Budget 2009

NYC353

FrankGrimes wrote: »

I'm fully prepared to do my bit by taking an increase in taxes but I am disappointed that there's nothing to take more tax from the super-wealthy

In fact the super wealthy (aka Friends of Bertie) get an exemption in the budget from the €10 tax on flights. All private jets are exempt unless they have more than 20 seats.

No FG supporter has ever or will ever fly in a private jet?

Do you know who owns Slane Castle?

jimmysull

Deleted User wrote: »

No FG supporter has ever or will ever fly in a private jet?

Do you know who owns Slane Castle?

What has that got to do with the fact that the government gave an exemption to the super rich?
Who cares what political party one individual super rich person supports?

Fact is they increased tax on ordinary people and gave an exemption to teh super rich. You are scraping the bottom of the barrell now

NYC353

jimmysull wrote: »

What has that got to do with the fact that the government gave an exemption to the super rich?
Who cares what political party one individual super rich person supports?

FFrs do that all the time, look for the one example that isn't them.

eg Scandal/ chronyism and corruption is part of the FF DNA yet they only ever bring Michael Lowry up in any such discussion.

jimmysull

jimmysull wrote: »

What has that got to do with the fact that the government gave an exemption to the super rich?

Nothing much.It wasn't meant to be a comment on that.

Who cares what political party one individual super rich person supports?

The poster to whom I was replying clearly does as one party was singled out.

Fact is they increased tax on ordinary people and gave an exemption to teh super rich. You are scraping the bottom of the barrell now

I'd imagine they wouldn't raise a whole lot from the cohort who fly in private jets around,in and out of this country if they applied a tenner charge to it.

I would imagine there would be lots of raised eyebrows among the FDI managers if for some ideological reason that thye were to becharged as "rich" people say €100 in tax per one of those flights though.

NYC353

NYC353 wrote: »

eg Scandal/ chronyism and corruption is part of the FF DNA yet they only ever bring Michael Lowry up in any such discussion.

Was Slane castle sold recently ?

I'm not an Ff'er by the way..

NYC353

Deleted User wrote: »

Was Slane castle sold recently ?

What is your hangup on slane castle?
I've been living in the states for 9 months now so if there was some corruption associated with it recently I missed it

Ok .
Slane is owned by Lord Henry Mount Charles a well known FG supporter who I am reckoning is no stranger to private planes.
I was pointing out the fallacy that Rich people are confined to FF.

Maglight

turgon wrote: »

That would have hurt the builders and the developers, Antrim_Man, and thus an impossibility.

People earning €85k are not builders or developers. They are middle managers in larger companies. They are IT managers, HR managers, Financial Accountants, Sales people, Advertising Managers. They aren't fat cats. They are employees who have probably gone to university and worked hard long hours to get a management job. They are probably mortgaged up to the eyeballs and paying exorbitant childcare for their kids - just like everyone else.

Builders and Developers earn hundreds of thousands. The bigger ones earn millions. Why are people crowing that the so called 'fat cats' earning over 100k are finally being hit where they deserve. You can't even buy a bog standard 3 bed house in Dublin on 100k per year. Wake up. The government has ripped off employees once again and let the people who created the mess off scot free. We are right back to the 80s when builders, farmers and business people paid nothing and kept their money in off shore accounts and the PAYE worker was robbed blind at source.

It was a shameful and gutless budget.

Gandalf23

Deleted User wrote: »

If you don't like what I'm saying,thats fine but don't be using personal abuse as a last restort to declare that.

This is the second time you have accused me of personal abuse without reference to specifics. Please use the report post button if you feel I have personally abused you in any way.

You have not provided any links or evidence to support anything you have said, so its a bit rich you asking me for a link. Despite that, heres the Bertie suicide link quote. Will you now provide a links when asked? You could start with a link from any recogonised economist to support your view that negative equity is not a bad thing. Good luck with that!

Deleted User wrote: »

Deliberately misinterpreting my position ...

I'm prepared to let people decide for themselves. You dont seem to be getting a lot of support for anything you are saying ...

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope I responded to your example of Japan.
Western Europe and Ireland has very little in common with there.

