Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

2456793

Comments

  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,257 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    blanch152 wrote: »

    ........but you are in favour of mixed development????? Some consistency would be welcome.


    On your 30/30/40 mix, nobody has ever been able to answer the question as to why should some people have to pay full whack for a house and others get it for less, just because they went out and got an education and a job?

    The 'affordable' houses are sold to people who are of limited means that may entitle them to public housing or close to it. The 'full whack' houses would be larger and to a higher spec internally. This is normal in privately developed estates.

    I am proposing that DCC is the developer, and that would mean that the developer margin does not add to the bottom line. Also, 'affordable' housing would be subject to not being allowed to rent out and being subject to a claw-back if sold within a period of time, which I would think would be 10 years at least. Clearly, terms and conditions apply so that they are used as homes, and not investments.

    So 100 houses built, cost at 200k for the first 60 and 250k for the last 40 gives total of 22 million. Add 50k per site, and that gives total cost of 27 milion.

    Now affordables sell for 300k, and normal for 495k, so total sales give 28,800 million. So 30 social houses cost [minus 1,8 million]. A win win win solution, mainly because DCC takes no profit. That money could be used to provide facilities on the estate, and provide for 'caretaker' type of supervision.

    Now my numbers are fiction, but should convey the idea. If the pricing is correct, the queues and competition for the houses would be huge, whether it be for social, affordable, or 'full whack' houses.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    We live in a free world, thankfully, where people are free to make purchase.

    So you are against mixed developments where private landlords rent to HAP......

    Nope. Not at all. I'm not in favour of private companies buying property sometimes at a cheap rate from the state only to rent it back under the HAP scheme. I'm also not in favour of private companies or individuals profiting off a crises by buying with the intent to rent to the state under HAP. It creates the need for more HAP and makes the crisis worse by driving up prices/rents. I've been quiet clear on this, twice.
    I'm not going to repeat myself every time you put your spin on my posts.

    You've added nothing to the discussion.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    The 'affordable' houses are sold to people who are of limited means that may entitle them to public housing or close to it. The 'full whack' houses would be larger and to a higher spec internally. This is normal in privately developed estates.

    I am proposing that DCC is the developer, and that would mean that the developer margin does not add to the bottom line. Also, 'affordable' housing would be subject to not being allowed to rent out and being subject to a claw-back if sold within a period of time, which I would think would be 10 years at least. Clearly, terms and conditions apply so that they are used as homes, and not investments.

    So 100 houses built, cost at 200k for the first 60 and 250k for the last 40 gives total of 22 million. Add 50k per site, and that gives total cost of 27 milion.

    Now affordables sell for 300k, and normal for 495k, so total sales give 28,800 million. So 30 social houses cost [minus 1,800 million]. A win win win solution, mainly because DCC takes no profit. That money could be used to provide facilities on the estate, and provide for 'caretaker' type of supervision.

    Now my numbers are fiction, but should convey the idea. If the pricing is correct, the queues and competition for the houses would be huge, whether it be for social, affordable, or 'full whack' houses.

    Any move in that direction would also help to cool the market.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,038 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    The 'affordable' houses are sold to people who are of limited means that may entitle them to public housing or close to it. The 'full whack' houses would be larger and to a higher spec internally. This is normal in privately developed estates.

    I am proposing that DCC is the developer, and that would mean that the developer margin does not add to the bottom line. Also, 'affordable' housing would be subject to not being allowed to rent out and being subject to a claw-back if sold within a period of time, which I would think would be 10 years at least. Clearly, terms and conditions apply so that they are used as homes, and not investments.

    So 100 houses built, cost at 200k for the first 60 and 250k for the last 40 gives total of 22 million. Add 50k per site, and that gives total cost of 27 milion.

    Now affordables sell for 300k, and normal for 495k, so total sales give 28,800 million. So 30 social houses cost [minus 1,8 million]. A win win win solution, mainly because DCC takes no profit. That money could be used to provide facilities on the estate, and provide for 'caretaker' type of supervision.

