MICA - Who should pay?

29-06-2021 11:28pm #1

The bill to rebuild the 5,000 houses that are falling apart due to mica will come to close to €5,000,000,000 or possibly more when everything is finished.

The people who own these houses are demanding the taxpayer pay for these houses to be rebuilt.

This will be a cost to each person in Ireland of approx €1,000.

There is no insurance. The company that supplied the blocks have assets that wouldn't even cover 1% of the cost.

Some of these houses are modest and some of these houses are large 5 bed houses. They want all of these houses to be fully rebuilt and the cost to be assumed 100% by all of us.

Are you willing to pay possibly €1,000 each in taxes for every man, woman and child in Ireland to build someone a huge house because the company that supplied the blocks doesn't have the money to do it?

If you just take the number of people who work full time the cost to each of these people will be about €2,500 to fix this problem as the other people in the country wouldn't be contributing much if any tax on their income.

At the moment they are not willing to take a smaller house paid for by the taxpayer, they want exactly what they built originally and they want us to pay for it.

I'm concerned as at the moment we are the country with the highest debt per capita in Europe and someone is demanding that we build them a large house because a quarry in Donegal supplied bad blocks and pay whatever it takes to build these houses.

The government offered them €222,750 [90% x €247,500] towards the cost of demo and rebuilding their houses and they have said no, they want 100% of whatever it will cost to rebuild their house.

Nobody has explained to me, a taxpayer, why I should contribute towards more than the €222,750 offered by the government which I think is very generous considering I don't think that they taxpayer has any liability in this case and any contribution is a gift rather than an obligation when we are already heavily in debt.

Vote in the poll.

McDermotX · 29-06-2021 11:30pm

Not me anyway

Not my fault

Swindled · 29-06-2021 11:36pm

whatnow! wrote: »

The bill to rebuild the 5,000 houses that are falling apart due to mica will come to close to €5,000,000,000 or possibly more when everything is finished.

A million € per house ? Nope. No one is looking for that.

whatnow! wrote: »

The bill to rebuild the 5,000 houses that are
The people who own these houses are demanding the taxpayer pay for these houses to be rebuilt.

They are demanding no such thing. After years of these home owning taxpayers pursuing those responsible, the state has had to step in, as only the state now has the powers needed to sort this emergency and hopefully get money back for the taxpayer from the sectors and industry responsible. The victims of this are taxpayers as well and want proper justice and measures put in place to ensure this never happens other homeowners and taxpayers as well.

whatnow! wrote: »

Some of these houses are modest and some of these houses are large 5 bed houses. They want all of these houses to be fully rebuilt and the cost to be assumed 100% by all of us.

No they want what they paid for, nothing more, nothing less, and they want this to stop happening.

yenom · 29-06-2021 11:37pm

The fella that caused the problem is still working. He'd be the right candidate.

Swindled · 29-06-2021 11:39pm

whatnow! wrote: »

Are you willing to pay possibly €1,000 each in taxes for every man, woman and child in Ireland to build someone a huge house because the company that supplied the blocks doesn't have the money to do it?

If you just take the number of people who work full time the cost to each of these people will be about €2,500 to fix this problem as the other people in the country wouldn't be contributing much if any tax on their income.

At the moment they are not willing to take a smaller house paid for by the taxpayer, they want exactly what they built originally and they want us to pay for it.

I'm concerned as at the moment we are the country with the highest debt per capita in Europe and someone is demanding that we build them a large house because a quarry in Donegal supplied bad blocks and pay whatever it takes to build these houses.

The government offered them €222,750 [90% x €247,500] towards the cost of demo and rebuilding their houses and they have said no, they want 100% of whatever it will cost to rebuild their house.

Nobody has explained to me, a taxpayer, why I should contribute towards more than the €222,750 offered by the government which I think is very generous considering I don't think that they taxpayer has any liability in this case and any contribution is a gift rather than an obligation when we are already heavily in debt.

Vote in the poll.

None of us taxpayers want this, we want safe secure houses and the state to properly police the mass production of critical structural materials, and enforce the existing standards and regulations properly, and ensure these manufacturers are not allowed to operate without any regard to the standards or having any insurance. If not this is going to keep on happening all over Ireland. Blaming and penalising the victims won't prevent this in future.

