

As for Varadkar, I think you’re seeing a bit of a late bloomer. It’s not that unusual for LGBT people who may be from a more conservative background to come out quite late. Yeah, I agree he could have done a lot more for the LGBT community in the past and I do think that him taking stances in the earlier part of his career that were against same sex partnerships is very disappointing to say the least.

I actually think a lot of people other than FG did the heavy lifting. Norris, Robinson, Zappone, McAleese and actually as vilified as it is by some, the Labour Party, have all been consistently champions of LGBT rights for many many years.

FG very much is reflective of middle Ireland though. It’s the same as the slightly stuffy mammy who was always a bit afraid to mention “the gays” but now that her son/daughter came out and being gay is suddenly socially acceptable, she’s off to pride marches and telling all her friends about how progressive she is.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. In fact, it’s a great thing that Irish consensus can shift like that and people can move on. It shows that we aren’t a very dogmatic country in reality. However, we may be a bunch of curtain twitching conformists who have to check what everyone else thinks before we have an opinion.

Also, as annoying as FG can be at times, I still do not trust Fianna Fáil as far as I could throw them and that’s on economic and social issues.

johnnyskeleton

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I've always found the objections to property tax kind of baffling. They work well in numerous other European countries, e.g. France, Germany, Spain, and, such as in the case of the latter two, many were introduced by socialist governments.

I love the quote attributed to Jean Baptiste Colbert where the art of taxation is to extract as many feathers as possible with the minimum of hissing. Or, as the late Terry Pratchett paraphrased it, getting more milk for less moo.

Democracy basically means that the people who object the least end up shouldering a greater part of the burden i.e. the middle class.

Other European counties could introduce these things by socialist governments because the electorates of those countries are willing to accept both the good and the bad of social democracy i.e. you pay a lot of tax but you get good services. They have signed up for that. Likewise, in the USA people are happy with a more liberal democratic system because they are happy to take the good with the bad i.e. less tax but poorer public services.

Although the problems Ireland has are far from unique, I sometimes feel that the Irish people want the best of both worlds without the worst of either world. So I (being the quintessential Irish voter) will vote for anyone who will reduce the tax burden on me while also promising me increased public services. If the basis upon which they promise such things is far from clear or its long term consequences are unknown (tax the rich, burn the bondholders, print more money), I don't care.

Wanderer78

flaneur wrote: »

Also, as annoying as FG can be at times, I still do not trust Fianna Fáil as far as I could throw them and that’s on economic and social issues.

is there really that much difference between fg and ff in particular in terms of economic policies?

flaneur

Wanderer78 wrote: »

is there really that much difference between fg and ff in particular in terms of economic policies?

Not significantly, no.
They’re both extremely similar. That’s part of the issue we have. Choice of Pepsi vs Coke ... Guinness vs Murphy’s as the two main parties.

I worry that SF is basically going to morph into the same model.

And a Labour Party, that appears once in a while and destroys itself in coalition.

Chips Lovell

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Democracy basically means that the people who object the least end up shouldering a greater part of the burden i.e. the middle class.

The thing I don't understand is that the people who say they don't want property taxes or service charges and instead want everything paid for through income tax are often PAYE workers, the people who end up shouldering most of the load in a system heavily reliant on income tax.

turbbo

Wanderer78 wrote: »

is there really that much difference between fg and ff in particular in terms of economic policies?

We could question is there a difference between any of the parties - I would hazard a guess that Sinn Fein would adopt a lot more conservative values if they were elected in government. Easy to sling mud when you're not in government.

turbbo

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

The thing I don't understand is that the people who say they don't want property taxes or service charges and instead want everything paid for through income tax are often PAYE workers, the people who end up shouldering most of the load in a system heavily reliant on income tax.

Yeah I don't get that - I've had the same experience with work colleagues. As if they don't see all the income tax we already pay.

storker

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

The thing I don't understand is that the people who say they don't want property taxes or service charges and instead want everything paid for through income tax are often PAYE workers, the people who end up shouldering most of the load in a system heavily reliant on income tax.

