General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

McMurphy · 10-09-2018 05:21PM

blanch152 wrote: »

But you were the poster who made a comparison

Why did you raise the issue of comments from years ago if no comparison between the comments was possible?

Why the confusion?

You are proclaiming that private property rights are enshrined in the constitution.

I am saying that the same argument was made by some opponents of FGs LPT/HHC and that they were labelled as Freeman loonys etc etc etc.

Like the modular homes thing, it appears that certain arguments hold more sway when/If it suits.

I hope this clears up your confusion.

blanch152 · 10-09-2018 05:34PM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Why the confusion?

You are proclaiming that private property rights are enshrined in the constitution.

I am saying that the same argument was made by some opponents of FGs LPT/HHC and that they were labelled as Freeman loonys etc etc etc.

Like the modular homes thing, it appears that certain arguments hold more sway when/If it suits.

I hope this clears up your confusion.

But they weren't the same argument.

The argument made by opponents of FG's LPT/HHC that the government could not impose a tax because of property rights in the Constitution is clearly and unequivocally loony and Freeman nonsense. It also ignores the right of the Government to raise taxes as set out in the Constitution.

The argument made by me that the property rights in the Constitution may be an issue for the loony protestors who seem to think that Dublin City Council can compulsory purchase a house just because they want to and hand it over to the community, is a completely different argument. It has nothing to do with the general imposition of a tax and because it is about a single property rather than property in general, has a clash with the individual property rights in te Constitution. Furthermore, there is considerable case law around the difficulties of compulsory purchase and adequate compensation, which are linked to the property rights in the Constitution.

I would have thought that the differences between the two situations and the two arguments would have been clear to anyone posting here, so I apologise for my failure to explain them in a simpler fashion.

McMurphy · 10-09-2018 07:18PM

blanch152 wrote: »

But they weren't the same argument.

The argument made by opponents of FG's LPT/HHC that the government could not impose a tax because of property rights in the Constitution is clearly and unequivocally loony and Freeman nonsense. It also ignores the right of the Government to raise taxes as set out in the Constitution.

I don't recall that exact argument being made tbh, I recall an argument being made that imposing a recurring annual recurring tax on a private residence which the owner may already own outright, and/or already paid stamp duty on, and failure to comply with the tax could result on a lien against the property might clash with property ownership rights that were enshrined in the constitution.

The argument made by me that the property rights in the Constitution may be an issue for the loony protestors who seem to think that Dublin City Council can compulsory purchase a house just because they want to and hand it over to the community, is a completely different argument. It has nothing to do with the general imposition of a tax and because it is about a single property rather than property in general, has a clash with the individual property rights in te Constitution. Furthermore, there is considerable case law around the difficulties of compulsory purchase and adequate compensation, which are linked to the property rights in the Constitution.

I would agree with you on the above, I do not condone the actions of said protesters either.

I would have thought that the differences between the two situations and the two arguments would have been clear to anyone posting here, so I apologise for my failure to explain them in a simpler fashion.

I think you might have (rather spectaculary) missed my entire point that I made for you regarding how arguments can be dismissed or endorsed depending on what party or individual makes them.

To simplify it even further.

You hold the view that someone who holds the idea that placing an annual recurring tax on a family home would be unfair due to private property rights being enshrined in our constitution is spouting Freeman loony nonsense.

I had Enda labelled many things, but never a loony Freeman.

Excerpts from Dail Debate, Wednesday 2nd February 1994
Mr Enda Kenny TD
“It is morally unjust and unfair to tax a person's home, and by so doing grind him into the ground. Indeed in cases it could probably be unconstitutional” “It reminds me of a vampire tax in that it drives a stake through the heart of home ownership, through enthusiasm and initiative, and sucks the life blood of people who want to own their own home and better their position” “If the Government fail to appreciate the passion with which people will defend their rights to own their home and have it looking as well as it should, it is making a serious

Which takes us back to how it depends on who's making the argument.

blanch152 · 10-09-2018 08:59PM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I don't recall that exact argument being made tbh, I recall an argument being made that imposing a recurring annual recurring tax on a private residence which the owner may already own outright, and/or already paid stamp duty on, and failure to comply with the tax could result on a lien against the property might clash with property ownership rights that were enshrined in the constitution.