    Now my numbers are fiction, but should convey the idea. If the pricing is correct, the queues and competition for the houses would be huge, whether it be for social, affordable, or 'full whack' houses.

    So 195k the difference, allow 50k for the difference in size means some people get a free handout from the State of 145k, while others who may only earn 5k a year more, don't?

    There are huge fairness issues around affordable housing. Social housing, where the local authority rents out the house, and ownership remains with the local authority is the best means of ensuring that these fairness issues don't arise.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,257 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    blanch152 wrote: »
    So 195k the difference, allow 50k for the difference in size means some people get a free handout from the State of 145k, while others who may only earn 5k a year more, don't?

    There are huge fairness issues around affordable housing. Social housing, where the local authority rents out the house, and ownership remains with the local authority is the best means of ensuring that these fairness issues don't arise.

    Well, moral hazard is always a problem.

    The 'affordable' could be deal with by shared ownership, or other means, but basically there is always a problem with edge cases - those who just qualify against those that are just over the limit. There is no easy way of dealing with this. There is always a claw back and restrictions on use for the affordables.

    However, the basics of the scheme would go along way to easing the current crisis.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,038 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Well, moral hazard is always a problem.

    The 'affordable' could be deal with by shared ownership, or other means, but basically there is always a problem with edge cases - those who just qualify against those that are just over the limit. There is no easy way of dealing with this. There is always a claw back and restrictions on use for the affordables.

    However, the basics of the scheme would go along way to easing the current crisis.


    The sums involved are huge, probably be the biggest generalised one-off handouts by the State. 150k per affordable house. I am still not happy that the figures add up for widespread affordable housing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Well, moral hazard is always a problem.

    The 'affordable' could be deal with by shared ownership, or other means, but basically there is always a problem with edge cases - those who just qualify against those that are just over the limit. There is no easy way of dealing with this. There is always a claw back and restrictions on use for the affordables.

    However, the basics of the scheme would go along way to easing the current crisis.

    The state is feeding the crisis, never mind effectively tackling it. Supplying cheap properties for private concerns to rent back to the state. Cheap NAMA loans and buying properties off the market at the going rate for use as social housing.

    Affordable housing is a great solution for those earning too much to avail of social housing and too poor to buy off market.
    I would suggest a similar model to any social housing estate. Modest housing in smaller numbers than the sprawling estates of old throughout the cities and out skirts, ensuring access to amenities, schools, shopping.
    I don't think one off affordable housing would work nor a small number mixed into a private estate of similar properties.
    It makes more financial sense for the state/LA's to provide affordable housing or social housing with affordable rents, than it does to go through HAP or buyers grants IMO. If it's about value for the tax payer, the current model does not give it. We need to get over the 'forever home' mantra as cutting our nose to spite our face is costing us.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,257 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    blanch152 wrote: »
    The sums involved are huge, probably be the biggest generalised one-off handouts by the State. 150k per affordable house. I am still not happy that the figures add up for widespread affordable housing.

    No, affordable houses are sold above cost, so no handout. Also, the houses would be basic type houses, while the full market houses are higher spec and sell at an appropriate premium to willing buyers.

    Affordable houses are not a handout by any means but are required to control the market, which currently is out of control and is dysfunctional.

    At the present time, many of those that would qualify for affordable housing would qualify for either social housing but are prepared to commit to buy, or are just outside that limit and could end up homeless without such a scheme.

    Properly controlled, the moral hazard can be avoided. Do not forget, re-zoning or planning permission can be a one-off handout, which greatly appreciates that asset value of the land.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,038 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    No, affordable houses are sold above cost, so no handout. Also, the houses would be basic type houses, while the full market houses are higher spec and sell at an appropriate premium to willing buyers.

    Affordable houses are not a handout by any means but are required to control the market, which currently is out of control and is dysfunctional.

    At the present time, many of those that would qualify for affordable housing would qualify for either social housing but are prepared to commit to buy, or are just outside that limit and could end up homeless without such a scheme.