I disagree totally with your opinion on this. You are giving examples of what has happened in the US and linking that to Ireland and Europe when that suits your argument, yet you ignore other examples where negative equity has lasted 10+ years (Japan and Scandinavia) when that doesnt suit your argument. You also ignore my question about all the people who wish to move house for whatever reason, and how negative equity effects them. My opinion is thats both unfair and arrogant on your part. It is very possible that negative equity could last for a long time in Ireland. It has happened elsewhere.

Your arguments about oil prices is also ludicrous. It is very possible that oil could increase in multiples (300%, 500%, 1000% and more even). All that would take would be for Israel to bomb Iran... see what happens to oil prices then. Also, simple economics would dictate that as oil reserves decrease prices will increase. The "oil shock" programme on RTE clearly predicted this. It is simply inacurate and ignorant to claim (as you have ... your quotes are in my previous link to your posts for all to see) that there is a correlation between crude oil prices and petrol prices at the pumps. I would refer you to the interview on Matt Coopers show last week with the CEO of Topaz ... he completely dismissed any correlation. Are you so sure you are correct that you are willing to disagree with the CEO of a major Irish oil company? He disagrees with you, but you seem willing to take the word of your local oil delivery man over all this established fact and wisdom? Curious. That wouldnt be just because it suits your argument would it

Finally, I find it very distasteful that you seem to dismiss and belittle the real pain that large sections of Irish people are feeling (some would say as a direct result of the incompetence of this government and their mismanagement of the economy). You are in a lucky position if you have more money in your pocket (an extra €200 did you say?), and I say fair play to you for that. But that does not give you the right to mock and dismiss other peoples real misery ... the poor, the old, the unemployed, the middle classes, and many others are genuinely finding things difficult. If you dont believe me just listen to Joe Duffy now if you are near a radio. But they are probably all wrong and you are right, right?

Maglight

Maglight wrote: »

We are right back to the 80s when builders, farmers and business people paid nothing and kept their money in off shore accounts and the PAYE worker was robbed blind at source.

As someone said to me yesterday.. I remember the 1980's and they were nothing like this
Theres a kitchen maker near me who is busy out.
I've a small builder friend who does kitchen extentions,fitted wardrobes,house extentions etc and he can hardly keep up with the work still !

Thats far from the 1980's when tens of thousands were leaving our shores annually.

Theres an awfull lot of hyperbole in this thread.Some of it is like a written version of the most exaggerated parts of Joe Duffy.

Gandalf23

Deleted User wrote: »

Theres an awfull lot of hyperbole in this thread.

Oh, the irony!!!

Deleted User wrote: »

Some of it is like a written version of the most exaggerated parts of Joe Duffy.

The people on Joe Duffy are real people who are in real pain. I for one feel sorry for some of them.

podge79

NYC353 wrote: »

In fact the super wealthy (aka Friends of Bertie) get an exemption in the budget from the €10 tax on flights. All private jets are exempt unless they have more than 20 seats.

includes the govt jet so..... clever little so and so's arent they.....

Akrasia

nhughes100 wrote: »

1% of the taxpayers pay about 20% in tax according to Mary Harney this morning, and as has been correctly pointed out the more you earn the more as a percentage of your income you pay in tax.

That was pure propaganda and spin. Harney was talking about percentages of income tax but during the last 12 years, the percentage of income tax in relation to the total tax take has been falling as the FF/PDs pushed us towards regressive service charges and stealth taxes.
The irish income tax rates have been falling steadily over the last decade, but the over all tax burdon per capita remains the same, this means that there is a greater reliance on regressive taxation, and the lower paid are paying a greater proportion of their income to the government

It goes without saying that the more money you have the more you will pay in direct and indirect taxation. The VRT & VAT you pay on a car, stamp duty, electronic goods, tolls, fuel, clothes etc. In any case Corperation tax is a huge earner for the government much more so then Joe six pack.

