Budget 2009

Gandalf23

Deleted User wrote: »

You could have posted that 20 posts ago.
The rest of your post is just silly t.b.h
Mind you so was mine where I asked last night should we go out into the moonlight tonight for an aul snog..and make up..
I blame the head melt of your previous posts.. for making me think there was a future in this relationship

We'll let the great unwashed of boards.ie decide on the merits (or otherwise) of your arguments and propositions!

As I said earlier, kthnksbye*

* this indicates an end to the conversation, and reinforces the fact that I am incredibly bored with your inane and frankly ridiculous posts ... please take the hint this time and KTHNKSBYE!!!

Gandalf23

Deleted User wrote: »

The regulator is hardly going to allow an increase in charges that blatantly looks like a recoup of the Levy.
We'll see I 'spose.

Oh, and by the way ... for all those interested ... didnt take us long to see did it?

I think dresden8 said it best when he said "bless your trusting little heart black briar".

Mark200

My mam works in a social welfare office and they got a sheet in yesterday about all the changes....she said there's a lot that was never officially announced, and just kept on the quiet.

dresden8

sundula wrote: »

How did the Horse and Greyhound fund escape with such a small cut ? only 9% I thought this fund was to finish last year. Also how did they escape again with tax free stud fee's ?

Eh, rich people don't like paying taxes maybe?

Gandalf23

Gandalf23 wrote: »

* this indicates an end to the conversation, and reinforces the fact that I am incredibly bored with your inane and frankly ridiculous posts ... please take the hint this time and KTHNKSBYE!!!

mirror mirror on the wall...

Shur I was already bored yesterday but felt the need to correct your constant misrepresentations.
20 posts later and you were still unable to back them up in the face of me correcting you At that stage especially with your over use of the " " I don't think I had much choice but to get jovial.
Lifes too short etc.
At least I didn't get personal !

Dresden8 wrote:

Eh, rich people don't like paying taxes maybe?

it's mostly ordinary people from poor enough backgrounds that are involved in greyhound racing,My Da used do it.
I know another guy who's a SF supporter and ardent dog man who owns,runs and wins and loses with his own.

dresden8

And helping all those poor stud farmers also just happens to help Magnier et al.

To be frank,thats just Richist.

To each their own I suppose.

jmayo

asdasd wrote: »

Most of those capital projects ( which often overrun anywhere) would have saved, had they come in on time about 1% of the HSE budget. The costs of the tribunals lie squarely with the massively overpaid legal class.

Sure what is a few millioon here, there and everywhere.
Some of these projects wasted hundreds of millions not a few million.
I seem to remember the FF line was well it is only tiny amount when looking at entire budget. Yeah think of that the next time you are working on your own household budget :rolleyes:

asdasd wrote: »

My point was simple. There was no way this, or any Irish government could have saved money on the health service by arguing that the growth rate in GDP was possibly unsustainable, or that a country with a young population and one attracting young healthy immigrants was not comparable to aging sclerotic germany. The % of GDP argument is nonsense. We are still hearing about "underfunding" in the HSE. It grew by 300% in less than decade. The real problem with Ireland now is that we have huge problems with day to day spending. This is a problem with relying on taxation from housing to pay day to day civil servant salaries. Had the government put the extra money into the pension reserve ( i.e. earmarked the stamp duty for that) there would be more caterwalling from the same culprits. This is not a defence of FF, no political party can reduce health spending, or not allow it increase proportional to GDP without massive outcries of shame and infamy.

Do you know where most of the money that enters the HSE goes ?
It goes on salaries and I ain't talking about doctors and nurses.
The FF/PD governmnet increased numebrs employed in publi Health sector by approx. 67% between 1997 and 2007. Check CSO.
There is a huge increase in manager numbers and admin staff numbers.
That is where most of the money goes.
I would not mind spending money on health if it meant that my father did not have to spend time on a trolley and did not eventually contract MRSA.
But what have we got for the billions spent on health, sweet f**k all.
Things are probably worse now than they were in 1980.

asdasd wrote: »

Spoken like a true bourgeois. The unskilled Irish are competing for the same jobs they have always competed for. They are not snobs.They are just not competitive in wages.....

On the Euro it may be of some slight benefit now, but since 1999 we have had negative real interest rates. That was a disaster.

Slight benefit me ar**. As pointed out Mr Micro out currency would have been worthless and no one would touch it.
The biggest drawback of changing to Euro was that people upped prices and that we could not devalue in order to make ourselves more competitive against Sterling and Dollar.
But it has now saved our ar**.