    Properly controlled, the moral hazard can be avoided. Do not forget, re-zoning or planning permission can be a one-off handout, which greatly appreciates that asset value of the land.

    I would agree on the re-zoning issue. CGT on gains arising from re-zoning and planning permission would be a solution, in fact I think CGT is one of the most under-used taxes. More broadly based, but at a lower rate, it could be a big earner.

    Thinking about it, removing the CGT exemption from affordable housing, as well as a clawback lasting 20 years, would help people like me accept a scheme.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,257 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    :rolleyes:
    blanch152 wrote: »
    I would agree on the re-zoning issue. CGT on gains arising from re-zoning and planning permission would be a solution, in fact I think CGT is one of the most under-used taxes. More broadly based, but at a lower rate, it could be a big earner.

    Thinking about it, removing the CGT exemption from affordable housing, as well as a clawback lasting 20 years, would help people like me accept a scheme.

    20 years is too long to expect someone to remain in the one house for many reasons. Families grow up and need more spce or less space. People get old or get ill or die. As an indication, the exemption for inheritance tax for primary residence requires 3 years prior to inheritance nd 6 years afterwards - a total f 9 years as a minimum.

    CGT would need to be taxed on all residence sales, otherwise it is unjust. Remember, affordable homes are for people who could not normally able to afford the open market price, so penalising them would be bizarre.

    I think a little genorosity of spirit is called for.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,038 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    :rolleyes:

    20 years is too long to expect someone to remain in the one house for many reasons. Families grow up and need more spce or less space. People get old or get ill or die. As an indication, the exemption for inheritance tax for primary residence requires 3 years prior to inheritance nd 6 years afterwards - a total f 9 years as a minimum.

    CGT would need to be taxed on all residence sales, otherwise it is unjust. Remember, affordable homes are for people who could not normally able to afford the open market price, so penalising them would be bizarre.

    I think a little genorosity of spirit is called for.


    150k is not a little generosity of spirit, it is a large dollop of free cash.

    CGT is a fair way of recouping some of the free money.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,257 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    blanch152 wrote: »
    150k is not a little generosity of spirit, it is a large dollop of free cash.

    CGT is a fair way of recouping some of the free money.

    No it is not cash, as it is merely an option to purchase a house for a lot of money requiring funding by a mortgage. Mortgages can lead to negative equity.

    Also, it is not free as it comes with terms and conditions. Now currently first time buyers get a grant to help them purchase a new house from a private sector developer, and that comes without t&c. Now that is free money.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,157 ✭✭✭Good loser


    No it is not cash, as it is merely an option to purchase a house for a lot of money requiring funding by a mortgage. Mortgages can lead to negative equity.

    Also, it is not free as it comes with terms and conditions. Now currently first time buyers get a grant to help them purchase a new house from a private sector developer, and that comes without t&c. Now that is free money.


    It is free money but the scale is vastly different. Not a relevant comparator.



    I am pretty confused about all these affordable/social/LA houses, subsidies, the HAP scheme, Nama angle etc.


    What I am pretty clear about is that there is no way a LA should get directly involved in building houses, either as a builder or developer.
    By all means let them put out tenders for houses/schemes or purchase ones already constructed.


    It is well to remember too that years ago, when the State provided large amounts of social housing, the social welfare budget as a % of Govt spend was only a fraction of what it is now. If the people with houses (owned or rented) paid their fair share of taxation i.e. property tax and water charges, there would be so much more for those needing houses.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,257 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Good loser wrote: »
    By all means let them put out tenders for houses/schemes or purchase ones already constructed.


    It is well to remember too that years ago, when the State provided large amounts of social housing, the social welfare budget as a % of Govt spend was only a fraction of what it is now. If the people with houses (owned or rented) paid their fair share of taxation i.e. property tax and water charges, there would be so much more for those needing houses.

    LA, and by that I mean DCC, should act as developer because of the vast cost difference that a developer imposes on the final price. They have or get the site. They design or get designed the scheme. They put out tenders for builders to build a sub-set of the houses (or apartments). They then control how those properties are marketed or assigned.

