Government Spending [See post 106]

beggars_bush · 24-11-2019 11:09am

It's laughable Varadkar coming out with a figure of 50 billion to retrofit all houses in Ireland and saying we cannot afford it

Considering there is 13 billion in unpaid taxes sitting in an account collecting interest

McGiver · 24-11-2019 2:21pm

beggars_bush wrote:

Considering there is 13 billion in unpaid taxes sitting in an account collecting interest

Oh yes.

Ireland is a corporatist, captured state, offshoring as well as sink tax haven. Don't confuse that with capitalist, which it isn't at all.

In capitalism, the market is free, the government doesn't interfere with it and only sets and enforces rules, it doesn't side with anyone.

In corporatism, the government is controlled by corporations, sets rules for them, sides with them and enforces rules only for certain people segments, typically the small business.

Compare tax situation and other regulations for your local cafe and Starbucks. The latter pay little to no tax, if there's some health/safety issue, the latter will be let to continue. Small business will be forced to close etc.

Geuze · 25-11-2019 4:45pm

McGiver wrote: »

What are the rates roughly?

Is that for locally authority charging the business? What for?

Commercial rates are one of the two local taxes in Ireland.

The tax base is set by the Valuation Office.

The tax rate is set by each LA.

It is a property tax, based on the rentable value of your property.

Geuze · 25-11-2019 4:49pm

CrabRevolution wrote: »

The excise on beer hasn't changed since 2014 and even then it's not much higher than the level it's been at since 1993, barring a decrease during the recession to help pubs.

The problem facing pubs is not excise rates.

With the same excise rates, supermarkets are able to sell 33cl bottles for 1.00, that pubs charge 4.00-5.00 for.

The brewers give much better deals to supermarkets.

Pubs pay more to wholesalers for 33cl bottles, than supermarkets sell them at retail.

Mind you, even if pubs could get them cheaper, I don't think they would pass on the saving.

One of the largest pub chains in Ireland gets bulk discounts on kegs, by buying in volume, and does not pass on the saving, and so earns 80% gross profit.

James Brown · 25-11-2019 6:24pm

Geuze wrote: »

The problem facing pubs is not excise rates.

With the same excise rates, supermarkets are able to sell 33cl bottles for 1.00, that pubs charge 4.00-5.00 for.

The brewers give much better deals to supermarkets.

Pubs pay more to wholesalers for 33cl bottles, than supermarkets sell them at retail.

Mind you, even if pubs could get them cheaper, I don't think they would pass on the saving.

One of the largest pub chains in Ireland gets bulk discounts on kegs, by buying in volume, and does not pass on the saving, and so earns 80% gross profit.

It's always the case that business will take as much as it can get. One of the many flaws in thinking giving subsidies to private concerns or making allowances will lower pricing for the public.

McGiver · 25-11-2019 7:15pm

Geuze wrote: »

Commercial rates are one of the two local taxes in Ireland.

The tax base is set by the Valuation Office.

The tax rate is set by each LA.

It is a property tax, based on the rentable value of your property.

What are the rates roughly? Compared to LPT of the same property.

Does it mean you pay this tax on top of your rent if you rent your premises as a business?

Idbatterim · 25-11-2019 7:22pm

Take a read if the below. Off the wall !!! Not a chance commercial rates or eadtoink toll should be raised. Eastkink toll should be abolished!!! These same idiots voted to reduce lpt recently. Tell them to start collecting the rent due from council properties. 30,000,000 odd due and they are getting the properties for sfa in the first place !
These bottomless pits run by inept morons , simply turn off the cash tap. End of ...

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/dail-printer-that-cost-808k-was-too-big-to-fit-inside-office-38720645.html

James Brown · 25-11-2019 9:09pm

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

I got 1000 mbit fibre to home in my rural boreen thanks to NBP without the government having to spend a cent, eir got panicked into connecting hundreds of thousands of households including mine. That's great value for taxpayers money imho.