Anytime I see someone referring to others as bourgeois, I think of fanatics :rolleyes:

Antrim_Man

You have to laugh. Lenihan said shoppers going North was a problem but it was offset by drivers coming south for fuel. Did he not just put 8c on petrol and today Asda have just brought petrol down to below the £1 per litre mark.

Bloody eejit

dresden8

Deleted User wrote: »

To be frank,thats just Richist.

To each their own I suppose.

Yeah, asking rich people to pay tax is just plain discriminatory.

Gandalf23

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Oh, and by the way ... for all those interested ... didnt take us long to see did it?

Nothing to say about this then have you?

Care to admit there was even the teeniest tiniest chance you might have been wrong when you said "The regulator is hardly going to allow an increase in charges that blatantly looks like a recoup of the Levy".

Here is the link again for you. This is also interesting. Any comment?

Deleted User wrote: »

Shur I was already bored yesterday but felt the need to correct your constant misrepresentations.

Says a lot about you. It must be a huge burden to "feel the need" to correct everything you see as a "misrepresentation" on the Internet :D

Deleted User wrote: »

20 posts later and you were still unable to back them up in the face of me correcting you At that stage especially with your over use of the " " I don't think I had much choice but to get jovial.
Lifes too short etc.

I'm fairly sure not one poster here (with the possible exception of 99'er) would agree that you have corrected me in anything. You have been unable to support anything you have said. Prove me wrong now by linking to any economist who says negative equity is not a bad thing*.

* approximately the millionth time this has been asked ... no reply as yet

asdasd

Do you know where most of the money that enters the HSE goes ?
It goes on salaries and I ain't talking about doctors and nurses

I know where it goes. The producer of the "underfunded" argument knows where it goes. There is a public sector pay elephant in the room. Yet still we cannot reduce the wages, nor reduce the employment figures when we cut. There is no material increase in servicecs on the way up - with a nominal increase in spending of 270% ( to be exact) - but reducing funding of 1% will lead to a toal crisis and hurt the vunerable. Et cetra.

Slight benefit me ar**. As pointed out Mr Micro out currency would have been worthless and no one would touch it.
The biggest drawback of changing to Euro was that people upped prices and that we could not devalue in order to make ourselves more competitive against Sterling and Dollar.
But it has now saved our ar**.

The Euro partially caused the problem. The last thing we needed in 2001 ( and before) was a convergence of interest rates to the low level of Germany. To have 2% interest rates at the height of a boom is utter lunacy. To have negative real interest rates is lunatic.

Runs on currencies are not the evil people think, either. It spreads the loss. If Irish worker become ( as we have, and have had to because of house prices) too uncompetive we need to reduce wages. The only way to do this in the Euro is to actually reduce wages, or increase unemployment. A drop in the price of the currency is fairer because it allows the pain to spread amongst workers, asset holders, capitalists and everyone else. It increases domestic demand for domestic products ( including food which is unaffected) and increases exports. Inflation is increased temporarily but only for imports, and people can turn to local produce.

Anytime I see someone referring to others as bourgeois, I think of fanatics

In general, me too. However the idea that there are jobs that "Irish people wont do" is very very upper middle class, and wrong.

jmayo

asdasd wrote: »

I know where it goes. The producer of the "underfunded" argument knows where it goes. There is a public sector pay elephant in the room. Yet still we cannot reduce the wages, nor reduce the employment figures when we cut. There is no material increase in servicecs on the way up - with a nominal increase in spending of 270% ( to be exact) - but reducing funding of 1% will lead to a toal crisis and hurt the vunerable. Et cetra.

The Euro partially caused the problem. The last thing we needed in 2001 ( and before) was a convergence of interest rates to the low level of Germany. To have 2% interest rates at the height of a boom is utter lunacy. To have negative real interest rates is lunatic.

Runs on currencies are not the evil people think, either. It spreads the loss. If Irish worker become ( as we have, and have had to because of house prices) too uncompetive we need to reduce wages. The only way to do this in the Euro is to actually reduce wages, or increase unemployment. A drop in the price of the currency is fairer because it allows the pain to spread amongst workers, asset holders, capitalists and everyone else. It increases domestic demand for domestic products ( including food which is unaffected) and increases exports. Inflation is increased temporarily but only for imports, and people can turn to local produce.