    My proposal above could easily be adjusted to change the weighting between each category, but essentially the affordable houses are sold above cost, (because there is no developer margin) and the market price are sold at market price. The last category subsidize the social housing. The thing to remember is that all houses are cheaper than current price levels.

    This was done in the sixties when tenement house began to collapse in central Dublin. It was successful and housed many families in much better standard houses than existed prior to those schemes. Later political behaviour reduced that advantage.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Affordable housing is no more free money than social housing is a free house.
    Loss of profit is not the same as loss. If you build a house for 200,000 and sell it at market you might get 350,000 for it. If you're the state/LA and you sell it as affordable housing for 250,000 you are not losing money you are accepting less profit to aid a family who couldn't afford 350,000.

    If that sticks in your craw, we could continue with things as is were the tax payer subsidises cheap loans to developers, rental aid to tenants and buying housing stock at market rate coupled with the year on year increases in emergency accommodation spend.

    The alternatives do not work.
    Despite how it seems, the point of government/LA is not to profit off of the public's misery.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,682 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    LA, and by that I mean DCC, should act as developer because of the vast cost difference that a developer imposes on the final price. .

    What vast cost difference. As far as I know, the margin a developer has to build houses is about 8%. Not all that much to be honest.

    DCC will have to hire developers to do that actual build mind and they won't do it for free either.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,257 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    markodaly wrote: »
    What vast cost difference. As far as I know, the margin a developer has to build houses is about 8%. Not all that much to be honest.

    DCC will have to hire developers to do that actual build mind and they won't do it for free either.

    I think you are cnfusing terms. Developers might make 8% profit but their margin is significantly higher. The profit excludes the high financng cost, the high earnings of the principals in the developer companies, plus other costs that woud not accrue to DCC.

    DCC will have to get BUILDERS to build the houses on contract following a tender process. If the tenders are open market, then the houses will be built at lowest cost. This is how we build roads in this country - why should public housing be any different?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,682 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    I think you are cnfusing terms. Developers might make 8% profit but their margin is significantly higher. The profit excludes the high financng cost, the high earnings of the principals in the developer companies, plus other costs that woud not accrue to DCC.

    DCC will have to get BUILDERS to build the houses on contract following a tender process. If the tenders are open market, then the houses will be built at lowest cost. This is how we build roads in this country - why should public housing be any different?

    Do you have any actual proof that their margin is higher than 8% because that is what a number of developers have stated publicly?

    Also, DCC would be nowhere as efficient as a developer in tendering out contracts to developers/builders. They would also need to raise finance unless it was just given to them by the government. Then, there would be the issue of state aid and competition law.

    Sure, they do not have the profit motive but they don't have the efficiency motive either which can cost more holistically.

    I see some stuff bandied about that LA's would be able to build houses for peanuts but little in the way of actual proof that this can be achieved.
    The only way I see that its possible is that they use public land.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,038 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Affordable housing is no more free money than social housing is a free house.


    Of course it is free money. Let us look again at Sam Russell's example.

    House costs 350k for a normal couple buying the house.

    House costs 200k for a couple eligible for affordable housing.

    Ten years later, houses are worth 400k. One couple pockets a profit of 50k, the other couple pockets a profit of 50k, plus a free handout from the taxpayer of 150k. That is an average of 15k a year after tax of a handout, basically a handout of 30k a year that Couple 1 would have to earn to keep up with Couple 2.

    To me, that is too much of a subsidy to hand out. Stretch the length of time to 15 or 20 years and/or tax/recoup the subsidy element when the house is sold.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Of course it is free money. Let us look again at Sam Russell's example.

    House costs 350k for a normal couple buying the house.

    House costs 200k for a couple eligible for affordable housing.

    Ten years later, houses are worth 400k. One couple pockets a profit of 50k, the other couple pockets a profit of 50k, plus a free handout from the taxpayer of 150k. That is an average of 15k a year after tax of a handout, basically a handout of 30k a year that Couple 1 would have to earn to keep up with Couple 2.

