FG to just do nothing for the next 5 years.

Idbatterim

satguy wrote: »

This is from today 07/04/20

The Social Democrats say they will look at any proposal for coalition government produced by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.
But co-leader Róisín Shortall says there are fundamental policy differences between her party and Fine Gael in particular.

Now why would Róisín Shortall single out FG and not FF.

No answer needed,, we all know the answer,, all the parties mentioned above will work hard for the people, execpt the one Róisín singled out.

source
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/covid-19-has-created-democratic-deficit-td-says-992600.html

HAAAAA! I will tell you why she would single out FG, they lied about rewarding workers, but would be the most pro worker, if you follow. What she probably means is, she wants those that pay for everything, to pay for more...

FrancieBrady

Mortelaro wrote: »

Because the one or two percent who voted for her party mightnt vote for her party again as they share her perspectives?
Clearly they've forgiven FF

My own view is it's because,its a handy pathway to staying in opposition as they prefer being there
Easier to give out

Jsut like FG a few weeks ago...what 'mood' are they in today?

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jsut like FG a few weeks ago...what 'mood' are they in today?

I think Sinn Féin supporters like yourself best check the thickness of the glass in the glass house before throwing stones like that...

efanton

satguy wrote: »

This is from today 07/04/20

The Social Democrats say they will look at any proposal for coalition government produced by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.
But co-leader Róisín Shortall says there are fundamental policy differences between her party and Fine Gael in particular.

Now why would Róisín Shortall single out FG and not FF.

No answer needed,, we all know the answer,, all the parties mentioned above will work hard for the people, execpt the one Róisín singled out.

source
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/covid-19-has-created-democratic-deficit-td-says-992600.html

Pointless pointing out the obvious to those that support FG.
I agree, FG are the fly in the ointment as far as the smaller parties are concerned.

I do not think for one minute that any party believes that FG will make any effort to seriously deal with the housing crisis, the health service or childcare, among all the other serious problem this country has, bar offer a private sector solution that will be both inadequate and expensive.
FG claim to have fixed the economy, but most households have seen no improvement to either their income or standard of living, or decrease in their outgoings and costs. The cost of living has increased dramatically, incomes for most have stagnated. In fact many are no better off than they were immediately after the banking collapse. FG have had ten years to rebuild this country, and all they have achieved is to widen the gap between the very wealthy and the majority without addressing one single significant social issue.

If your benchmark to a nations prosperity is simply GNP or GDP then this will always be the case. When your country could have the among best GNP or GDP figures in the world and still have such massive wealth inequality you are doing something very wrong.
The average wealth per person in Ireland is $232,952
The median wealth per person in Ireland is $72,473
Ireland ranks at 21 out of more than 170 as the country with most wealth inequality. We even beat Greece by a massive margin, that little country the FG'ers love to use as a example.
Even those figures dont give a clear picture as property values skew them significantly.



That's not to say anyone has forgiven FF for what they have previously done to the country.

Had the smaller parties been offered a FF/SF coalition I'm certain that most of the smaller parties would have wanted to jump on board. and that government would have been up and running weeks ago. The fact that FF would have limited control on government policies and unable to make rash or knee jerk decisions in such a government would have made it more palatable to the smaller parties.

I think the smaller parties will wait for either FF a FG to cobble together their government with the use of Independents, a government that is likely to be deeply unpopular and likely not to last a full term, or wait for a fresh election where it might be possible to form a government more compatible with their beliefs or policies.

jimmycrackcorm

efanton wrote: »

.

I think the smaller parties will wait for either FF a FG to cobble together their government with the use of Independents, a government that is likely to be deeply unpopular and likely not to last a full term, or wait for a fresh election where it might be possible to form a government more compatible with their beliefs or policies.

Must be very upsetting now that they're won't be 100k free social gaffes being built. We'll have to stick to a government then we know can rebuild the economy because there won't be the money for freebies and dreams.