29-06-2021 11:44pm

The state failed the homeowners by lack of enforcement of regulations.

Ultimately that's were fault lies. The top of the tree.

Pretty much like they failed in other sectors.

NiceFella · 29-06-2021 11:48pm

When you think of the pirite issues that happened just a few years before you have to ask what is the government about? Not much if we are honest. Who is maintaining standards?

Another question is why isn't there more discussion into criminality on this issue? At the end of the day malpractice in construction be it in materials used or design can lead to fatalities.

If the government had any common sense they would pursue criminal charges and you would bet every quarry up and down the country will have the correct proportions of raw materials in there products.

As for who should pay? Well ask yourself what you would say if your gaf just fell apart one night.

Swindled · 29-06-2021 11:48pm

The OP tried this slant on two other threads, and opened another new thread on the politics forum about the exact same thing.
He didn't get the responses he wanted there either.

circadian · 29-06-2021 11:55pm

I'd love to know where the op pulled €5 billion from.

Regulation failed to prevent this from happening. Either through poor enforcement or poor regulations. Either way, the state failed to protect it's citizens from harm in a scenario that could have been avoided.

I believe the state should do everything in its power the remediate the issue for these people and to resolve finances with the quarry in question afterwards, liquidating any assets required if deemed fair in court.

overshoot · 29-06-2021 11:56pm

whatnow! wrote: »

Nobody has explained to me, a taxpayer, why I should contribute towards more than the €222,750 offered by the government which I think is very generous considering I don't think that they taxpayer has any liability in this case and any contribution is a gift rather than an obligation when we are already heavily in debt.

Vote in the poll.

You've been explained to repeatedly on the thread in the Donegal forum you just didn't like the answers. Now it seems you're just spamming across boards with the same topic and vote opened in politics a few hours ago. I'm guessing because you didn't like the red c poll that found 70% nationally in favour of full redress so you're trying to find a snapshot poll amongst a tighter audience that subscribes to your views?

luketitz · 29-06-2021 11:56pm

The victims here are taxpayers, families and ordinary decent folk, looking for something that any homeowner should be entitled to reasonably expect from the biggest financial commitment of their lives, why shouldn't they be fully compensated for their losses?

If you were in their shoes, would you settle for a 90% 'gift' or push for a full atonement for the damage done?

It's scandalous that it ever came to this, but the buck stops with the govt who were caught on the hop yet again and I'd rather my tax bill help these ordinary folks than bailing out bankers, not that I get to dictate what it's spent on.

30-06-2021 12:10am

Swindled wrote: »

The OP tried this slant on two other threads, and opened another new thread on the politics forum about the exact same thing.
He didn't get the responses he wanted there either.

The first was in the Donegal forum in a thread of people who have been affected and I wanted to hear their opinion as it's important to hear from those affected.

The second one is in the politics forum. The majority of people are against paying 100% there. It's a very clear distinction once you remove anybody directly affected by mica.

In both threads Swindled argued with everyone who didn't agree to pay 100% and basically accuses everyone of victim blaming despite nobody blaming the victims at all.

Now he is here. I advise you not to engage with him as he won't make sense and will keep demanding 100% and making irrelevant statements. He will say things like there is a cap on costs but his idea of a cap is whatever the builder charges.

Avoid for the sake of your sanity:)

30-06-2021 12:11am

Where is the CIF, how is there no insurance?

30-06-2021 12:12am

overshoot wrote: »

You've been explained to repeatedly on the thread in the Donegal forum you just didn't like the answers. Now it seems you're just spamming across boards with the same topic and vote opened in politics a few hours ago. I'm guessing because you didn't like the red c poll that found 70% nationally in favour of full redress so you're trying to find a snapshot poll amongst a tighter audience that subscribes to your views?

There was no explanation. There was something about restorative justice which is something I think someone got off TV and which they don't really understand.

So far in this poll the majority of people don't want to pay 100%.

If you don't want to explain it to me but perhaps you would explain it to them why you are demanding they pay 100% of the cost to rebuild your house?

It should be a quick easy and concise answer. People don't want to spend their time arguing with people who want their money but can't explain to them why but they are voting in the poll and it's clear where they stand.

30-06-2021 12:16am

luketitz wrote: »

the buck stops with the govt who were caught on the hop yet again.

