Room to Improve.

ainy · 17-03-2018 10:36AM

Alexa Savory Tweet wrote:

I personally thought thatâ€™s what the granny wanted. It was still in the old house and I thought she wanted very little change anyway so thatâ€™s why her room stayed the same.

I thought the same plus they said a couple of times, it was the closest one to the kitchen which makes sense.

iamwhoiam · 17-03-2018 10:50AM

Shop40 wrote: »

Finally got around to watching it. I liked the result, but then again I always do on RTI. Dermot never gets it wrong in my opinion!! (Fan) But my heart sank looking at Ma's room in the end:( Seriously, why put the granny in the tiny room and give the 6 year old the bigger room? I was in a box room when I was a kid, and it doesn't matter at that age, especially with a good garden to play in. No matter how sociable Ma is, she'll be in her room when she wants to listen to the "wireless" or whatever, it's not just a place to lay her head. This "mammy won't mind" mentality that is oh so common is so disrespectful!

Not only has he garden to play in he has a whole field and beach too ! Lucky kid .!Personally I would have liked to Ma's room with space for an armchair and small table where she could sit and listen to her wireless with a cuppa .

Shop40 · 17-03-2018 03:45PM

Alexa Savory Tweet wrote: »

I personally thought that’s what the granny wanted. It was still in the old house and I thought she wanted very little change anyway so that’s why her room stayed the same.

Hear what you're saying and take your point. But honestly I thought she looked disappointed when she first saw the size of it (before it was finished). Don't think I'd feel right that my mother was in a box room.
And if she wanted to be near the kitchen, maybe two doors from the kitchen would have been okay?!!
Just seemed so grim compared to the other rooms, I felt sorry for her.

GT_TDI_150 · 17-03-2018 09:50PM

By the way the house was done ... i assume the one with the library, walk in wardrobe and onsuite was the sister paying for the job?

ted1 · 18-03-2018 10:24AM

ted1 wrote: »

Thst real cash went out the door that it cane in a few seconds earlier, so no it didn’t cost the taxpayer anything.

Grand, so if you withdraw €250 from an ATM, and I whip €50 out of your hand, that didn't cost you anything because it came in a few seconds earlier, right?[/quote]

No it’s completely different. Because you are a third party.

AndrewJRenko · 18-03-2018 11:05AM

ted1 wrote: »

No it’s completely different. Because you are a third party.

Grand, so if you withdraw €250 from an ATM, and the bank manager steps out of the bank and whips €50 out of your hand, that didn't cost you anything because it came in a few seconds earlier, right?

Quazzie · 18-03-2018 11:10AM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Grand, so if you withdraw €250 from an ATM, and the bank manager steps out of the bank and whips €50 out of your hand, that didn't cost you anything because it came in a few seconds earlier, right?

You're really not getting this are you.

Taking money out of your account is only moving your own money around. I'm assuming you're intelligent to know that the ATM isn't some sort of magic machine that prints money. All it's doing is giving you access to your own money. Essentially moving it from your left pocket to your right. Taking it out doesn't change the amount of money you had at all. It's nothing similar to the point that is being made above. I'm not sure if you're actually thick or just being obtuse for the sake of it.

AndrewJRenko · 18-03-2018 11:13AM

Quazzie wrote: »

You're really not getting this are you.

Taking money out of your account is only moving your own money around. I'm assuming you're intelligent to know that the ATM isn't some sort of magic machine that prints money. All it's doing is giving you access to your own money. Essentially moving it from your left pocket to your right. Taking it out doesn't change the amount of money you had at all. It's nothing similar to the point that is being made above. I'm not sure if you're actually thick or just being obtuse for the sake of it.

Grand, so if your employer pays you €250 cash for the job you did, and then whips €50 out of your hand, that didn't cost you anything because it came in a few seconds earlier, right?

Quazzie · 18-03-2018 11:55AM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Grand, so if your employer pays you €250 cash for the job you did, and then whips €50 out of your hand, that didn't cost you anything because it came in a few seconds earlier, right?

That's exactly how our tax system works. Congratulations. Welcome to adulthood.

ShamoBuc · 18-03-2018 12:29PM

This thread has become comedy gold.

AndrewJRenko · 18-03-2018 05:49PM

Quazzie wrote: »

That's exactly how our tax system works. Congratulations. Welcome to adulthood.

Except that your employer doesn't keep the tax money, so that's not really how tax works at all, but nice try for a diversion.

Quazzie · 18-03-2018 07:11PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Except that your employer doesn't keep the tax money, so that's not really how tax works at all, but nice try for a diversion.

And these people didn't get to keep the grant money. What's your point?

Greybottle · 18-03-2018 08:23PM

ShamoBuc wrote: »

This thread has become comedy gold.

It's become a PITA to open every time I get a notification about a new post. I keep thinking there'll be new info on the last project or whatever, but it's just about people fighting about money and grants.

