Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]
Options
Comments
-
They are doing us a favour about as much as Tesco do you a favour when you buy some bread. They are performing a function and their ability to perform that function was highlighted.
You need to get over the idea that the tax payer is somehow losing out. These are non-performing loans - the banks are not receiving any money for them. Someone offering to pay to take on these loans is improving the liquidity of the banks and taking on a lot of hassle in the process, hence why they get them at a discount. You pay a premium to offload risk.
I agree, I don't believe they are doing us favour, so why talk them up? Varadkar is under the impression banks selling loans to Vulture Funds is a good idea, (as the interview suggests) and I assume good for the tax payer? He seems to believe that the welfare of the banks is intertwined with the welfare of the citizenry. These would include, as you mentioned, the likes of AIB who won't be paying taxes on profits any decade soon.
Not to forget, when banks were on their uppers the tax payer took the burden, so seeing these self same institutions sell tax payer held bad debts is a little ironic to say the least. Maybe we should have let the banks be sold off at a loss to some form of Vulture fund NAMA style rather than take on generational debt? They seemingly can't get rid of under performing loans quick enough.
The questions are, will the people associated to these loans fare better or worse under a Vulture Fund? Will the banks off loading these customers better serve Irish society?
Nobody is disputing that this isn't the easier road for our banks. It's is it the better route for Irish society?
I think Varadkar should concern himself with the plight of the Irish tax paying public over and above the welfare of banks willing to unload them to private concerns and applaud the process as being in some unclear undefined way a positive over Irish banks not availing of Vulture Funds.
When vulture funds are answerable to the same regulations as our own institutions that will be welcomed.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »The protection of the tax payer should be paramount. My concerns are about the individual and small business person going from dealing with Irish banks the state has holdings in to dealing with Vulture Funds who's only concern is profit. In the least the banks, due to political pressure, would need to be seen to have a sense of fairness towards the Irish economy and tax payer. The idea that they are being encouraged to off load indebted Irish tax payers to private vulture funds under the alleged hopes this will all trickle back to the same tax payers in some form is a farce and Varadkar shouldn't be applauding the practice.
This is a complete invitation to corruption.
Perhaps your man in Strokestown was getting his local MEP to ring up KBC every second week asking them to lay off repossessing his house, I don't know, but it is the sort of thing you seem to be approving. It is only when the vulture funds get involved that we can be sure that there is no political pressure being brought to bear to protect those who are friends with councillors, TDs and MEPs.
Think of those who have mortgages with Irish banks who aren't best friends with politicians.
Finally, if protection of the taxpayer is paramount, then we should be seeing an awful lot more repossessions than we have seen to date.0 -
When a Vulture fund takes over a loan, that is because the loan is secured on a property.
The property remains the same throughout the process of disposal; more likely the new owners can better afford to occupy and improve the property.
The disposal means the ownership moves from one citizen to another citizen.
Why should the State be concerned which of it's citizens owns any particular property?
It has plenty other problems to be going on with.0 -
Good loser wrote: »When a Vulture fund takes over a loan, that is because the loan is secured on a property.
The property remains the same throughout the process of disposal; more likely the new owners can better afford to occupy and improve the property.
The disposal means the ownership moves from one citizen to another citizen.
Why should the State be concerned which of it's citizens owns any particular property?
It has plenty other problems to be going on with.
Like the housing crisis?
Because property speculators heat the market, instead of people buying or renting we have companies buying up properties to sell or rent on at profit. This means the public have to compete with business' when looking to rent or buy not just other people looking for a roof. The effects of this are prices many can't afford and need to avail of state aid, then they get labelled 'entitled' or some such because they have trouble competing.
So while vulture funds are a handy mechanism for banks to increase or save profits they likely won't be paying tax on anyway, it's the average punter losing out for the profit of private concerns who are currently lightly taxed as they make money off of our crisis. Maybe Varadkar doesn't realise or is only looking at it from the perspective of business.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Like the housing crisis?
Because property speculators heat the market, instead of people buying or renting we have companies buying up properties to sell or rent on at profit. This means the public have to compete with business' when looking to rent or buy not just other people looking for a roof. The effects of this are prices many can't afford and need to avail of state aid, then they get labelled 'entitled' or some such because they have trouble competing.