A couple I know are only down in Meath and they've had spotty broadband/wi-fi for years. Hopefully they get some kind of knock on too.
I wonder how much the privatisation of our communications network 'saved' us, considering the proposed broadband spend?

McGiver · 25-11-2019 9:24pm

Matt Barrett wrote:

A couple I know are only down in Meath and they've had spotty broadband/wi-fi for years. Hopefully they get some kind of knock on too. I wonder how much the privatisation of our communications network 'saved' us, considering the proposed broadband spend?

Do you think broadband should be built by the government? I'm not sure....
It's not the case in anywhere in the EU AFAIK.

marvin80 · 26-11-2019 9:32am

Idbatterim wrote: »

Take a read if the below. Off the wall !!! Not a chance commercial rates or eadtoink toll should be raised. Eastkink toll should be abolished!!! These same idiots voted to reduce lpt recently. Tell them to start collecting the rent due from council properties. 30,000,000 odd due and they are getting the properties for sfa in the first place !
These bottomless pits run by inept morons , simply turn off the cash tap. End of ...

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/dail-printer-that-cost-808k-was-too-big-to-fit-inside-office-38720645.html

Absolutely outrageous stuff.

There must be many cases similar to this across government departments - not as big financial amounts but they all add up.

James Brown · 26-11-2019 3:51pm

McGiver wrote: »

Do you think broadband should be built by the government? I'm not sure....
It's not the case in anywhere in the EU AFAIK.

I do. A bit late now mind. It's very important. Even if they made wi-fi available in the local village.
We have been trying to sell ourselves as tech savvy. With solid broadband the rural areas could be opened up to business, working from home too.

Geuze · 26-11-2019 3:59pm

McGiver wrote: »

What are the rates roughly? Compared to LPT of the same property.

Does it mean you pay this tax on top of your rent if you rent your premises as a business?

Look up www.valoff.ie to get the NEV for each premises.

https://maps.valoff.ie/maps/VO.html

Each LA applies a different tax rate.

An example is 0.265 in DCC.

Example: Tesco Express on Dolphins Barn Street in D8, the NEV is 14,360 euro.

Then multiply by the 0.265 tax rate = 3,805 annual tax.

Geuze · 26-11-2019 4:02pm

McGiver wrote: »

Does it mean you pay this tax on top of your rent if you rent your premises as a business?

Yes.

I assumed this is well known, and we don't need to be discussing basic stuff like this?

Tenants pay the rates, not the owner of the building.

Local councils have several sources of income, the most significant is commercial rates. It is a local property tax, levied on all commercial buildings.

It used to be levied on all houses, until 1978.

blanch152 · 26-11-2019 5:52pm

Geuze wrote: »

Yes.

I assumed this is well known, and we don't need to be discussing basic stuff like this?

Tenants pay the rates, not the owner of the building.

Local councils have several sources of income, the most significant is commercial rates. It is a local property tax, levied on all commercial buildings.

It used to be levied on all houses, until 1978.

The number one bad financial governmental decision since the foundation of the state was the bank guarantee by FF. The number two was the abolition of domestic rates by the same party in 1977.

Ironically, both of them had huge public and political support at the time.

purifol0 · 26-11-2019 7:51pm

blanch152 wrote: »

..bank guarantee by FF...

..huge public and political support at the time.

Sorry did you just say the Bank Guarantee had huge public support???

https://youtu.be/Px43eINU2OM?t=385

Quick vid of Vincent Browne telling the IMF what the Irish People thought of that back in Jan 2012

James Brown · 26-11-2019 9:16pm

purifol0 wrote: »

Sorry did you just say the Bank Guarantee had huge public support???

https://youtu.be/Px43eINU2OM?t=385

Quick vid of Vincent Browne telling the IMF what the Irish People thought of that back in Jan 2012

Maybe within FG, but only after the 2011 election.

beggars_bush · 27-11-2019 12:15am

McGiver wrote: »

Do you think broadband should be built by the government? I'm not sure....
It's not the case in anywhere in the EU AFAIK.

