Is it just me or have SF vanished?

Deleted User wrote: »

Eh, that clawback applied when council housing was sold. O'Cualann houses aren't council houses but I take it you would restrict the rights of purchasers under this scheme?

20 year clawback arrangements in favour of the council (who provided the land) are already in place in the O Cualann affordable purchase units Including letting which triggers the clawback.

Like I said, do the research.

You're reflexive ideological position is that 'this can't be done' at every turn.

Yurt! wrote: »

There's already clawback schemes in place if one sells the property before a certain period of time.

http://www.housingagency.ie/housing-information/living-affordable-home

Honestly lads, do some research.

Do you wonder sometimes why you got spanked at election time at all?

Yeah, you only have to hang on in there for 10 years then you get an increasing amount of the profit to keep - and after 20 years any profit realised is yours.

That's a pretty sweet deal for someone who bought in around 2012/13

So you get your home, at a discount, raise your kids then sell up after they clear off and trouser the money as you downsize!

Also, what's to prevent the property being rented out, leased out or moved into a trust?

Or if you split the purchase price so the consideration offered/accepted is on the land, rather than the house?

Breakerz wrote: »

Dublin City Council isn't the only council which has massive rent arrears so do all councils in Dublin and nothing has been done about it for years except producing new reports showing the figures skyrocketing year on year.

Ireland won't be able to determine its own CT in the future if we want to remain in the EU. Ireland can't increase CT without some form of exodus but the current rate is unsustainable because services haven't increased with the level of population and we can't house people so something will have to give. The majority of taxes paid by these companies are payroll taxes which is unfair as it puts too much of the burden on the IT payer.

We've not gotten any better at managing the economy despite what some would lead you to believe.

CT is still under Irish control, would need a new EU referendum to change it, afaik (as we would be giving up a fundamental competency to the EU).

The balance between CT and Income tax is hard to get right, but ultimately, corporations drive employment here.

Breakerz

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's just more SF deflection. Rather than address the fact that you want to privatise State assets you just refuse to answer it. A leftwing party in favour of privatisation, another bizarre stance for SF to take.

Anyhow, What's silly about the following questions? I cut and pasted them for your ease of reference.

Do you think a small open economy like Ireland should narrow its tax base and raise corporation taxes?

Dublin City is owed 33 million euro in back rent, how would you collect it and what would you do with people who refuse to pay it?

Btw, are these the criteria you are referring to? Only applies to rental properties I think, but feel free to send me the right link.

https://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/social-housing/voluntary-and-cooperative-housing/approved-housing-bodies-ahbs

Dublin City Council isn't the only council which has massive rent arrears so do all councils in Dublin and nothing has been done about it for years except producing new reports showing the figures skyrocketing year on year.

Ireland won't be able to determine its own CT in the future if we want to remain in the EU. Ireland can't increase CT without some form of exodus but the current rate is unsustainable because services haven't increased with the level of population and we can't house people so something will have to give. The majority of taxes paid by these companies are payroll taxes which is unfair as it puts too much of the burden on the IT payer.

We've not gotten any better at managing the economy despite what some would lead you to believe.

Greyfox wrote: »

The money should be took directly from their wages or dole payments. A system like this should of been put in place years ago.

Hard to see any party endorsing taking money for rent directly from people's dole tbh.

Yurt! wrote: »

There's already clawback schemes in place if one sells the property before a certain period of time.

http://www.housingagency.ie/housing-information/living-affordable-home

Honestly lads, do some research.

Do you wonder sometimes why you got spanked at election time at all?

Eh, that clawback applied when council housing was sold. O'Cualann houses aren't council houses but I take it you would restrict the rights of purchasers under this scheme?

Greyfox

Deleted User wrote: »

Dublin City is owed 33 million euro in back rent, how would you collect it and what would you do with people who refuse to pay it?

The money should be took directly from their wages or dole payments. A system like this should of been put in place years ago.

Yurt! wrote: »

Not ars*d. You think anyone approves of not paying ones rent if they can afford to do so? Ask someone else your silly question. I'm not playing.

O Cualann are an AHB and co-operative housing body that have already constructed affordable housing for purchase. Go off and do your own research. It's not my job to spoonfeed someone in an ideological psychosis who would probably throw a tantrum and go off on one about Venezuela even if it was spelled out to them.

It's honestly not worth the effort. Your mind is made up, and honestly, I don't care about people like you. There's enough right-minded people in Ireland to talk to about workable policy than to waste time arguing with a closed mind who would deny there is a problem in the first instance.

If you lot spent as much time doing your own research and generating ideas as jumping up and down trying to playing gotcha FG might have a credible housing policy. But you don't, and that's nobodies fault but the wider culture that the party promotes.

I am asking simple policy questions and tbf, I have completely accepted Lorcan Sirr's approval of the costings etc, rather than be bothered asking why an academic disagrees with what it is actually costing DCC etc.

