nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

FG to just do nothing for the next 5 years.

satguy

It seems FG will be very happy to just sit on their hands for 5 years. Would FG voters be happy with this, as it means all those FG votes mean nothing, and do nothing.

Having been in power for 9 years, they did nothing, people have no homes, people still on trollies.

FG may have given some of their rich buddies some tax breaks.

But other than that, they did what FG do best, are their poor hands not numb by now.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

frw5

The people who dont mind the situation with the housing, a question.

You think it's ok for 2 people with no children, not drug addicts, gamblers, whatever deviance you can think of - its not there, both with college degree working hard + overtime not to be able to purchase a home or to be heavily out of reach from them unless they have inheritance at disposal, disabling them from starting a family on strong legs, paying incredible rents on a year to year contracts?

I know the answer, but just want to make sure you read the damn thing.

Jinglejangle69

efanton wrote: »

How would they reduce costs?
Are you simply saying by pushing back pensions by 5 tears we save 5 years of pension cost? If that's your point yes I would agree with you. but it solves nothing, and the way its is being implemented will probably cost as much as it saves.

But what happens on the 6 year? Now you are back to square one. Only when it happens unlike those that argue for retention of the pension age of 65 who have a few decades to get funding sorted out, you would have absolutely no time to sort it out. Its not only reckless its totally idiotic.

As said before I am not convinced that any party has put a solution that would work forward. The demographic argument is an equally stupid argument to make unless we are about to have a truly ginormous baby boom in within the next decade. We could do a reverse Chinese policy, where every couple must have two additional children or face heavy fines. that how stupid that idea is.

The reality is that we are going to either have to raise taxation, or PRSI and start doing that in a hurry and ring-fence that money specifically for pensions.
But if you are going to have to do that I wonder what the difference would be then by leaving the pension age at 65, or gradually raising it as is happening till it reaches 70.

The two points I am making here is to argue any party's policy on pension is wrong while advocating another party's policy is stupid. None of the policies have any chance of working because none of them actually deal with the problem.
You can only argue another party's policy on pensions is stupid if you are equally prepared to accept the policy you are supporting is equally stupid.

The second point is there has been on proper debate on this topic, nor has the time and effort been put in to come up with a solution that works.

Personally I think the idea of raising pension ages without additional measure is down right dangerous. It benefits no one, is detrimental to many, and it will leave us as a country in a trap in a few decades time when the real baby boomers (those born in the 1960's early 70's) start claiming their pensions. Better to leave things lone, and come up with a solution that has some chance of working before adjusting anything, but that requires the issue becoming a priority which it certainly is not at the moment.

Didn't Regina try set up mandatory pensions for everyone?

[Deleted User]

frw5 wrote: »

The people who dont mind the situation with the housing, a question.

You think it's ok for 2 people with no children, not drug addicts, gamblers, whatever deviance you can think of - its not there, both with college degree working hard + overtime not to be able to purchase a home or to be heavily out of reach from them unless they have inheritance at disposal, disabling them from starting a family on strong legs, paying incredible rents on a year to year contracts?

I know the answer, but just want to make sure you read the damn thing.

That's the problem, but what's the solution ?

We were that couple back in 2004 but then you could borrow all you liked and the deposit was lower, so we did and we are halfway through our mortgage now.
The post crash banking rules changed all that.
Do you suggest we revert to more light touch banking regulation ?

Of course we could "tax the rich" more and use the money for public housing.
But in many ways the two you describe, college educated, hard working, are exactly the type that would be taxed more and thus they would have less to save for a deposit etc.

I personally think they should make it more attractive for builders to build again by giving tax breaks for residential construction this time, not commercial like before.

So what's your answer ?

frw5

frw5 wrote: »

The people who dont mind the situation with the housing, a question.

You think it's ok for 2 people with no children, not drug addicts, gamblers, whatever deviance you can think of - its not there, both with college degree working hard + overtime not to be able to purchase a home or to be heavily out of reach from them unless they have inheritance at disposal, disabling them from starting a family on strong legs, paying incredible rents on a year to year contracts?