State should own the infrastructure and invest in it

Private companies should run the service

Except the geniuses in the Dail sold off eircom, network and all

BonnieSituation · 27-11-2019 1:48pm

beggars_bush wrote: »

State should own the infrastructure and invest in it

Private companies should run the service

Except the geniuses in the Dail FIANNA FÁIL sold off eircom, network and all

20 years on and still paying the price.

blanch152 · 03-12-2019 6:34pm

purifol0 wrote: »

Sorry did you just say the Bank Guarantee had huge public support???

https://youtu.be/Px43eINU2OM?t=385

Quick vid of Vincent Browne telling the IMF what the Irish People thought of that back in Jan 2012

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Maybe within FG, but only after the 2011 election.

This is the ultimate in revisionist history. You don't seem to have a clue about the bank guarantee. One of you thinks it was 2012, the other seems to thing it was something that FG agreed after the 2011 election. Can people really have forgotten something so seminal?

https://www.thejournal.ie/bank-guarantee-oral-history-30-september-2008-1103254-Dec2014/

"David McWilliams: “I showed him (Lenihan) an article I had written earlier that evening for my regular column in the Sunday Business Post which outlined the bank guarantee plan….

“He was worried that the guarantee was too radical… I told him… [that] he simply had to guarantee everything for a limited period to make sure than illiquid dilemma didn’t lead to an insolvency catastrophe.”

See, it was David McWilliams idea in 2008, given to Brian Lenihan, who implemented it.

Fianna Fail backed it, Fine Gael backed it, the Greens backed it, Sinn Fein backed it, independents backed it. The only party who opposed it, was Labour. Sure, many people have tried to rewrite history, but ultimately, the bank guarantee was David McWilliams' idea, it was a decision taken by Fianna Fail, and despite their misgivings, all of the parties except Labour backed it in the Dail.

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/night-of-the-bank-guarantee-4258897-Sep2018/

James Brown · 04-12-2019 7:14pm

blanch152 wrote: »

This is the ultimate in revisionist history. ...

There was not huge public support for the banking guarantee. What is incorrect or revisionist there?
Less of the false accusations please.

blanch152 · 04-12-2019 7:39pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

There was not huge public support for the banking guarantee. What is incorrect or revisionist there?
Less of the false accusations please.

Fianna Fail received wide public acclaim and support for the bank guarantee, although it did not last long.

Are you still thinking that the bank guarantee only happened in 2011?

James Brown · 04-12-2019 9:36pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Fianna Fail received wide public acclaim and support for the bank guarantee, although it did not last long.

Are you still thinking that the bank guarantee only happened in 2011?

Not that I recall. Can you show this? Are you talking about the bank and shareholder perspective? I remember the lies about the IMF not being at our door while they were in Dublin and FF blaming it all on Lehmans and the public for going mad or partying, (I forget which term was FF and which was FG).

blanch152 · 05-12-2019 12:39pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Not that I recall. Can you show this? Are you talking about the bank and shareholder perspective? I remember the lies about the IMF not being at our door while they were in Dublin and FF blaming it all on Lehmans and the public for going mad or partying, (I forget which term was FF and which was FG).

It was almost two years later before the IMF were invited in, well after the bank bailout.

So, take it from me, as someone who was there, and actually following it closely, the public were relieved and happy when they were told that Fianna Fail had saved the banks and that their money was safe. Of course, they didn't know it was just a three-card trick. If you read the links I provided, the only one that spotted it was Joan Burton's adviser, hence Labour's objection to the bank bailout.

At the time, people were told by Fianna Fail that we would have the cheapest bailout in the world, and that everybody's money was safe. Of course they were happy, especially when they saw what was happening with Lehmann etc. There was also general media support for the bailout.

The support only lasted a few weeks as the implications of the calamitous decision by FF became clear to all.

James Brown · 05-12-2019 3:29pm

blanch152 wrote: »

It was almost two years later before the IMF were invited in, well after the bank bailout.