So while vulture funds are a handy mechanism for banks to increase or save profits they likely won't be paying tax on anyway, it's the average punter losing out for the profit of private concerns who are currently lightly taxed as they make money off of our crisis. Maybe Varadkar doesn't realise or is only looking at it from the perspective of business.
<SNIP>
The point of the post was that 'they' don't buy properties at all - they buy loans.0 -
Advertisement
-
Matt Barrett wrote: »Like the housing crisis?
Because property speculators heat the market, instead of people buying or renting we have companies buying up properties to sell or rent on at profit. This means the public have to compete with business' when looking to rent or buy not just other people looking for a roof. The effects of this are prices many can't afford and need to avail of state aid, then they get labelled 'entitled' or some such because they have trouble competing.
So while vulture funds are a handy mechanism for banks to increase or save profits they likely won't be paying tax on anyway, it's the average punter losing out for the profit of private concerns who are currently lightly taxed as they make money off of our crisis. Maybe Varadkar doesn't realise or is only looking at it from the perspective of business.
It's REIT's that buy properties, not vulture funds.
For years we have had people like yourself giving out about rogue landlords, now we have professional REIT's who are the norm in places like Germany managing property. Yet you give out about them as well... can't win really.
So, what is it that you really want? Some utopian polulist solution ala Joe Duffy?0 -
It's REIT's that buy properties, not vulture funds.
For years we have had people like yourself giving out about rogue landlords, now we have professional REIT's who are the norm in places like Germany managing property. Yet you give out about them as well... can't win really.
So, what is it that you really want? Some utopian polulist solution ala Joe Duffy?
It seems to me that the only solution allowed is one where the States builds everyone a forever house with a garden, a top-class public transport system that works with low density housing, a simple solution.
The problem is that it was tried before, in communist East Europe and it failed completely and fully. Those who fail to remember history run the real risk of repeating it. So it is with many of the solutions proposed on here.0 -
It seems to me that the only solution allowed is one where the States builds everyone a forever house with a garden, a top-class public transport system that works with low density housing, a simple solution.
The problem is that it was tried before, in communist East Europe and it failed completely and fully. Those who fail to remember history run the real risk of repeating it. So it is with many of the solutions proposed on here.
No no no, didn't ya see Matt Barretts idea a few posts back: everyone doesn't get a house, just the people who don't pay their mortgages will have it paid off by the Gov, and paid back "whenever" (if ever).
The mugs who kept up payments just get 2 middle fingers and laughed at! The perfect system!0 -
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0103/1020184-exchequer-tax-2018/
Seeing as this is a general thread about the performance of the Irish government, how come the OP didn't present thi s as a topic for discussion?
For the first time since 2007, Ireland is running an economic surplus. Better, it is the result of record corporation taxes. Those dastardly MNCs who contribute nothing to the economy except thousands and thousands of jobs are now also contributing record taxes.
""All major tax heads, except excise duties, are up year-on-year, reflecting the growing strength of the economy, while expenditure remains close to Budget day expectations," said Minister for Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform Paschal Donohoe."
This country, which many posters on here kept telling us was going to default at any time, has managed to rescue its financial situation.0 -
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0103/1020184-exchequer-tax-2018/
Seeing as this is a general thread about the performance of the Irish government, how come the OP didn't present thi s as a topic for discussion?
For the first time since 2007, Ireland is running an economic surplus. Better, it is the result of record corporation taxes. Those dastardly MNCs who contribute nothing to the economy except thousands and thousands of jobs are now also contributing record taxes.
""All major tax heads, except excise duties, are up year-on-year, reflecting the growing strength of the economy, while expenditure remains close to Budget day expectations," said Minister for Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform Paschal Donohoe."
This country, which many posters on here kept telling us was going to default at any time, has managed to rescue its financial situation.
A good performing economy isn't necessarily a mark of a good Govt. We have plenty of evidence of that here ala FF for instance.
The state of the services provided by the state would be more of a measure of their competence.0 -
Advertisement
-
A good performing economy isn't necessarily a mark of a good Govt. We have plenty of evidence of that here ala FF for instance.
