People like SF candidates but won't vote for SF

frillyleaf

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

And they are blindly turning to the oil snake salesman promising free houses.

The idea that they can force banks to reduce the interest rate they charge is simply laughable and demonstrates that their core economic beliefs are Marxist.
Well bar the abolition of LPT which is bizarre for a left leaning party.

These are not people that want “free” houses. Many people simply can not afford to pay the extortionate rent that is being charged. People are terrified of being evicted from rental properties as there is little to nothing affordable to rent. This doesn’t apply to affluent areas near the city centre, there is very little to rent in suburban areas not near city centre.

I’ve seen garages/ sheds converted and being rent for €1000 per month. Students are paying €600 in some cases to share a room in student accommodation. There are bedsits being advertised with two beds shoved into them at prices of €1200 + a month. There’s been adds for renting out beds!! It’s never been this bad.

The current government thinks its acceptable for large developers to build co living accommodation, again for extortionate prices.
They are building rental properties which huge rents that families simply can not afford. Huge amounts of hard working people can’t save to buy houses.

I feel that is why they are voting for Sinn Fein for the first time. They are desperate for change

Akabusi

frillyleaf wrote: »

In fairness I’ve heard a lot of hard working people saying that they will be voting for SF and independents. There are a lot of hard working people who have bettered themselves and still can’t afford to buy or rent a home.

Honestly, SF in power would to make their life's worse.

Also the story that goes where working people cannot afford to buy or rent is not really correct.
To play it out, if Mary and Johnny cannot afford to buy or rent a home it is likely that they are trying to live in the wrong areas. What I mean is, they want to live in location X because it has the best services, schools, scenery, etc. and maybe is close to where they work or are from. That is a good aspiration to have, but there is limited supply of housing in location X and then they will also have competition from other people who want to live there also. These other people have better paid jobs so they buy up or rent the property and price hard working Mary and Johnny out. The solution is for Mary and Johnny to move to somewhere they can afford.
If they are working they can afford to but or rent in most places outside of Dublin/Galway/Cork. Let say they work in Dublin but have to buy somewhere like Longford where the average house price is approx. 150K EUR. Yes they would have a long commute but with better investment in infrastructure it would be an easy commute, there are also jobs outside of Dublin, granted the pay isn't as high but the living costs aren't either. In the end the party who are serious about proper infrastructure investment and decentralisation are the ones who will help Mary and Johnny the best. At the moment, none of the political parties have really came out and stated these as main policies, (okay maybe the Greens a little on public transport).

James Brown

Akabusi wrote: »

Honestly, SF in power would to make their life's worse.

Why? IRA something something?

Akabusi wrote: »

Also the story that goes where working people cannot afford to buy or rent is not really correct.
To play it out, if Mary and Johnny cannot afford to buy or rent a home it is likely that they are trying to live in the wrong areas. What I mean is, they want to live in location X because it has the best services, schools, scenery, etc. and maybe is close to where they work or are from. That is a good aspiration to have, but there is limited supply of housing in location X and then they will also have competition from other people who want to live there also. These other people have better paid jobs so they buy up or rent the property and price hard working Mary and Johnny out. The solution is for Mary and Johnny to move to somewhere they can afford.
If they are working they can afford to but or rent in most places outside of Dublin/Galway/Cork. Let say they work in Dublin but have to buy somewhere like Longford where the average house price is approx. 150K EUR. Yes they would have a long commute but with better investment in infrastructure it would be an easy commute, there are also jobs outside of Dublin, granted the pay isn't as high but the living costs aren't either. In the end the party who are serious about proper infrastructure investment and decentralisation are the ones who will help Mary and Johnny the best. At the moment, none of the political parties have really came out and stated these as main policies, (okay maybe the Greens a little on public transport).

The answer to the crisis is move somewhere else?
FYI: every party agrees there is an issue with working people not being able to afford rent or to buy. Not everyone but it's certainly a huge problem.

facehugger99

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The answer to the crisis is move somewhere else?

Of course not - everyone should be given a free house in their chosen location.

Akabusi

Nothing to do with the IRA but you know that already, it is the crazy economic policies they have that can't be paid for and would leave this country in ruin.

Yes, the answer to the crisis is move, develop the other towns and cities outside of Dublin and have people live and work there.

frillyleaf

Akabusi wrote: »

Honestly, SF in power would to make their life's worse.