Idbatterim

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Must be very upsetting now that they're won't be 100k free social gaffes being built. We'll have to stick to a government then we know can rebuild the economy because there won't be the money for freebies and dreams.

its very interesting, because there is allegedly no money for anything really, up to a few weeks ago and now they can pull twenty two billion euro plus out of their ass? quite interesting...

satguy

If you work for €10 an hour in some nursing home, and council home is not free, is never free,, but you must have one.
Because at €10 an hour you can never afford to buy that starter home we all want / need.

Now if that worker got €20 or €25 an hour,, now that starter home is in reach.

So if we don't build council homes, we need to pay our workers proper wages.

Mortelaro

Idbatterim wrote: »

its very interesting, because there is allegedly no money for anything really, up to a few weeks ago and now they can pull twenty two billion euro plus out of their ass? quite interesting...

Ah give over
The EU gave permission for Extra Coronovirus related borrowing
It's not for anything else and wasnt available prior

Not out of their Ass
I'm surprised at you in particular for plying the where did they get it line

James Brown

smurgen wrote: »

And now they're not answering questions of the opposition parties. It's like the night of the bank bailout all over again. Watch as dodgy deal after dodgy deal passes. Later their cheerleaders with claim it was an "emergency" and decisions had to be made fast and no alternatives were available.

And the working tax payer will get the bill while being called a sponger and accused of pretending to be homeless or sick or poorly paid. And the Nurses will slip back into the crosshairs.

Idbatterim

Mortelaro wrote: »

Ah give over
The EU gave permission for Extra Coronovirus related borrowing
It's not for anything else and wasnt available prior

Not out of their Ass
I'm surprised at you in particular for plying the where did they get it line

but it will all have to be paid back , short of some mass debt write off, given the global clusterfcuk it is. The germans cant say you brought it on yourselves this time, as much as they were right about it the last recession

efanton

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Must be very upsetting now that they're won't be 100k free social gaffes being built. We'll have to stick to a government then we know can rebuild the economy because there won't be the money for freebies and dreams.

You are sadly mistaken.
It doesn't matter which parties go into government those homes will have to be built.

Social homes are not free, rent is paid. FG have been in government 10 years, had they felt that the rent paid was too low they had loads of time to address that.
They also had the opportunity to address the acknowledged weaknesses in the rules for allocating social housing, yet they choose to do nothing.

Finally, those homes are not just needed for those living on social welfare payments. Loads of working people who are unable to qualify for mortgages will require permanent homes.
What we still need is a massive home building scheme of not just social housing but cheap affordable housing so that those that cant afford to buy the existing staple diet of a 3 bed semi with gardens, drive and/or garage or a 3 bed detached can afford to buy something smaller. Private developers will not build these types of starter homes because the profit margin is significantly less so the government is going to have to step in and either offer incentives for developers to build these cheaper starter homes, or simply build them themselves.

Ireland is no longer looked on as the favourite place in Europe for multinationals to set up shop.
With the cost of high rents in the private rental market there comes the demand for equally high wages in order to afford those rents.
With the lack of investment in public infrastructure the traffic congestion, lack of frequent and affordable public transport means multinationals look elsewhere to set up new business.

By not building those homes and investing in public infrastructure we are losing FDI that will be badly needed to continue growing our economy.

Mortelaro

Idbatterim wrote: »

but it will all have to be paid back , short of some mass debt write off, given the global clusterfcuk it is. The germans cant say you brought it on yourselves this time, as much as they were right about it the last recession

Yes some spv will be invented
Afaik EU finance ministers are tele conferencing about that today

However its lumped,its like most sovereign debts ,never paid off in full once theres an affordable payment plan
Sovereign debts are all finance and refinancing jobs
Doable once you stay within normal (in this case EU) restrictions of a 3% CBD
Coronavirus is an exceptional circumstance

Idbatterim

efanton wrote: »

You are sadly mistaken.
It doesn't matter which parties go into government those homes will have to be built.

Social homes are not free, rent is paid. FG have been in government 10 years, had they felt that the rent paid was too low they had loads of time to address that.
They also had the opportunity to address the acknowledged weaknesses in the rules for allocating social housing, yet they choose to do nothing.