I would agree with you on the above, I do not condone the actions of said protesters either.

I think you might have (rather spectaculary) missed my entire point that I made for you regarding how arguments can be dismissed or endorsed depending on what party or individual makes them.

To simplify it even further.

You hold the view that someone who holds the idea that placing an annual recurring tax on a family home would be unfair due to private property rights being enshrined in our constitution is spouting Freeman loony nonsense.

I had Enda labelled many things, but never a loony Freeman.

Which takes us back to how it depends on who's making the argument.

That is loony Freeman nonsense, without the Freeman connotations.

Edit: But why you think a 24-year old statement by a back-bencher in the Dail is relevant to any debate now is curious to say the least.

Idbatterim · 11-09-2018 06:29PM

Just bringing up something that has gotten more and more laughable the more I think about it! Eoghan Murphy is now devil incarnate as if he single handedly is trying to block bringing about change with the housing crisis! as if its Murphy digging his heels in and fighting varadkars, coucils, councillors etc. valliant efforts!

It really is a joke and shows you the level of thinking of your typical voter :rolleyes: Head on over to the journal for some amusement!

FreudianSlippers · 12-09-2018 09:04AM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I don't recall that exact argument being made tbh, I recall an argument being made that imposing a recurring annual recurring tax on a private residence which the owner may already own outright, and/or already paid stamp duty on, and failure to comply with the tax could result on a lien against the property might clash with property ownership rights that were enshrined in the constitution.

I would agree with you on the above, I do not condone the actions of said protesters either.

I think you might have (rather spectaculary) missed my entire point that I made for you regarding how arguments can be dismissed or endorsed depending on what party or individual makes them.

To simplify it even further.

You hold the view that someone who holds the idea that placing an annual recurring tax on a family home would be unfair due to private property rights being enshrined in our constitution is spouting Freeman loony nonsense.

I had Enda labelled many things, but never a loony Freeman.

Which takes us back to how it depends on who's making the argument.

Biggest. Strawman. Ever.

FreudianSlippers · 12-09-2018 09:42AM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Too broad to specifically say, Just as branch's line about the constitution and private property is too vague to make any comparison.

That's a cop out isn't it? They either had legitimate Constitutional questions on the legality of such a tax or they had freeman arguments. It's not some nuanced issue and you've made the claim - I take it you can't back it up...

James Brown · 12-09-2018 01:42PM

Idbatterim wrote: »

Just bringing up something that has gotten more and more laughable the more I think about it! Eoghan Murphy is now devil incarnate as if he single handedly is trying to block bringing about change with the housing crisis! as if its Murphy digging his heels in and fighting varadkars, coucils, councillors etc. valliant efforts!

It really is a joke and shows you the level of thinking of your typical voter :rolleyes: Head on over to the journal for some amusement!

You'd be forgiven for thinking poor aul' young Eoghan has his hands tied yet himself and Leo are not calling for any radical changes. In fact they are pushing the failed policies and wasting tax payer money with gusto compared to the LA's.
No queries as to were the boyos got the recent cash fall for their latest waste of tax payer money. It certainly is magic.

The balaclava wearing thugs of mystery taking out the housing protesters are a throw back to the FG policing of the good old days of the law and order party. The protesters were engaged in an illegal act, but there's something blue shirty about state men carrying out tasks in disguise to hide their shame.
I can only imagine the hi-jinks and shenanigans on here if SF were in power under the exact same circumstances.

Red_Wake · 12-09-2018 02:10PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Idbatterim wrote: »

Just bringing up something that has gotten more and more laughable the more I think about it! Eoghan Murphy is now devil incarnate as if he single handedly is trying to block bringing about change with the housing crisis! as if its Murphy digging his heels in and fighting varadkars, coucils, councillors etc. valliant efforts!

It really is a joke and shows you the level of thinking of your typical voter :rolleyes: Head on over to the journal for some amusement!