The state of the services provided by the state would be more of a measure of their competence.
First you need stable government finances. Second, you need people at work.
Then, and only then, can you focus on the state of the services.
It is intriguing how so many people have moved the goalposts over the last decade. First, they complained about the state of the government finances and the IMF. Then they complained about the lack of jobs. Those problems have been forgotten now, the government that changed those has been given little credit, so now those who are never happy are finding something else to complain about. Emergency department numbers are starting to go down, this year will see the numbers of real homeless start to go down as more properties are built. Still a while from solving those problems but a start is being made.
The government deserves credit for all of those issues improving. Where it deserves criticism is on the issues of climate change, carbon taxes and the environment.0 -
No no no, didn't ya see Matt Barretts idea a few posts back: everyone doesn't get a house, just the people who don't pay their mortgages will have it paid off by the Gov, and paid back "whenever" (if ever).
The mugs who kept up payments just get 2 middle fingers and laughed at! The perfect system!
I suggest you re-read.
But I suppose the facts of what I actually posted might get in the way of your spin.
We could discuss things or turn to a false narrative when it goes into uncomfortable territory.
I suppose you enjoy placing people into the Gresham and paying their tab? As long as the Vulture Funds and banks are making out like bandits, that's the main thing right? We can always call people in debt chancers and so on to justify the tax spend. Even better blame 'de left'.
The tax payer is carrying the weight of the hotel and rent subsidy spend so vulture funds, banks et al can maintain/make profits off of the housing crisis. Where do you think people who lose their homes go? Calling them entitled won't lessen the burden on the tax payer.
Personally I'd rather taxes went to social and affordable housing than hotel bills and rents to private concerns, but that's just me.0 -
There's nothing of actual merit in this post though, is there? It's just talking points and lofty aspirational stuff - but nothing resembling meat.Matt Barrett wrote: »I suggest you re-read.
But I suppose the facts of what I actually posted might get in the way of your spin.
We could discuss things or turn to a false narrative when it goes into uncomfortable territory.
I suppose you enjoy placing people into the Gresham and paying their tab? As long as the Vulture Funds and banks are making out like bandits, that's the main thing right? We can always call people in debt chancers and so on to justify the tax spend. Even better blame 'de left'.
The tax payer is carrying the weight of the hotel and rent subsidy spend so vulture funds, banks et al can maintain/make profits off of the housing crisis. Where do you think people who lose their homes go? Calling them entitled won't lessen the burden on the tax payer.
Personally I'd rather taxes went to social and affordable housing than hotel bills and rents to private concerns, but that's just me.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »I suggest you re-read.
But I suppose the facts of what I actually posted might get in the way of your spin.
We could discuss things or turn to a false narrative when it goes into uncomfortable territory.
I suppose you enjoy placing people into the Gresham and paying their tab? As long as the Vulture Funds and banks are making out like bandits, that's the main thing right? We can always call people in debt chancers and so on to justify the tax spend. Even better blame 'de left'.
This part of the post is really confusing. On the one hand, we are supposed to resist the opportunity to "turn to a false narrative", on the other hand, other posters are being falsely accused of turning to "blame de left". Furthermore, it is stated that "the Vulture Funds and banks are making out like bandits". You couldn't get a more false narrative than that!!!!!Matt Barrett wrote: »
The tax payer is carrying the weight of the hotel and rent subsidy spend so vulture funds, banks et al can maintain/make profits off of the housing crisis. Where do you think people who lose their homes go? Calling them entitled won't lessen the burden on the tax payer.
Personally I'd rather taxes went to social and affordable housing than hotel bills and rents to private concerns, but that's just me.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/homes-of-nearly-8-200-irish-mortgage-holders-repossessed-since-crash-1.3421091
There is a completely false narrative around house repossession in Ireland. The numbers are very low - only 2,700 repossessed in the decade up to March 2018. The numbers are tiny by international standards and are one of the biggest reasons why we have the highest mortgage interest rates in Europe.
It is time for posters to stop pretending that we can have lower mortgage interest rates which are badly needed for young buyers, but also have zero repossessions.