I know the answer, but just want to make sure you read the damn thing.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

That's the problem, but what's the solution ?

We were that couple back in 2004 but then you could borrow all you liked and the deposit was lower, so we did and we are halfway through our mortgage now.
The post crash banking rules changed all that.
Do you suggest we revert to more light touch banking regulation ?

Of course we could "tax the rich" more and use the money for public housing.
But in many ways the two you describe, college educated, hard working, are exactly the type that would be taxed more and thus they would have less to save for a deposit etc.

I personally think they should make it more attractive for builders to build again by giving tax breaks for residential construction this time, not commercial like before.

So what's your answer ?

My answer would be to stop the influx of people outside of EU to the country.
Make it Switzerland like, allow people in ONLY if there is no one on the waiting list/qualified for a job inside the country.
Introduce loans that can be 100 years long with 1% interest rate, Switzerland like.
Introduce 10 year long rents for "social" housing where the gvn rents the place at break-even price + small interest and reenable the tennant to re rent the property in the following 10 years.

Introduce field regulators that would go out and inspect the properties, the amount of people living in some etc. that they are not re-rented for a higher price.

For the landlords that would be in trouble with all this not being able to break even with their investment, gvn should if they choose not to be on the market anylonger buy them out so they break even + small incentive and rent out these properties so they payoff in 60 years not 10.

etc. etc. all that would actually mean that people who did get elected work for the people who actually elected them and them ONLY.
And yes, stop treating politicians as celebrities.

And forgot to start building privately owned prisons for the % of population on the doll causing havoc, criminals, introduce prison penalties for failing to pay minimum rent in gvn housing, refusing jobs etc. Introduce fines for all this which unless paid or proven they cant be paid are compensated by prison sentence if deliberately misused.

Podge_irl

efanton wrote: »

How would they reduce costs?
Are you simply saying by pushing back pensions by 5 tears we save 5 years of pension cost? If that's your point yes I would agree with you. but it solves nothing, and the way its is being implemented will probably cost as much as it saves.

But what happens on the 6 year? Now you are back to square one.

This is spectacularly incorrect.

Pushing the pension age back by 5 years does not save you 5 years of pension costs. You do not then return to where you were in year 6. It permanently reduces the number of people of pensionable age because as it turns out, while the group of 65 year olds are waiting 5 years before their pension kicks in, quite a number of those in the pensionable bracket will be dying.

Idbatterim

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

What do you mean by “screwing the workers”.

That’s a very broad kind of statement.

Could you flesh it out a bit.

Ok. We have a fifty percent marginal rate if tax over a pittance. There is also a magic money tree here, the mid fo high income earners. A comment above mentions workers being screwed on housing, nail on the head, nearly everyone I know, needed a bail out for deposit from parents... now just imagine fir a minute, that the government didnt cream off outrageous amount of tax on a new build, or that social housing wasn't handed out for free, that we didnt have a twenty plus billion welfare bill before this crisis. There likely wouldn't have been the need for a dig out from parents. It's a banana republic! If parents cant bail you out , and you didnt have the vision to see they would eventually give away luxury housing in dundrum, donnybrook etc., you're fcuked!

James Brown

PommieBast wrote: »

Same can be said of all parties. The only difference is who they pander to and who they intend to screw over.

Looking after the tax payer and not pandering to multinationals and pals to the detriment of the tax payer would be nice.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

No I think you may have misunderstood. There was the topic, and then you said something like you like the cut of Pearse's jib.

If anyone tries to paint Pearse as someone who knows his stuff, I will point out the nonsense he has come out with over the years. Simple as that. Discuss housing till the cows come home if you want, but don't try to make a hero out of "your pension at 65" Pearse.

Not quite. I commented on the point about how our housing is advertised to business abroad and also spoke on Pearse.
You quoted me cutting out the point to concentrate on attacking Pearse. It was my same comment.
Look, we're in agreement here. You had no interest in what he was saying you just wanted to attack him.