You'd be forgiven for thinking poor aul' young Eoghan has his hands tied yet himself and Leo are not calling for any radical changes. In fact they are pushing the failed policies and wasting tax payer money with gusto compared to the LA's.
No queries as to were the boyos got the recent cash fall for their latest waste of tax payer money. It certainly is magic.

The balaclava wearing thugs of mystery taking out the housing protesters are a throw back to the FG policing of the good old days of the law and order party. The protesters were engaged in an illegal act, but there's something blue shirty about state men carrying out tasks in disguise to hide their shame.
I can only imagine the hi-jinks and shenanigans on here if SF were in power under the exact same circumstances.

I think you'll find people had problems with SF using the lads in balaclavas without being in power.:angel:

oscarBravo · 12-09-2018 02:11PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

...there's something blue shirty about state men carrying out tasks in disguise to hide their shame.

There might be, if the "disguise" didn't include their registration numbers on their shoulders and chests.

I get that you have some sort of irrational hatred of Fine Gael, but it really shouldn't stop you from trotting out this sort of tired propaganda.

James Brown · 12-09-2018 04:06PM

Red_Wake wrote: »

I think you'll find people had problems with SF using the lads in balaclavas without being in power.:angel:

Sorry, I don't get your opinion on anything here other than a dig at SF?
Do you think you'd be kicking off if SF were sending lads in in balaclavas to remove people in the same circumstances or not?
Do you think government policy is saving the tax payer money or losing it while the crisis worsens?
Do you think Eoghan and Leo are being hampered by the LA's in tackling the crisis? What do you think an all FG LA might do differently and how would that differ from current Eoghan housing policy?

If you're just interested in dropping in for japes, my apologies.

Red_Wake · 12-09-2018 04:32PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

I think you'll find people had problems with SF using the lads in balaclavas without being in power.:angel:

Sorry, I don't get your opinion on anything here other than a dig at SF?
Do you think you'd be kicking off if SF were sending lads in in balaclavas to remove people in the same circumstances or not?
Do you think government policy is saving the tax payer money or losing it while the crisis worsens?
Do you think Eoghan and Leo are being hampered by the LA's in tackling the crisis? What do you think an all FG LA might do differently and how would that differ from current Eoghan housing policy?

If you're just interested in dropping in for japes, my apologies.

(1) I'd say if they were using unreasonable force or sending in gardai[or at least individuals wearing gardai clothing] without the garda id[which these gardai had], I'd be outraged
(2)I consider all forms of rent allowance, housing assistance, social housing a pig that eats the sow. To me it's all waste due to the poverty trap it creates. Long term dependence on welfare is dangerous for the individual receiving it.
(3) In as much as there is a problem, yes I do believe central governent[the Leo and Eoghan of your post] is more competent than the LAs, who have created the crisis by insisting on low density planning in the face of all arguments. A FG LA is a misnomer, I don't know if there are any single party majority LAs, but I'd say a FG LA would prob be more open to high density housing[possibly as a chance for the councillors to ingratiate themselves with central FG hq tbf] whihc would alleviate the problem.

There's my argument, feel free to cherry pick, ignore and forget as suits your delusions and agenda.

blanch152 · 12-09-2018 04:53PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Sorry, I don't get your opinion on anything here other than a dig at SF?
Do you think you'd be kicking off if SF were sending lads in in balaclavas to remove people in the same circumstances or not?
Do you think government policy is saving the tax payer money or losing it while the crisis worsens?
Do you think Eoghan and Leo are being hampered by the LA's in tackling the crisis? What do you think an all FG LA might do differently and how would that differ from current Eoghan housing policy?

If you're just interested in dropping in for japes, my apologies.

(1) If Sinn Fein were sending lads in balaclavas anywhere, I wouldn't be surprised as they have form for supporting that kind of thing, but I would be against it. On the other hand, the Gardai had id and were protecting themselves from the sort of disgusting behaviour they were subject to at previous similar protests.

(2) I don't understand your question about saving money, and it appears to have little relevance to the discussion

(3) Yes, the LAs are now the biggest stumbling block to improving the housing situation. New building guidlines, new planning guidelines, new finance etc., have all been put in place by central government - time for the LAs to get on with it.