A simple question like the value of the land shouldn't be hard to answer. Anytime the state gives up an asset for free I would think it's the most basic question to ask, tbh.

O'Cualann (afaik) made a 5% profit on their sites, the AHB are not-for-profit, there is a discrepancy there I think anyone would want to examine, tbh. You brought up the AHB, not me.

Yurt! wrote: »

No. From memory, your questions were silly, and I wouldn't be inclined to expend any energy answering them in any case.

And the model is there for all to see (as well as the criteria for Approved Housing Body status) if you'd wish to educate yourself. I think you'd rather remain ignorant though.

FG: ideologically incapable on housing.

Do Approved Housing Bodies have directly employed labour forces capable of building the requisite number of houses and if they don't who will they contract with to get them built?

Not getting the vibe that there's a lot of spare house-building capacity out there.

Whatever the model SF choose, it simply comes back to resources and cost - if you want to build at the level they are talking about the resource pool needs to be expnded - that either means paying more (thus blowing their €6.5 billion figure) to encourage people to return to work in building and construction or importing workers from elsewhere, thus creating added demand pressures.

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

......and what's to stop purchasers re-selling at market value, or renting it out, sub-letting or leasing? Given how difficult it is to fetter property rights in Ireland,

There's already clawback schemes in place if one sells the property before a certain period of time.

http://www.housingagency.ie/housing-information/living-affordable-home

Honestly lads, do some research.

Do you wonder sometimes why you got spanked at election time at all?

Deleted User wrote: »

It's just more SF deflection. Rather than address the fact that you want to privatise State assets you just refuse to answer it. A leftwing party in favour of privatisation, another bizarre stance for SF to take.

Anyhow, What's silly about the following questions? I cut and pasted them for your ease of reference.

Do you think a small open economy like Ireland should narrow its tax base and raise corporation taxes?

Dublin City is owed 33 million euro in back rent, how would you collect it and what would you do with people who refuse to pay it?

Btw, are these the criteria you are referring to? Only applies to rental properties I think, but feel free to send me the right link.

https://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/social-housing/voluntary-and-cooperative-housing/approved-housing-bodies-ahbs

Not ars*d. You think anyone approves of not paying ones rent if they can afford to do so? Ask someone else your silly question. I'm not playing.

O Cualann are an AHB and co-operative housing body that have already constructed affordable housing for purchase. Go off and do your own research. It's not my job to spoonfeed someone in an ideological psychosis who would probably throw a tantrum and go off on one about Venezuela even if it was spelled out to them.

It's honestly not worth the effort. Your mind is made up, and honestly, I don't care about people like you. There's enough right-minded people in Ireland to talk to about workable policy than to waste time arguing with a closed mind who would deny there is a problem in the first instance.

If you lot spent as much time doing your own research and generating ideas as jumping up and down trying to playing gotcha FG might have a credible housing policy. But you don't, and that's nobodies fault but the wider culture that the party promotes.

Yurt! wrote: »

Except the proposed model isn't to give it away to developers to practice arbitrage, which would be madness.

It is handed over to approved housing bodies who will construct affordable housing for sale at more or less cost of construction.

Way to miss the point, again. Fine Gael will simply never crack housing, ever.

......and what's to stop purchasers re-selling at market value, or renting it out, sub-letting or leasing? Given how difficult it is to fetter property rights in Ireland,

Yurt! wrote: »

No. From memory, your questions were silly, and I wouldn't be inclined to expend any energy answering them in any case.

And the model is there for all to see (as well as the criteria for Approved Housing Body status) if you'd wish to educate yourself. I think you'd rather remain ignorant though.

FG: ideologically incapable on housing.

It's just more SF deflection. Rather than address the fact that you want to privatise State assets you just refuse to answer it. A leftwing party in favour of privatisation, another bizarre stance for SF to take.

Anyhow, What's silly about the following questions? I cut and pasted them for your ease of reference.

Do you think a small open economy like Ireland should narrow its tax base and raise corporation taxes?

Dublin City is owed 33 million euro in back rent, how would you collect it and what would you do with people who refuse to pay it?

Btw, are these the criteria you are referring to? Only applies to rental properties I think, but feel free to send me the right link.

https://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/social-housing/voluntary-and-cooperative-housing/approved-housing-bodies-ahbs

Deleted User wrote: »

What's the value of the land you want to give away for free?

SF are talking about scaling up from 50 units to 10,000 units immediately, where do you think these approved bodies are going to come from? What's to stop a developer from applying to be an approved body? What % profit should these approved bodies be allowed make?

And can you answer the other two questions I asked two days ago?

No. From memory, your questions were silly, and I wouldn't be inclined to expend any energy answering them in any case.