Interested to have this teased out a bit.

Which govt?

How were they caught on the hop?

How was it yet again?

If this was some sort of predictable occurrence you mightve given them a heads up.

If not, then the above is only so much cant

Melanchthon · 30-06-2021 12:18am

Should pay the costs of 100% of structural repairs. They should also investigate corruption in the country council

30-06-2021 12:19am

Melanchthon wrote: »

Should pay the costs of 100% of structural repairs. They should also investigate corruption in the country council

It's really not a repair job, they have to be knocked and built from scratch.

Swindled · 30-06-2021 12:21am

whatnow! wrote: »

The first was in the Donegal forum in a thread of people who have been affected and I wanted to hear their opinion as it's important to hear from those affected.

The second one is in the politics forum. The majority of people are against paying 100% there. It's a very clear distinction once you remove anybody directly affected by mica.

In both threads Swindled argued with everyone who didn't agree to pay 100% and basically accuses everyone of victim blaming despite nobody blaming the victims at all.

Now he is here. I advise you not to engage with him as he won't make sense and will keep demanding 100% and making irrelevant statements. He will say things like there is a cap on costs but his idea of a cap is whatever the builder charges.

Avoid for the sake of your sanity:)

Again this is untrue as has been pointed out in all the other forums.

People are entitled to have whatever opinion they want, the only thing I and others effected have issue with, is anyone making false claims about the homeowners effected, the circumstances, the scheme, and what the effected homeowners actually want. Spam as much as you like. All your false allegations above were also dealt with on the other threads.

30-06-2021 12:22am

To put this in context Swindled will argue with you to your heart's content but what he will not do is explain to you in a calm and clear manner why you should pay to rebuild his house.

quokula · 30-06-2021 12:24am

If my car was robbed and I wasn’t insured and the vehicle was never recovered, it wouldn’t be up to the state to buy me a new car. Even though I could sit here and blame the state for not having enough Garda on patrol to stop my car being stolen.

This is the same - the people responsible should be made to pay up as much as is physically possible, but there is no reason for tax payers to pick up the rest of the tab. Just because the state failed to proactively stop private citizens doing something wrong in time, doesn’t make the state wholly responsible to reimburse the victims - frankly that sets a dangerous precedent that could be applied to literally any form of fraud or robbery that ever occurs on the island becoming the taxpayer’s responsibility somehow.

When you make a purchase you should be doing your own due diligence and making sure you get what you pay for, and have insurance if you need it.

Swindled · 30-06-2021 12:25am

whatnow! wrote: »

To put this in context Swindled will argue with you to your heart's content but what he will not do is explain to you in a calm and clear manner why you should pay to rebuild his house.

That's because they should not have to pay, nor should any taxpayer, the state should have done it's job, they didn't now the state has to step in due to the emergency caused, and should recover as many of the costs involved for the taxpayers from the parties, industries and sectors actually responsible.
Also this is going to happen other homeowners in Ireland all over again, until the state start enforcing the legislation they are supposed to.

Swindled · 30-06-2021 12:29am

quokula wrote: »

If my car was robbed and I wasn’t insured and the vehicle was never recovered, it wouldn’t be up to the state to buy me a new car.

The manufacturer of the structural concrete blocks was the one not insured and allowed to operate for years, and still allow to operate without any state regulations being enforced. Other manufacturers are at the same.
They are still supplying the exact same blocks to the state from the same quarry for social housing construction as we speak.
They were recently granted a 25 year planning permission to the quarry in question, despite being in breach of their current planning conditions.

30-06-2021 12:31am

Swindled wrote: »

That's because they should not have to pay, nor should any taxpayer, the state should have done it's job, they didn't now the state has to step in due to the emergency caused, and should recover as many of the costs involved for the taxpayers from the parties, industries and sectors actually responsible.
Also this is going to happen other homeowners in Ireland all over again, until the state start enforcing the legislation they are supposed to.

There is nobody to recoup the costs from beyond possibly 1% at most from the quarries so tell the good people who you expect to pay to rebuild your house as we are the state. The government will take the money from us to give to you.

quokula · 30-06-2021 12:34am

Swindled wrote: »

The manufacturer of the structural concrete blocks was the one not insured and allowed to operate for years without any state regulations being enforced.
They are still supplying the exact same blocks to the state from the same quarry for social housing construction as we speak.