Finally, those homes are not just needed for those living on social welfare payments. Loads of working people who are unable to qualify for mortgages will require permanent homes.
What we still need is a massive home building scheme of not just social housing but cheap affordable housing so that those that cant afford to buy the existing staple diet of a 3 bed semi with gardens, drive and/or garage or a 3 bed detached can afford to buy something smaller. Private developers will not build these types of starter homes because the profit margin is significantly less so the government is going to have to step in and either offer incentives for developers to build these cheaper starter homes, or simply build them themselves.

Ireland is no longer looked on as the favourite place in Europe for multinationals to set up shop.
With the cost of high rents in the private rental market there comes the demand for equally high wages in order to afford those rents.
With the lack of investment in public infrastructure the traffic congestion, lack of frequent and affordable public transport means multinationals look elsewhere to set up new business.

By not building those homes and investing in public infrastructure we are losing FDI that will be badly needed to continue growing our economy.

agree with a lot of this. But house building is expensive here, the "rent" charged, is a token gesture, if they even bother paying it. You are right, working people are in it too!

Take a read of this comedy below!!! You have many working poor, paying outrageous rent, living in kips, funding other low paid workers or non workers, given housing for a pittance. I can join the dots, its wrong and its morally corrupt. Doing something about it, would take some spine though and FG have shown and the rest, not only FG, none of them , will do what it takes, to actually bring down the cost of housing to many, by making social housing tenants benefitting for decades largest sweetheart deal imaginable, since the vulture picked up prime property for a pittance, with nama expertise...

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/sleepout-to-be-held-outside-south-dublin-co-co-to-protest-rise-in-council-housing-rents-977430.html

blanch152

efanton wrote: »

Pointless pointing out the obvious to those that support FG.
I agree, FG are the fly in the ointment as far as the smaller parties are concerned.

I do not think for one minute that any party believes that FG will make any effort to seriously deal with the housing crisis, the health service or childcare, among all the other serious problem this country has, bar offer a private sector solution that will be both inadequate and expensive.
FG claim to have fixed the economy, but most households have seen no improvement to either their income or standard of living, or decrease in their outgoings and costs. The cost of living has increased dramatically, incomes for most have stagnated. In fact many are no better off than they were immediately after the banking collapse. FG have had ten years to rebuild this country, and all they have achieved is to widen the gap between the very wealthy and the majority without addressing one single significant social issue.

If your benchmark to a nations prosperity is simply GNP or GDP then this will always be the case. When your country could have the among best GNP or GDP figures in the world and still have such massive wealth inequality you are doing something very wrong.
The average wealth per person in Ireland is $232,952
The median wealth per person in Ireland is $72,473
Ireland ranks at 21 out of more than 170 as the country with most wealth inequality. We even beat Greece by a massive margin, that little country the FG'ers love to use as a example.
Even those figures dont give a clear picture as property values skew them significantly.



That's not to say anyone has forgiven FF for what they have previously done to the country.

Let's just make up soundbites and rubbish peppered with some anecdotes and dodgy economics while ignoring the facts. Here is some perspective for you:

https://www.buzz.ie/news/ireland-living-standard-299446


"Ireland is the fourth best country in the world for living standards.
That's according to the newest UN Human Development Index.

Over the last five years, living conditions have risen faster than any other country.

Between 2012 and 2017, Ireland jumped 13 places on the index published yearly by the UN Development Programme.

Only Norway, Switzerland, Australia are ahead of Ireland for 2018."

Nobody is saying Ireland is perfect, nobody is saying that there aren't things that need fixing, but to come out with the kind of rubbish in your post is just not credible.

efanton wrote: »

Had the smaller parties been offered a FF/SF coalition I'm certain that most of the smaller parties would have wanted to jump on board. and that government would have been up and running weeks ago. The fact that FF would have limited control on government policies and unable to make rash or knee jerk decisions in such a government would have made it more palatable to the smaller parties.

I think the smaller parties will wait for either FF a FG to cobble together their government with the use of Independents, a government that is likely to be deeply unpopular and likely not to last a full term, or wait for a fresh election where it might be possible to form a government more compatible with their beliefs or policies.