Also the story that goes where working people cannot afford to buy or rent is not really correct.
To play it out, if Mary and Johnny cannot afford to buy or rent a home it is likely that they are trying to live in the wrong areas. What I mean is, they want to live in location X because it has the best services, schools, scenery, etc. and maybe is close to where they work or are from. That is a good aspiration to have, but there is limited supply of housing in location X and then they will also have competition from other people who want to live there also. These other people have better paid jobs so they buy up or rent the property and price hard working Mary and Johnny out. The solution is for Mary and Johnny to move to somewhere they can afford.
If they are working they can afford to but or rent in most places outside of Dublin/Galway/Cork. Let say they work in Dublin but have to buy somewhere like Longford where the average house price is approx. 150K EUR. Yes they would have a long commute but with better investment in infrastructure it would be an easy commute, there are also jobs outside of Dublin, granted the pay isn't as high but the living costs aren't either. In the end the party who are serious about proper infrastructure investment and decentralisation are the ones who will help Mary and Johnny the best. At the moment, none of the political parties have really came out and stated these as main policies, (okay maybe the Greens a little on public transport).

Whether or not SF would make it worse I can’t comment on.

However, a lot of people can’t buy or rent in areas *outside* of Dublin - they simply can’t save money the rental prices that are now extortionate
due to short supply. Unless you go very far out which is not practical for a lot of people- particularly if they have children in schools, crèches. Some people may have other needs that they need to have access to public transport etc.

If they can move home and save, yes it is manageable.....however it is next to impossible to save when renting in the current rental market. So I don’t think it’s a case of people wanting to buy in unrealistic areas or live beyond their means . There simply isn’t enough housing stock and it has massively inflated rent prices even outside of Dublin and far into surrounding counties.

It’s may not that simple for Johnny and Mary to simply uproot and move down the country to Longford. Some people will have children in schools, crèches and family members that they may need to care for. It’s also not suitable for some people to use public transport particularly if they have crèche runs and school runs etc depending on times.

The cost of commute from Longford to Dublin would very quickly add up not to mention the cost of time lost with family on such a long commute everyday!

frillyleaf

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Why? IRA something something?



The answer to the crisis is move somewhere else?
FYI: every party agrees there is an issue with working people not being able to afford rent or to buy. Not everyone but it's certainly a huge problem.

I think people that aren’t directly affected by the crisis don’t understand how big the problem really is

James Brown

facehugger99 wrote: »

Of course not - everyone should be given a free house in their chosen location.

No. I think we should stick with what we have currently. Each council provide rented accommodation to people in their area giving three options and knock people off the list if they refuse.
Your way sounds silly.

James Brown

Akabusi wrote: »

Nothing to do with the IRA but you know that already, it is the crazy economic policies they have that can't be paid for and would leave this country in ruin.

Yes, the answer to the crisis is move, develop the other towns and cities outside of Dublin and have people live and work there.

Like what? I don't think you know and are just spouting soundbites.

Create new cities, with new jobs :rolleyes:

SusieBlue

frillyleaf wrote: »

Whether or not SF would make it worse I can’t comment on.

However, a lot of people can’t buy or rent in areas *outside* of Dublin - they simply can’t save money the rental prices that are now extortionate
due to short supply. Unless you go very far out which is not practical for a lot of people- particularly if they have children in schools, crèches. Some people may have other needs that they need to have access to public transport etc.

If they can move home and save, yes it is manageable.....however it is next to impossible to save when renting in the current rental market. So I don’t think it’s a case of people wanting to buy in unrealistic areas or live beyond their means . There simply isn’t enough housing stock and it has massively inflated rent prices even outside of Dublin and far into surrounding counties.

It’s may not that simple for Johnny and Mary to simply uproot and move down the country to Longford. Some people will have children in schools, crèches and family members that they may need to care for. It’s also not suitable for some people to use public transport particularly if they have crèche runs and school runs etc depending on times.

The cost of commute from Longford to Dublin would very quickly add up not to mention the cost of time lost with family on such a long commute everyday!

Its a double edged sword that in fairness.

The status quo seems to be to advise people to move to the likes of Leitrim and Longford if they can't afford Dublin/city rental prices.
But there are very few jobs and opportunities in those places, so they would still have to commute to Dublin.
And that might be feasible if we had a decent public transport system, or even better roads and motorways, but we don't.

And expecting someone to commute two hours each day just for the basic privilege of having a roof over their head is both unsustainable and unacceptable.

Making a big effort to attract multinationals and businesses to more rural locations where there is more space to build housing, and investing €€€€€€ into our public transport (particularly rail, we need either a better service or to introduce a tube/subway to connect the commuter towns) would be a great start at alleviating this issue but no one seems to want to touch it.