And if the person who stole my car was allowed to operate, as you put it, by not being caught (which is the reality here, the state want colluding in anything, they simply weren’t aware this was happening), then you’d be happy to pay extra tax to pay for my new car right?

Or more to the point, to pay for a new car, new jewellery, new tv etc for literally everyone in the country who has ever been a victim of a crime where the perpetrator was either not caught or did not have the means to give back what was taken?

I just don’t see how this is different in any way. The regulation argument could be applied equally to say if only there were more gardai there would never be any robberies. The state is not omnipotent and can’t always catch wrongdoings before they happen.

30-06-2021 12:35am

whatnow! wrote: »

To put this in context Swindled will argue with you to your heart's content but what he will not do is explain to you in a calm and clear manner why you should pay to rebuild his house.

.

quokula · 30-06-2021 12:37am

Swindled wrote: »

Also this is going to happen other homeowners in Ireland all over again, until the state start enforcing the legislation they are supposed to.

That is an entirely separate point. If anything, the knowledge of the existence of a safety net where any victim will always be reimbursed by the taxpayer would only encourage this behaviour rather than deter it.

The people responsible should absolutely be held to account, but that has nothing to do with people who weren’t responsible paying reimbursement.

Potential-Monke · 30-06-2021 12:42am

I'm on the no pay at all side. This isn't my fault. It's not your fault. It's a private companies fault, and yes, the government are partly to blame for not ensuring this company was up to spec, but it's not their fault and shouldn't have to pay for that company doing this, their oversight failed but the oversight is humongous and probably not properly staffed. Yeah, if it was me it would suck, but I would have taken the 90% and downsized, not expect a brand new exact same spec house for free. It's madness. As quokola says above, this sets a terrible precedent and it will snowball from here if it's fully paid for. I even think 90% was too much, 50% at most I will begrudgingly accept but still give out stink about. The full cost of knocking and rebuilding? Feck off.

Not only am I paying for people to have pregnancy cover on their health insurance cheaper (me, a male, has pregnancy cover by default which can't be removed, so it makes it cheaper for other people who decide to have a child), paying for "4eva homes" for the can't work/won't work crowd, and now paying for private individuals houses in a province I'll probably never go to?!

Meanwhile;
Dear Mr. Government, can I have some additional mental health cover please?
NO! Pay for it yourself, you work!
But I'm single and make less than the Government approved Minimum Standards of Living wage, I can't afford it.
BE LUCKY YOU HAVE A JOB AND PAY YOUR GODDAMN TAXES!

Fair country in fairness...

luketitz · 30-06-2021 12:43am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Interested to have this teased out a bit.

Which govt?

How were they caught on the hop?

How was it yet again?

If this was some sort of predictable occurrence you mightve given them a heads up.

If not, then the above is only so much cant

Which govt?

- The Irish Government, specifically the office(s) tasked with upholding building standards across multiple generations.

How were they caught on the hop?

- They failed to learn from previous errors or enforce licensed contractor compliance with some basic tenets of the aforementioned building standards.

How was it yet again?

- Lessons not learned from various Pyrite scandals, I would posit as one of many such examples of governmental ineptitude.

If this was some sort of predictable occurrence you mightve given them a heads up.

- I've only recently learnt of this situation, as an ordinary (empathetic) member of the public. Had my role been to uphold some checks and balances in relation to national building standards, I'd likely have been better positioned to do so.

If not, then the above is only so much cant

- Not sure what that means.

Swindled · 30-06-2021 12:48am

quokula wrote: »

And if the person who stole my car was allowed to operate, as you put it, by not being caught (which is the reality here, the state want colluding in anything, they simply weren’t aware this was happening), then you’d be happy to pay extra tax to pay for my new car right?

Or more to the point, to pay for a new car, new jewellery, new tv etc for literally everyone in the country who has ever been a victim of a crime where the perpetrator was either not caught or did not have the means to give back what was taken?

I just don’t see how this is different in any way. The regulation argument could be applied equally to say if only there were more gardai there would never be any robberies. The state is not omnipotent and can’t always catch wrongdoings before they happen.

Unfortunately isn't some mystery burglary that you can claim off your house insurance, or the motor insurance bureau of Ireland for damages and injuries caused by uninsured drivers.