Everyone accepts that the government should build more social housing, and that is what they are doing. Most understand that this takes time, and that the local authorities have been derelict in doing so, with most of them not spending the money allocated to them to build social housing.
https://www.thejournal.ie/modular-homes-dublin-city-council-housing-4220629-Sep2018/
Where are we with this project? It was already well delayed when the tender issued.0 -
In actual fact, the low levels of repossession are a contributing factor in the housing crisis.0
-
FreudianSlippers wrote: »In actual fact, the low levels of repossession are a contributing factor in the housing crisis.
Absolutely, they are a significant factor.
If banks are unable to recover property from those who just won't pay their mortgage, there is a triple blow as they become more reluctant to lend, they apply more stringent criteria and they charge higher mortgage rates. All of that means that developers become more reluctant to build as they need a supply of young buyers with mortgages and consequently, it is much harder for young people to purchase their first home. All because some want to indulge those who refuse to pay.
The biggest irony of the lot is that those who support the mortgage defaulters, like that SF MEP, all claim to be left-wing!!!! There is nothing left-wing about helping those who want to cheat their way to getting free property while those who are young and at the bottom of the ladder are denied their chance to own a home.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »I suggest you re-read.
But I suppose the facts of what I actually posted might get in the way of your spin.
We could discuss things or turn to a false narrative when it goes into uncomfortable territory.
I suppose you enjoy placing people into the Gresham and paying their tab? As long as the Vulture Funds and banks are making out like bandits, that's the main thing right? We can always call people in debt chancers and so on to justify the tax spend. Even better blame 'de left'.
The tax payer is carrying the weight of the hotel and rent subsidy spend so vulture funds, banks et al can maintain/make profits off of the housing crisis. Where do you think people who lose their homes go? Calling them entitled won't lessen the burden on the tax payer.
Personally I'd rather taxes went to social and affordable housing than hotel bills and rents to private concerns, but that's just me.
Please do not put that amount of tripe in my mouth; I never made claims of "de left", entitlement or any of your other nonsense (irony of you claiming I made false narratives....).
I made 2 statement; first was referencing your own post (#957)Matt Barrett wrote: »How about the state buys up these bad loans or sets up some form of NAMA, (but a transparent accountable one with no sweet deals or inappropriate behaviour) for the indebted tax payer? Genuinely can't meet payments the state will bail you out, not for free, you pay what you can until things improve? Madness right? A better deal for the tax payer than writing off debts, or selling at a loss to private concerns IMO.
You want tax spent on new houses being built? So do I, but unfortunately the Gov would have to pump (by my estimates) about €20 BILLION into buying out the debt from these defaulted mortgages (thats close to half our yearly budget you want to slap onto the taxpayer)...with the hope that they get repaid sometime in the future; these people have defaulted once, and a good chance they will never be able to pay back the full amount due to age/circumstance....or you want to Gov hounding pensioners for their pension each month for the debt payments? Would imagine you would be hopping up and down, tearing your hair out in rage if they started that! Now that is a false narrative and an insinuation.
Second, about my "middle finger to mortgage payers"....well when the defaulters are being looked after with nice cushy bail-outs and the people who continued their repayments, maybe sacrificing to keep up payments and facing higher interest rates and then get nothing when the Gov comes with the money van! What would you call that?
We have about 60000 mortgages in arrears, 28000 for over 2 years. We had 151 repossessions last year...thats not even a single percent!
Our arrears percentage is about 16%, highest in Europe: Greece has about 5% and they have colossal unemployment and cant afford basics day to day.
This cannot continue!0 -
^^ +1
In addition, why would anyone continue to pay their mortgage in this scenario? It's more nonsense fantasy-land stuff really.0 -
Please do not put that amount of tripe in my mouth; I never made claims of "de left", entitlement or any of your other nonsense (irony of you claiming I made false narratives....).
I made 2 statement; first was referencing your own post (#957)
You want tax spent on new houses being built? So do I, but unfortunately the Gov would have to pump (by my estimates) about €20 BILLION into buying out the debt from these defaulted mortgages (thats close to half our yearly budget you want to slap onto the taxpayer)...with the hope that they get repaid sometime in the future; these people have defaulted once, and a good chance they will never be able to pay back the full amount due to age/circumstance....or you want to Gov hounding pensioners for their pension each month for the debt payments? Would imagine you would be hopping up and down, tearing your hair out in rage if they started that! Now that is a false narrative and an insinuation.