I don't think pensioners are a burden. The state pension is the only break many people get after a lifetime of working and paying taxes. It's one of the last places we should be looking to penalize because FF/FG are so God damn awful at managing the states finances.
With all the social record breaking crises and this one getting worse over time when will FG supporters wake up to the fact FG just aren't doing a good job?

[Deleted User]

frw5 wrote: »

My answer would be to stop the influx of people outside of EU to the country.
Make it Switzerland like, allow people in ONLY if there is no one on the waiting list/qualified for a job inside the country.
Introduce loans that can be 100 years long with 1% interest rate, Switzerland like.
Introduce 10 year long rents for "social" housing where the gvn rents the place at break-even price + small interest and reenable the tennant to re rent the property in the following 10 years.

Introduce field regulators that would go out and inspect the properties, the amount of people living in some etc. that they are not re-rented for a higher price.

For the landlords that would be in trouble with all this not being able to break even with their investment, gvn should if they choose not to be on the market anylonger buy them out so they break even + small incentive and rent out these properties so they payoff in 60 years not 10.

etc. etc. all that would actually mean that people who did get elected work for the people who actually elected them and them ONLY.
And yes, stop treating politicians as celebrities.

And forgot to start building privately owned prisons for the % of population on the doll causing havoc, criminals, introduce prison penalties for failing to pay minimum rent in gvn housing, refusing jobs etc. Introduce fines for all this which unless paid or proven they cant be paid are compensated by prison sentence if deliberately misused.

So it's all down to immigrant and criminal/dole sponging bogeymen ?

Nothing else

Glad you sorted it all out.

christy c

Bowie wrote: »

Not quite. I commented on the point about how our housing is advertised to business abroad and also spoke on Pearse.
You quoted me cutting out the point to concentrate on attacking Pearse. It was my same comment.
Look, we're in agreement here. You had no interest in what he was saying you just wanted to attack him.

I don't think pensioners are a burden. The state pension is the only break many people get after a lifetime of working and paying taxes. It's one of the last places we should be looking to penalize because FF/FG are so God damn awful at managing the states finances.
With all the social record breaking crises and this one getting worse over time when will FG supporters wake up to the fact FG just aren't doing a good job?

We are partly in agreement in that I had no interest in what he said. However you praised Pearse and I pointed out how stupid he was. This was not "attacking" him, it was pointing out the obvious given the rubbish he has come out with over the years. Had you not praised him I probably wouldn't have commented.

I love the idea of a state pension, that people after contributing for 30-40 years get something back from the state. Facing the reality that the demographics are changing and we will only have 2 workers for every pensioner is not about penalising anyone however. It seems that SF and some of their supporters are taking the head in the sand approach to this.

As I said to you a couple of times, I support FG as best of a bad lot and for me to vote for them they only have to be better than the others on the ballot paper. And at the moment they are IMO.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

These are pre Covid.
Despite the above FG persist with policies that exacerbate these problems, therefore IMO, both FG and Varadkar have little regard for the Irish people.

Yes, they are pre-Covid. And we learned a few things through Covid.

A lot of those homeless suddenly found a place to go and live when the alternative was risking getting the virus. It was an eye-opener.

Ditto the way the A&E Departments emptied of chancers, drunks and hypochondriacs.

Even the frontline healthcare staff (who have since done a magnificent job) managed to up their game to clear the backlogs.

Who would have known so much could be achieved in such a short while. Meanwhile, you are stuck repeating the same old broken record.

Brendan Bendar

Idbatterim wrote: »

Ok. We have a fifty percent marginal rate if tax over a pittance. There is also a magic money tree here, the mid fo high income earners. A comment above mentions workers being screwed on housing, nail on the head, nearly everyone I know, needed a bail out for deposit from parents... now just imagine fir a minute, that the government didnt cream off outrageous amount if tax on a new build, or that social housing wasn't handed out for free, that we didnt have a twenty plus billion welfare bull before this crisis. There likely wouldn't have been the need for a dog out from parents. It's a banana republic! If parents cant bail you out , and you didnt have the vision to see they would eventually give away luxury housing in dundrum, donnybrook etc., you're fcuked!