And the more you earn, the more you can write off under the various schemes and loopholes that exist in the tax code. The proportion of someone's income that goes towards taxation is much higher for low paid workers than for the high rollers, and thats why its regressive. Also the fact that it is much more of a burdon for someone on a subsistance wage

Gandalf23

Gandalf23 wrote: »

If you really believe that "A person who is able to pay their loan,shouldn't be worrying about temporary negative equity" you demonstrate a deep misunderstanding of the reality of negative equity. Again, I ask you what of the person attempting to trade up, trade down, move to a different area, move abroad, sell an inherited house, etc etc etc. What about them? Or do you really believe that everyone who buys a house will live in it for 45 years? I would suggest that is the exception rather than the rule, and that most people would be concerned about negative equity. (And the fact you seem to blissfully ignore that most of the worlds leading economists would say negative equity is a bad thing ... not arrogant in the slightest to disagree with all of them!!!!).

Deleted User wrote: »

Much melodrama there..

Where is the melodrama?

What specifically do you disagree with in my statement?

jmayo

Intersting Blackbriar says he is not FFer but yet he has been defending them over the last few days vociferously in this thread and in the other Kenny paycut related thread :rolleyes:

He is spouting the party line that it is not the fault of the over spending, property loving, developer backing governments over the last few years but external influences, US subprime and oil prices.
Me thinks he is now protesting to not being FF in order to appear objective :rolleyes:
His posts have all the hallmakrs of spouting the party line,and I know it well, about how it is all the fault of those damm Americans and the subprime loans.

Don't people realise but for subprime and credit crunch where banks stopped lending to each other, our economy would have been fine since banks would still have been lending 100% mortgages to FTBs for one bed shoeboxes in Naas or Gorey and huge interest only mortgages to investors to buy Sectioon 23 property in Leitrim :rolleyes:

Of course normal economics with supply and demand issues, property being unsustainable multiples of average salaries, etc would never have raised their head and the market would have grown exponentially.
We of course would have had the first bubble in history that would never have exploded if it wasn't forthe credit crunch :rolleyes:

BTW he is also has the point about oil prices and how it just adds to the awful unforeseen circumstances that conspired to undermine the brilliant economic miracle that bertie the great had built.
Damm those foreigners, it's all their fault

irish_bob

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Oh, the irony!!!



The people on Joe Duffy are real people who are in real pain. I for one feel sorry for some of them.

the people moaning on liveline this past hour are a bunch of tight fisted meanies who have been spoilt for too long and simply want to bring thier money with them when they die , pensioners in this country between free travel , fuel allowances and medical cards have it way better than thier brittish and european counterparts , one female caller was talking about taking to the streets , if she comes near my door , i wont be long telling sacred cows like her where to go

you would think that every person over 70 in the country fought at the GPO , being old does not make you special no more than being muslim or gay does

Gandalf23

Gandalf23 wrote: »

This is the second time you have accused me of personal abuse without reference to specifics. Please use the report post button if you feel I have personally abused you in any way.

I didn't have to report the first abuse you pegged at me because the mod got in there before me :rolleyes:

You have not provided any links or evidence to support anything you have said, so its a bit rich you asking me for a link. Despite that, heres the Bertie suicide link quote. Will you now provide a links when asked? You could start with a link from any recogonised economist to support your view that negative equity is not a bad thing. Good luck with that!

Ah I'd forgotten about that,I wouldn't have used those words...maybe he was under a bit of pressure at the time-Actually he was,he's gone now on account of it.

As for you looking for me to provide you with links to Economists saying Negative equity isn't a bad thing..Why would I have to do that?
I've not said it isn't a bad thing,it is if you have an urgent need to move.
What I actually said was it was nothing to worry about in 99% of cases.
You on the other hand have again misrepresented what I've said.

I'm prepared to let people decide for themselves. You dont seem to be getting a lot of support for anything you are saying ...

Again,thats not the be all and end all.
I'm not impressed with your efforts to attack the poster when you don't like what you're reading though and neither is the mod in the link above

I disagree totally with your opinion on this. You are giving examples of what has happened in the US and linking that to Ireland and Europe when that suits your argument,

I'm giving examples of known facts that US bad loans dressed up in derivitive instruments have foobarred the worlds banking liquidity.

yet you ignore other examples where negative equity has lasted 10+ years (Japan and Scandinavia) when that doesnt suit your argument.

If you are trying to draw a comparison of the effects in Scandanavia and Japan on the rest of the world including Ireland,you've got things very upside down.
The U.S is the biggest economy in the world and has a much greater affect on it and bringing it up was in the right context.
Your example of japan or Scandinavia had no context or influence in Ireland at all.

