Advertisement
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

MICA - Who should pay?

  • 29-06-2021 10:28pm
    #1
    Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The bill to rebuild the 5,000 houses that are falling apart due to mica will come to close to €5,000,000,000 or possibly more when everything is finished.

    The people who own these houses are demanding the taxpayer pay for these houses to be rebuilt.

    This will be a cost to each person in Ireland of approx €1,000.

    There is no insurance. The company that supplied the blocks have assets that wouldn't even cover 1% of the cost.

    Some of these houses are modest and some of these houses are large 5 bed houses. They want all of these houses to be fully rebuilt and the cost to be assumed 100% by all of us.

    Are you willing to pay possibly €1,000 each in taxes for every man, woman and child in Ireland to build someone a huge house because the company that supplied the blocks doesn't have the money to do it?

    If you just take the number of people who work full time the cost to each of these people will be about €2,500 to fix this problem as the other people in the country wouldn't be contributing much if any tax on their income.

    At the moment they are not willing to take a smaller house paid for by the taxpayer, they want exactly what they built originally and they want us to pay for it.

    I'm concerned as at the moment we are the country with the highest debt per capita in Europe and someone is demanding that we build them a large house because a quarry in Donegal supplied bad blocks and pay whatever it takes to build these houses.

    The government offered them €222,750 [90% x €247,500] towards the cost of demo and rebuilding their houses and they have said no, they want 100% of whatever it will cost to rebuild their house.

    Nobody has explained to me, a taxpayer, why I should contribute towards more than the €222,750 offered by the government which I think is very generous considering I don't think that they taxpayer has any liability in this case and any contribution is a gift rather than an obligation when we are already heavily in debt.

    Vote in the poll.

    What do you think we should do? 102 votes

    The taxpayer should not have to pay anything.
    66% 68 votes
    We should help them up to a limit set by the government.
    15% 16 votes
    We should give them 100% of what the cost will be.
    17% 18 votes


«134

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,712 ✭✭✭ McDermotX


    Not me anyway

    Not my fault


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 374 ✭✭ Swindled


    whatnow! wrote: »
    The bill to rebuild the 5,000 houses that are falling apart due to mica will come to close to €5,000,000,000 or possibly more when everything is finished.

    A million € per house ? Nope. No one is looking for that.
    whatnow! wrote: »
    The bill to rebuild the 5,000 houses that are
    The people who own these houses are demanding the taxpayer pay for these houses to be rebuilt.

    They are demanding no such thing. After years of these home owning taxpayers pursuing those responsible, the state has had to step in, as only the state now has the powers needed to sort this emergency and hopefully get money back for the taxpayer from the sectors and industry responsible. The victims of this are taxpayers as well and want proper justice and measures put in place to ensure this never happens other homeowners and taxpayers as well.

    whatnow! wrote: »
    Some of these houses are modest and some of these houses are large 5 bed houses. They want all of these houses to be fully rebuilt and the cost to be assumed 100% by all of us.

    No they want what they paid for, nothing more, nothing less, and they want this to stop happening.


  • Registered Users Posts: 655 ✭✭✭ yenom


    The fella that caused the problem is still working. He'd be the right candidate.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 374 ✭✭ Swindled


    whatnow! wrote: »

    Are you willing to pay possibly €1,000 each in taxes for every man, woman and child in Ireland to build someone a huge house because the company that supplied the blocks doesn't have the money to do it?

    If you just take the number of people who work full time the cost to each of these people will be about €2,500 to fix this problem as the other people in the country wouldn't be contributing much if any tax on their income.

    At the moment they are not willing to take a smaller house paid for by the taxpayer, they want exactly what they built originally and they want us to pay for it.

    I'm concerned as at the moment we are the country with the highest debt per capita in Europe and someone is demanding that we build them a large house because a quarry in Donegal supplied bad blocks and pay whatever it takes to build these houses.

    The government offered them €222,750 [90% x €247,500] towards the cost of demo and rebuilding their houses and they have said no, they want 100% of whatever it will cost to rebuild their house.

    Nobody has explained to me, a taxpayer, why I should contribute towards more than the €222,750 offered by the government which I think is very generous considering I don't think that they taxpayer has any liability in this case and any contribution is a gift rather than an obligation when we are already heavily in debt.

    Vote in the poll.

    None of us taxpayers want this, we want safe secure houses and the state to properly police the mass production of critical structural materials, and enforce the existing standards and regulations properly, and ensure these manufacturers are not allowed to operate without any regard to the standards or having any insurance. If not this is going to keep on happening all over Ireland. Blaming and penalising the victims won't prevent this in future.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,538 ✭✭✭ Northernlily


    The state failed the homeowners by lack of enforcement of regulations.