Good answer, you, from my position are perfectly correct and give an accurate picture of the current scene.

That’s how it rolls. How was it that back in the 70s I’m told that for a couple had little difficulty financing and purchasing a nice 3 bedroom house, in a nice Dublin suburb?

In my opinion any Govt. needs, as a TOP PRIORITY, to create conditions which allow those fiscal rules as were current in the 1970s to pertain in these times as housing is currently a time bomb waiting to explode.

Has to be sorted out and shouldn’t be rocket science.

Thanks I.

Idbatterim

The endless fg supporters here , I and all my working mates and family started voting for you. If your prioritiescate rip off housing and supporting the obscene welfare state at the expense at those who's votes you seek , good luck!

Not a single vote in it from the welfare classes they covet, with your money and mine!

The piss taking here is at the top and " bottom" . I'd like to see those delusional fools living on 36k and thinking taking half your earnings over that pittance is acceptable. They probably spend that a year on fine wine...

frw5

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

So it's all down to immigrant and criminal/dole sponging bogeymen ?

Nothing else

Glad you sorted it all out.

No, but the mentioned ones are usually first in line to exploit decent solutions.
And lack of decent solutions leads to then far worse problems we witness now with larger sharks.

Bishop of hope

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, they are pre-Covid. And we learned a few things through Covid.

A lot of those homeless suddenly found a place to go and live when the alternative was risking getting the virus. It was an eye-opener.

Ditto the way the A&E Departments emptied of chancers, drunks and hypochondriacs.

Even the frontline healthcare staff (who have since done a magnificent job) managed to up their game to clear the backlogs.

Who would have known so much could be achieved in such a short while. Meanwhile, you are stuck repeating the same old broken record.

So you have evidence homeless numbers have decreased since covid began?
Let us all see it please.

major interest

efanton wrote: »

How would they reduce costs?
Are you simply saying by pushing back pensions by 5 tears we save 5 years of pension cost? If that's your point yes I would agree with you. but it solves nothing, and the way its is being implemented will probably cost as much as it saves.

But what happens on the 6 year? Now you are back to square one. Only when it happens unlike those that argue for retention of the pension age of 65 who have a few decades to get funding sorted out, you would have absolutely no time to sort it out. Its not only reckless its totally idiotic.

As said before I am not convinced that any party has put a solution that would work forward. The demographic argument is an equally stupid argument to make unless we are about to have a truly ginormous baby boom in within the next decade. We could do a reverse Chinese policy, where every couple must have two additional children or face heavy fines. that how stupid that idea is.

The reality is that we are going to either have to raise taxation, or PRSI and start doing that in a hurry and ring-fence that money specifically for pensions.
But if you are going to have to do that I wonder what the difference would be then by leaving the pension age at 65, or gradually raising it as is happening till it reaches 70.

The two points I am making here is to argue any party's policy on pension is wrong while advocating another party's policy is stupid. None of the policies have any chance of working because none of them actually deal with the problem.
You can only argue another party's policy on pensions is stupid if you are equally prepared to accept the policy you are supporting is equally stupid.

The second point is there has been on proper debate on this topic, nor has the time and effort been put in to come up with a solution that works.

Personally I think the idea of raising pension ages without additional measure is down right dangerous. It benefits no one, is detrimental to many, and it will leave us as a country in a trap in a few decades time when the real baby boomers (those born in the 1960's early 70's) start claiming their pensions. Better to leave things lone, and come up with a solution that has some chance of working before adjusting anything, but that requires the issue becoming a priority which it certainly is not at the moment.