AndrewJRenko · 18-03-2018 08:25PM

Quazzie wrote: »

And these people didn't get to keep the grant money. What's your point?

Eh yes, they did - they kept the grant money when they got the grant. Do I need to draw a picture of how it works?

Quazzie · 18-03-2018 08:32PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Eh yes, they did - they kept the grant money when they got the grant. Do I need to draw a picture of how it works?

Please do.

Make sure to use your favourite crayons :rolleyes:

Mr E · 18-03-2018 08:42PM

Lads, take it to PM please.

Greybottle · 18-03-2018 08:48PM

On the issues of the grants, it's a lot more complex than just giving the 50% of the cost back to the home owner; there are far more issues at stake here. I'll try to give a rough idea of how it works on that house.

IIRC they got a 50% grant, getting €40K back, so the total cost of the energy saving measures installed in that house would be €80,000.

Let's say if the grants were not available, how much would they have spent on heating and insulation measures in general...€15K ?, €20K ?, €30K ?

It's hard to say, a lot depends on personal desires and budget, but it is sadly one area where a lot of people incorrectly try to save money, as it is detrimental in the long run.

So we'll day that they spent an extra €50K on the retro fit that they would not normally have saved.
This is €11,500 that the state got extra in VAT. This does not include other taxes that the state earned on it through transport, excise duties etc. etc., and especially not he extra employment that it created.

People were employed to install the equipment and materials, meaning they were earning wages, thus paying PAYE, USC etc. They also have a higher disposable income so they contribute to more jobs in the economy. And they are not on the dole thus saving the state money.

On the other hand they are learning a skill and experience in an area that is badly needed in this country and one that is becoming more important.

And the state going forward will be emitting less emissions, thus helping us to pay less fines.

The people who own the house will in the future be paying less for energy, thus keeping more money circulating in the Irish economy, I think we import 70% of our energy and a house like that would traditionally run on gas or oil, meaning they would probably be importing near to 100% of their energy.

There are many other factors, yes, 50% is a lot, maybe too much, but schemes like this need a kick start for a few years, but it's far more complex than simply saying that a huge percent was ripped out of taxpayers pockets or whatever.

honeybear · 18-03-2018 09:13PM

Where’s tonight’s episode coming from?

LirW · 18-03-2018 09:17PM

I think it's a house in Killester?

AndrewJRenko · 18-03-2018 09:45PM

Greybottle wrote: »

On the issues of the grants, it's a lot more complex than just giving the 50% of the cost back to the home owner; there are far more issues at stake here. I'll try to give a rough idea of how it works on that house.

Yep, it is certainly more complex, but I don't think you've been over-generous in your interpretation here.

Greybottle wrote: »

This is €11,500 that the state got extra in VAT. This does not include other taxes that the state earned on it through transport, excise duties etc. etc., and especially not he extra employment that it created.

People were employed to install the equipment and materials, meaning they were earning wages, thus paying PAYE, USC etc. They also have a higher disposable income so they contribute to more jobs in the economy. And they are not on the dole thus saving the state money.

This 'state funding creates economic activity' doesn't really stand up. If it did, the state would be giving me money to take my family out for dinner this weekend.

Greybottle wrote: »

On the other hand they are learning a skill and experience in an area that is badly needed in this country and one that is becoming more important.

And the state going forward will be emitting less emissions, thus helping us to pay less fines.

Now we're getting somewhere - these are indeed beneficial. But the question remains why the state funds to create these benefits would be targeted at private homes of those with the most substantial resources to fund these improvements.
Maybe the state should be making these improvements to the property it owns - public housing. And what about the houses of those with the least resources, these who are just ticking over from week to week, who are most vulnerable to energy bills - instead of those who already have substantial resources.
These other approaches would achieve the benefits you outline, but without targeting the better off.

Greybottle wrote: »

The people who own the house will in the future be paying less for energy, thus keeping more money circulating in the Irish economy, I think we import 70% of our energy and a house like that would traditionally run on gas or oil, meaning they would probably be importing near to 100% of their energy.

Who's to say that the savings made by the property owner will keep more money circulating here? Maybe they'll use the savings to fund their holiday apartment in Spain? Or their annual trips to the US or Australia? Who knows - that's a big leap to say the savings will result in more money circulating here.
If you focus funding on people who are worse off, there is a far bigger chance that the savings will be spent here, as people who are worst off spend most of their money on the basics here - food, drink, basic services. The better off you are, the more likely that a significant part of your income will be spent out of the country.

Greybottle wrote: »

There are many other factors, yes, 50% is a lot, maybe too much, but schemes like this need a kick start for a few years, but it's far more complex than simply saying that a huge percent was ripped out of taxpayers pockets or whatever.

My concerns aren't about the 'kick start'. My concerns are about the targeting of the kick-start at those who already have substantial resources at their disposal.