hmmm wrote: » SF's plan to fill the place with council housing estates isn't the answer. We tried that before and it was a disaster, it's not going to be different this time. What needs to happen is reform of the planning system, remove the influence of NIMBYs and other objectors, and build where people want to live. The demand is there, the supply isn't.
cnocbui wrote: » The furore I caused a year or so ago when I first suggested that. I was told to get lost. Not to mention the utter incongruity of full blown farm backing onto DCU. Only in Ireland.
HansKroenke wrote: » I think the better solution is to get rid of golf clubs inside the M50 and use that land for parks and housing / new villages within Dublin.
PropQueries wrote: » I don't think that argument washes anymore, if it ever did IMO. The DLR council was very happy to rent all the apartments at Herbert Hill in Dundrum for 100% social housing. It seems that developments comprising 100% social housing are now only acceptable if there's a fund at the end collecting the inflated rents that the local councils (on my behalf and at my cost) have signed up for IMO
Cyrus wrote: » the people in early to mid 20s didnt take the pain though.
CorkRed93 wrote: » Not really on subject but wanting to ask. Do you/anyone see over short-med term that interest rates rise again?
Brussels Sprout wrote: » Depends on what type of of pain you're referring to. They didn't get caught with Celtic Tiger mortgages like a lot of people in their 40s and they didn't have to emigrate like a lot of people in their 30s had to . Many of them are in a situation though where they're finding it impossible to move out of home due to a combination of extortionate rents and low paid jobs despite, on average, being more educated than previous generations. With Covid they can't even emigrate so they're stuck.
schmittel wrote: » Not as accountable as they used to be! (by their superiors)
PropQueries wrote: » Any pain my generation went through was 100% caused by my generation. So don't feel sorry for us IMO The generation before me went through a lot of hardship. My generation took everything offered to us and blew it. It's not the people in their teens, 20s, 30s or 40s fault so they should start demanding reductions in our pensions and all other benefits we receive but never paid or paid very little into the system for. While it may sound weird me advocating for this. I believe the longer this nonsense persists, the more that's going to be taken from my generation through pension cuts, loss of services etc. I'd rather go through that now than in my 80s when I've no fight left in me IMO
MacronvFrugals wrote: » The 8.21 billion we spend each year on pensions, is that just the state pension or? i'm assuming its nothing to with private pensions so things like public sector teachers etc?
cnocbui wrote: » Not to mention the utter incongruity of full blown farm backing onto DCU. Only in Ireland.
Geuze wrote: » That is State Pensions, and excludes PS pensions.
MacronvFrugals wrote: » Thanks Geuze That's extraordinary i always thought public sector must be included in that figure. This figure is just all the over 66s getting 248 euro a week is it?
MacronvFrugals wrote: » This figure is just all the over 66s getting 248 euro a week is it?
Speaking at this afternoon’s PAC hearing, chair of the National Paediatric Health Development Board (NPHDB) David Gunning spoke in stark terms of the difficulties that the board has experienced, in its view, while dealing with the principal contractor on the €1.7bn budgeted project BAM. Mr Gunning said that the “lack of advancement” in the project is attributable due to “under-resourcing on the project by the main contractor”. He said that at the end of 2019, the project had progressed 8.5% through its construction plan when it should have progressed 22%. More than €300m in additional claims have been received from the contractor, he said, with the board deafening each of those “robustly”.
PropQueries wrote: » As far as I know, it does indeed include the public sector pensions from an article I read a while ago. So, about half of this annual pension bill goes to the civil servant/public sector pensioners. Open to correction on this one though. If it doesn't, then the annual unfunded pension bill is far more scarier than I thought. I'll try find the right article, but this below article states that the cost of public sector pensions in 2018 was €3.6 billion in 2018. So near enough half the total spend. Link to Irish Times article here: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/cost-of-public-sector-pensions-surges-to-150-billion-1.4437809
Timing belt wrote: » 635k x 248 x52 = 8.2bn
Geuze wrote: » The above is false.
Geuze wrote: » The 8bn is broken down as follows:https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/02f594-annual-sws-statistical-information-report/https://assets.gov.ie/86167/66194a05-82f8-480f-8be0-4350e1218a62.pdf 2019 data SP contributory = 5.6 bn Widows/widowers = 1.6 Non-con = 1bn
PropQueries wrote: » So, the real annual state pensions bill is c. €10 billion per year?
Geuze wrote: » Give me a few mins.
PropQueries wrote: » So, by 2025, if the state and public sector pensions are added together, we're probably talking about an annual spend of c. €13 - €15 billion per year by 2025.
Geuze wrote: » Yes, correct. To give you an idea of the scale we are talking about, with no annual increase in the SP contributory, expenditure rises by 200m anyways, due to numbers and ageing. Bear in mind that FF and SF want to add 5 per week / 260 pa, on top of that, every year. (550,000)(260pa) = 143m for the rate increase