So, take it from me, as someone who was there, and actually following it closely, the public were relieved and happy when they were told that Fianna Fail had saved the banks and that their money was safe. Of course, they didn't know it was just a three-card trick. If you read the links I provided, the only one that spotted it was Joan Burton's adviser, hence Labour's objection to the bank bailout.

At the time, people were told by Fianna Fail that we would have the cheapest bailout in the world, and that everybody's money was safe. Of course they were happy, especially when they saw what was happening with Lehmann etc. There was also general media support for the bailout.

The support only lasted a few weeks as the implications of the calamitous decision by FF became clear to all.

I completely disagree. As someone who was also there and TBF the nation was following it, the general public consensus was not 'huge support' for the banking guarantee. It was seen as the ones who caused the problems getting a free pass at the tax payers expense while government(s) blamed external entities and the tax paying public. It was a most shameful time of deceit and 'taking one for the team', (money cartels) as Noonan later put it.

Agree or not, this view is hardly 'revisionist'.

beggars_bush · 06-12-2019 1:50pm

FF thought that they'd pulled a fast one on the the UK with the guarantee

Unfortunately the banks pulled a faster one on Zanu FF with the scale of their insolvency and bad debts.

blanch152 · 06-12-2019 2:05pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I completely disagree. As someone who was also there and TBF the nation was following it, the general public consensus was not 'huge support' for the banking guarantee. It was seen as the ones who caused the problems getting a free pass at the tax payers expense while government(s) blamed external entities and the tax paying public. It was a most shameful time of deceit and 'taking one for the team', (money cartels) as Noonan later put it.

Agree or not, this view is hardly 'revisionist'.

Noonan had nothing to do with the bank bailout, however much you might wish he had. It doesn't make any sense to quote him on it.

The only political party to oppose the bailout was Labour.

The public sighed in relief that the banks had been saved, that savers weren't going to lose out as in Lehmanns, all for the cheapest bailout ever. The media bought it too with editorials praising the government etc.

beggars_bush wrote: »

FF thought that they'd pulled a fast one on the the UK with the guarantee

Unfortunately the banks pulled a faster one on Zanu FF with the scale of their insolvency and bad debts.

Sinn Fein backed it because of the perception of pulling a fast one on the UK. It took them a few weeks to figure it out.

There were civil servants in the Department of Finance who looked out the window at the bankers heading into the Shelbourne to drink champagne the night of the bailout, those bankers knowing that they had pulled a fast one. However, Lenihan (with the help of McWilliams advice) was not for turning.

BonnieSituation · 06-12-2019 4:22pm

blanch152 wrote: »

The number one bad financial governmental decision since the foundation of the state was the bank guarantee by FF. The number two was the abolition of domestic rates by the same party in 1977.

Ironically, both of them had huge public and political support at the time.

And the abolition of Car Tax in the same budget.

Absolutely minced the country!

James Brown · 06-12-2019 6:00pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Noonan had nothing to do with the bank bailout, however much you might wish he had. It doesn't make any sense to quote him on it.

The only political party to oppose the bailout was Labour.

The public sighed in relief that the banks had been saved, that savers weren't going to lose out as in Lehmanns, all for the cheapest bailout ever. The media bought it too with editorials praising the government etc.

Sinn Fein backed it because of the perception of pulling a fast one on the UK. It took them a few weeks to figure it out.

There were civil servants in the Department of Finance who looked out the window at the bankers heading into the Shelbourne to drink champagne the night of the bailout, those bankers knowing that they had pulled a fast one. However, Lenihan (with the help of McWilliams advice) was not for turning.

I said 'later said'. Your ill judged pedantry makes for poor diversion.

What of the public view? The public view is the topic, the comment you called 'revisionist'.

Can you show any proof the public hugely supported the bank guarantee as is your claim and reason for calling any opposing view 'revisionist'?

beggars_bush · 06-12-2019 8:42pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I said 'later said'. Your ill judged pedantry makes for poor diversion.

What of the public view? The public view is the topic, the comment you called 'revisionist'.

Can you show any proof the public hugely supported the bank guarantee as is your claim and reason for calling any opposing view 'revisionist'?

