The Frederick St protest and reaction

pjohnson · 22-09-2018 9:38pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

bizzarrer and bizzarrer

paying into the shared pot means you cant complain at all

doing nothing means you should be lauded for lying in the street when you dont get free stuff

funny stuff again

Again when did I laud anyone :pac:

c montgomery · 22-09-2018 9:43pm

I would call middle Ireland those who already own a home, can afford to own a home in the future or who can rent a property without too much hassle.

tigger123 · 22-09-2018 9:46pm

c montgomery wrote: »

I would call middle Ireland those who already own a home, can afford to own a home in the future or who can rent a property without too much hassle.

Going by that definition, being middle class has really been downgraded.

martingriff · 22-09-2018 9:52pm

Just wondering when they will get a stop on eviction looking forward to stop paying my mortgage and not have to worry about anything

hmmm · 22-09-2018 9:52pm

Deleted User wrote: »

On a saturday?

Lads, I know this whole "working" thing is a bit alien to you, but lots of people are at a work on a Saturday too.

Earning money, which you want to take off them and spend on social housing.

You know, those people? The ones who get to sit on a bus for an hour while you sit on the street.

Stop getting in the way of workers, as it is earning you no sympathy and actively turning people against you.

Wheeliebin30 · 22-09-2018 9:53pm

pjohnson wrote: »

No as I said before theres two types of tax payers. Those who pay tax and get on with their lives and then theres tax payers like you

Get on with their lives?

Are we not allowed voice an opinion on why our taxes are been spunked on absolute wasters like the criminal Margaret Cash.

Ah sure I’ll just be a good boy and get in with it.

c montgomery · 22-09-2018 9:53pm

tigger123 wrote: »

Going by that definition, being middle class has really been downgraded.

Social mobility

y0ssar1an22 · 22-09-2018 9:54pm

c montgomery wrote: »

I would call middle Ireland those who already own a home, can afford to own a home in the future or who can rent a property without too much hassle.

you know whats kind of sad, cash can afford to rent a home now.

dont understand how no one has asked her how she can afford all the crap she buys. i dont know what her gross wage would be, but its prob in the top 20% of the labour force.

Wheeliebin30 · 22-09-2018 9:54pm

martingriff wrote: »

Just wondering when they will get a stop on eviction looking forward to stop paying my mortgage and not have to worry about anything

Stop paying your mortgage comrade.

After all were all entitled to not pay it.

y0ssar1an22 · 22-09-2018 9:55pm

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Stop paying your mortgage comrade.

After all were all entitled to not pay it.

will i get a 4 bed in dublin?

Wheeliebin30 · 22-09-2018 9:56pm

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

will i get a 4 bed in dublin?

If you sleep in a Garda station tonight. Well yes.....

Yer Da sells Avon · 22-09-2018 9:59pm

c montgomery wrote: »

I would call middle Ireland those who already own a home, can afford to own a home in the future or who can rent a property without too much hassle.

That differs considerably from Wheeliebin30's definition. You can't both be right.

Anyway, those who can afford to own a home in the future would undoubtedly benefit from a huge social housing project, as it would inevitably reduce demand, thus reducing house prices and giving them greater choice. Those who can rent a property without too much hassle, if such a person exists in the current climate, would also benefit from a huge social housing project, as it would inevitably reduce demand for private rentals, thus reducing rental prices and giving them greater choice.

Which leaves us with those who already own a home (and who are 100% certain that they'll never lose it). They are the only people within your 'middle Ireland' category who might have a legitimate (albeit wholly selfish) reason for objecting to anything that decreases demand for private housing.

martingriff · 22-09-2018 10:00pm

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Stop paying your mortgage comrade.

After all were all entitled to not pay it.

Right on comrade. Only wished I started sooner, think of all the money I could have saved

Wheeliebin30 · 22-09-2018 10:03pm

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

That differs considerably from Wheeliebin30's definition. You can't both be right.

Anyway, those who can afford to own a home in the future would undoubtedly benefit from a huge social housing project, as it would inevitably reduce demand, thus reducing house prices and giving them greater choice. Those who can rent a property without too much hassle, if such a person exists in the current climate, would also benefit from a huge social housing project, as it would inevitably reduce demand for private rentals, thus reducing rental prices and giving them greater choice.

Which leaves us with those who already own a home (and who are 100% certain that they'll never lose it). They are the only people within your 'middle Ireland' category who might have a legitimate (albeit wholly selfish) reason for objecting to anything that decreases demand for private housing.

How many houses?

How much will it cost?

And finally who will pay for it?

Oh and will Margaret Cash the criminal be “entitled” to one of these?

hmmm · 22-09-2018 10:03pm

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Anyway, those who can afford to own a home in the future would undoubtedly benefit from a huge social housing project, as it would inevitably reduce demand, thus reducing house prices and giving them greater choice.

The most recent social housing build I saw mentioned in the paper had units costing 500k each to build.

I'm not so sure those who "can afford to own a home in the future" would be happy to see a massive tax increase to pay for a huge social housing project. If we build 50,000 free houses (at a cost of 25 billion), someone has to pay for it - and you can be sure that it will be the usual income tax payers who will be the ones paying. There will also need to be a massive increase in the numbers of council staff to administer this program, and to look after the social housing into the future.

martingriff · 22-09-2018 10:08pm

I know this will be unpalatable to some but what we need is the developers to develop, builders to build and banks to lend. Will this mean that some of those we hate will come back and get rich so be it. If the laws are enforced then we get back to some normalcy.

Topgear on Dave · 22-09-2018 10:18pm

martingriff wrote: »

I know this will be unpalatable to some but what we need is the developers to develop, builders to build and banks to lend.

Controversial :pac: I cant see many of the proponents of todays march going for it though.