Something has to give here. People will need and want to live where the best jobs, schools and services are. If the cities are oversubscribed the government need to make rural living more attractive. But it all comes down to employment. If there are no jobs in these rural locations, then its a fruitless endeavor.

Saying "just move to Leitrim/Mayo/Laois" etc. is overly simplistic and a lazy, unworkable solution to what is a very complex, muti demensional problem.

blanch152

frillyleaf wrote: »

These are not people that want “free” houses. Many people simply can not afford to pay the extortionate rent that is being charged. People are terrified of being evicted from rental properties as there is little to nothing affordable to rent. This doesn’t apply to affluent areas near the city centre, there is very little to rent in suburban areas not near city centre.

I’ve seen garages/ sheds converted and being rent for €1000 per month. Students are paying €600 in some cases to share a room in student accommodation. There are bedsits being advertised with two beds shoved into them at prices of €1200 + a month. There’s been adds for renting out beds!! It’s never been this bad.

The current government thinks its acceptable for large developers to build co living accommodation, again for extortionate prices.
They are building rental properties which huge rents that families simply can not afford. Huge amounts of hard working people can’t save to buy houses.

I feel that is why they are voting for Sinn Fein for the first time. They are desperate for change

This is crazy, the issue is quite simple, there just isn't enough land in Dublin City Centre to build a three-bed house for everyone who wants one in walking distance of their social welfare office.

The key enablers to solving the housing crisis are planning guidelines promoting density and high-rise, Bus Connects, Metrolink and the Dart Underground projects. Why? Because they increase the capacity of public transport and make more places accessible to the city centre, and make it possible to build more houses in those places.

Sinn Fein and Fianna Fail can witter on all they want about building 100,000 more houses, but they can't answer the key question, where will you build them?

facehugger99

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No. I think we should stick with what we have currently.

Oh, you're happy with the current situation.

One would wonder why you spend every day on here bashing FG and championing SF so.

horsebox1977

eagle eye wrote: »

A vote for a SF candidate you like is also a vote for Mary Lou and for more money for the wasters on social welfare and less for the ordinary hard working person who earns a decent wage. It's also a vote for a UI and that'll mean even less money in your pocket.

Financial prudence is the reason you don't vote SF.

Greed, greed and more greed.

James Brown

facehugger99 wrote: »

Oh, you're happy with the current situation.

One would wonder why you spend every day on here bashing FG and championing SF so.

I am with the concept. It's great. Needs better policing on rental arrears and more stock built. There's a crisis actually due to poor management and god awful policy.
I don't bash FG because for their affiliation with the Blueshirts or other nonsense, I bash bad policy and go where the policies lead me

Akabusi

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Like what? I don't think you know and are just spouting soundbites.

Create new cities, with new jobs :rolleyes:

As you have asked, two of their popular pledges this election

Reducing the pension age to 65
Sounds great, just how would it be paid for?


Taking 1 million workers out of USC
Sounds great, where would the tax shortfall come from?

Where did you get new cities from? I never mentioned new cities.

goat2

I see only posters of three candidates in my area, Norma Foley. Brendan Griffin and another lady, are some not putting up theirs,

Akabusi

SusieBlue wrote: »

Its a double edged sword that in fairness.

The status quo seems to be to advise people to move to the likes of Leitrim and Longford if they can't afford Dublin/city rental prices.
But there are very few jobs and opportunities in those places, so they would still have to commute to Dublin.
And that might be feasible if we had a decent public transport system, or even better roads and motorways, but we don't.

And expecting someone to commute two hours each day just for the basic privilege of having a roof over their head is both unsustainable and unacceptable.

Making a big effort to attract multinationals and businesses to more rural locations where there is more space to build housing, and investing €€€€€€ into our public transport (particularly rail, we need either a better service or to introduce a tube/subway to connect the commuter towns) would be a great start at alleviating this issue but no one seems to want to touch it.

Something has to give here. People will need and want to live where the best jobs, schools and services are. If the cities are oversubscribed the government need to make rural living more attractive. But it all comes down to employment. If there are no jobs in these rural locations, then its a fruitless endeavor.

Saying "just move to Leitrim/Mayo/Laois" etc. is overly simplistic and a lazy, unworkable solution to what is a very complex, muti demensional problem.

Correct, it is very complicated and deserves proper discussion and planning, I wouldn't go so far as saying it is unworkable though.

efanton

Akabusi wrote: »

As you have asked, two of their popular pledges this election

Reducing the pension age to 65
Sounds great, just how would it be paid for?


Taking 1 million workers out of USC
Sounds great, where would the tax shortfall come from?