(4) I would hope that DCC, the biggest problem of the LAs, would, under different leadership, abandon its extremely stupid low-rise policy, and stop objecting to developments

Now, a question for you, why do you always mention Leo and Eoghan in your posts? Do you have some strange fixation for them? You never mention any other politician by name, such as the DCC councillors responsible for the mess there? Why this peculiarity?

James Brown · 12-09-2018 06:00PM

Red_Wake wrote: »

(1) I'd say if they were using unreasonable force or sending in gardai[or at least individuals wearing gardai clothing] without the garda id[which these gardai had], I'd be outraged

So yes or no? You created your own question there.

Red_Wake wrote: »

(2)I consider all forms of rent allowance, housing assistance, social housing a pig that eats the sow. To me it's all waste due to the poverty trap it creates. Long term dependence on welfare is dangerous for the individual receiving it.

You didn't answer the question. Is the current tactic of putting tax payer money into cheap loans to developers, buying houses off the market to use as social housing a good deal for the tax payer, not forgetting it doesn't work as the crisis worsens and we spend on 'emergency accommodation'?

Red_Wake wrote: »

(3) In as much as there is a problem, yes I do believe central governent[the Leo and Eoghan of your post] is more competent than the LAs, who have created the crisis by insisting on low density planning in the face of all arguments. A FG LA is a misnomer, I don't know if there are any single party majority LAs, but I'd say a FG LA would prob be more open to high density housing[possibly as a chance for the councillors to ingratiate themselves with central FG hq tbf] whihc would alleviate the problem.

You didn't answer this one either.

Do you think Eoghan and Leo are being hampered by the LA's in tackling the crisis?

Is there anything Leo or Eoghan might be doing differently if the LA's weren't there, taking that the LA's are part of the problem? What is it Leo or Eoghan might be doing differently? I suggest the LA's are not stopping them so blame for bad policy at national level lies completely with them. Do you disagree?

What do you think an all FG LA might do differently and how would that differ from current Eoghan housing policy?

As regards the LA's, what do you think an all FG might be doing differently? I'm trying to see what you think FG would be doing if they had no LA obstacles. Would it be more of the current bad policies losing tax payer money down an ever growing hole or something they've not tried yet?

Red_Wake wrote: »

There's my argument, feel free to cherry pick, ignore and forget as suits your delusions and agenda.

Hold on there horse. I'm asking direct questions. You're the one responding with ifs and buts.

Government policy is making matters worse. They can find money for these things they put forward and nobody puts the source under any scrutiny, but suggest monies for social housing and good people like yourself would be talking magic money trees and skitting, skatting and be-boping.

blanch152 · 12-09-2018 06:02PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Hold on there horse. I'm asking direct questions. You're the one responding with ifs and buts.

You might get some response to direct questions if you ever answered a single one yourself.

FreudianSlippers · 13-09-2018 10:10AM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You'd be forgiven for thinking poor aul' young Eoghan has his hands tied yet himself and Leo are not calling for any radical changes. In fact they are pushing the failed policies and wasting tax payer money with gusto compared to the LA's.
No queries as to were the boyos got the recent cash fall for their latest waste of tax payer money. It certainly is magic.

The balaclava wearing thugs of mystery taking out the housing protesters are a throw back to the FG policing of the good old days of the law and order party. The protesters were engaged in an illegal act, but there's something blue shirty about state men carrying out tasks in disguise to hide their shame.
I can only imagine the hi-jinks and shenanigans on here if SF were in power under the exact same circumstances.

Disclaimer: This post has no substance, it's pure talking points and spin.

FreudianSlippers · 13-09-2018 10:18AM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So yes or no? You created your own question there.

Untrue. The question has been answered it just wasn't answered to your liking.

You didn't answer the question. Is the current tactic of putting tax payer money into cheap loans to developers, buying houses off the market to use as social housing a good deal for the tax payer, not forgetting it doesn't work as the crisis worsens and we spend on 'emergency accommodation'?

You don't seem to have any real grasp on reality, let alone solutions to the housing crisis.

Firstly, there is no evidence whatsoever that the government is putting taxpayer money into cheap loans for developers. However, if this were accurate it would be to the benefit of the housing crisis as opposed to a detriment. You don't seem to have an explanation of how this would be, if true, a bad thing.