I guess it's seen as being less painful if you never get the money than if you get it and then have to hand it back again.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

It doesn't augur well for the future of the country if people want their wealth taxes such as LPT and water charges reduced but also want to have houses built for the homeless.

It is the magic money tree school of economics again.

Is it? I'll tell you what is, using the tax payer to throw dead money at private landlords, B&B's and Hotels because they refuse to build state owned social housing, upon which we, the tax payer, could charge rent.
The idea that paying the private market, for a problem continually breaking records, is more financially sound is ridiculous.
This coupled with Varadkar's plain wrong and false comparisons with homeless figures in other countries, shows they are more interested in funding private property market than the tax payers pocket or the crises.

It seems to me the magic involves FG thinking we can continue as is. Possibly a case of making as much hay as they can before the next crash.

If they can't or refuse to manage tax sensibly, why would more make any difference other than to help things get worse, as we see happening, but throw some fraudulent figures and spin at it and we'll be grand.

end of the road

storker wrote: »

I guess it's seen as being less painful if you never get the money than if you get it and then have to hand it back again.

certainly the case for me. you can't miss what you don't get in the first place.

Chips Lovell

In fairness to Varadkar, if you plug in the most recent stats, from September 2017, by my reckoning we're at 0.17% compared to the 0.08% cited by the OECD. That still isn't exceptionally high when you compare with countries who count in a similar fashion. It's the same as Austria, less than France, for example.

However, what is probably exceptional is the rate at which homelessness has increased over the past few years. And even if the overall homelessness rate isn't remarkable by international standards, this does create a crisis, since services and provisions for the homeless will be overwhelmed by the rapid increase in numbers. It's difficult, complex and expensive and you can't simply ramp it up overnight.

James Brown

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

The thing I don't understand is that the people who say they don't want property taxes or service charges and instead want everything paid for through income tax are often PAYE workers, the people who end up shouldering most of the load in a system heavily reliant on income tax.

Personally, if you are fortunate enough to get a loan for a house, your home. That is an necessity, you are fortunate enough to maybe own within your life time. I do not believe you should be continually taxed for owning something you paid for.
If it's a second home, investment property or Irish base, with you listed as living abroad for tax purposes, then I'm all for it.

James Brown

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

In fairness to Varadkar, if you plug in the most recent stats, from September 2017, by my reckoning we're at 0.17% compared to the 0.08% cited by the OECD. That still isn't exceptionally high when you compare with countries who count in a similar fashion. It's the same as Austria, less than France, for example.

However, what is probably exceptional is the rate at which homelessness has increased over the past few years. And even if the overall homelessness rate isn't remarkable by international standards, this does create a crisis, since services and provisions for the homeless will be overwhelmed by the rapid increase in numbers. It's difficult, complex and expensive and you can't simply ramp it up overnight.

Agreed, but t matters not if Zimbabwe has less or more homeless than us. It's the fact that it has risen year on year. It matters that Varadkar's only input of late it to down play it. The man is an international disgrace to even broach the crisis in that manner. It's worse since the days of Kenny, when it was broadly accepted to be a crisis. Now, worse, years later, Varadkar and his supporters are questioning it? Shameful. The expected young bright thing is playing cover for the conservative comedy of errors that is the Fine Gael party. No integrity and no plan beyond 'looking after our own". A damp squib in the history books, more so than Kenny. At least Kenny was around when things of note took place and he made us laugh.

McMurphy

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The left don't want that because they don't want to create ghettos. The noose around their neck is that while it could provide the key solution to social housing, their mantra prevents then from dealing with the linked anti social behavior because they can't make problem tenants homeless.
.

Would you describe FG councillor Alan Tobin as 'left'

“In 10 years time, will this estate in Archerstown, Ashbourne next to Ashbourne Golf Club and White Ash Park be an additional no-go area riddled with drugs, burnt out cars, high levels of state dependency and crime?”

In his self-promotional leaflet delivered to Ashbourne Residents this week, Alan answered his own question with:

“Estates similar to this one in Dublin and elsewhere in Meath have proved to encourage unemployment black spots, antisocial behaviour and a ‘them and us’ mentality that we do not want to promote in Ashbourne”