You also ignore my question about all the people who wish to move house for whatever reason, and how negative equity effects them.

They are a tiny tiny minority of home owners and I've given my opinion on what thye should be doing and thats waiting to be honest untill liquidity has repaired and it looks like it will given the global response.

To be more specefic,if their house has fallen in value,so has the house they want to buy as well so they are probably looking at borrowing the same amount of money relatively to move.
So really there is nothing to worry about if they stay in work.

My opinion is thats both unfair and arrogant on your part. It is very possible that negative equity could last for a long time in Ireland. It has happened elsewhere.

It's unlikely to last more than a few years in most cases.
For the reason I stated above it's less of a problem for the "trading uppers" than you would lead us to believe.

Your arguments about oil prices is also ludicrous. It is very possible that oil could increase in multiples (300%, 500%, 1000% and more even). All that would take would be for Israel to bomb Iran... see what happens to oil prices then. Also, simple economics would dictate that as oil reserves decrease prices will increase. The "oil shock" programme on RTE clearly predicted this. It is simply inacurate and ignorant to claim (as you have ... your quotes are in my previous link to your posts for all to see) that there is a correlation between crude oil prices and petrol prices at the pumps. I would refer you to the interview on Matt Coopers show last week with the CEO of Topaz ... he completely dismissed any correlation. Are you so sure you are correct that you are willing to disagree with the CEO of a major Irish oil company? He disagrees with you, but you seem willing to take the word of your local oil delivery man over all this established fact and wisdom? Curious. That wouldnt be just because it suits your argument would it

I actually heard that interview.Listen to it again.
What he said was that oil bought at high prices is refined at high prices.
It takes time for that to filter through.
For you to continually suggest that it doesn't filter through in both directions depending on the way the market is going is laughable because anyone buying oil products in the last year knows exactly what direction they went in [up because their raw material prise (crude) was rising and latterly down because the crude was falling].

Finally, I find it very distasteful that you seem to dismiss and belittle the real pain that large sections of Irish people are feeling (some would say as a direct result of the incompetence of this government and their mismanagement of the economy). You are in a lucky position if you have more money in your pocket (an extra €200 did you say?), and I say fair play to you for that. But that does not give you the right to mock and dismiss other peoples real misery ... the poor, the old, the unemployed, the middle classes, and many others are genuinely finding things difficult. If you dont believe me just listen to Joe Duffy now if you are near a radio. But they are probably all wrong and you are right, right?

What did I say about the €200 ? Is that what I saved because my home heating oil had gone down in price due to the price of crude falling?

As for Joe Duffy's show lol-keep listening if you like.
But I'd suggest that you like me,engage with different opinions to your own from time to time.
It's healthier

nesf

jmayo wrote: »

Intersting Blackbriar says he is not FFer but yet he has been defending them over the last few days vociferously in this thread and in the other Kenny paycut related thread :rolleyes:

He is spouting the party line that it is not the fault of the over spending, property loving, developer backing governments over the last few years but external influences, US subprime and oil prices.
Me thinks he is now protesting to not being FF in order to appear objective :rolleyes:
His posts have all the hallmakrs of spouting the party line,and I know it well, about how it is all the fault of those damm Americans and the subprime loans

Attack the post, not the poster.


Seriously people, don't stoop to getting personal or attacking the person instead of their post. I'll start handing out bans if people can't follow this simple rule and I don't want to have to do that and yes saying a person is lying about their political affiliations is attacking the poster and not their post.

Also just because someone doesn't tow the "blame FF for the mess we're in" line doesn't mean that they are a closet FFer.

jmayo

jmayo wrote: »

Intersting Blackbriar says he is not FFer but yet he has been defending them over the last few days vociferously in this thread and in the other Kenny paycut related thread :rolleyes:

He is spouting the party line that it is not the fault of the over spending, property loving, developer backing governments over the last few years but external influences, US subprime and oil prices.
Me thinks he is now protesting to not being FF in order to appear objective :rolleyes:
His posts have all the hallmakrs of spouting the party line,and I know it well, about how it is all the fault of those damm Americans and the subprime loans.