Secondly, you're against Local Authorities buying houses off the private market to convert to social housing - also not clear on how this is a bad thing in your view.

Is there anything Leo or Eoghan might be doing differently if the LA's weren't there, taking that the LA's are part of the problem? What is it Leo or Eoghan might be doing differently? I suggest the LA's are not stopping them so blame for bad policy at national level lies completely with them. Do you disagree?

Local Authorities are doing nothing. The best thing the Government could do would make you have an aneurysm; they could give tax breaks to developers for building social housing.

As regards the LA's, what do you think an all FG might be doing differently? I'm trying to see what you think FG would be doing if they had no LA obstacles. Would it be more of the current bad policies losing tax payer money down an ever growing hole or something they've not tried yet?

It's not the Government's job to build houses.

Government policy is making matters worse. They can find money for these things they put forward and nobody puts the source under any scrutiny, but suggest monies for social housing and good people like yourself would be talking magic money trees and skitting, skatting and be-boping.

Ah. But you don't have any solution either.

FreudianSlippers · 13-09-2018 12:49PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Is there anything Leo or Eoghan might be doing differently if the LA's weren't there, taking that the LA's are part of the problem? What is it Leo or Eoghan might be doing differently? I suggest the LA's are not stopping them so blame for bad policy at national level lies completely with them. Do you disagree?

As regards the LA's, what do you think an all FG might be doing differently? I'm trying to see what you think FG would be doing if they had no LA obstacles. Would it be more of the current bad policies losing tax payer money down an ever growing hole or something they've not tried yet?

Government policy is making matters worse.

"New State agency to free up land for ‘150,000 homes over 20 years’
Land Development Agency will designate 30 zones in Dublin and 10 in Cork for building"

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/new-state-agency-to-free-up-land-for-150-000-homes-over-20-years-1.3627335

The LDA will have compulsory purchase powers and are going to both release State land for development as well as acquire private land. Providing €1.25bn of funds to the LDA, they will require one-third of all properties to be affordable and a single person on up to €50,000 a year or a couple with a joint income of up to €75,000 a year will qualify for affordable housing.

James Brown · 13-09-2018 02:27PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Disclaimer: This post has no substance, it's pure talking points and spin.

You are mistaken. It's facts with opinion. That's how discussions work.

James Brown · 13-09-2018 02:42PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Untrue. The question has been answered it just wasn't answered to your liking.

Untrue. It was changed and then a new question was answered not mine. I suggest you read over it again.
I see you add nothing. If SF were doing the exact same thing under the exact same circumstances there'd be a turn in the tide of opinion on here, don't try codding.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You don't seem to have any real grasp on reality, let alone solutions to the housing crisis.

Firstly, there is no evidence whatsoever that the government is putting taxpayer money into cheap loans for developers.

4% interest on state loans to developers
While some banks are only lending up to 60% of the cost of developing a housing estate or apartment block, it is understood that HBFI would provide around 80% funding or possibly more if the scheme is deemed particularly worthwhile.

HBFI will draw on the expertise of Nama which has already been working with a number of its debtors to get houses built. But it will be a separate entity to Nama.

Nama chairman Frank Daly said: “In practical terms it is making a fund of €750m available for lending to construction firms, to builders to property developers who might have sites on which they could build houses, but who have problems accessing finance.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/4-interest-on-state-loans-to-developers-460783.html

Nama would provide cheap loans to developers under new plan
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar last month announced the Government is preparing to repurpose Nama to help drive housebuilding. Sources said the new Nama would be focused on “developing the land it holds and lending to non-Nama developers to build at commercial rates”.

This could be done, according to the sources, by using the €1 billion in cash or equivalents Nama holds, raising its own funds on the markets to be used for loans, and by accessing the European Investment Bank.

Irish households now officially wealthier than during boom
Cost of building a new family home rose 7.5% in past year
Prospect of owning home ‘a pipe dream’ for many, says Shortall
Nama could provide loans with interest rates of between 4-6 per cent, well below rates offered by banks and financiers, which it is claimed makes it less viable to build new homes.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/nama-would-provide-cheap-loans-to-developers-under-new-plan-1.3241877

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

However, if this were accurate it would be to the benefit of the housing crisis as opposed to a detriment. You don't seem to have an explanation of how this would be, if true, a bad thing.