Where did you get new cities from? I never mentioned new cities.

How do you think it is being paid for at the moment?

All those people currently forced to retire at 65 are now drawing dole for a few years until they get a pension.

Did I miss something or is someone else or another country paying dole payments in this country?

Yes there is a small difference in costs, but when you count in all the administration for dole and any other benefits they might apply for , and these poor souls who worked all their life now having to sign-on on a regular basis, not much.

FG lecturing other parties about being prudent or not capable of managing the country. its laughable.
it didnt require an IQ of 140 for someone in FG to have realised that before they could increase the pensionable age they had better change legislation so that employers could not retire workers until they had actually reached pensionable age.
Instead what do we have? yet another epic feck up, and more mismanagement and money wasted.

freshpopcorn

goat2 wrote: »

I see only posters of three candidates in my area, Norma Foley. Brendan Griffin and another lady, are some not putting up theirs,

Just in my experience in Cork.
Some towns are poster free so you'd only see them in the approach roads.
Some candidates have them and others don't.
If a party is running two candidates sometimes they focus on one are more than another.

frillyleaf

blanch152 wrote: »

This is crazy, the issue is quite simple, there just isn't enough land in Dublin City Centre to build a three-bed house for everyone who wants one in walking distance of their social welfare office.

The key enablers to solving the housing crisis are planning guidelines promoting density and high-rise, Bus Connects, Metrolink and the Dart Underground projects. Why? Because they increase the capacity of public transport and make more places accessible to the city centre, and make it possible to build more houses in those places.

Sinn Fein and Fianna Fail can witter on all they want about building 100,000 more houses, but they can't answer the key question, where will you build them?

Under no circumstances am I suggesting there is a need for a 3 bed house in Dublin City Centre for people working or not working The prices I am describing I have seen in towns well away from the city centre with at least a 60 - 90 minute commute during peak times. There are 2 bedroom apartments being rented in towns 50 km from the city centre for E1200 - E1500, 3 beds from E1800 - E2000.

For the later that is E24,000 on rent per annum not including the travel cost with getting to and from work which is ludicrous to rent a 3 bed house in a town that isn't even near the city centre. The transport system is not suffice to commute from a lot of rural towns wither. There are 'homes' being built by developers however these are being rented out - again at extortionate prices.

Regardless of it being not feesable fro some people to move to the country, what happens when this people age and need services that aren't accessible.

frillyleaf

Akabusi wrote: »

Correct, it is very complicated and deserves proper discussion and planning, I wouldn't go so far as saying it is unworkable though.

If these services are struggling to be provided in urban areas they will be twice as bad in rural areas

efanton

blanch152 wrote: »

This is crazy, the issue is quite simple, there just isn't enough land in Dublin City Centre to build a three-bed house for everyone who wants one in walking distance of their social welfare office.

The key enablers to solving the housing crisis are planning guidelines promoting density and high-rise, Bus Connects, Metrolink and the Dart Underground projects. Why? Because they increase the capacity of public transport and make more places accessible to the city centre, and make it possible to build more houses in those places.

Sinn Fein and Fianna Fail can witter on all they want about building 100,000 more houses, but they can't answer the key question, where will you build them?

It certainly is. But this government and previous governments caused it by allowing nearly all jobs created by inward investment to be created in the Dublin area.

Had they actually been thinking ahead they would have made sure land was available for new homes in Dublin, along with the associated transport infrastructure, and if they could not do that then they should have forced inward investment to use other locations.
No good blaming others for the mistakes of bad governments, and its no good FG or FF supporters now claiming its only them on the dole that are the problem.
There's far more working people commuting in to Dublin than there is people drawing dole in the Dublin area. Even if you could move all those living on the dole out of Dublin there still would be insufficient homes in Dublin and still traffic chaos.

So I'm being generous, I will let have a go at another lame excuse.
This would be entertaining only its not, its depressing.
I have never realised how many people there are that are either totally deluded or have very little grasp of the actual problems this country has.
Even when they finally grasp the problem its blamed on parties that were never in government. Who was managing the country, it can only be them to blame for poor planning and poor administration.

James Brown

Akabusi wrote: »

As you have asked, two of their popular pledges this election

Reducing the pension age to 65
Sounds great, just how would it be paid for?


Taking 1 million workers out of USC
Sounds great, where would the tax shortfall come from?

Where did you get new cities from? I never mentioned new cities.

Same place the rest do, that said manifestos, pinch of salt.

What you suggested, better infrastructure and jobs elsewhere is creating cities.