    Ultimately that's were fault lies. The top of the tree.

    Pretty much like they failed in other sectors.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 211 ✭✭ NiceFella


    When you think of the pirite issues that happened just a few years before you have to ask what is the government about? Not much if we are honest. Who is maintaining standards?

    Another question is why isn't there more discussion into criminality on this issue? At the end of the day malpractice in construction be it in materials used or design can lead to fatalities.

    If the government had any common sense they would pursue criminal charges and you would bet every quarry up and down the country will have the correct proportions of raw materials in there products.

    As for who should pay? Well ask yourself what you would say if your gaf just fell apart one night.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 374 ✭✭ Swindled


    The OP tried this slant on two other threads, and opened another new thread on the politics forum about the exact same thing.
    He didn't get the responses he wanted there either.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,592 ✭✭✭ circadian


    I'd love to know where the op pulled €5 billion from.

    Regulation failed to prevent this from happening. Either through poor enforcement or poor regulations. Either way, the state failed to protect it's citizens from harm in a scenario that could have been avoided.

    I believe the state should do everything in its power the remediate the issue for these people and to resolve finances with the quarry in question afterwards, liquidating any assets required if deemed fair in court.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,137 ✭✭✭ overshoot


    whatnow! wrote: »
    Nobody has explained to me, a taxpayer, why I should contribute towards more than the €222,750 offered by the government which I think is very generous considering I don't think that they taxpayer has any liability in this case and any contribution is a gift rather than an obligation when we are already heavily in debt.

    Vote in the poll.

    You've been explained to repeatedly on the thread in the Donegal forum you just didn't like the answers. Now it seems you're just spamming across boards with the same topic and vote opened in politics a few hours ago. I'm guessing because you didn't like the red c poll that found 70% nationally in favour of full redress so you're trying to find a snapshot poll amongst a tighter audience that subscribes to your views?


  • Registered Users Posts: 685 ✭✭✭ luketitz


    The victims here are taxpayers, families and ordinary decent folk, looking for something that any homeowner should be entitled to reasonably expect from the biggest financial commitment of their lives, why shouldn't they be fully compensated for their losses?

    If you were in their shoes, would you settle for a 90% 'gift' or push for a full atonement for the damage done?

    It's scandalous that it ever came to this, but the buck stops with the govt who were caught on the hop yet again and I'd rather my tax bill help these ordinary folks than bailing out bankers, not that I get to dictate what it's spent on.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Swindled wrote: »
    The OP tried this slant on two other threads, and opened another new thread on the politics forum about the exact same thing.
    He didn't get the responses he wanted there either.

    The first was in the Donegal forum in a thread of people who have been affected and I wanted to hear their opinion as it's important to hear from those affected.

    The second one is in the politics forum. The majority of people are against paying 100% there. It's a very clear distinction once you remove anybody directly affected by mica.

    In both threads Swindled argued with everyone who didn't agree to pay 100% and basically accuses everyone of victim blaming despite nobody blaming the victims at all.

    Now he is here. I advise you not to engage with him as he won't make sense and will keep demanding 100% and making irrelevant statements. He will say things like there is a cap on costs but his idea of a cap is whatever the builder charges.

    Avoid for the sake of your sanity:)


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,644 ✭✭✭✭ snoopsheep


    Where is the CIF, how is there no insurance?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    overshoot wrote: »
    You've been explained to repeatedly on the thread in the Donegal forum you just didn't like the answers. Now it seems you're just spamming across boards with the same topic and vote opened in politics a few hours ago. I'm guessing because you didn't like the red c poll that found 70% nationally in favour of full redress so you're trying to find a snapshot poll amongst a tighter audience that subscribes to your views?

    There was no explanation. There was something about restorative justice which is something I think someone got off TV and which they don't really understand.

    So far in this poll the majority of people don't want to pay 100%.

    If you don't want to explain it to me but perhaps you would explain it to them why you are demanding they pay 100% of the cost to rebuild your house?

    It should be a quick easy and concise answer. People don't want to spend their time arguing with people who want their money but can't explain to them why but they are voting in the poll and it's clear where they stand.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,644 ✭✭✭✭ snoopsheep


    luketitz wrote: »
    the buck stops with the govt who were caught on the hop yet again.

    Interested to have this teased out a bit.

    Which govt?

    How were they caught on the hop?

    How was it yet again?

    If this was some sort of predictable occurrence you mightve given them a heads up.