Numbers, why do FF and FG need a smaller party? Hint: Because they haven't got the numbers on their own.

What does that mean? Well, it means if all the others got together and agreed a Programme for Government, they wouldn't need FF or FG and could form a stable government. Well, why don't they do that? Hint: It is something to do with the legacy of Sinn Fein and the inability of the rest to agree on anything other than they dislike FG.

efanton

Idbatterim wrote: »

agree with a lot of this. But house building is expensive here, the "rent" charged, is a token gesture, if they even bother paying it. You are right, working people are in it too!

Bu its not.

45% of the cost every newly built home goes straight back to the the government in VAT, stamp duty, charges and fees.

23% of every rental payment goes straight back to the government in VAT.

The government wisely charges a lower 13% on things such as food, medicines, heating fuel, that it considers essential to a basic standard of living.
What I find incredible is putting a roof over someones head is not considered a essential to a basic standard of living.

If the government reduced the vat rate on building homes and rental payments almost immediately some of the housing crisis would be solved.
You immediately put a few hundred euro back into the pockets each of those renting and you reduce the total cost of a new build very significantly making it possible for a very significant proportion of the population to be able to qualify for a mortgage.
The very people that would benefit are the least likely to bury that saving into financial investments and in all likelihood spend that money on their new home or elsewhere. The result would be that the government would still end up clawing a lot of that tax reduction back in taxation on other things, significantly reduce the cost of living index that would have economic benefits, and at the same time you address a significant chunk of the housing crisis as people who previously could not buy a home now can, rents in the private sector are lowered and the demand on social housing is reduced.

tobsey

efanton wrote: »

Bu its not.

45% of the cost every newly built home goes straight back to the the government in VAT, stamp duty, charges and fees.

23% of every rental payment goes straight back to the government in VAT.

The government wisely charges a lower 13% on things such as food, medicines, heating fuel, that it considers essential to a basic standard of living.
What I find incredible is putting a roof over someones head is not considered a essential to a basic standard of living.

If the government reduced the vat rate on building homes and rental payments almost immediately some of the housing crisis would be solved.
You immediately put a few hundred euro back into the pockets each of those renting and you reduce the total cost of a new build very significantly making it possible for a very significant proportion of the population to be able to qualify for a mortgage.
The very people that would benefit are the least likely to bury that saving into financial investments and in all likelihood spend that money on their new home or elsewhere. The result would be that the government would still end up clawing a lot of that tax reduction back in taxation on other things, significantly reduce the cost of living index that would have economic benefits, and at the same time you address a significant chunk of the housing crisis as people who previously could not buy a home now can, rents in the private sector are lowered and the demand on social housing is reduced.

There’s no VAT on rent

blanch152

tobsey wrote: »

There’s no VAT on rent

Don't confuse the discussion with facts.

efanton

blanch152 wrote: »

Let's just make up soundbites and rubbish peppered with some anecdotes and dodgy economics while ignoring the facts. Here is some perspective for you:

https://www.buzz.ie/news/ireland-living-standard-299446


"Ireland is the fourth best country in the world for living standards.
That's according to the newest UN Human Development Index.

Yes it is totally to be expected that with a high cost of living the living standards rise. The bit you miss out on though is the cost of living in Ireland is significant higher than most countries. If we take into account all of Europe Ireland ranks 6th as having the highest cost of living. If we take rents in Europe Ireland comes 4th.
Those that can afford it have a very good standard of living, those that cant have a very poor standard of living. No point quoting average figures or obscure links as you have done as this country has such a huge wealth inequality.

Over the last five years, living conditions have risen faster than any other country.

Between 2012 and 2017, Ireland jumped 13 places on the index published yearly by the UN Development Programme.

Only Norway, Switzerland, Australia are ahead of Ireland for 2018."

Nobody is saying Ireland is perfect, nobody is saying that there aren't things that need fixing, but to come out with the kind of rubbish in your post is just not credible.