I remember at the time most comment on it was positive
Mainly as people didn't understand what had just happened, and were more concerned about their savings etc in the banks

James Brown · 06-12-2019 8:46pm

beggars_bush wrote: »

I remember at the time most comment on it was positive
Mainly as people didn't understand what had just happened, and were more concerned about their savings etc in the banks

Personally I remember there was fear and it was seen as a necessary evil at best. It soon became clear it was essentially a free pass while the tax payer got austerity along with the blame.

Liberta Per Gli Ultra · 07-12-2019 7:52am

The biggest corporate tax haven in the world might be getting blacklisted and properly sanctioned by the EU in the near future. I'll believe it when I see it. In the meantime, the next government should focus on collecting a bit more than 0.2% corporation tax from the multinationals that are supposed to be paying 12.5% and think about moving away from this bullsh1t tax haven model towards a real economy.

Republic set to be in firing line as EU to weigh tougher tax haven listing (Irish Times)

A group of European Union countries is calling for the bloc to cast a wider net when listing tax havens and to consider imposing stricter sanctions for countries facilitating tax avoidance, according to an EU document and an EU official. The move is likely to spark some fear in Government circles.

Good loser · 08-12-2019 11:56pm

Liberta Per Gli Ultra wrote: »

The biggest corporate tax haven in the world might be getting blacklisted and properly sanctioned by the EU in the near future. I'll believe it when I see it. In the meantime, the next government should focus on collecting a bit more than 0.2% corporation tax from the multinationals that are supposed to be paying 12.5% and think about moving away from this bullsh1t tax haven model towards a real economy.

Republic set to be in firing line as EU to weigh tougher tax haven listing (Irish Times)

Didn't the Corpn Tax take increase by €1 bn this year to around €11 bn.

That should be good enough for anyone!

The problem will be to prevent it falling rather than trying to increase it.

By now we must be the country with the highest in the world as a % of total tax revenue.

McGiver · 09-12-2019 11:41pm

Good loser wrote:

By now we must be the country with the highest in the world as a % of total tax revenue.

What? Are you serious?

Geuze · 11-12-2019 1:21am

Good loser wrote: »

By now we must be the country with the highest in the world as a % of total tax revenue.

Yes, CT is high as a share of overall taxes.

Dytalus · 11-12-2019 10:13am

Geuze wrote: »

Yes, CT is high as a share of overall taxes.

It is high, dangerously so, but it's far from the worst in the world. By OECD stats we're a fair bit a way down the list. Admittedly the OECD only has CT revenue from 2016, but back then we had ~11%. Now we have ~19%, which should bump us quite a bit up the list and into the top 20 assuming nobody else had their % jump as much as we did. But number 1 on that list has CT as ~40%. Number 2 through 6 have it above 25%.

This puts us considerably above other developed nations, but not all that close to the top comparatively.

A bigger problem is that so much of that Corporate Tax is concentrated on a very small number of companies, and within only a few sectors of the market (finance, tech). So all it takes is one of those market sectors to collapse, or one of those major companies to leave, and a huge chunk of our CT disappears. Just ten companies accounted for almost half of our entire CT take.

We're not the worst for it in the world, but we're still overly reliant on our CT to fund the Exchequer, and need to start spreading our tax base wider to prevent massive budget problems if the CT cash cow weakens.

James Brown · 03-01-2020 2:10pm

I see the state is to post €1.5bn budget surplus for 2019. In other news, we've no money for social housing builds.

is_that_so · 03-01-2020 5:42pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I see the state is to post €1.5bn budget surplus for 2019. In other news, we've no money for social housing builds.

The money is there, the people to build them are not!

Bishop of hope · 03-01-2020 5:44pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I see the state is to post €1.5bn budget surplus for 2019. In other news, we've no money for social housing builds.

In fairness, they don't have a surplus till they have it, let's see how they use it.

blanch152 · 03-01-2020 7:10pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I see the state is to post €1.5bn budget surplus for 2019. In other news, we've no money for social housing builds.