Link to the actuarial profession’s opinion on the state pension and its sustainability going forward.
https://web.actuaries.ie/sites/default/files/story/2020/01/200127%20-%20Press%20Release%20on%20State%20Pension%20Policy%20%28Setanta%20PR%29.pdf

“The last actuarial review of the Social Welfare Fund as at the end of 2015 showed that to provide pensions at the current level, with future increases to allow for the impact of inflation, the PRSI contributions payable by and in respect of those in work would have to increase significantly in the medium and longer term. This would occur primarily as a result of improvements in life expectancy and the increase in the percentage of the population receiving the State pension. In the absence of such PRSI increases, substantial additional tax revenues would be required. This would not achieve the sustainability and equity objectives outlined above as such increases might not be affordable at that time, and could impose a significant burden on future generations.

The Society of Actuaries in Ireland has consistently stated that the most practical way to provide a sustainable and affordable pension in the long term, based on current demographic trends, is to gradually increase the State pension age, with adequate notice of changes to enable individuals, employers and Government to address the impact.”

The ratio of state pension recipients to working age employees contributing to the state pension is falling. This is resulting in an increasing deficit in paying the state pension as it currently stands. So the options are one of:
• Increase the age at which state pension becomes payable
• Increase taxes/PRSI for those in employment contributing to the state pension payments

Leaving the pension age at 66 (or reducing back to 65) does nothing to address the issue of the widening deficit. If people want a state pension in its current guise to exist into the future then it boils down to the options above and the experts are saying the most practical way of doing it is by implementing a gradual increase in pension age.

efanton

christy c wrote: »

This part is incorrect, as I have pointed out there will be savings from raising the pension age alone, but other measures will be needed. One takes the do nothing approach, the other makes a start.

I agree that adjusting the pension age is but one step towards a solution, but the problem is that it is being sold as a solution to the problem. It is no such thing.

When you start telling people the truth, you are going to have to retire later AND pay additional taxes or PRSI, how many will ask the questions, "why am I giving up pension years if I am still going to be hit with higher taxes or PRSI?' 'Why cant it be a simple tax or PRSI increase?'

Pushing back the pension age simply does not work as a solution, all it does is buy time before the problem has to be dealt with in other ways.

christy c

efanton wrote: »

I agree that adjusting the pension age is but one step towards a solution, but the problem is that it is being sold as a solution to the problem. It is no such thing.

When you start telling people the truth, you are going to have to retire later AND pay additional taxes or PRSI, how many will ask the questions, "why am I giving up pension years if I am still going to be hit with higher taxes or PRSI?' 'Why cant it be a simple tax or PRSI increase?'

Pushing back the pension age simply does not work as a solution, all it does is buy time before the problem has to be dealt with in other ways.

As has been mentioned by others, increasing the pension age permanently reduces the pension cost. People can ask whatever they like but the do nothing approach is definitely the stupidest out there.

"Why cant it be a simple tax or PRSI increase?" It can be of people want enormous increases, but doubt there will be many takers there.

And in your last paragraph, increasing the pension age is likely to be part of any solution.

blanch152

Bishop of hope wrote: »

So you have evidence homeless numbers have decreased since covid began?
Let us all see it please.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/number-of-people-homeless-falls-for-third-month-in-a-row-1.4270961

Homeless numbers down For three months in a row but still the poverty industry complains.

Podge_irl

efanton wrote: »

I agree that adjusting the pension age is but one step towards a solution, but the problem is that it is being sold as a solution to the problem. It is no such thing.

When you start telling people the truth, you are going to have to retire later AND pay additional taxes or PRSI, how many will ask the questions, "why am I giving up pension years if I am still going to be hit with higher taxes or PRSI?' 'Why cant it be a simple tax or PRSI increase?'

Pushing back the pension age simply does not work as a solution, all it does is buy time before the problem has to be dealt with in other ways.

So because it does not solve the problem entirely on its own, you want to completely ignore the fact it significantly ameliorates it? Abandoning plans to raise the retirement age is fiscally reckless in the extreme and a complete rejection of reality.

