People like SF candidates but won't vote for SF

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No they are not. If people want to talk government they are unproven. We know FF/FG are bad.
I'll dispute bull notions by FG'ers in the context of running the country, certainly.

Dont bust a blood vessel Matt, you're preaching the very thing you're calling out.
They aren't unproven either, they are in Govt.

smurgen

Dionysis wrote: »

If the govt got involved in house building now it would drive the market crazy, that’s soo obvious!

Hahahahaha

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Sure there all as bad as each other, funny the lads on here that defend only one in particular.

No they are not. If people want to talk government they are unproven. We know FF/FG are bad.
I'll dispute bull notions by FG'ers in the context of running the country, certainly.

Dionysis

If the govt got involved in house building now it would drive the market crazy, that’s soo obvious!

johnmcdnl wrote: »

Fianna Fáil is committed to building 50,000
new social housing units by 2025. The average
cost of building a two-bedroom social housing
unit is €250,000.
Labour has identified how €16 billion can be invested, over five years, to deliver 80,000+ (200k each)

When you figure out why the f*** it is costing 250,000 to build a 2 bed house, then you might be on your way to working out why a hospital is breaking world records on build costs.

Bishop of hope wrote: »

I'd wager you can't provide an example of anyone in the last 20/25 years getting a house built for that type of money, even in the midst of the recession, materials and service costs wouldn't be covered even let alone labour.

TBF, prices paid on multiple builds by large construction companies wouldn't be the same as someone paying to have a one off house built. Also theres the issue of building on public land.

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, this is easy to clear up then.

Fine Gael have never been responsible for a "bust" (to use your word) in the economy. Do you agree, or can you provide evidence to refute that?

FG were responsible for part of what happened in 2008. They cheer-leaded the lead up to it.
Of course you won't accept that but there you go.
Who do you think paid for their maths on Water Charges?

You'll be claiming that they never put a foot wrong in 100 years of the power swap next.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

God you do love the misquote. Go back and read the post again and then get back to me.

Well, this is easy to clear up then.

Fine Gael have never been responsible for a "bust" (to use your word) in the economy. Do you agree, or can you provide evidence to refute that?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Wannabe? Now I see the joke.

Here is a question for you. Which party has an actual convicted criminal running for them in this election?

Hint: It is not FG.

Will you condemn that party? In the words of Michael Bailey, will you ****?

blanch152 wrote: »

Can you give me an example of when Fine Gael broke the economy?

Fianna Fail broke it in the 1930s, did so much damage that it took 30 years to recover, they did it again between 1977 and 1981, before completely wrecking the economy again in 2008.

God you do love the misquote. Go back and read the post again and then get back to me.

McMurphy wrote: »

And your man Conlon up in Monaghan who slashed the lad in the bar with the broken glass.

And they are all gone from Fine Gael, unlike the terrorist Dessie Ellis and the gobhite Houlihan who is still a SF councillor despite being a racist, homophobe and misogynist.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How many times in your life have you paid for the 'maths' of FF FG?
I'm in my mid 50's and I have, many times. Boom bust, boom bust, boom bust...etc etc etc.

I'm used to it now, so if they **** up, I won't notice much change.

Can you give me an example of when Fine Gael broke the economy?

Fianna Fail broke it in the 1930s, did so much damage that it took 30 years to recover, they did it again between 1977 and 1981, before completely wrecking the economy again in 2008.

johnmcdnl

FrancieBrady wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Depends. If you were building one...you couldn't. The savings on building 20 though?

It's how developers get fabulously wealthy.

It's a wonder how none of the FG or FF boys have realised they can Iine their pockets because it's so easy to fire up new houses for 65k. Nobody in all of FG was able to put a word in Eoghan Murphy's ear . No developer came with a proposal to Eoghan Murphy wishing to be the contractor who'd get to build all these houses if they got a special little deal.

But SF have the answer. But didn't bother to mention it during the debate or how they have managed to find a way to build houses on budget for 65k a piece whereas other parties seems to be budgeting for roughly 200k per extra house.

When everyone else says it costs in the ballpark of 200k, and that aligns with the general publics understandings of the cost I think we're entitled to be sceptical about how the figure has been calculated and costed. Please just share with us how SF will build housing for 25% of the cost of everyone else because I haven't heard the explanation yet.

Fianna Fáil is committed to building 50,000
new social housing units by 2025. The average
cost of building a two-bedroom social housing
unit is €250,000.
Labour has identified how €16 billion can be invested, over five years, to deliver 80,000+ (200k each)

efanton wrote: »

Do you make it up as you go along?
Where did ANY party say it was going to touch corporation tax?

Yes they are going to tax the higher end off the income spectrum.

Taxation on income is a tax on personal wealth, not businesses or corporations.
The very few that actually had the power to pull the plug on any foreign business operating here is very very few indeed, almost all of which do not reside in this country.
The worst they would do is adjust their business costs so that their higher payed employees are not affected.