Can you explain why a manufacturer of critical structural materials is allowed to operate without any product liability insurance on a massive scale producing defective materials for years for an entire region, without any enforcement of the state regulations whatsoever ? and is still allowed to do so ? and is still supplying the state with blocks for social housing ? And is recently able to get a renewed planning permission for the quarry in question for another 25 years, despite all their planning breaches ? Of course the taxpayer should not be picking up the tab for this.

Swindled · 30-06-2021 12:52am

quokula wrote: »

That is an entirely separate point. If anything, the knowledge of the existence of a safety net where any victim will always be reimbursed by the taxpayer would only encourage this behaviour rather than deter it.

The people responsible should absolutely be held to account, but that has nothing to do with people who weren’t responsible paying reimbursement.

The victims who are taxpayers as well are not responsible either, and the fact is the perpetrator and those responsible are not being held to account in any way, that's the cause and issue, and until it's prevented it's going to happen other homeowners on a massive scale elsewhere in Ireland.

30-06-2021 12:52am

Don't fall for it, he will drag you down the rabbit hole;)

30-06-2021 12:53am

whatnow! wrote: »

To put this in context Swindled will argue with you to your heart's content but what he will not do is explain to you in a calm and clear manner why you should pay to rebuild his house.

.

FoFo1254122 · 30-06-2021 12:53am

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/it-s-a-disgrace-anger-in-thurles-as-traveller-homes-dispute-goes-to-court-1.3949521

there are people in ireland who have never worked a day in their life, yet get housed, fed, clothed and all the rest on our backs. they are parasites.

now take these people who worked hard and bought their houses and through no fault of their own their houses are falling apart in front of their eyes.
i hope they do get their houses re built and every euro spent on these houses means less money available for forever homes for the work shy and the scum

Swindled · 30-06-2021 12:56am

whatnow! wrote: »

Don't fall for it, he will drag you down the rabbit hole;)

There's no rabbit hole, just false allegations about the homeowners, and the real actual facts about the circumstances, the Mica scandal, and the scheme.

30-06-2021 1:00am

FoFo1254122 wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/it-s-a-disgrace-anger-in-thurles-as-traveller-homes-dispute-goes-to-court-1.3949521

there are people in ireland who have never worked a day in their life, yet get housed, fed, clothed and all the rest on our backs. they are parasites.

now take these people who worked hard and bought their houses and through no fault of their own their houses are falling apart in front of their eyes.
i hope they do get their houses re built and every euro spent on these houses means less money available for forever homes for the work shy and the scum

Quite a few of those that fall into that category have children and you don't put children into foster care in Ireland unless the parents are a danger to the kids, you give the kids a home and by extension the parents.

In other circumstances a wife leaves with the kids because she is being beaten.

Anyway, regardless of whether or not the government pay the mica bill it won't affect social housing throughout the country, it will just add the cost on to our national debt.

30-06-2021 1:02am

Swindled wrote: »

There's no rabbit hole, just false allegations about the homeowners, and the real actual facts about the circumstances, the Mica scandal, and the scheme.

Why should the taxpayer pay 100% of the cost to build you a new house?

StupidLikeAFox · 30-06-2021 1:07am

Firstly, your calculations don't factor in that we could take out a loan and finance over many years. Its a once off cost, meaning that while it sounds massive its actually e a pittance in the grand scheme of things. You mention a cost of 2500e per head, we'll if that was financed over 20 years it is literally nothing

Secondly, the government should pay for the whole lot, for the simple reason that it's the right thing to do. None of these taxpayers set out to defraud anybody, they just wanted a house over their heads and did the right thing - worked hard, saved, got mortgages etc etc, and through no fault of their own find themselves homeless and in massive debt.

The blame for this undoubtedly lies with the block manufacturers. They should be punished, and regulations tightened to ensure adequate testing of blocks in future, but let's face it they will never afford to fix this issue. The only people who can afford to finance a redress scheme is the government

In a civilised country this is the type of bailout that the government can both afford and should be underwriting, on behalf of a large chunk of their citizens. Its a safety net that should be available to all of us if we ever end up in a similar situation, through no fault of our own

Swindled · 30-06-2021 1:07am

whatnow! wrote: »

Why should the taxpayer pay 100% of the cost to build you a new house?