Again nothing to do with the cost of living. I'm sure those living in Dublin 4 have an equally or better standard of living as those in Chelsea.
You need to get away from anything that uses averages, especially when talking about Ireland becuse we have a small number of extremely wealthy individuals that significantly skew any average figure you care to use.
The average wage in Ireland is significantly higher than most country's but when you compare the median wage you will notice that Ireland drops down any table significantly.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/wage-rates-are-you-paid-above-or-below-the-average-1.4089953

If you look there you can clearly see that the difference between an averaged wage and the median wage (the amount most people earn) is dramatic, almost €200 per week.

If everyone was actually earning the average wage, or lived the average standard of living that you point to we would have no housing crisis, no poverty, no one trying to survive on the minimum wage and very few couples unable to qualify for a mortgage.

The point is your average is nothing whatsoever to do with reality

efanton

tobsey wrote: »

There’s no VAT on rent

Really. So landlords do not have to pay 23% on rental incomes?

Are you suggesting that landlords do not adjust their rents in order to cover their own costs?

If a landlord has to pay 23% on rental income where do you think that money comes from? Obviously tenants are paying that VAT.

Of course VAT charged has an affect of rents. If Landlord paid less VAT on rental incomes they could easily afford to charge lower rents.

Idbatterim

efanton wrote: »

Bu its not.

45% of the cost every newly built home goes straight back to the the government in VAT, stamp duty, charges and fees.

23% of every rental payment goes straight back to the government in VAT.

The government wisely charges a lower 13% on things such as food, medicines, heating fuel, that it considers essential to a basic standard of living.
What I find incredible is putting a roof over someones head is not considered a essential to a basic standard of living.

If the government reduced the vat rate on building homes and rental payments almost immediately some of the housing crisis would be solved.
You immediately put a few hundred euro back into the pockets each of those renting and you reduce the total cost of a new build very significantly making it possible for a very significant proportion of the population to be able to qualify for a mortgage.
The very people that would benefit are the least likely to bury that saving into financial investments and in all likelihood spend that money on their new home or elsewhere. The result would be that the government would still end up clawing a lot of that tax reduction back in taxation on other things, significantly reduce the cost of living index that would have economic benefits, and at the same time you address a significant chunk of the housing crisis as people who previously could not buy a home now can, rents in the private sector are lowered and the demand on social housing is reduced.

the savings in any construction cost drop etc, wont be passed on necessarily. why would they, if the market doesnt dictate it. its the issue with leaving it to private companies. They will charge what they can, if your costs drop a few percent and you can still charge full whack, why wouldnt you?

You are right in that the government take a large chunk... I think stamp duty abolition would help...

efanton

Idbatterim wrote: »

the savings in any construction cost drop etc, wont be passed on necessarily. why would they, if the market doesnt dictate it. its the issue with leaving it to private companies. They will charge what they can, if your costs drop a few percent and you can still charge full whack, why wouldnt you?

You are right in that the government take a large chunk... I think stamp duty abolition would help...

Agreed it would be a temptation for developers not to pass on savings.
A government could easily put in measures to ensure that saving was passed on.

Removing stamp duty for first time buyers would work, I agree.

CiarraiAbu2

efanton wrote: »

Really. So landlords do not have to pay 23% on rental incomes?

Are you suggesting that landlords do not adjust their rents in order to cover their own costs?

If a landlord has to pay 23% on rental income where do you think that money comes from? Obviously tenants are paying that VAT.

Of course VAT charged has an affect of rents. If Landlord paid less VAT on rental incomes they could easily afford to charge lower rents.

There is no vat on residential properties

efanton

CiarraiAbu2 wrote: »

There is no vat on residential properties

sorry, just checked the Revenue site, I stand corrected.
As a service I thought it was liable to tax.

CiarraiAbu2

efanton wrote: »

sorry, just checked the Revenue site, I stand corrected.
As a service I thought it was liable to tax.

No need to say sorry, I was just letting you know.

efanton

CiarraiAbu2 wrote: »

No need to say sorry, I was just letting you know.