    If not, then the above is only so much cant


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,116 ✭✭✭ Melanchthon


    Should pay the costs of 100% of structural repairs. They should also investigate corruption in the country council


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Should pay the costs of 100% of structural repairs. They should also investigate corruption in the country council

    It's really not a repair job, they have to be knocked and built from scratch.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 374 ✭✭ Swindled


    whatnow! wrote: »
    The first was in the Donegal forum in a thread of people who have been affected and I wanted to hear their opinion as it's important to hear from those affected.

    The second one is in the politics forum. The majority of people are against paying 100% there. It's a very clear distinction once you remove anybody directly affected by mica.

    In both threads Swindled argued with everyone who didn't agree to pay 100% and basically accuses everyone of victim blaming despite nobody blaming the victims at all.

    Now he is here. I advise you not to engage with him as he won't make sense and will keep demanding 100% and making irrelevant statements. He will say things like there is a cap on costs but his idea of a cap is whatever the builder charges.

    Avoid for the sake of your sanity:)

    Again this is untrue as has been pointed out in all the other forums.

    People are entitled to have whatever opinion they want, the only thing I and others effected have issue with, is anyone making false claims about the homeowners effected, the circumstances, the scheme, and what the effected homeowners actually want. Spam as much as you like. All your false allegations above were also dealt with on the other threads.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    To put this in context Swindled will argue with you to your heart's content but what he will not do is explain to you in a calm and clear manner why you should pay to rebuild his house.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,824 ✭✭✭ quokula


    If my car was robbed and I wasn’t insured and the vehicle was never recovered, it wouldn’t be up to the state to buy me a new car. Even though I could sit here and blame the state for not having enough Garda on patrol to stop my car being stolen.

    This is the same - the people responsible should be made to pay up as much as is physically possible, but there is no reason for tax payers to pick up the rest of the tab. Just because the state failed to proactively stop private citizens doing something wrong in time, doesn’t make the state wholly responsible to reimburse the victims - frankly that sets a dangerous precedent that could be applied to literally any form of fraud or robbery that ever occurs on the island becoming the taxpayer’s responsibility somehow.

    When you make a purchase you should be doing your own due diligence and making sure you get what you pay for, and have insurance if you need it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 374 ✭✭ Swindled


    whatnow! wrote: »
    To put this in context Swindled will argue with you to your heart's content but what he will not do is explain to you in a calm and clear manner why you should pay to rebuild his house.

    That's because they should not have to pay, nor should any taxpayer, the state should have done it's job, they didn't now the state has to step in due to the emergency caused, and should recover as many of the costs involved for the taxpayers from the parties, industries and sectors actually responsible.
    Also this is going to happen other homeowners in Ireland all over again, until the state start enforcing the legislation they are supposed to.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 374 ✭✭ Swindled


    quokula wrote: »
    If my car was robbed and I wasn’t insured and the vehicle was never recovered, it wouldn’t be up to the state to buy me a new car.

    The manufacturer of the structural concrete blocks was the one not insured and allowed to operate for years, and still allow to operate without any state regulations being enforced. Other manufacturers are at the same.
    They are still supplying the exact same blocks to the state from the same quarry for social housing construction as we speak.
    They were recently granted a 25 year planning permission to the quarry in question, despite being in breach of their current planning conditions.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Swindled wrote: »
    That's because they should not have to pay, nor should any taxpayer, the state should have done it's job, they didn't now the state has to step in due to the emergency caused, and should recover as many of the costs involved for the taxpayers from the parties, industries and sectors actually responsible.
    Also this is going to happen other homeowners in Ireland all over again, until the state start enforcing the legislation they are supposed to.

    There is nobody to recoup the costs from beyond possibly 1% at most from the quarries so tell the good people who you expect to pay to rebuild your house as we are the state. The government will take the money from us to give to you.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,824 ✭✭✭ quokula


    Swindled wrote: »
    The manufacturer of the structural concrete blocks was the one not insured and allowed to operate for years without any state regulations being enforced.
    They are still supplying the exact same blocks to the state from the same quarry for social housing construction as we speak.

    And if the person who stole my car was allowed to operate, as you put it, by not being caught (which is the reality here, the state want colluding in anything, they simply weren’t aware this was happening), then you’d be happy to pay extra tax to pay for my new car right?

    Or more to the point, to pay for a new car, new jewellery, new tv etc for literally everyone in the country who has ever been a victim of a crime where the perpetrator was either not caught or did not have the means to give back what was taken?

    I just don’t see how this is different in any way. The regulation argument could be applied equally to say if only there were more gardai there would never be any robberies. The state is not omnipotent and can’t always catch wrongdoings before they happen.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    whatnow! wrote: »
    To put this in context Swindled will argue with you to your heart's content but what he will not do is explain to you in a calm and clear manner why you should pay to rebuild his house.
    .