Can you say that I've won the lottery too please ? I'm hoping that theres something to your logic there :rolleyes:

Don't people realise but for subprime and credit crunch where banks stopped lending to each other, our economy would have been fine since banks would still have been lending 100% mortgages to FTBs for one bed shoeboxes in Naas or Gorey and huge interest only mortgages to investors to buy Sectioon 23 property in Leitrim :rolleyes:

Your argument doesn't tie in well with for example BOI's expectation of a 1% max impairment of their loan book.

Of course normal economics with supply and demand issues, property being unsustainable multiples of average salaries, etc would never have raised their head and the market would have grown exponentially.
We of course would have had the first bubble in history that would never have exploded if it wasn't forthe credit crunch :rolleyes:

I never said that so introducing it as if I did is disingenous.
However I did say that the credit crunch was affecting the spend in the economy via that delayed overdraft,personal loan,small business loan or start up loan.
Dry them up and you do have a hurt economy.

BTW he is also has the point about oil prices and how it just adds to the awful unforeseen circumstances that conspired to undermine the brilliant economic miracle that bertie the great had built.
Damm those foreigners, it's all their fault

Rofl.

Neither you or I can be certain about what way this economy would have went over all in the absence of a credit crunch.
It was already evident that supply and demand was righting itself in the property market.
Most banks in fact the summer before last were restricting new additions to their property development portfolio's.
They had certainly started to reign in on high LTV's up to a year ago aswell.

Gandalf23

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't have to report the first abuse you pegged at me because the mod got in there before me :rolleyes:

Where did the mod say anything about "personal abuse"? Personal abuse is a bannable offence in this forum and if I had personally abused you in any way I'd be banned by now. Or are you engaging in back seat modding? (Thats also against the charter ... maybe you should be banned ... lol). You have accused me of this a few times, so I'm asking again where I have personally abused you. Specific examples please as you have said it has hapened more than once.

Just because I strongly believe your posts and claims are clearly biased, ill-informed, arrogant, unrealistic, unsupported, narrow-minded, short sighted, ridiculous, and arrogant does not constitute personal abuse. I have said nothing about you personally, I have commented on your posts.

Deleted User wrote: »

As for you looking for me to provide you with links to Economists saying Negative equity isn't a bad thing..Why would I have to do that?
I've not said it isn't a bad thing, it is if you have an urgent need to move.
What I actually said was it was nothing to worry about in 99% of cases. They are a tiny tiny minority of home owners and I've given my opinion on what thye should be doing and thats waiting to be honest untill liquidity has repaired and it looks like it will given the global response.

So, let me get this straight ... negative equity is a bad thing ONLY if you have an "urgent need" to move? And you think only 1% of people fall into that category? And 99% of people buy their house to live in it for 45 years? Where did you get this figure?

Please please please provide some evidence for that claim?

Deleted User wrote: »

So really there is nothing to worry about if they stay in work. It's unlikely to last more than a few years in most cases.
For the reason I stated above it's less of a problem for the "trading uppers" than you would lead us to believe.

Even though there are examples of negative equity lasting for over ten years in Japan, Scandanavia, and the US ...

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm giving examples of known facts that US bad loans dressed up in derivitive instruments have foobarred the worlds banking liquidity. If you are trying to draw a comparison of the effects in Scandanavia and Japan on the rest of the world including Ireland,you've got things very upside down. Your example of japan or Scandinavia had no context or influence in Ireland at all.

"Known facts". lol :D:D

Deleted User wrote: »

I actually heard that interview.Listen to it again.
What he said was that oil bought at high prices is refined at high prices.
It takes time for that to filter through.
For you to continually suggest that it doesn't filter through in both directions depending on the way the market is going is laughable because anyone buying oil products in the last year knows exactly what direction they went in [up because their raw material prise (crude) was rising and latterly down because the crude was falling].

The interview clearly states that unrefined crude oil prices are not correlated to petrol prices at the pumps. This was proven yesterday ... crude oil prices fell, and the price of petrol at the pumps increased. No direct correlation. The Maxol guy was correct.

This is exactly the opposite of what you are claiming?

There is also this interesting discussion about fuel prices in the Motors forum. Perhaps you should look at it? Seems like the motorists of Ireland dont see all unrefined crude oil price falls being passed on as you claim.