Good loser wrote: »

Didn't the Corpn Tax take increase by €1 bn this year to around €11 bn.

That should be good enough for anyone!

The problem will be to prevent it falling rather than trying to increase it.

By now we must be the country with the highest in the world as a % of total tax revenue.

Good loser makes the most relevant point of all. The corporation tax take in Ireland is vulnerable to changes in international corporate activity and can vary from year to year. Entering into commitments to spend this money, no matter how good the proposal is, would be foolish at best, stupid and reckless at worst.

The approach being taken of running a budget surplus which ensures that the debt built up as a result of the decisions of the FF government is a good approach. We need to focus on efficiencies in the health service as it is clear that we fund the health service enough, but that it is rife with inefficient work practices.

James Brown · 03-01-2020 10:14pm

is_that_so wrote: »

The money is there, the people to build them are not!

Who's building the apartments we've a 25 year lease on?
Everything gets thrown at why we can't, shouldn't build our own. Nobody to build is the most farcical. Workers are here and can be brought here. They'll come if there's work.
On the surplus, it's getting bandied about like it's a financial positive, if it's not tangible maybe dont crow about it so much.

Bishop of hope · 04-01-2020 9:16am

blanch152 wrote: »

Good loser makes the most relevant point of all. The corporation tax take in Ireland is vulnerable to changes in international corporate activity and can vary from year to year. Entering into commitments to spend this money, no matter how good the proposal is, would be foolish at best, stupid and reckless at worst.

The approach being taken of running a budget surplus which ensures that the debt built up as a result of the decisions of the FF government is a good approach. We need to focus on efficiencies in the health service as it is clear that we fund the health service enough, but that it is rife with inefficient work practices.

Health is a quagmire.
I read yesterday that 2019 was the worst year ever for over crowding and bed shortages and in the same day that minister Harris said he was very happy with his performance as health minister, go figure that one out?

is_that_so · 04-01-2020 10:08am

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Who's building the apartments we've a 25 year lease on?
Everything gets thrown at why we can't, shouldn't build our own. Nobody to build is the most farcical. Workers are here and can be brought here. They'll come if there's work.
On the surplus, it's getting bandied about like it's a financial positive, if it's not tangible maybe dont crow about it so much.

Private housing , apartments aside, seems to have settled. Social was coming from an extremely low base and councils no longer have any ability to address that. It has also been clear for some time they have an inability to get others to do it as well. We will get there on social because it is so high profile but the timeframe is probably 2-5 years no matter who gets in.

James Brown · 04-01-2020 3:23pm

is_that_so wrote: »

Private housing , apartments aside, seems to have settled. Social was coming from an extremely low base and councils no longer have any ability to address that. It has also been clear for some time they have an inability to get others to do it as well. We will get there on social because it is so high profile but the timeframe is probably 2-5 years no matter who gets in.

Sorry, you said:

is_that_so wrote: »

The money is there, the people to build them are not!

Have we moved on? This claim gets raised every few months. The no money/nobody to build are interchangeable. I'd like to put one or both to bed.

In your comment, there has been a concerted move away from building social. We buy and lease to use as social. No money and nobody to build was never the key reasoning behind using vulture funds and other private entities.
And it will take years. Sorry but the we need alternatives now reasoning falls flat when it's all we do in any meaningful numbers over a period of several years or more.

is_that_so · 05-01-2020 10:47am

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Sorry, you said:

Have we moved on? This claim gets raised every few months. The no money/nobody to build are interchangeable. I'd like to put one or both to bed.

In your comment, there has been a concerted move away from building social. We buy and lease to use as social. No money and nobody to build was never the key reasoning behind using vulture funds and other private entities.
And it will take years. Sorry but the we need alternatives now reasoning falls flat when it's all we do in any meaningful numbers over a period of several years or more.

The two are linked. If I have the money in the bank for an extension it doesn't happen anywhere until it's built. I'm not sure what posts you're reading to come up with the rest of this. I never mentioned "vulture funds" nor the whole HAP model nor some move away from social housing but at least we agree on the years. Social housing is being built. The predictions/plans are for larger numbers this year and next.