As has been answered many times on many of your threads, they should not.
Suppliers of critical structural materials should be properly insured, and such suppliers should be properly inspected by the state, and the existing legislation regarding critical structural materials should be enforced, but it has not been, and is not being enforced as we speak.
The house owners effected, who are full taxpayers as well, have tried every other avenue without success and the state has had to step in to this emergency situation. The state should obtain as much money back as possible for the taxpayer, just like they have tried to do in other such scandals.

overshoot · 30-06-2021 1:09am

whatnow! wrote: »

There was no explanation. There was something about restorative justice which is something I think someone got off TV and which they don't really understand.

So far in this poll the majority of people don't want to pay 100%.

If you don't want to explain it to me but perhaps you would explain it to them why you are demanding they pay 100% of the cost to rebuild your house?

It should be a quick easy and concise answer.

I'm not demanding anything, I'm not a homeowner so less of the "your" house please and I'll give you whatever answer I feel like. Easy and concise, as if it's a simple issue. You're attitude says it all there

As I said you didn't like the results of a nationwide red C poll so you jumping on a snapshot of 20 people fully backs up my point that you're just searching for a snapshot to "back you", and let's face it the long winded opening post is designed to role people to a no vote... So you talk of "skewed pole" in politics, it's clear that's what you want.

You're also talking about a lack of understanding but you clearly fail to see how a government works on a social scale for its people.

I could just as easily say though why am I paying for the bank bailout? I had nothing in the bank at that time, but I understand the cost of not doing it would have been worse.
Why did the people of Dublin & Leinster get 100% redress for pyrite, and to be clear this is rental and other ancillary costs inclusive while mica is offered 90% of construction costs only?
I'm an architect and have almost 1000 social and affordable houses on my desk in county Dublin now in just 2 projects, Why should I be paying for that? I can't even afford my own place? (Rhetorical)

The NSAI was set up to establish standards, why hasn't local authorities building control been implementing these and seeking proof of compliance? (Because they have no staff frankly, back when I worked in Donegal I even got told I was uploading too much information to the bcar/commencement notice system and that Dublin would be onto them!)

You're aware cassidys the block supplier have been pursued and had no insurance so there is no pot there for the works. This is where the fault and costs should lie but this is where you end up when a hands off approach is taken to standards

These people have paid their taxes, built their homes to see them crumble through no fault of their own, cassidys weren't even the cheapest blocks around as I'm sure you noted on the Donegal thread. The state has failed to enforce standards to prevent this scenario and on top of that still the state carries a social responsibility towards its citizens. How many here could afford to pay for 2 houses in their life time? So the state's options are redress or new build social housing. These cases are spread out over a large area. There isn't the dispersed land banks or likely resources to take on responsibility so many projects on their end to make the latter a viable option.

The scheme is still being ironed out, so costs aren't certain. At the minute it seems locked into like for like. Mr musician claimed on the Donegal thread that an exemption for current building regs apply and frankly I'm too up to my eyes to fact check him. Either way 50 or 100mm insulation boards, heat pump over oil boiler, and air tightness tapes aren't going to make or break it the costs of it. Sitting on this for years until so many houses are critical and a lack of resources is what's going to spiral the costs, mica isn't new it's just being pushed to the spotlight now.

30-06-2021 1:11am

Swindled wrote: »

As has been answer many times on many of your threads, they should not.
Suppliers of critical structural materials should be properly insured, and the such suppliers should be properly inspected by the state, and the existing legislation regarding materials should be enforced, but it has not been, and is not being enforced as we speak.
The house owners effected have tried every other avenue without success and the state has had to step in to this emergency situation. The state should obtain as much money back as possible for the taxpayer, just like they have tried to do in other such scandals.

We can see from publicly available financial statement that the money they could recoup from the quarries/block manufacturers would be at most 1% which means the rest of the cost would be paid for by taxpayers.

Why should the taxpayers pay for 100% of your house?

Potential-Monke · 30-06-2021 1:14am

I don't know much about this case, but I had a quick Google and came across a reddit post from someone affected. They went on to say that they reckon 10,000 homes across Donegal alone, not including offices, public builds, etc, will have the same issue in a few years. Other replying that the same is happening in Mayo and possibly Clare. Are we going to pay for all these houses too?