JP Liz V1

:pac:

facehugger99 wrote: »

Well if you're able to explain to me your understanding of what "tax more" entails, who specifically "the richer" are and how "the bankers" fit into it, I'm sure I'll be able to fill you in as simple as possible.

One would imagine you wouldn't be championing such a policy position unless you had an understanding of it so I'm sure your explanation will be comprehensive.

If u earn more salary, high wages and have more money, savings, properties etc., pay more tax or am I wrong

Akabusi

efanton wrote: »

How do you think it is being paid for at the moment?

All those people currently forced to retire at 65 are now drawing dole for a few years until they get a pension.

Did I miss something or is someone else or another country paying dole payments in this country?

Yes there is a small difference in costs, but when you count in all the administration for dole and any other benefits they might apply for , and these poor souls who worked all their life now having to sign-on on a regular basis, not much.

FG lecturing other parties about being prudent or not capable of managing the country. its laughable.
it didnt require an IQ of 140 for someone in FG to have realised that before they could increase the pensionable age they had better change legislation so that employers could not retire workers until they had actually reached pensionable age.
Instead what do we have? yet another epic feck up, and more mismanagement and money wasted.

It is being paid for by the working public (those that pay tax). We know that the ratio between those that are working and those that are retired is going to reduce in the coming years. Plus people in general are living longer. Something has got to give, the pension age can be lowered but the rate would need to come down alot. It might help SF if they committed to widening the tax base but they are actually pledging to narrow it further.
FG have made a balls of the half arsed effort they have done to tackle this looming crisis alright.

facehugger99

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

:pac:

If u earn more salary, high wages and have more money, savings, properties etc., pay more tax or am I wrong

Frequently, I'd imagine.

Whelo79

blanch152 wrote: »

Sinn Fein and Fianna Fail can witter on all they want about building 100,000 more houses, but they can't answer the key question, where will you build them?

There are thousands of acres of free space all over Dublin. Thousands.

James Brown

Whelo79 wrote: »

There are thousands of acres of free space all over Dublin. Thousands.

I'd imagine the apartments we are leasing for 25 years are being built somewhere.

efanton

Akabusi wrote: »

It is being paid for by the working public (those that pay tax). We know that the ratio between those that are working and those that are retired is going to reduce in the coming years. Plus people in general are living longer. Something has got to give, the pension age can be lowered but the rate would need to come down alot. It might help SF if they committed to widening the tax base but they are actually pledging to narrow it further.
FG have made a balls of the half arsed effort they have done to tackle this looming crisis alright.

€240 a week is the pension at the moment. That's €12,480 per year.
Imagine they bump up the pensionable age to 69.
at current rates those 4 years save the state €49,920 but that does not take into account a pensioner living longer than is normal today.

A worker works from about 20 to 65 currently. thats 45 years.
The question remains how many years do we expect pensioners to draw a pension in the future?
If it was simply four years more them shifting the qualification age by four years appears to make sense. But does it?
You could equally argue that if we raised taxation by the equivalent of €15 or less a week per person, (dont forget all the interest and growth on those payments) there would be more than sufficient funding to keep the pensionable age at 65.
People could not cry that their money is being taken away from them, they will get it back and more (interest accrual) when they retired at 65.

What I dont like about this whole conversion or argument is not once to my knowledge, but I would be happy for anyone to provide these number, has any politician stated (or published a document and distributed it) how much revenue do they expect to spend extra in ten to fifteen years for pensioners who are now living longer as compared to what they are paying now. No where has a clear breakdown been clearly written estimating both total costs of providing pensions and and total revenue collected through PRSI From those working above the age of 65.

Its hard to make an objective judgement without seeing clearly what additional revenue will be collected from those now having to over work 65 and what will be spent on those once they reach pensionable age.
Does one offset the other?
Will it result in surplus revenue?
Will there still be a deficit?
What would be the difference if the pensionable age remained at 65?

As normal the electorate are expected to agree to something without being given a clear, point by point case, with clear costings of the varying scenarios. Once that information was published surely we the electorate should be allowed to decide which is the best course of action.
In fact maybe a referendum might be in order to avoid general election false promises and bluster

Why do we have a vote if it is not to determine significant issues like this, but to do so in a totally informed way but that simply is not happening?

I can see why SF are reluctant to make any change to the pensionable age, I can see the argument to raising the pensionable age, what I dont see is any facts. SF supporters arguing one thing, FG supporters arguing the opposite seems to me to be totally and utterly futile. Where are the numbers, has each policy position been argued fully with the appropriate published costings, and if not why should anyone expect me to vote for them on such an issue

Akabusi

Good post efanton.