So who should we believe ... you or the CEO of Maxol and the combined motoring community of Ireland? I'm happy for people to listen to the interview and read the forum link and make up their own minds :D

Deleted User wrote: »

But I'd suggest that you like me,engage with different opinions to your own from time to time.
It's healthier

I would certainly agree that your opinions are "different" lol :D:D

nhughes100

Akrasia wrote: »

That was pure propaganda and spin. Harney was talking about percentages of income tax but during the last 12 years, the percentage of income tax in relation to the total tax take has been falling as the FF/PDs pushed us towards regressive service charges and stealth taxes.
The irish income tax rates have been falling steadily over the last decade, but the over all tax burdon per capita remains the same, this means that there is a greater reliance on regressive taxation, and the lower paid are paying a greater proportion of their income to the government

And the more you earn, the more you can write off under the various schemes and loopholes that exist in the tax code. The proportion of someone's income that goes towards taxation is much higher for low paid workers than for the high rollers, and thats why its regressive. Also the fact that it is much more of a burdon for someone on a subsistance wage

I'd much rather have the money in my pocket and choose how to spend it rather then give it all to the government. In any case the lower paid tax burden pales into insignificance compared with the corperation tax yield.

Could you point out the tax loopholes and various schemes that exist for paye workers on reasonable incomes say 40K+ then as you go up the salary ladder, 50K, 60K. I'd love to write off a few expenses of mine, like 1200 quid a year in tolls for a start.

I wasn't disputing that the tax hikes were regressive and if you re-read my post you'll that I was against the vat hike and against taxing those on minimum wage.

jmayo

nesf wrote: »

Attack the post, not the poster.
Seriously people, don't stoop to getting personal or attacking the person instead of their post. I'll start handing out bans if people can't follow this simple rule and I don't want to have to do that and yes saying a person is lying about their political affiliations is attacking the poster and not their post.

Also just because someone doesn't tow the "blame FF for the mess we're in" line doesn't mean that they are a closet FFer.

Sorry nesf, but when someone is continously forwarding opinions that appear to be the standard output of people from a particular political perspective then I point to my believe that they are affialiated to that organisation.
BTW I never met a closet FFer
Do they ever come out of the closet

Deleted User wrote: »

Your argument doesn't tie in well with for example BOI's expectation of a 1% max impairment of their loan book.

However I did say that the credit crunch was affecting the spend in the economy via that delayed overdraft,personal loan,small business loan or start up loan.
Dry them up and you do have a hurt economy.

Neither you or I can be certain about what way this economy would have went over all in the absence of a credit crunch.
It was already evident that supply and demand was righting itself in the property market.
Most banks in fact the summer before last were restricting new additions to their property development portfolio's.
They had certainly started to reign in on high LTV's up to a year ago aswell.

I wait to see how the loans of any of the banks will stand up.
I would presume the larger two will be more resilient, but IMHO I foresee two if not more of the smaller banks/institutions hitting the wall or another bigger institutioon forcing into taking them over.

If supply and demand was righting itself, how come we have so many empty properties throughout the country and that does not even include the unsold properties ?

Either way the housing bubble was going to implode, it just needed a prod.
Ther is no way it could have kept going.
Yes the credit crunch has limited the amount of cheap credit available to people to blow on credit cards and their retail spending, but don't blame the unsustainable housing bubble coming to an end on it.
Things were already slowing, maybe the bubble would have staggered along a bit longer but then the drop would only be worse still.

Gandalf23

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Where did the mod say anything about "personal abuse"? Personal abuse is a bannable offence in this forum and if I had personally abused you in any way I'd be banned by now. Or are you engaging in back seat modding? (Thats also against the charter ... maybe you should be banned ... lol). You have accused me of this a few times, so I'm asking again where I have personally abused you. Specific examples please as you have said it has hapened more than once.

I said you have pegged abuse at me more than once.
I gave the one example where a mod intervened because you [like your posts on other stuff in this thread] were pretending it didn't exist.
I'm not going to discuss moderation in this thread as it's against the charter.

Just because I strongly believe your posts and claims are clearly biased, ill-informed, arrogant, unrealistic, unsupported, narrow-minded, short sighted, ridiculous, and arrogant does not constitute personal abuse. I have said nothing about you personally, I have commented on your posts.