But yes I agree.

Houses and importantly apartments need to be built for an expanding population and I'm not particularly hung up on whether they are public or private.

Yer Da sells Avon · 22-09-2018 10:34pm

hmmm wrote: »

The most recent social housing build I saw mentioned in the paper had units costing 500k each to build.

I'm not so sure those who "can afford to own a home in the future" would be happy to see a massive tax increase to pay for a huge social housing project. If we build 50,000 free houses (at a cost of 25 billion), someone has to pay for it - and you can be sure that it will be the usual income tax payers who will be the ones paying. There will also need to be a massive increase in the numbers of council staff to administer this program, and to look after the social housing into the future.

Yeah, I forgot to mention the fact that it would create a large number of jobs, both short and long-term. That's somehow a 'bad' thing now. Jesus wept.

Also, they would not be 'free houses'. Tenants would pay rent. The Workers' Party has a good social housing policy (full document available here), whereby people on less than €35,000 would pay rent at a rate of 15% of their income. Those earning more than €35,000 (currently unfairly excluded from social housing) would pay 15% of the first €35,000 and then 30% of any income above that.

I know removing developers from the equation would be inexplicably unpalatable to some people on here, but I'd love to know why exactly. I mean, apart from the usual 'thocialism' 'reds-under-the-bed' shite that right-wingers are so fond of mindlessly spouting.

Wheeliebin30 · 22-09-2018 10:40pm

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Yeah, I forgot to mention the fact that it would create a large number of jobs, both short and long-term. That's somehow a 'bad' thing now. Jesus wept.

Also, they would not be 'free houses'. Tenants would pay rent. The Workers' Party has a good social housing policy (full document available here), whereby people on less than €35,000 would pay rent at a rate of 15% of their income. Those earning more than €35,000 (currently unfairly excluded from social housing) would pay 15% of the first €35,000 and then 30% of any income above that.

I know removing developers from the equation would be inexplicably unpalatable to some people on here, but I'd love to know why exactly. I mean, apart from the usual 'thocialism' 'reds-under-the-bed' shite that right-wingers are so fond of mindlessly spouting.

Errmmm what caused the last property crash????

Seriously this is basic stuff.

Yer Da sells Avon · 22-09-2018 10:43pm

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Errmmm what caused the last property crash????

Seriously this is basic stuff.

Explain in detail, please.

upandcumming · 22-09-2018 10:52pm

pjohnson wrote: »

Eh would they not be smart enough to ensure they had enough money to do it up? Or buy a house that doesnt need such expensive doing up?

Like Mags should have done with her kids?

Wheeliebin30 · 22-09-2018 10:57pm

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Explain in detail, please.

Build build build...

Ghost estates.

Yer Da sells Avon · 22-09-2018 11:04pm

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Build build build...

Ghost estates.

That argument might have had some validity, had it been a response to this post:

martingriff wrote: »

I know this will be unpalatable to some but what we need is the developers to develop, builders to build and banks to lend. Will this mean that some of those we hate will come back and get rich so be it. If the laws are enforced then we get back to some normalcy.

Kermit.de.frog · 22-09-2018 11:06pm

Anyone see the English guy who threw a severed pigeon's head at the (female) protesters?

Now, I despise the protesters as much as the next person but they are our protesters and I despise those type of English exceptionalist wa!kers even more.

10000maniacs · 22-09-2018 11:19pm

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I would tend to agree with you if we were not in the middle of a housing crisis. Use it or pay for the privilege of it sitting idle.

You are missing the point. The property is already paid for by hard-working citizens. Hands off lefties. Vacant properties have got nothing to do with you. Earn your own money.
There is a fine line between the left wing crap we are hearing in Ireland now and authoritarianist communism.

Sheep breeder · 22-09-2018 11:44pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Again.

Farmers protests.

Discuss.

Farmers protest was outside ag house on Kildare street not on the bridge at work hour traffic,

McMurphy · 22-09-2018 11:46pm

10000maniacs wrote: »

You are missing the point. The property is already paid for by hard-working citizens. Hands off lefties. Vacant properties have got nothing to do with you. Earn your own money.
There is a fine line between the left wing crap we are hearing in Ireland now and authoritarianist communism.

I believe the point might be that (according to the govt shills during the LPT debates) that a home/property is an asset, and an asset should be liable to be taxed.

If, for example you own property, and it's an inhabited one - it's taxed.

Uninhabited ones, or not fit to be escape said tax.

So if you own property (which is an asset mind) if you're owning it with the sole intention of hoarding it, it should be liable to a tax also.

Land banks and property speculation should be taxable (as assets) the same as.

martingriff · 22-09-2018 11:47pm

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

That argument might have had some validity, had it been a response to this post:

I think building out will be something to happen. Maybe if jobs were in other places then Dublin and the government encouraged this then the housing shortage may be less

McMurphy · 22-09-2018 11:49pm

Sheep breeder wrote: »

Farmers protest was outside ag house on Kildare street not on the bridge at work hour traffic,

Hard to define what exactly constituents work hour traffic on a weekend.

Regardless,

Looks like blocking a public highway to me.

Bastards.

10000maniacs · 22-09-2018 11:50pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I believe the point might be that (according to the govt shills during the LPT debates) that a home/property is an asset, and an asset should be liable to be taxed.

If, for example you own property, and it's an inhabited one - it's taxed.

Uninhabited ones, or not fit to be escape said tax.

So if you own property (which is an asset mind) if you're owning it with the sole intention of hoarding it, it should be liable to a tax also.

Land banks and property speculation should be taxable (as assets) the same as.

But everybody who owns property is liable to pay property tax whether its occupied or not. Are you suggesting an extra tax on top of that?

The Frederick St protest and reaction

Comments