The post did mention that Donegal Co. Co. are allowing this to happen, so maybe just put it back on them. If they don't have the money, tough titties. But I don't see why me, who lives on the opposite end of the country has to pay for this. I had a house, I had to sell it and I'll probably never own another one again, and here my tax money is being used to pay for someone elses private house to be knocked a rebuilt? How is that fair? It's already unfair that I'm paying for forever homes for people who won't work, when the best i can hope for is that my parents house is left to me and my 4 siblings don't start looking for money for their share, which will mean it will have to be sold, and the share may be enough for a deposit on another house, but I probably won't get one anyway.

Yes, it's a woe is me tale, but it's starting to get ridiculous. I'm being told to get a private pension because the future of state pensions is uncertain and, going by what the parents are getting, is barely livable. They wanted to raise it to 68 by 2028 but was shot down, but how long before they raise it again? What will it be by the time I get to the current pension retirement age, in 2050? It's just all getting too much for the average joe to be taking while getting little to nothing in return, simply because I don't want kids.

Rant over. I feel better. And I also know that most people reading this will scoff of throw their eyes, and that's ok. I don't expect anyone to agree with me. Just giving an opinion and padding out while I've become a social recluse.

Markus Antonius · 30-06-2021 1:17am

If this thread is any reflection of the nations intelligence then I think it's time to jump in the ocean and start swimming in any direction.

Nobody is denying how awful a situation the home owners are in, but to expect any redress at all from the government/tax payer is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard.

Cowboys in the construction industry are ten a penny. Unfortunately, nobody (except for the cowboy/supplier etc. or maybe an insurer if you are covered) is responsible if you fall foul of one of them. It's nuts!

Swindled · 30-06-2021 1:17am

whatnow! wrote: »

We can see from publicly available financial statement that the money they could recoup from the quarries/block manufacturers would be at most 1% which means the rest of the cost would be paid for by taxpayers.

Why are the suppliers responsible allowed to operate and continue to operate in this fashion without any insurance, and not comply with any of the legislation and standards regarding the production of structural materials ?
Why are they still being allowed to supply the state with blocks for social housing and private developers for other homes ? Why are they being given a 25 year planning permission extension for the quarry in question, when they are in breach of existing planning conditions ?

whatnow! wrote: »

Why should the taxpayers pay for 100% of your house?

As has been answered many times on many of your threads in detail, they should not.
Suppliers of critical structural materials should be properly insured, and such suppliers should be properly inspected by the state, and the existing legislation regarding critical structural materials should be enforced, but it has not been, and is not being enforced as we speak.
The house owners effected, who are full taxpayers as well, have tried every other avenue without success and the state has had to step in to this emergency situation. The state should obtain as much money back as possible for the taxpayer, just like they have tried to do in other such scandals.

30-06-2021 1:17am

overshoot wrote: »

...

I agree that we have a social contract in Ireland that we would look out for eachother in situations like this. I stated that we should help up to a limit set by the government, not leave these people high and dry.

My issue is that people are demanding we pay to rebuild like for like houses, some of which are more than what they need and that incremental cost could be put to better use.

Many of those demanding this don't have the courtesy to explain why we should pay for a 5 bed house for their two parent two child family when the country is heavily in debt.

30-06-2021 1:21am

Swindled wrote: »

Why are the suppliers responsible allowed to operate and continue to operate in this fashion without any insurance, and not comply with any of the legislation and standards regarding the production of structural materials ?
Why are they still being allowed to supply the state with blocks for social housing and private developers for other homes ? Why are they being given a 25 year planning permission extension for the quarry in question, when they are in breach of existing planning conditions ?

As has been answered many times on many of your threads in detail, they should not.
Suppliers of critical structural materials should be properly insured, and such suppliers should be properly inspected by the state, and the existing legislation regarding critical structural materials should be enforced, but it has not been, and is not being enforced as we speak.
The house owners effected, who are full taxpayers as well, have tried every other avenue without success and the state has had to step in to this emergency situation. The state should obtain as much money back as possible for the taxpayer, just like they have tried to do in other such scandals.

Taxpayers can't recoup the costs therefore they have to pay it. You can't keep demanding taxpayers pay and then say they shouldn't have to pay. Pick a story and stick with it.