More private builds which people can't afford? How will that help? Your idea that simply having more homes built privately will solve everything is absurdly simplistic and wrong.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Secondly, you're against Local Authorities buying houses off the private market to convert to social housing - also not clear on how this is a bad thing in your view.

Absolutely. Which is the better option for the tax payer; the state building social housing stock or buying it at market rates?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Local Authorities are doing nothing. The best thing the Government could do would make you have an aneurysm; they could give tax breaks to developers for building social housing.

That would be more waste. Essentially rewarding private developers for building homes they sell to the state at market rate. Do you know anything about finance?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's not the Government's job to build houses.

Now you're just copping out. I say it is. During a housing crisis the state should provide social and affordable housing. Or we could continue to aid developers in private profit and shovel money down the emergency accommodation hole. The governments has given itself the job of assisting private developers with private builds for private profit, but that's okay right?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ah. But you don't have any solution either.

State built Social and affordable housing. Have you not been following this issue at all?

James Brown · 13-09-2018 02:48PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

"New State agency to free up land for ‘150,000 homes over 20 years’
Land Development Agency will designate 30 zones in Dublin and 10 in Cork for building"

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/new-state-agency-to-free-up-land-for-150-000-homes-over-20-years-1.3627335

The LDA will have compulsory purchase powers and are going to both release State land for development as well as acquire private land. Providing €1.25bn of funds to the LDA, they will require one-third of all properties to be affordable and a single person on up to €50,000 a year or a couple with a joint income of up to €75,000 a year will qualify for affordable housing.

More of the same bad policy.

There will be a requirement that 40% of homes built on State lands are social and affordable ones.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0913/993427-land_development_agency/

And were is this 1.2 Billion coming from the magic money tree? Seems the money is there if there's private profit to be made off the tax payers back.

FreudianSlippers · 13-09-2018 02:56PM

I see you're suggesting that the government is putting money into NAMA from the taxpayer and ignoring that what NAMA will actually provide is (from the article you actually quoted but obviously didn't digest) "the €1 billion in cash or equivalents Nama holds, raising its own funds on the markets to be used for loans, and by accessing the European Investment Bank"

More private builds which people can't afford? How will that help? Your idea that simply having more homes built privately will solve everything is absurdly simplistic and wrong.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=supply+and+demand

Absolutely. Which is the better option for the tax payer; the state building social housing stock or buying it at market rates?

Neither.

That would be more waste. Essentially rewarding private developers for building homes they sell to the state at market rate. Do you know anything about finance?

More personal attacks... tisk tisk.

Now you're just copping out. I say it is.

Ok. I say it isn't.

During a housing crisis the state should provide social and affordable housing. Or we could continue to aid developers in private profit and shovel money down the emergency accommodation hole.

Or we could do something rational and do what the government has actually done with the LDA.

State built Social and affordable housing. Have you not been following this issue at all?

It seems you're not up to speed on this matter yourself.

FreudianSlippers · 13-09-2018 02:57PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

More of the same bad policy.

And were is this 1.2 Billion coming from the magic money tree? Seems the money is there if there's private profit to be made off the tax payers back.

So unless it's a free corpo house you get, you're against it. Gotcha.

blanch152 · 13-09-2018 03:54PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You didn't answer the question.
You didn't answer this one either.
Hold on there horse. I'm asking direct questions. You're the one responding with ifs and buts.

You know the way you give out about people not answering questions, as in the above post where you three times mention it. Well, are you going to answer my question to you anytime soon?

blanch152 wrote: »

Now, a question for you, why do you always mention Leo and Eoghan in your posts? Do you have some strange fixation for them? You never mention any other politician by name, such as the DCC councillors responsible for the mess there? Why this peculiarity?

Now, a question for you, why do you always mention Leo and Eoghan in your posts? Do you have some strange fixation for them? You never mention any other politician by name, such as the DCC councillors responsible for the mess there? Why this peculiarity?