In general, me too. However the idea that there are jobs that "Irish people wont do" is very very upper middle class, and wrong.

I think we would agree on the public sector wage bill being a huge millstone.
Also on the fact that low interest rates did not help us becuase it just allowed the bubble and personal borrowing orgy to go on too long.
But I think if our currency was standalone we would have been hammered and that would not be good for exchequer borrowings or imports like oil and gas.

I do think though that some Irish people, not all, refused to look at some employment areas and yes it was because the wages were low.
Jeeze no one has ever accused me of being upper middle class before.
I am not sure if I should be indignant or thankful

asdasd

Jeeze no one has ever accused me of being upper middle class before.

I am sorry if you are not. I do apologise :-)

Gandalf23

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Nothing to say about this then have you?

Care to admit there was even the teeniest tiniest chance you might have been wrong when you said "The regulator is hardly going to allow an increase in charges that blatantly looks like a recoup of the Levy".

Well theres blatant and theres by the back door stealth.
He is unlikely to allow blatancy.
You omitted a crucial part of what you quoted me on above [not the first time you've done this by the way]
I also said we'll see-meaning my statement was only hopefull to be honest.
Banks are like any other business,they'll price what the competitive market will bear.

Here is the link again for you. This is also interesting. Any comment?

It's only a newspaper commentary article.It doesn't mean it's gospel or going to happen.
If you think something thats written by a journalist in a paper,means something is going to happen then,I suggest you rethink.

Says a lot about you. It must be a huge burden to "feel the need" to correct everything you see as a "misrepresentation" on the Internet :D

says the author of the 20 or so repetitions of the same misrepresentation.

I'm fairly sure not one poster here (with the possible exception of 99'er) would agree that you have corrected me in anything. You have been unable to support anything you have said. Prove me wrong now by linking to any economist who says negative equity is not a bad thing*.

Thats crap.
You made a crap statement at the outset that petrol prices weren't related to crude prices.
What utter rubbish.
Then several posts in you added the word "strong" as saying what you said initially was patently stupid.

Lets recap the rubbish as posted by you on the relationship between crude prices and petrol prices
Here you said down at the bottom of the post "Crude oil price dropping while petrol price increasing = no correlation!!!!!
" and then even though what you have been saying all along is rubbish anyway only one post later you contradict yourself here by saying "My claim is that there is no strong correlation between unrefined crude oil price per barrel and forecourt petrol prices."

Now which is it?No correlation?
Or no strong correlation.
Bear in mind that the original reason I brought it up was,I made a small point earlier in the thread that oil prices having dropped so low in the past month or two would help the consumer as it filtered through to the pump.
You spent most of yesterday then playing post count tick tack toe with wafer thin misrepresentations-Heaven knows why..

Petrol at my local Tesco is down another 2c a litre today by the way.
The head of Topaz was on morning Ireland today by the way saying he expected it to drop another 8c by Xmas and that there was a 3 week lag usually between a fall in crude and a fall in petrol price.

Prove me wrong [snip] that negative equity is a bad thing
* approximately the millionth time this has been asked ... no reply as yet

More rubbish.I replied many times and you ignored it ,preferring to carry on with some waffly repetitive tangent on the oil.
Crucially towards the end of the waffle,I pointed out to you that you ignored a full stop in a sentence which was at that stage an increasingly desperate effort to make it out to mean something different entirely.
I've pointed out umpteen times that I said it was nothing to worry about except in the case of default [ie 99% of cases should be fine] going on BOI's analysis of their loan book.
Incidently in that same post where I replied to a quoted post of yours,you accused the Bank of Ireland of lying in their september statement.
Thats another example of the girth of craziness in your posts.

Gandalf23

Where to start!

I'll focus on one thing.

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Prove me wrong now by linking to any economist who says negative equity is not a bad thing

Deleted User wrote: »

Prove me wrong [snip] that negative equity is a bad thing

Interesting "snip" there.

You seem reluctant to support your argument in any way. Are you?

Buy maybe I missed something. You have claimed that you have ...

Deleted User wrote: »

... replied many times ... (and) ... pointed out umpteen times

... so please clarify for me if possible this one thing.

You said (and this is a direct quote) ...

Deleted User wrote: »

... negative equity is nothing to worry about in 99% of cases. [The only people who need to worry are those who have an "urgent need" to move, and] they are a tiny tiny minority of home owners …

And directly above ...