The rest of the post relates to future regulatory issues when we have a big issue that has to be resolved now and I'm still waiting for you to explain why the taxpayers should pay 100% of the cost of your house.

Swindled · 30-06-2021 1:29am

whatnow! wrote: »

Taxpayers can't recoup the costs therefore they have to pay it. You can't keep demanding taxpayers pay and then say they shouldn't have to pay. Pick a story and stick with it.

The rest of the post relates to future regulatory issues when we have a big issue that has to be resolved now and I'm still waiting for you to explain why the taxpayers should pay 100% of the cost of your house.

I don't demand taxpayers should have to pay. They should not being paying for negligent cowboy structural suppliers and lack of enforcement and allowing them to continue to operate regardless. I've made it very clear why the taxpayer should not be paying for these cowboys, and yet are allowed to get away with it, and are continuing to operate.

overshoot · 30-06-2021 1:31am

whatnow! wrote: »

I agree that we have a social contract in Ireland that we would look out for eachother in situations like this. I stated that we should help up to a limit set by the government, not leave these people high and dry.

My issue is that people are demanding we pay to rebuild like for like houses, some of which are more than what they need and that incremental cost could be put to better use.

Many of those demanding this don't have the courtesy to explain why we should pay for a 5 bed house for their two parent two child family when the country is heavily in debt.

Feel free to cite examples of houses with far more bedrooms than occupants being replaced. Tbh I've yet to do a house where more than one spare/guest room was ever design in and did plenty of bespoke houses before my current job.… but sure you need a bit of drama to rile people up.

If you find it that example, you might also cite the costs of that 5 bed in Donegal v the costs of the apartments the government are taking from glenveagh in the docks. We are heavily in debt and 300k for a studio.... 640k for 3 beds, money is always there if they want it to be.

StupidLikeAFox · 30-06-2021 1:33am

Potential-Monke wrote: »

But I don't see why me, who lives on the opposite end of the country has to pay for this. I had a house, I had to sell it and I'll probably never own another one again, and here my tax money is being used to pay for someone elses private house to be knocked a rebuilt? How is that fair?

But sure thats like saying you've never stayed in hospital, why are your taxes going to the hse?

It's all well and good saying **** them, but then what? You will have 5k+ families on the housing list, all with massive debt and no way to pay both a mortgage and rent/second mortgage. Your talking about thousands of people here - surely something should be done by the state to give them a dig out?

StupidLikeAFox · 30-06-2021 1:39am

Markus Antonius wrote: »

If this thread is any reflection of the nations intelligence then I think it's time to jump in the ocean and start swimming in any direction.

Nobody is denying how awful a situation the home owners are in, but to expect any redress at all from the government/tax payer is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard.

Cowboys in the construction industry are ten a penny. Unfortunately, nobody (except for the cowboy/supplier etc. or maybe an insurer if you are covered) is responsible if you fall foul of one of them. It's nuts!

What's the alternative- 5k or 10k homeless families, with mortgage debt hanging over them, who need to be housed. As a taxpayer youre still gonna have to pay for those people to be housed btw. If the state tells them "tough ****, you're on your own", who is the actual winner in that case?

30-06-2021 1:40am

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Secondly, the government should pay for the whole lot, for the simple reason that it's the right thing to do. None of these taxpayers set out to defraud anybody, they just wanted a house over their heads and did the right thing - worked hard, saved, got mortgages etc etc, and through no fault of their own find themselves homeless and in massive debt.

Would that stop with houses? If the state is going to underwrite this why not underwrite multiple other things? You could say that housing is covered as it is a basic necessity however that opens the door to shoddy building work at rock bottom prices and when things go bad the government comes in with the funds and now the owner has a house worth much more than they paid the cowboy builder who has disappeared off into the sunset.

30-06-2021 1:42am

Swindled wrote: »

I don't demand taxpayers should have to pay. They should not being paying for negligent cowboy structural suppliers and lack of enforcement and allowing them to continue to operate regardless. I've made it very clear why the taxpayer should not be paying for these cowboys, and yet are allowed to get away with it, and are continuing to operate.

Show me where the money will come from to rebuild your house if not from the taxpayers.

MICA - Who should pay?

What do you think we should do? 102 votes

Comments