James Brown · 13-09-2018 04:37PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So unless it's a free corpo house you get, you're against it. Gotcha.

You've obviously no idea about the housing crisis or are unwilling to comment on posts without fudging or derailing.

NAMA is loaning money to private developers at rates more favourable than financial institutions are willing to.
The developers then build and on occasion sell to the state at profit. Or sell on the market at profit having been aided by NAMA.
I think this is not a good deal for the tax payer.

State social housing builds or buying at market rates? You answer 'neither'. That's either you don't know or at best a cop out.

A state built social home is a better deal for the tax payer than buying at market rates and using as same. That's very simple.

Ok. I say it isn't.

You dodge direct questions and disregard fact.
You don't seem to want to discuss sensibly, so I'll leave you to it.

blanch152 · 13-09-2018 04:44PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You dodge direct questions and disregard fact.

Can you answer my questions, please?

FreudianSlippers · 13-09-2018 05:02PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You've obviously no idea about the housing crisis or are unwilling to comment on posts without fudging or derailing.

NAMA is loaning money to private developers at rates more favourable than financial institutions are willing to.
The developers then build and on occasion sell to the state at profit. Or sell on the market at profit having been aided by NAMA.
I think this is not a good deal for the tax payer.

State social housing builds or buying at market rates? You answer 'neither'. That's either you don't know or at best a cop out.

A state built social home is a better deal for the tax payer than buying at market rates and using as same. That's very simple.

You dodge direct questions and disregard fact.
You don't seem to want to discuss sensibly, so I'll leave you to it.

As I said, you don't seem to be up-to-speed on the developments re LDA (etc.) and requirements for social/affordable housing by developers.

You also seem to have conveniently missed where it said NAMA was going to use its own funds as well as market-raised funds to provide these loans.

So you seem to be a bit confused between the taxpayer money being used to build social housing and market money being loaned to developers.

I'm starting to wonder what kind of economic qualifications would qualify someone to give an opinion on the economic options to increase supply of housing stock?

James Brown · 13-09-2018 05:34PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

As I said, you don't seem to be up-to-speed on the developments re LDA (etc.) and requirements for social/affordable housing by developers.

You also seem to have conveniently missed where it said NAMA was going to use its own funds as well as market-raised funds to provide these loans.

So you seem to be a bit confused between the taxpayer money being used to build social housing and market money being loaned to developers.

I'm starting to wonder what kind of economic qualifications would qualify someone to give an opinion on the economic options to increase supply of housing stock?

Every red cent NAMA has is the tax payers. Every red cent NAMA may borrow is borrowed on behalf of the tax payer. Where do you think the need and purpose of NAMA came from?

You are fudging. The state currently finances private builds for private profits. The state also buys houses off the market to be used as social housing. NAMA has actually sold properties to Noonan's Cerberus, for the state to buy back at a later date. And of course as you dodge and duck these points I don't know where you stand on these things.

Current policy is wasting tax monies as the crisis worsens.
State social housing and affordable builds is a better deal for the tax payer. If you are genuinely interested in discussing it, you tell me what's a better deal for the tax payer?

oscarBravo · 13-09-2018 05:48PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Current policy is wasting tax monies as the crisis worsens.

This seems to be solely about value for money, to you.

Clear this up for me: if there were two approaches, one which cost the taxpayer less but left people homeless for longer, and one which cost more but housed people sooner, which would you choose?

FreudianSlippers · 14-09-2018 09:33AM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Every red cent NAMA has is the tax payers. Every red cent NAMA may borrow is borrowed on behalf of the tax payer. Where do you think the need and purpose of NAMA came from?

You are fudging. The state currently finances private builds for private profits. The state also buys houses off the market to be used as social housing. NAMA has actually sold properties to Noonan's Cerberus, for the state to buy back at a later date. And of course as you dodge and duck these points I don't know where you stand on these things.

Current policy is wasting tax monies as the crisis worsens.
State social housing and affordable builds is a better deal for the tax payer. If you are genuinely interested in discussing it, you tell me what's a better deal for the tax payer?

So you admit it's costing the taxpayer nothing extra. Great.

General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

Comments