James Brown · 06-01-2020 3:06pm

is_that_so wrote: »

The two are linked. If I have the money in the bank for an extension it doesn't happen anywhere until it's built. I'm not sure what posts you're reading to come up with the rest of this. I never mentioned "vulture funds" nor the whole HAP model nor some move away from social housing but at least we agree on the years. Social housing is being built. The predictions/plans are for larger numbers this year and next.

Never said you did. That was my comment in my post. Not trying to trip or trap you.
Of course the two are linked. But we have the money and we have and can get more people to build. No money and nobody to build was never the key reasoning behind using vulture funds and other private entities. It could be used as an excuse in the early years of it, but not now.

Bishop of hope · 06-01-2020 7:23pm

Dunnes stores style health spending.
199 more beds by the end of the month, 50 extra today.
But Harris thinks the flu epidemic has peaked.
Worst ever day for bed queues today so it's getting worse everyday and he thinks it's peaked.
199 beds, lol, why not 200?

https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2020/0106/1104550-health/

PeadarCo · 06-01-2020 9:06pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Never said you did. That was my comment in my post. Not trying to trip or trap you.
Of course the two are linked. But we have the money and we have and can get more people to build. No money and nobody to build was never the key reasoning behind using vulture funds and other private entities. It could be used as an excuse in the early years of it, but not now.

It is an excuse. The biggest reason for the austerity measures at the beginning of the last decade was because spending was based on revenue derived from a property buddle. That meant when the bubble popped government income plummeted. Even without the banks austerity measures would have been required. Remember most of the money borrowed was not to bail out the banks but to pay for day to day expenditure.

Critics at the time commented that cutting spending during a recession is not a good idea. They had a point however if you want to spend/borrow money during a recession you need to have saved money/paid down debt during the good times. When it comes to the government and political parties in general they haven't learnt that lesson, the limited introduction of the property tax, water charges, reliance on corporation tax are all examples of the where the Dail as a whole has failed with parties favouring short term gains over the long term.

And when it comes to housing you need to thing long-term as it takes years for houses to be build even on a small scale. At a large scale you need the correct skill base, planning laws, finance etc. None of that happens overnight. Throwing money at things for the sake of it doesn't work. Look at the health service for a good example. So just because you have X billion it doesn't mean you should throw it at housing/health/the hot topic in the media. There has to be a plan. Throwing money at a problem for the sake of it without proper scrutiny is one way to encourage corruption.

James Brown · 07-01-2020 3:50pm

PeadarCo wrote: »

It is an excuse. The biggest reason for the austerity measures at the beginning of the last decade was because spending was based on revenue derived from a property buddle. That meant when the bubble popped government income plummeted. Even without the banks austerity measures would have been required. Remember most of the money borrowed was not to bail out the banks but to pay for day to day expenditure.

Critics at the time commented that cutting spending during a recession is not a good idea. They had a point however if you want to spend/borrow money during a recession you need to have saved money/paid down debt during the good times. When it comes to the government and political parties in general they haven't learnt that lesson, the limited introduction of the property tax, water charges, reliance on corporation tax are all examples of the where the Dail as a whole has failed with parties favouring short term gains over the long term.

Was this the period when we had money for Reilly to build clinics in places of his choosing and set up the Irish Water Quango populated with 'our own' and do a sweet metering deal at a loss to the tax payer, a deal still under investigation, just to name a few of the things?

PeadarCo wrote: »

And when it comes to housing you need to thing long-term as it takes years for houses to be build even on a small scale. At a large scale you need the correct skill base, planning laws, finance etc. None of that happens overnight. Throwing money at things for the sake of it doesn't work. Look at the health service for a good example. So just because you have X billion it doesn't mean you should throw it at housing/health/the hot topic in the media. There has to be a plan. Throwing money at a problem for the sake of it without proper scrutiny is one way to encourage corruption.