Deleted User wrote: »

Negative equity ... was nothing to worry about except in the case of default

Can you point to any economist who agrees that negative equity is "nothing to worry about"?

How do you know that only those who have an "urgent need to move" are a "tiny tiny minority"?

I would appreciate a straight answer and any link you can provide to support what you are saying.

Thanks.

Gandalf23 why are you ignoring/sidestepping most of what I am saying in favour of some tripe about looking for an economist to prove something I didn't say?
Secondly why are you repeatedly saying I said something I haven't said?

Hello?

Économiste Monétaire

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Can you point to any economist who agrees that negative equity is "nothing to worry about"?

How do you know that only those who have an "urgent need to move" are a "tiny tiny minority"?

I would appreciate a straight answer and any link you can provide to support what you are saying.

Thanks.

Urban economics tells us that people, on average, move abode every 7 years. So take 14% of the fraction of people whom are in negative equity and they will, theoretically lose out in the coming year--assuming that they will not alter their moving pattern when they realise they will lose out (how much they lose depends on location, et cetera). I think what Black Briar is trying to say is that, under an assumption that the property market will bottom out and recover reasonably quickly, people generally won't lose out--at least not by much. People will horde property, supply falls in years to come, prices increase and negative equity dissipates. I think that's the argument he's trying to make.

Whether or not that will happen is questionable. I, personally, have no idea what the average person whom is in the bracket of negative equity has 'lost', and when the market will bottom out.

Gandalf23

Deleted User wrote: »

Gandalf23 why are you ignoring/sidestepping most of what I am saying in favour of some tripe about looking for an economist to prove something I didn't say?
Secondly why are you repeatedly saying I said something I haven't said?

They are direct quotes from you. Anyone who reads back through the thread can see you said exactly that.

Amazing you would try to deny it!!

Its not surprising though ... you cant support your ridiculous statements can you?

Gandalf23

UCD_Econ wrote: »

I think that's the argument he's trying to make.

Good post ... well put.

I have no idea what he's talking about either ... but he has directly said the following;
1. "Negative equity ... is nothing to worry about except in the case of default".
2. "negative equity is nothing to worry about in 99% of cases"
3. "The only people who need to worry are those who have an "urgent need" to move, and they are a tiny tiny minority of home owners "

I would disagree strongly with all these statements. In fact I would consider them utterly ridiculous, ill-informed, and ignorant.

I'm assuming you know a bit about economics. Would you agree with any of black briars statements?

Gandalf23

Gandalf23 wrote: »

They are direct quotes from you. Anyone who reads back through the thread can see you said exactly that.

Amazing you would try to deny it!!

Its not surprising though ... you cant support your ridiculous statements can you?

You are wrong of course.
Still denying the full stop in my sentence about negative equity then and ignoring my last post where I showed you contradict yourself?

The incredulity thickens by the post but hey carry on.

Gandalf23

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Good post ... well put.

I have no idea what he's talking about either ... but he has directly said the following;
1. "Negative equity ... is nothing to worry about except in the case of default".

To clarify-yes I said that.

2. "negative equity is nothing to worry about in 99% of cases"

Yes I said that but please add in the context rather than running away with some other concept.The context is,if you can continue to pay your loan,you have nothing to worry about.

3. "The only people who need to worry are those who have an "urgent need" to move, and they are a tiny tiny minority of home owners "

Yes,Urgent.

I would disagree strongly with all these statements. In fact I would consider them utterly ridiculous, ill-informed, and ignorant.

Well we disagree then whoopee doo!It doesn't give either of us,the monopoly on what other people should do or think.
I'm here to discuss my opinion and not to be ratty about it.

Gandalf23

OK ... talking into account your previous post you are now saying this ...

Deleted User wrote: »

1. "Negative equity ... is nothing to worry about except in the case of default".
2. "negative equity is nothing to worry about in 99% of cases" (context = if you can continue to pay your loan,you have nothing to worry about)
3. "The only people who need to worry are those who have an "urgent need" to move, and they are a tiny tiny minority of home owners " (emphasis on Urgent)

Can you link to any recogonised economist who would agree with these statements?

What have you based this thinking on?

Or are they just the product of your own mind? Is this simply your own opinion?

I re-emphasize the fact that I would consider these statements to be utterly ridiculous, ill-informed, biased, and ignorant.

This discussion about FF's view on negative equity is also happening elsewhere on boards btw. Anything look familiar? The FF argument doesn't seem to be winning there either

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm here to discuss my opinion and not to be ratty about it.