This is the first time you've refered to my posts rather than just saying "you" actually.For the record you were making no bones that it was me personally you were attacking so please don't lie when the written record says otherwise

So, let me get this straight ... negative equity is a bad thing ONLY if you have an "urgent need" to move? And you think only 1% of people fall into that category? And 99% of people buy their house to live in it for 45 years? Where did you get this figure?

There you go again misrepresenting me.
I said Bank of Ireland expect slightly less than 1% of their loan book to be impared.I didn't say only 1% want to move..
I did make a point that people who are able to pay their loans shouldn't be worrying about the value of their asset.
Thats mega times more so for the vast majority who will be in their homes for the life time of their loans.

Even though there are examples of negative equity lasting for over ten years in Japan, Scandanavia, and the US ...

This would be the first time that I am aware of that mortgages in any country were packaged up into instruments for sale to other banks world wide.
It would be the fuirst time that I'm aware of that they have had such far reaching horrible affects on economic growth via the resulting credit crunch.
What I originally said about was based on a 30 or 35 year loan.The majority of loans fall into that category and shorter.
45 year mortgages are rare enough.
If you are seriously expecting 10 years of negative equity in an economy as healthy as ours [a 2% contraction for 3 years wouldn't even wipe out the growth of the previous 3 years even if it went on that long which it won't because lets face it,theres over 2 million people working here out of a population including dependents of 4.5 million.
Japan is a bad example anyway as it's number employed over the last ten or more years has been relatively static whereas ours has grown by 50%.
Unemployment is up yes but it's hardly a dent in the million extra jobs of the last decade and is unlikely to be.

The interview clearly states that unrefined crude oil prices are not correlated to petrol prices at the pumps. This was proven yesterday ... crude oil prices fell, and the price of petrol at the pumps increased. No direct correlation. The Topaz guy was correct.

I see so you'll be back on here if and when pump prices rise when oil goes up again.
You'll be on to say it's something else thats causing it?
What caused it in the last year? secret 8c tax rises?

This is exactly the opposite of what you are claiming?

So who should we believe ... you or the CEO of Topaz. I'm happy for people to listen to the interview and make up their own minds :D

Do better and ask him why prices dropped 18 cent since mid summer or why his deliveries of home heating oil dropped in price.

Your continuing assertion that the 8c tax rise means pump prices don't rise or fall in relation to the raw material cost is seriously flawed.
Of course there are other factors that affect prices too [including taxes] but thats immaterial in a discussion about prices that were dragged up by high oil and are now falling due to falling oil.

jmayo wrote:

I wait to see how the loans of any of the banks will stand up.
I would presume the larger two will be more resilient, but IMHO I foresee two if not more of the smaller banks/institutions hitting the wall or another bigger institutioon forcing into taking them over.

If supply and demand was righting itself, how come we have so many empty properties throughout the country and that does not even include the unsold properties ?

I can't comment on how the banks here will fare.
For once I'll go some of the road with you in that I fear for the smaller ones.As you say if they get into trouble [We are where we are with them].
If they cannot survive,they will be taken over.

As for supply and demand righting itself,you've hit one of each others nails on the head there really.
Nowhere in this or the other thread did I or would I have made an argument that prices would continue to go up.
Of course thats unsustainable.
Your unoccupied houses could not have been held for long by their builders without 2 things happening (i) their price dropping and (ii) they being sold.
The latter is delayed by the credit crunch.

nesf

jmayo wrote: »

Sorry nesf, but when someone is continously forwarding opinions that appear to be the standard output of people from a particular political perspective then I point to my believe that they are affialiated to that organisation.

You can believe whatever you want but your posts should respond to their posts and not be targeted at them and what you believe their political views to be.


People questioning each other's affiliations just drags the thread away from the issues and into a slagging match, this is not desirable so I request that people try to keep their posts, rebuttals and responses aimed at the posts of others rather than at the posters themselves. I know that it's a very hard urge to resist in the heat of debate but I would ask people to try. If people ignore my warnings about it they will earn themselves a ban but I will give people the benefit of the doubt in this and warn before banning for it.

luckat

An outraged poster asks what the old people have done for the country. Paid enormous taxes while you were growing up, which supported you through school and college, I suppose. Worked hard. Stayed in Ireland through the tough times, or emigrated, sent money home then brought their skills home.