    To me, that is too much of a subsidy to hand out. Stretch the length of time to 15 or 20 years and/or tax/recoup the subsidy element when the house is sold.

    That's not free money it's simple begrudgery and it's costing the tax payer a fortune.
    If we can show a family are turning down a salary raise or refusing a promotion to keep their income low to avail of affordable (or social for that matter) that would be an argument, but I can't see it being likely or common place. It's akin to complaining the poor get allowances for fuel and you have to pay the full price for the same fuel.
    There is usually a claw back if sold within a specific period. All of this can be amended but the idea is sound and better value for the tax payer.
    Another way to look at it is the state is selling houses at a cheaper rate than others are but only if you are in a specific income bracket.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,257 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Having a 30%/30%/40% split between social/affordable/normal housing should be a good mix.

    the social and affordable should be built to the same spec - basic but good quality. The normal houses would be built to a higher spec with larger rooms and better quality finish, but not widely so.

    If say cost of build is €200k for the first two plus site, with the second costing €250k plus site. Say site cost from Nama is €50k, then the cost to the state would be reasonable, given that they get back the VAT plus payroll tax. Overall, if DCC is the developer, there is no profit to add, and the prices could come out as €250k for the first two, with the second and third group selling for
    €295 and €395k (to €495 - depending on demand) respectively,

    Now these figures are representative and figurative, but could be wildly out, but the extra €100k per house for the last group would significantly subsidise the first two groups. [Remember, if DCC do the development, there is no profit for private pockets].
    blanch152 wrote: »
    Of course it is free money. Let us look again at Sam Russell's example.

    House costs 350k for a normal couple buying the house.

    House costs 200k for a couple eligible for affordable housing.

    Ten years later, houses are worth 400k. One couple pockets a profit of 50k, the other couple pockets a profit of 50k, plus a free handout from the taxpayer of 150k. That is an average of 15k a year after tax of a handout, basically a handout of 30k a year that Couple 1 would have to earn to keep up with Couple 2.

    To me, that is too much of a subsidy to hand out. Stretch the length of time to 15 or 20 years and/or tax/recoup the subsidy element when the house is sold.
    The numbers you are using are not the ones I suggested.

    Type A houses cost 250K inc site cost. Rents to scial tennant and sells to affordable qualified purchaser for 295k.

    Type B houses cost 300k inc site cost and sell for 395k, which is the market price, or higher if that is attainable. A 100k extra for a house that costs 50k extra to build is not a huge difference. Maybe the Type B are detached rateher than semi, or they ae 4 bedroom rather than 3 bedroom, or other differences.

    No free money because affordables are sold subject to conditions that would prevent profits being made for at least 10 years.

    Now these are back of the envelope numbers, but should convey the idea, and certainly are not intended to allow people to get free money.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,921 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    The state is feeding the crisis, never mind effectively tackling it. Supplying cheap properties for private concerns to rent back to the state. Cheap NAMA loans and buying properties off the market at the going rate for use as social housing.

    Affordable housing is a great solution for those earning too much to avail of social housing and too poor to buy off market.
    I would suggest a similar model to any social housing estate. Modest housing in smaller numbers than the sprawling estates of old throughout the cities and out skirts, ensuring access to amenities, schools, shopping.
    I don't think one off affordable housing would work nor a small number mixed into a private estate of similar properties.
    It makes more financial sense for the state/LA's to provide affordable housing or social housing with affordable rents, than it does to go through HAP or buyers grants IMO. If it's about value for the tax payer, the current model does not give it. We need to get over the 'forever home' mantra as cutting our nose to spite our face is costing us.

    Matt, I've been ever so impressed with how you continually batter back. I'm generally Inn agreement with you.

    Can someone please answer me why we were able to build vast swathes of social housing all around the country through the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s. Then again through PPP and housing coops in the nineties and noughties but now we just have to accept the ludicrous market-led situation we have now?

    It boggles the mind.