Second, about my "middle finger to mortgage payers"....well when the defaulters are being looked after with nice cushy bail-outs and the people who continued their repayments, maybe sacrificing to keep up payments and facing higher interest rates and then get nothing when the Gov comes with the money van! What would you call that?
We have about 60000 mortgages in arrears, 28000 for over 2 years. We had 151 repossessions last year...thats not even a single percent!
Our arrears percentage is about 16%, highest in Europe: Greece has about 5% and they have colossal unemployment and cant afford basics day to day.
This cannot continue!
Never said you did. Please read carefully if you're going to comment. And yes it is tripe but it gets bandied about, everyone but policy makers responsible for bad policy.
This is your post:No no no, didn't ya see Matt Barretts idea a few posts back: everyone doesn't get a house, just the people who don't pay their mortgages will have it paid off by the Gov, and paid back "whenever" (if ever).
The mugs who kept up payments just get 2 middle fingers and laughed at! The perfect system!
Never said any such thing about 'free' houses. That's where many get confused in the rhetoric and sticking it to 'them that want something for nothing'. Not quoting you by the way.
It's pretty straightforward. You are either supporting putting people up in hotels or paying their rent for them to private landlords OR using state owned property to rent out based on income. The state owns the property and although rents may not be as high as market rates, that's the point. Low income workers have a roof, which should be the over riding priority, and the state recoups over time. Even if it doesn't in some cases it owns the stock built. This is very simple. The current model has the tax payer buying houses at market rates to use as social anyway so the only people being fooled are those who think as long as we avoid too much social housing we're sticking it to 'them who want something for nothing'. Not quoting you by the way. Meanwhile vulture funds help heat a housing crisis they profit off and Varadkar applaudes them for being good at business, better then the banks we all bailed out anyway.
I know who's giving the middle finger to the tax payer, do you?0 -
Beats building 'forever homes' I know...White-water rafting course proposed for George’s Dock in Dublin
A €12 million white-water rafting amenity, a water polo and kayaking pool, and a “swift water” rescue training facility are to be installed at George’s Dock under plans from Dublin City Council.
City councillors will on Tuesday be presented with plans to convert the early 19th century dock, which sits between the IFSC and the CHQ building next to the river Liffey on the north quays, into an “elite” and amateur sports and recreation facility as well as a rescue training centre for Dublin Fire Brigade.
The rectangular dock basin, which measures approximately 100m by 70m, is expected to accommodate a central island pool with a water polo pool, which can also be used for flat-water kayaking, a pontoon with a “swift water” or flood water rescue training facility, and the white-water rafting route.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/white-water-rafting-course-proposed-for-george-s-dock-in-dublin-1.3750431
While public amenities are generally a good thing should we be spending 12m on this with homeless people sleeping a few yards up the road?
I remember some years back a local TD wanted to transform the local youth club into a swimming pool. It never got the nod and I was pleased. The TD who was one of the key holders for the club had it run like a private club. You had to ask her or one of her cronies if you wanted to hold a community event. My concerns beside the spend is I can see a similar situation, open to the public, (because we've all got Kayaks right?) but you must sign up to a club and there's a list and a committee and before you know it its for all intents and purposes a tax funded private facility.0 -
Advertisement
-
Matt Barrett wrote: »Beats building 'forever homes' I know...
While public amenities are generally a good thing should we be spending 12m on this with homeless people sleeping a few yards up the road?
I remember some years back a local TD wanted to transform the local youth club into a swimming pool. It never got the nod and I was pleased. The TD who was one of the key holders for the club had it run like a private club. You had to ask her or one of her cronies if you wanted to hold a community event. My concerns beside the spend is I can see a similar situation, open to the public, (because we've all got Kayaks right?) but you must sign up to a club and there's a list and a committee and before you know it its for all intents and purposes a tax funded private facility.