No, I am glad you pointed it out.
I was under the misapprehension that rental income would be taxable as a service.

Bass Reeves

efanton wrote: »

No, I am glad you pointed it out.
I was under the misapprehension that rental income would be taxable as a service.

Neither can landlords claim VAT back on services they use or on repairs or maintenance in the house.

markodaly

efanton wrote: »

45% of the cost every newly built home goes straight back to the the government in VAT, stamp duty, charges and fees.

Source ?

efanton wrote: »

23% of every rental payment goes straight back to the government in VAT.

Lettings are exempt from VAT.

https://www.revenue.ie/en/vat/vat-on-property-and-construction/vat-and-letting-property/index.aspx

Your rambling stories are cute and all but let's come back down to mother earth shall we?

markodaly

To add to the above, I do not disagree per say that the cost of construction is high in Ireland, but that is a huge complex issue with numerous factors. However, there are no silver bullets, well no silver bullets that any party will contemplate electorally.

efanton

markodaly wrote: »

Source ?

Would the Chartered Surveyors of Ireland be a sufficiently reputable source

https://www.scsi.ie/documents/view?id=885

Have a read a knock yourself out.

Here they breakdown the cost of a typical 3 bed home selling for €330K

The overall construction cost’ (building of the house
from foundation to roof and completing the estate roads
and drains etc.) is €150,251 which represents 45% of
the overall cost of providing the house.

It may come as a surprise to some commentators that
the cost to build a house is less than half of the overall
cost to provide the house. Non-construction factors,
such as the cost of acquisition & development finance,
design, sales & marketing, margin (including profit) and
taxation elements such as levies and V.A.T. are all
important elements influencing the economic and
sustainable cost of a new house.

When you add up the final VAT, stamp duty, planning, connection fees , VAT on materials and taxes on Labour costs and taxation on the final profit it comes out pretty much around the 40% mark.

I did read a link a few months ago where they stated that, but I cannot find that particular link.



This article from the Irish Times is a simplified account of where the money goes when a house is built.
Again showing that the actual cost of building a house if less than than half the actual sale price.
(no mention of stamp duty or what the government collects in income tax or capital gains tax)

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/why-does-a-new-house-cost-what-it-does-1.4001085

Despite not having that exact link any more or being able to find it its easy to see that the government get far more out of a newly built house than the developers do when operating on a 15% profit margin.

markodaly

efanton wrote: »

When you add up the final VAT, stamp duty, planning, connection fees , VAT on materials and taxes on Labour costs it comes out pretty much around the 40% mark.

Give me a proper breakdown of the figures, rather than throwing everything into the mix like its some spicebag!

If you cannot substantiate a 40% figure, then dont.

Again showing that the actual cost of building a house if less than than half the actual sale price.

Yes, the hard cost of building a house is less than what a house sells for.
But unless you are saying that:

A developer works for free,
No Local Authority charges any rates or fees
We get the land for free (the big one),
We don't collect VAT,
The ESB/Board Gas/Irish Water and others don't collect their fees for connecting up these houses,
The banks give money for free for no interest or fees,
The Planning process is free
Estate agents work for free
Solicitors work for free...

... then the figures are not representative of the total cost of a house.


It's akin to calculating the cost of the raw materials going into a car, then proclaiming that is what a car should cost, ignoring all the value-added into the process into making a car.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/why-does-a-new-house-cost-what-it-does-1.4001085

I am familiar with that link. I used it a few times to make mincemeat out of an argument made by Matt Barrett/Bowie about his South Park economics.

Despite not having that exact link any more or being ble to find it its easy to see that the government get far more out of a newly built house than the developers do when operating on a 15% profit margin.

Well, that is a different thing you are saying now.

Let's look at the figures.



So VAT at 13.5% at 50k on a 420k house is a lot lot less than the 40% figure you banded about earlier. Circa 15%.

Many other levies and charges go to the Local Authority, who relies on that money to fix the potholes, build playgrounds and all that type of stuff, local government does, it does not go to Central Government.


So in summary, its a hell of a lot more complicated than making grandiose statements about house building costs.