    Housing yet again is destroying the country. And it's privately and profit led.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,157 ✭✭✭Good loser


    Matt, I've been ever so impressed with how you continually batter back. I'm generally Inn agreement with you.

    Can someone please answer me why we were able to build vast swathes of social housing all around the country through the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s. Then again through PPP and housing coops in the nineties and noughties but now we just have to accept the ludicrous market-led situation we have now?

    It boggles the mind.

    Housing yet again is destroying the country. And it's privately and profit led.


    Too many houses once and too few houses now.


    The market adjusted then and would now too if left alone.


    In the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s that's what happened.


    The State/LAs can build all the houses they want - provided they pay for them.


    Social welfare takes 30% of the budget excl houses. If we are to spend vast amounts of money on housing, money on social welfare will have to be cut back or taxes raised or both (preferably).


    This was not the case in those earlier decades - that is SW took much less then and Govt could afford the social housing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,157 ✭✭✭Good loser


    markodaly wrote: »
    Do you have any actual proof that their margin is higher than 8% because that is what a number of developers have stated publicly?

    Also, DCC would be nowhere as efficient as a developer in tendering out contracts to developers/builders. They would also need to raise finance unless it was just given to them by the government. Then, there would be the issue of state aid and competition law.

    Sure, they do not have the profit motive but they don't have the efficiency motive either which can cost more holistically.

    I see some stuff bandied about that LA's would be able to build houses for peanuts but little in the way of actual proof that this can be achieved.
    The only way I see that its possible is that they use public land.


    Absolutely correct. Sums the situation up perfectly.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭Edward M


    It will be interesting to see if this makes the budget.
    The usual suspects expected to carry the can again!
    https://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/tax-plan-to-hit-squeezed-middle-for-extra-250-37227765.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,833 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Probably their usual kite flying. Put simply, don’t hike the already unjustifiable welfare rates. Then incone taxes can be left as are or reduced. Living standards of many workers are going down, to pay for the most comfortable in society ... pensioners and those welfare thief’s like ms cash. Probably has No debt, no job, guaranteed income!


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,833 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Edward M wrote: »
    It will be interesting to see if this makes the budget.
    The usual suspects expected to carry the can again!
    https://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/tax-plan-to-hit-squeezed-middle-for-extra-250-37227765.html
    Actually I couldn’t keep up with Leo the liar and his five million spin unit. This is probably a smoke screen, no tax hikes but minuscule reductions in the budget and everyone will breath a sigh of relief! This is the problem when there is no competition, all the parties tripping over themselves for the pensioners and welfare vote! And that’s why they can get away with it, because there is no alternative the public deem viable


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 36,787 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    Actually I couldn’t keep up with Leo the liar and his five million spin unit. This is probably a smoke screen, no tax hikes but minuscule reductions in the budget and everyone will breath a sigh of relief! This is the problem when there is no competition, all the parties tripping over themselves for the pensioners and welfare vote! And that’s why they can get away with it, because there is no alternative the public deem viable

    Cut out the petty name calling.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,921 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    Actually I couldn’t keep up with Leo the liar and his five million spin unit. This is probably a smoke screen, no tax hikes but minuscule reductions in the budget and everyone will breath a sigh of relief! This is the problem when there is no competition, all the parties tripping over themselves for the pensioners and welfare vote! And that’s why they can get away with it, because there is no alternative the public deem viable

    Yeah it's all Leo:
    Indo wrote:
    Fianna Fáil frontbencher Willie O'Dea has already called for an extra €5 a week to be paid on the State pension.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,833 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Just reading the Sunday indo now in a friends house. They won’t get get a cent from me. The journalist think fg are trying to get ff to pull plug on the supply and confidence and go for an election. Fg should play hard ball on welfare or refuse increases to those in JSa or jsb at a minimum, even though they have no interest in the taxpayer, it would certainly look like they do and back up Leo’s comedies claim of representing the early risers ...

    Pulling the plug now when they probably won’t go any higher and using the excuse of unsustainable welfare to do it. Jesus if they had any balls or sense they’d do it ...


Advertisement