Not ratty!

I thought I was getting under your skin there for a minute :D:D

Économiste Monétaire

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Good post ... well put.

I have no idea what he's talking about either ... but he has directly said the following;
1. "Negative equity ... is nothing to worry about except in the case of default".
2. "negative equity is nothing to worry about in 99% of cases"
3. "The only people who need to worry are those who have an "urgent need" to move, and they are a tiny tiny minority of home owners "

I would disagree strongly with all these statements. In fact I would consider them utterly ridiculous, ill-informed, and ignorant.

I'm assuming you know a bit about economics. Would you agree with any of black briars statements?

With his clarifications above, I'd agree with with them partially, that is based on the assumption that the people whom are in negative equity will recover the, on paper, loss. If that does occur (it won't in all areas), i.e. a correction in a relatively short space of time, then most people probably don't have the much to worry about. Unless of course you're trying to sell your home to move to one in a lower price bracket, after losing your job. But, I don't have data on negative equity levels and where that's dispersed. I wouldn't agree with a statement that the situation is, unequivocally, nothing to worry about--but it's hard to say (measure) how bad it could get.

Negative equity will become a problem if defaulting increases rapidly, and the average price of a home will, most likely, fall sharply mirroring what has happened in the U.S. (3 million defaults is the figure I've heard, of course you have to make that relative to population). That could lead us into a Japanese situation which you should all pray doesn't happen.

cabinteelytom

UCD_Econ wrote: »

I, personally, have no idea what the average person whom is in the bracket of negative equity has 'lost', and when the market will bottom out.

The dative case of who! As the subject of that subordinate clause. (With apologies, for having a sensivity close to anguish.)

NYC353

Just when you thought the government was getting real.
As the detail emerges of how the local authority mortgage scheme for first time buyers will work, it reveals that this isn't a pro first time buyer move at all, it is a pro developer move:

"You may only buy a newly built home"

What are they trying to do?
Is it 1. just culturally they are a continuation of Bertie's pro-developer regime? even with the Greens on board
or 2. completely incompetent?

jimmysull

NYC353 wrote: »

Just when you thought the government was getting real.
As the detail emerges of how the local authority mortgage scheme for first time buyers will work, it reveals that this isn't a pro first time buyer move at all, it is a pro developer move

The furore over the medical card issue, while serious, could be a handy smokescreen for this with the media falling for it hook line and sinker.
a bit like the proviosonal license issue providing cover for Bertie's 30% pay hike
You gotta love FF! They have the Irish media in their pockets

asdasd

Just when you thought the government was getting real.
As the detail emerges of how the local authority mortgage scheme for first time buyers will work, it reveals that this isn't a pro first time buyer move at all, it is a pro developer move:

It never was a pro-first time buyers move. Were it extended to all buyers it would be a pro-sellers move - an attempt to prop up a market.

Clearly it is rubbish. The State is guaranteeing what are effectively risky loans. i bet this legislation is never repealed so that when credit eases the people who can not get sufficent finance from a bank or building society. will be absolutely and totally sub-prime. So we know the next financial heartache. This time directly taxpayers money.

luckat

By their friends shall you know them. These people have been heart-close to Bertie and Lawlor and the rest for most of their lives. What do you expect them to be like?

As for the Greens - bourgeois yessir-saying wimps, they're going to be slaughtered in the next election.

Mr.Micro

asdasd wrote: »

It never was a pro-first time buyers move. Were it extended to all buyers it would be a pro-sellers move - an attempt to prop up a market.

Clearly it is rubbish. The State is guaranteeing what are effectively risky loans. i bet this legislation is never repealed so that when credit eases the people who can not get sufficent finance from a bank or building society. will be absolutely and totally sub-prime. So we know the next financial heartache. This time directly taxpayers money.

Do'nt forget everyone it has to tie in with the banks who have loaned to the developers and who will hope to borrow more debt from the banks who hope to get their money back by developers building more houses and selling them to first them buyers. A nice cosy deal between the Government,Local authorities, developers and the banks.

The irony is that there is a glut of properties out there new and second hand that could be bought cheaply yet the NEW houses via the Local authorities will no doubt be dearer, and the buyer will have to buy from this approved developer, in other words a monopoly where one or 2 developers will have the contract. Such a scheme open to massive corruption IMO and against fair practice. Ah sure this is Ireland.