But why should you be grateful? Let them die, the useless old bastards.

NYC353

Deleted User wrote: »

Your argument doesn't tie in well with for example BOI's expectation of a 1% max impairment of their loan book.

If I believed that BOI will only have 1% impairment then I would possibly agree with the rest of your opinions.
But I'm afraid I put it in the same category as the pre election "expectation" of a 'soft landing'

NYC353

NYC353 wrote: »

If I believed that BOI will only have 1% impairment then I would possibly agree with the rest of your opinions.
But I'm afraid I put it in the same category as the pre election "expectation" of a 'soft landing'

You're posting a sound byte though.
I wanted to discuss why you think your opinion of the individual cases (of which they and not you have knowledge) in BOI's loan book are not of the category they put them in.
I wanted a discussion about that not a sound byte from you

Gandalf23

Deleted User wrote: »

I said Bank of Ireland expect slightly less than 1% of their loan book to be impared.I didn't say only 1% want to move..
I did make a point that people who are able to pay their loans shouldn't be worrying about the value of their asset.
Thats mega times more so for the vast majority who will be in their homes for the life time of their loans.

Not true ... you said "negative equity is nothing to worry about in 99% of cases" (thus it is in 1% of cases), and even called them a "tiny tiny minority". For the record, the actual quote was ...

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 …

So I ask again, are you saying that negative equity is a bad thing ONLY if you have an "urgent need" to move?

And you think only 1% of people fall into that category of having to worry about negative equity (the "tiny tiny minority")? And 99% of people buy their house to live in it for 45+ years and thus need never worry about negative equity?

Where did you get these statistics?

Deleted User wrote: »

If you are seriously expecting 10 years of negative equity in an economy as healthy as ours [a 2% contraction for 3 years wouldn't even wipe out the growth of the previous 3 years even if it went on that long which it won't because lets face it,theres over 2 million people working here out of a population including dependents of 4.5 million.
Japan is a bad example anyway as it's number employed over the last ten or more years has been relatively static whereas ours has grown by 50%.
Unemployment is up yes but it's hardly a dent in the million extra jobs of the last decade and is unlikely to be.

This makes absolutely no sense.

I would suggest our economy is not in good shape nor "healthy".

Deleted User wrote: »

Your continuing assertion that the 8c tax rise means pump prices don't rise or fall in relation to the raw material cost is seriously flawed.
Of course there are other factors that affect prices too [including taxes] but thats immaterial in a discussion about prices that were dragged up by high oil and are now falling due to falling oil.I can't comment on how the banks here will fare.
For once I'll go some of the road with you in that I fear for the smaller ones.As you say if they get into trouble [We are where we are with them].
If they cannot survive,they will be taken over.

Good to see you finally coming around to my way of thinking!!! (At last!)

Have a look at two interesting discussions which support my assertion that crude oil prices and petrol pump prices are not that closely related here and here.

I keep providing references to support my claims ... do you have even one to support ANYTHING you are claiming????

Deleted User wrote: »

As for supply and demand righting itself,you've hit one of each others nails on the head there really.
Nowhere in this or the other thread did I or would I have made an argument that prices would continue to go up.
Of course thats unsustainable.
Your unoccupied houses could not have been held for long by their builders without 2 things happening (i) their price dropping and (ii) they being sold.
The latter is delayed by the credit crunch.

You deny you said this but in fairness this is exactly what you are saying (abet, in an indirect manner). And I'm not the only one accusing you of that in this thread ...


But it is good to see you rowing back significantly on some of the stuff you said earlier. God to see common sense prevailing ... :D:D

NYC353

Deleted User wrote: »

You're posting a sound byte though.
I wanted to discuss why you think your opinion of the individual cases (of which they and not you have knowledge) in BOI's loan book are not of the category they put them in.
I wanted a discussion about that not a sound byte from you

On the contrary, I have no specific opinion on BOI, my point is that there were people who honestly believed Bertie and the Brians that we would have a "soft landing" and I now say how could you possibly believe any projections in this area whether from government or any specific bank's interim report