So nothing else should done for the benefit of tax payers with their money except build homes for spongers?
Good logic.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Beats building 'forever homes' I know...
While public amenities are generally a good thing should we be spending 12m on this with homeless people sleeping a few yards up the road?
I remember some years back a local TD wanted to transform the local youth club into a swimming pool. It never got the nod and I was pleased. The TD who was one of the key holders for the club had it run like a private club. You had to ask her or one of her cronies if you wanted to hold a community event. My concerns beside the spend is I can see a similar situation, open to the public, (because we've all got Kayaks right?) but you must sign up to a club and there's a list and a committee and before you know it its for all intents and purposes a tax funded private facility.
Well, the government apparently gives €152 million to private homeless charities, should give them a few extra million as that will then solve the crisis?
Funding is not the issue with homeless charities or even homelessness per say, the issue is building housing solutions for the 21st century.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »While public amenities are generally a good thing should we be spending 12m on this with homeless people sleeping a few yards up the road?
Yes, because there will literally never be a time when this is not the case.0 -
Wheeliebin30 wrote: »So nothing else should done for the benefit of tax payers with their money except build homes for spongers?
Good logic.
Never said that.
Or build homes for tax payers. Do you think everyone suffering during the housing crisis is a sponger? Do you know why the term crisis is used?Yes, because there will literally never be a time when this is not the case.
I agree on there likely always going to be homeless people but it's at best a defeatist attitude. We'll never solve the housing crisis so we may as well fund a Kayaking course. I'm all for public amenities, I hope when built it is one.0 -
-
Please do not put that amount of tripe in my mouth; I never made claims of "de left", entitlement or any of your other nonsenseMatt Barrett wrote: »Never said you did.
This is absolutely bizarre.
The posts are clear. Gunmonkey complains about Matt Barrett accusing him of making claims about the left. Matt Barrett responds that he never said he did.
For accuracy, here is the post by Matt Barrett that led to this exchange:Matt Barrett wrote: »I suggest you re-read.
But I suppose the facts of what I actually posted might get in the way of your spin.
We could discuss things or turn to a false narrative when it goes into uncomfortable territory.
I suppose you enjoy placing people into the Gresham and paying their tab? As long as the Vulture Funds and banks are making out like bandits, that's the main thing right? We can always call people in debt chancers and so on to justify the tax spend. Even better blame 'de left'.
The tax payer is carrying the weight of the hotel and rent subsidy spend so vulture funds, banks et al can maintain/make profits off of the housing crisis. Where do you think people who lose their homes go? Calling them entitled won't lessen the burden on the tax payer.
Personally I'd rather taxes went to social and affordable housing than hotel bills and rents to private concerns, but that's just me.
Incredible denial, the post is very clear. Not only did you accuse him of blaming the left, but you also accused him of spin and a false narrative.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Not helped by crap like this.
1000%
We really need to pull in heads in when it comes to this stuff.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Not helped by crap like this.
You'd wonder where he's learning such traits.
Though they do say crap flows from the top down.
NIMBYISM0 -
Johnny Dogs wrote: »You'd wonder where he's learning such traits.
Though they do say crap flows from the top down.
NIMBYISM
Wow. You managed to blame Leo for an independent TD's NIMBYism.
I must remember that the next time I stub my toe, it's all Leo's fault.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think it's a fair shout. Leo is obviously not directly responsible for McGrath's nimbyism but he's certainly not leading by example. He's Taoiseach, he could make it a rule of government that his ministers remain above the fray on this sort of ****, but then he's doing it himself. He's also been objecting re: Metrolink, as has Murphy, you've Ross objecting on BusConnects, and McGrath here.oscarBravo wrote: »Wow. You managed to blame Leo for an independent TD's NIMBYism.
I must remember that the next time I stub my toe, it's all Leo's fault.
I'm plenty sympathetic to FG, it's hard not to be with the amount of reality-bending far left garbage that gets thrown at them here, but this, along with the climate inaction stuff (see other thread), is legitimate criticism in my opinion.
Under Kenny I felt FG were generally putting the national interest ahead of their own electoral interests, and I respected that. Stuff like the above makes me think their priorities may be shifting.0
Advertisement