For the vast majority that are on 140k a year they are employees, and definitely do not have the power to relocate the business they work for, so you argument is a moot point.

Taxation on income is not a tax on personal wealth, it is a tax on people who get off their backside and work. Calling it a tax on personal wealth is just wrong.

CAT, CGT and LPT are taxes on personal wealth. There are a number of parties which are promising to reduce these wealth taxes, Fianna Fail being the worst of them.

Skylinehead

marieholmfan wrote: »

Of course you can. This is the absolute failure of vision that FG are burdening the country with.

How? Builders aren't going to work for less (at 65k, probably literally nothing) just because SF say so.

Not that I'm in any way a fan of FG, quite the opposite. I just don't see how this is in any way feasible.

maccored

facehugger99 wrote: »

In some ways I'd love to be stupid enough to vote SF.

It must be very comforting to be able to reduce complex matters of economy down to a placard scrawl or megaphone bellow.

you seem to be quite good at reducing politics down to pretty bad forum posts so you're doing all right

efanton wrote: »

Remember that they are building on government owned land.
The cost of a site is a very considerable cost of building a home

Surely that would be dependant on the type of homes they intended building.
I see no reason whatsoever why a social home should include big gardens and all mod cons.

Also why would you want to put a single person or young couple without children in a house? Surely flats would be more affordable and better use of the countries money and land assets.

They have stated their policy and all policies have been costed by the department of finance. I'm sure the department of finance would have shot it down immediately if their figures were off.
I'm also sure the media would jump on them immediately if there was a story in it, but they havent.

Finally have you ever though of asking them directly yourself?
Why ask here, you are only going to get opinions not detailed facts, unless they have actually released them to the media already.

I don't need to ask them I know.
If you came to me with a site for 1000 houses, I couldn't deliver you a finished 3 bed semi development on that site for 65k a house, simple as that.

Bishop of hope wrote: »

I'd wager you can't provide an example of anyone in the last 20/25 years getting a house built for that type of money, even in the midst of the recession, materials and service costs wouldn't be covered even let alone labour.

I know of people who have single homes for not very much more.

I'm not going to get into a ding dong over this. If their figures are wrong I'm sure they'll be challenged on them.

efanton

Bishop of hope wrote: »

I'd wager you can't provide an example of anyone in the last 20/25 years getting a house built for that type of money, even in the midst of the recession, materials and service costs wouldn't be covered even let alone labour.

Remember that they are building on government owned land.
The cost of a site is a very considerable cost of building a home

Surely that would be dependant on the type of homes they intended building.
I see no reason whatsoever why a social home should include big gardens and all mod cons.

Also why would you want to put a single person or young couple without children in a house? Surely flats would be more affordable and better use of the countries money and land assets.

They have stated their policy and all policies have been costed by the department of finance. I'm sure the department of finance would have shot it down immediately if their figures were off.
I'm also sure the media would jump on them immediately if there was a story in it, but they havent.

Finally have you ever though of asking them directly yourself?
Why ask here, you are only going to get opinions not detailed facts, unless they have actually released them to the media already.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Wannabe? Now I see the joke.

Sure there all as bad as each other, funny the lads on here that defend only one in particular.

McMurphy

smurgen wrote: »

Who Lowery and Bailey?

And your man Conlon up in Monaghan who slashed the lad in the bar with the broken glass.

astrofool wrote: »

New SF Slogan:
Why vote for wannabe criminals, when you can vote for actual criminals

Wannabe? Now I see the joke.

smurgen wrote: »

Who Lowery and Bailey?

Or 'loadsamoney' found guilty just today.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What difference is that info gonna make? I have no intention of telling you.
There was a considerable difference.

I'd wager you can't provide an example of anyone in the last 20/25 years getting a house built for that type of money, even in the midst of the recession, materials and service costs wouldn't be covered even let alone labour.

smurgen

astrofool wrote: »

New SF Slogan:
Why vote for wannabe criminals, when you can vote for actual criminals

Who Lowery and Bailey?

facehugger99 wrote: »

In some ways I'd love to be stupid enough to vote SF.

It must be very comforting to be able to reduce complex matters of economy down to a placard scrawl or megaphone bellow.

How many times in your life have you paid for the 'maths' of FF FG?
I'm in my mid 50's and I have, many times. Boom bust, boom bust, boom bust...etc etc etc.

I'm used to it now, so if they **** up, I won't notice much change.

astrofool

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Be a change from FF/FG criminality not on the tax payers behalf.

New SF Slogan:
Why vote for wannabe criminals, when you can vote for actual criminals

Bishop of hope wrote: »

How much and when?

What difference is that info gonna make? I have no intention of telling you.
There was a considerable difference.

marieholmfan

At €65,000 a house there will be nothing left for politicians accounts in the Cayman islands.