And the model is there for all to see (as well as the criteria for Approved Housing Body status) if you'd wish to educate yourself. I think you'd rather remain ignorant though.

FG: ideologically incapable on housing.

Yurt! wrote: »

Except the proposed model isn't to give it away to developers to practice arbitrage, which would be madness.

It is handed over to approved housing bodies who will construct affordable housing for sale at more or less cost of construction.

Way to miss the point, again. Fine Gael will simply never crack housing, ever.

What's the value of the land you want to give away for free?

SF are talking about scaling up from 50 units to 10,000 units immediately, where do you think these approved bodies are going to come from? What's to stop a developer from applying to be an approved body? What % profit should these approved bodies be allowed make?

And can you answer the other two questions I asked two days ago?

Deleted User wrote: »

Pretty much, like if FG decided to give away 30,000 houses worth of land to developers for free it would be decried by some on here as the privatisation of public resources.

Except the proposed model isn't to give it away to developers to practice arbitrage, which would be madness.

It is handed over to approved housing bodies who will construct affordable housing for sale at more or less cost of construction.

Way to miss the point, again. Fine Gael will simply never crack housing, ever.

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

Sending out a tweet is now making a "song and dance"?

So what? He chose to emphasise one part of the commemoration - I'm guessing if he didn't tweet you'd be commenting adversely on that, and if he tweeted about some other part of it, you'd comment adversely on that

Pretty much, like if FG decided to give away 30,000 houses worth of land to developers for free it would be decried by some on here as the privatisation of public resources.

all about the mane

smurgen wrote: »

Ah so you're just defending a false narrative.Glad we cleared that up. Continue!

I'm not defending anything. i'm just laughing at your hissy fit.:D

smurgen wrote: »

The Tricolour is on the GPO but that's not what Leo made a song and dance about on twitter is it?

Sending out a tweet is now making a "song and dance"?

So what? He chose to emphasise one part of the commemoration - I'm guessing if he didn't tweet you'd be commenting adversely on that, and if he tweeted about some other part of it, you'd comment adversely on that

smurgen

all about the mane wrote: »

You're the one making a song and dance. :D:D

Ah so you're just defending a false narrative.Glad we cleared that up. Continue!

all about the mane

smurgen wrote: »

The Tricolour is on the GPO but that's not what Leo made a song and dance about on twitter is it?

You're the one making a song and dance.

:D:D

smurgen

markodaly wrote: »

Oh look, its the Irish version of Alex Jones.

The Tricolour is on the GPO but that's not what Leo made a song and dance about on twitter is it?

markodaly

smurgen wrote: »

Why does Lieo have an alternative flag for Easter?What has the U.N got to do with Easter?

Oh look, its the Irish version of Alex Jones.

smurgen wrote: »

Why does Lieo have an alternative flag for Easter?What has the U.N got to do with Easter?

https://twitter.com/LeoVaradkar/status/1249278839466983424?s=19

Yurt! wrote: »

Lol. Expecting canvassers to be aut fait with grain subsidy policy. How well do think the average FG canvasser would fare on your pop quiz?

Not at all, but I'd expect canvassers to know the difference between a livestock and tillage holding - it's not that they look totally different, they even smell totally different.

Lol. Expecting canvassers to be aut fait with grain subsidy policy. How well do think the average FG canvasser would fare on your pop quiz?

Deleted User wrote: »

Meh lookit,some of us obviously have/require higher/basic standreds for evidence/proof and thats ok too....just seems hypocritical to sneer at shinners for being poor at maths,while running with uncalibrated graphs to indulge said sneering

But everyone is entitled to their view/way of doing things i guess

So how does one "calibrate" a graph?

And it's not just maths SF are bad at - some of their bright young things called to canvass my father-in-law on his farm.......and proceeded with their spiel about SF and agriculture.....which was all centred on beef and dairy farming......they didn't realise they were on a tillage holding and when he asked about grain supports they were, to say the least, perplexed!

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out what an "uncalibrated" graph is?

Do you mean to say that the axes of the graph that showed that SF TDs own (or have an interest in) land to a greater degree than any other party, was scaled in relativities or indices rather than in absolutes?

Again, nothing wrong with that - for example, dose / response curves are often specified using such techniques as it aids understanding, likewise a lot of economic data is specified relative a fixed base and expressed as an index.

Anyway, another poster was citing Lorcan Sirr, (lecturer in housing studies and urban economics with DIT/TU-Dublin) because he, to a degree, endorsed SF's housing policy proposals - it seems Sirr's bona fides have not permeated fully through the Shinner-verse.

Meh lookit,some of us obviously have/require higher/basic standreds for evidence/proof and thats ok too....just seems hypocritical to sneer at shinners for being poor at maths,while running with uncalibrated graphs to indulge said sneering

But everyone is entitled to their view/way of doing things i guess