All true and not relevant so many years into the crises. As I said was a plausible excuse several years ago, not today.
This is one of Fine Gael's many attitude problems they either believe this or pretend they do. The crises we are all enduring in some form are merely media driven 'hot topics'. Ignorance at best.

Dytalus · 07-01-2020 4:13pm

PeadarCo wrote: »

And when it comes to housing you need to thing long-term as it takes years for houses to be build even on a small scale. At a large scale you need the correct skill base, planning laws, finance etc. None of that happens overnight. Throwing money at things for the sake of it doesn't work. Look at the health service for a good example. So just because you have X billion it doesn't mean you should throw it at housing/health/the hot topic in the media. There has to be a plan. Throwing money at a problem for the sake of it without proper scrutiny is one way to encourage corruption.

I agree with most of your post, but I take issue with this. The excuse of "it doesn't happen overnight" has been used by the Government since it came into power. They've failed to their yearly targets pretty much every year for five years.

I recognise the housing crisis cannot be mended overnight - but whatever the Government has been doing for the last 5+ years has not improved the situation. In 2016 we had a yearly requirement of 25,000. Less than 15,000 were built (possibly less than 5,000 depending on source). In 2018 we had a target of 25,000 and only 18,000 were built. Current estimates suggest we'll need 35,000 built a year for the next few years to make up the loss. In the time since the homeless crisis was first mentioned (as far back as 2013 by some sources I find) there's been more than enough time to set us on the right path. But we consistently fail to meet targets - targets which are already too low for what's needed - and the gap is growing.

The current strategy isn't working.

PeadarCo · 07-01-2020 5:38pm

Dytalus wrote: »

I agree with most of your post, but I take issue with this. The excuse of "it doesn't happen overnight" has been used by the Government since it came into power. They've failed to their yearly targets pretty much every year for five years.

I recognise the housing crisis cannot be mended overnight - but whatever the Government has been doing for the last 5+ years has not improved the situation. In 2016 we had a yearly requirement of 25,000. Less than 15,000 were built (possibly less than 5,000 depending on source). In 2018 we had a target of 25,000 and only 18,000 were built. Current estimates suggest we'll need 35,000 built a year for the next few years to make up the loss. In the time since the homeless crisis was first mentioned (as far back as 2013 by some sources I find) there's been more than enough time to set us on the right path. But we consistently fail to meet targets - targets which are already too low for what's needed - and the gap is growing.

The current strategy isn't working.

I agree the strategy isn't working but an Irish government not having a proper housing strategy or at least one that doesn't pander to local interests or Nimbys is nothing new.

Only recently have councils started to do something about one off houses which has caused massive issues from rural isolation, issues providing effiecent public services or public services at a high cost(ie broadband). You also have a failed spacial strategy that has left the country massively reliant on Dublin with no counter weight.

On a local level even in Dublin you have Nimbys opposing housing development with Pat Kenny being the most high profile example. In rural Ireland you have the Healy Raes on one hand giving out about services in small towns closing but on the other hand promising local to help with planning for one of houses which encourage car use and damages businesses and services in small town and villages.

In the mortgage market you have politicians giving out about high interest rates but also doing nothing about how long it takes to get defaulters out of houses which can take years even for those who make no effort to deal with the bank. This makes Irish mortgages relatively risky as its very hard for banks to get at the collateral themselves or through sales to Funds(vulture funds as the media calls them). This not only increases the interest rate for Irish mortgage holders but also increases the amount of reserves banks have to keep meaning less money to lend to wider economy. In addition to scaring off new entrants to the mortgage market.

The same goes for the Rental market certain politicians start demonising small landlords and then start complaining when they leave the rental market and are replaced by large property funds(in media speak cuckoo funds) who have the resources to deal with the getting rid of problem tenants.

And that's just a sample of the issues facing the supply of housing. And none of issues I've mentioned will be solved by spending more money. I think blaming the current government is a cop out as it let's opposition parties who should be holding the government to account off the hook.

Government Spending [See post 106]

Comments