Turns out nothing will fix the problem on its own outside of outright abolishing the pension. Is that what you propose?

efanton

Podge_irl wrote: »

So because it does not solve the problem entirely on its own, you want to completely ignore the fact it significantly ameliorates it? Abandoning plans to raise the retirement age is fiscally reckless in the extreme and a complete rejection of reality.

Turns out nothing will fix the problem on its own outside of outright abolishing the pension. Is that what you propose?

No, I am not saying that.

But you know yourself how many times we have a government that throws a bone at a particular issue, and then left it at that.

If you read the reports done by the Actuaries, what they are saying is pushing back the pension age is a good first step, but only a first step. They recommend the pension age be reviewed every 5 years if the pension age is pushed back as it has been done.

My fear is simply pushing it back now, and then ignoring the issue for 5 years, will mean they yet again pushing the pension age back, and keep at that until in effect we simply do not have a pension in Ireland.

The other issue we have is no government ring-fences funds for pensions, every year pensions come out of that years government revenue. If a government was serious about addressing the looming pension problem you would think that that should be the first step. How do pension companies manage pensions, they do exactly the same thing, they put money aside, invest it in a mixture of long term and short term investments so that just enough money is released from investments each year to cover payouts.
It simply would not be feasible as a business to do it in any other way.

If the government does not want the hassle of managing a pension fund, then they should use the pension companies. At least that way we the tax payer know that our pension contributions will result in something.

theballz

I’m just happy Mary Lou and his uneducated party won’t have a strong hold on this country.

RandomViewer

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Correct cc, like when those canny canines, the dogs in the street, know that with longer life expectancy the country can’t afford the current pensions projected exposure.

Every half backed actuarial projection tells you that.

But no, Pearse, with the big lollipop head on him goes populist and ignores all that.

“Shure I’ll be lying back in Gweedore in the big 6 bedroomer with the gold plated wedge every month, before John Q Taxpayer figures out what happened”

Simple innit, Pat will always bite on the short term return.

I know where he lives, nothing fancy

Fann Linn

theballz wrote: »

I’m just happy Mary Lou and his uneducated party won’t have a strong hold on this country.

That may all change if FF/FG don't deliver.

Brendan Bendar

RandomViewer wrote: »

I know where he lives, nothing fancy

That’s now, talking years down the road, big man.

RandomViewer

Fann Linn wrote: »

That may all change if FF/FG don't deliver.

They won't, both FF and FG party members are revolting, MM going to ram through Deal without party members voting on it,
Donegal FG members are calling on elected members to reject any deal,
Greens don't know which ways up at this stage,
Election no2 on the way, FF to lose badly. MM disaster

smurgen

Ireland moved from 8th highest to 7th highest Covid deaths per million yesterday in the world. FG and the media in major spin trying to divert attention away.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/

blanch152

smurgen wrote: »

Ireland moved from 8th highest to 7th highest Covid deaths per million yesterday in the world. FG and the media in major spin trying to divert attention away.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/

How come when a statistic is comprehensively debunked and shown up to be untrue on these boards, it manages to reappear within a couple of weeks?

smurgen

blanch152 wrote: »

How come when a statistic is comprehensively debunked and shown up to be untrue on these boards, it manages to reappear within a couple of weeks?

Show the "correct" statistics. Looking forward to the correction.

blanch152

smurgen wrote: »

Show the "correct" statistics. Looking forward to the correction.

It has been done over many times. From the UK not counting nursing home deaths to the Chinese pretending that nobody has died in the last three months to the poor Afghans not having any way to count their deaths to the Brazilians pretending there isn't a virus, etc. those statistics are completely meaningless.

The only true statistic will be when you measure excess mortality in 2020 by country, as that will tell us the real picture. Initial indications show Ireland is doing really well by that statistic, but it is way too early to know. That will also address the issue of whether the Covid-19 measures killed people in other ways while saving them from the virus.

In your rush to jump on your anti-FG bandwagon, you neglected to look beyond the headline.