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,824 ✭✭✭ quokula


    Swindled wrote: »
    Also this is going to happen other homeowners in Ireland all over again, until the state start enforcing the legislation they are supposed to.

    That is an entirely separate point. If anything, the knowledge of the existence of a safety net where any victim will always be reimbursed by the taxpayer would only encourage this behaviour rather than deter it.

    The people responsible should absolutely be held to account, but that has nothing to do with people who weren’t responsible paying reimbursement.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,986 ✭✭✭✭ Potential-Monke


    I'm on the no pay at all side. This isn't my fault. It's not your fault. It's a private companies fault, and yes, the government are partly to blame for not ensuring this company was up to spec, but it's not their fault and shouldn't have to pay for that company doing this, their oversight failed but the oversight is humongous and probably not properly staffed. Yeah, if it was me it would suck, but I would have taken the 90% and downsized, not expect a brand new exact same spec house for free. It's madness. As quokola says above, this sets a terrible precedent and it will snowball from here if it's fully paid for. I even think 90% was too much, 50% at most I will begrudgingly accept but still give out stink about. The full cost of knocking and rebuilding? Feck off.

    Not only am I paying for people to have pregnancy cover on their health insurance cheaper (me, a male, has pregnancy cover by default which can't be removed, so it makes it cheaper for other people who decide to have a child), paying for "4eva homes" for the can't work/won't work crowd, and now paying for private individuals houses in a province I'll probably never go to?!

    Meanwhile;
    Dear Mr. Government, can I have some additional mental health cover please?
    NO! Pay for it yourself, you work!
    But I'm single and make less than the Government approved Minimum Standards of Living wage, I can't afford it.
    BE LUCKY YOU HAVE A JOB AND PAY YOUR GODDAMN TAXES!

    Fair country in fairness...


  • Registered Users Posts: 685 ✭✭✭ luketitz


    snoopsheep wrote: »
    Interested to have this teased out a bit.

    Which govt?

    How were they caught on the hop?

    How was it yet again?

    If this was some sort of predictable occurrence you mightve given them a heads up.

    If not, then the above is only so much cant


    Which govt?

    - The Irish Government, specifically the office(s) tasked with upholding building standards across multiple generations.

    How were they caught on the hop?

    - They failed to learn from previous errors or enforce licensed contractor compliance with some basic tenets of the aforementioned building standards.

    How was it yet again?

    - Lessons not learned from various Pyrite scandals, I would posit as one of many such examples of governmental ineptitude.

    If this was some sort of predictable occurrence you mightve given them a heads up.

    - I've only recently learnt of this situation, as an ordinary (empathetic) member of the public. Had my role been to uphold some checks and balances in relation to national building standards, I'd likely have been better positioned to do so.

    If not, then the above is only so much cant

    - Not sure what that means.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 374 ✭✭ Swindled


    quokula wrote: »
    And if the person who stole my car was allowed to operate, as you put it, by not being caught (which is the reality here, the state want colluding in anything, they simply weren’t aware this was happening), then you’d be happy to pay extra tax to pay for my new car right?

    Or more to the point, to pay for a new car, new jewellery, new tv etc for literally everyone in the country who has ever been a victim of a crime where the perpetrator was either not caught or did not have the means to give back what was taken?

    I just don’t see how this is different in any way. The regulation argument could be applied equally to say if only there were more gardai there would never be any robberies. The state is not omnipotent and can’t always catch wrongdoings before they happen.

    Unfortunately isn't some mystery burglary that you can claim off your house insurance, or the motor insurance bureau of Ireland for damages and injuries caused by uninsured drivers.

    Can you explain why a manufacturer of critical structural materials is allowed to operate without any product liability insurance on a massive scale producing defective materials for years for an entire region, without any enforcement of the state regulations whatsoever ? and is still allowed to do so ? and is still supplying the state with blocks for social housing ? And is recently able to get a renewed planning permission for the quarry in question for another 25 years, despite all their planning breaches ? Of course the taxpayer should not be picking up the tab for this.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 374 ✭✭ Swindled


    quokula wrote: »
    That is an entirely separate point. If anything, the knowledge of the existence of a safety net where any victim will always be reimbursed by the taxpayer would only encourage this behaviour rather than deter it.

    The people responsible should absolutely be held to account, but that has nothing to do with people who weren’t responsible paying reimbursement.

    The victims who are taxpayers as well are not responsible either, and the fact is the perpetrator and those responsible are not being held to account in any way, that's the cause and issue, and until it's prevented it's going to happen other homeowners on a massive scale elsewhere in Ireland.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Don't fall for it, he will drag you down the rabbit hole;)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement