Halve Dole for Under 24s

23-10-2009 1:58pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

fine

heres some facts for you
house prices q3 2009 (latest)
http://www.daft.ie/report/Daft-House-Price-Report-Q3-2009.pdf

rental q2 2009 (latest)
http://www.daft.ie/report/Daft-Rental-Report-Q2-2009.pdf
average houseprice €253,000, now there are no 100% mortgages nowadays but we can get close, and that deposit money needs to be raised anyways
so according to http://www.drcalculator.com/mortgage/ie/ a 250k mortgage (alot of people have mortgages much larger than this thanks to the bubble) over 30 years at a conservative 5% (god help if rates go up to their norms)
is €1350 a month
the average rent now is €800 a month
€1350 is a larger number than €800
hence renting is alot cheaper
Q.E.D

/facepalm/

That's if you buy a house NOW and compare it to rent NOW.

:rolleyes:

ei.sdraob · 23-10-2009 2:01pm

Deleted User wrote: »

/facepalm/

That's if you buy a house NOW and compare it to rent NOW.

:rolleyes:

ok then why dont you show us figures

what it was like at peak of the boom in 2007 so

go ahead the ball is in your court

23-10-2009 2:06pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

ok then why dont you show us figures

what it was like at peak of the boom in 2007 so

go ahead the ball is in your court

I haven't made any stupid claims though apart from "not everyone's mortgage is higher than rent would be"

Answer a simple question. Do you think the majority of this countries mortgages are higher than €1000 per month?

I suggest you take into consideraion all of the mortgages taken out in the 20 years before 2007, before you answer.

thebman · 23-10-2009 2:08pm

Deleted User wrote: »

/facepalm/

That's if you buy a house NOW and compare it to rent NOW.

:rolleyes:

My rent is 800 euro for the entire house :P

3 of us house sharing it so rent is nothing! Been sharing with one guy since college and other guy is a student we got in when advertising on boards here and he's dead on and no problems.

I wouldn't buy a house if I could afford it TBH. I have more fun my way with loads of people calling over each evening to hang out.

Of course its different if you have a family but even a few years ago you could rent a house for a little over a 1,000 euro a month.

ei.sdraob · 23-10-2009 2:10pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

ok then why dont you show us figures

what it was like at peak of the boom in 2007 so

go ahead the ball is in your court

actually ill do the maths again

2007 peak of boom

rent report q2 2007
http://www.daft.ie/report/Daft-Rental-Report-June-2007.pdf

house report q2 2007
http://www.daft.ie/report/DaftReport-Q22007.pdf

average rent €1400

average house price €300K (most of the country was significantly above this)

a 100% mortgage (common then) at 5% over 30 years

average mortgage payment €1600

€1600 is a larger number than €1400

renting at the top of the bubble was a good idea too

Q.E.D

23-10-2009 2:10pm

thebman wrote: »

My rent is 800 euro for the entire house :P

3 of us house sharing it so rent is nothing! Been sharing with one guy since college and other guy is a student we got in when advertising on boards here and he's dead on and no problems.

I wouldn't buy a house if I could afford it TBH. I have more fun my way with loads of people calling over each evening to hang out.

Of course its different if you have a family but even a few years ago you could rent a house for a little over a 1,000 euro a month.

Yes, but if you are renting that house for €800 pm, the mortgage on the house is most likely less than that - and infact it could be substantially less.

Get me?

ei.sdraob · 23-10-2009 2:14pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, but if you are renting that house for €800 pm, the mortgage on the house is most likely less than that - and infact it could be substantially less.

Get me?

wrong

alot of houses and landlords are knee deep in negative equity

the rents are falling as theres a huge supply and some money is better than no money

considering that the average mortgage payment now is 1300 and average rent is 800

theres quite a loss being taken

but sure lets not get basic maths get in the way of your worldview, your sort of thinking is what got so many people into such a mess

thebman · 23-10-2009 2:17pm

Deleted User wrote: »

thebman wrote: »

My rent is 800 euro for the entire house :P

3 of us house sharing it so rent is nothing! Been sharing with one guy since college and other guy is a student we got in when advertising on boards here and he's dead on and no problems.

I wouldn't buy a house if I could afford it TBH. I have more fun my way with loads of people calling over each evening to hang out.

Of course its different if you have a family but even a few years ago you could rent a house for a little over a 1,000 euro a month.[/QUOTE

Yes, but if you are renting that house for €800 pm, the mortgage on the house is most likely less than that - and infact it could be substantially less.

Get me?

So, its an old mans house. He bought it maybe 15 years ago. Those people benefited hugely from the economic boom in the 90's becuase we moved from a developing economy into a developed economy. Then the bubble and since they bought pre-bubble they benefited from that too with inflation. We are unlikely to see those levels of inflation again IMO as we are a developed economy so no series of wage increases or economic bubble based on cheap credit or else we are heading for the crapper again in another 5 years have learned nothing and will not have the money to bail out the banks next time so it will be game over for Ireland if that happens.

23-10-2009 2:18pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

actually ill do the maths again

2007 peak of boom

rent report q2 2007
http://www.daft.ie/report/Daft-Rental-Report-June-2007.pdf

house report q2 2007
http://www.daft.ie/report/DaftReport-Q22007.pdf

You didn't answer the simple question I asked.

Look, I know the point your trying to make. But my point is fairly simple. There are mortgages out there alot less than €1000 - alot of them. You suggested that if they can't afford their mortgage they hand the keys back and let the bank (the taxpayer) take the hit and let the former home owner claim rent allowance (from the taxpayer) of €1000 which will be handed over to either - the bank who have rented out a repossessed home - or a property investor.

As I just pointed out in my last post, if you can rent a house for €1,000 the mortgage on this house is, in most cases, going to be less than that. It's not that difficult to comprehend surely!

23-10-2009 2:22pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

but sure lets not get basic maths get in the way of your worldview, your sort of thinking is what got so many people into such a mess

Lol!

Basic maths is clearly not your strong point so don't lecture me on it honey pie!

ei.sdraob · 23-10-2009 2:23pm

Deleted User wrote: »

You didn't answer the simple question I asked.

Look, I know the point your trying to make. But my point is fairly simple. There are mortgages out there alot less than €1000 - alot of them. You suggested that if they can't afford their mortgage they hand the keys back and let the bank (the taxpayer) take the hit and let the former home owner claim rent allowance (from the taxpayer) of €1000 which will be handed over to either - the bank who have rented out a repossessed home - or a property investor.

As I just pointed out in my last post, if you can rent a house for €1,000 the mortgage on this house is, in most cases, going to be less than that. It's not that difficult to comprehend surely!

not at all

if this was a proper capitalism system not the warped socialism yoke that we have now

then the banks would get keys handed back and people declare banktuptcy, as happens in the US

the banks would not be owned in any % by the taxpayer

the banks might fail, woopty do! i dont agree with giving the banks a cent so your point is moot

if they fail they learn a lesson and keep higher reserves (like canadian banks did) or/and lend more sensibly (no subprime/self cert mortgages)

but no we decided to bail out banks and we dont have a system where people can easily declare bankruptcy liek in the US and start again with clean slate

the warped socialistic system got us into this mess and now making it much worse

theres no need to bailout banks, theres no need to bailout people (by paying the mortgages)

how about people and banks learn some responsibility

and learn that investments might loose or gain value

ei.sdraob · 23-10-2009 2:24pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Lol!

Basic maths is clearly not your strong point so don't lecture me on it honey pie!

you asked for figures and facts

i provided them to backup my point

where is your maths and references to backup your statements?

josey_whale · 23-10-2009 2:30pm

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

So now we can't even save up to emigrate!!!!

Something wrong about this statement....

brian076 · 23-10-2009 2:31pm

thebman wrote: »

Its not discrimination if you can show your not doing it because of the thing you are accused of discriminating against.

They aren't cutting it because your under 25 but because you have less financial obligations.

Firstly I'm playing Devils Advocate on this one as really I think it should be an across the board cut.

But replying to this point, I really don't see why a child free 23 year old should be in a better position to child free 30 year old. If anything they have just had less time to build up a safety net of funds. It is discrimination, just as it would be if they proposed that all those within 5 years of retirement would have there dole halved as they should have funds to live from.

I whole heartedly agree that there is something wrong with the system when the dole is the preferrable option to a job at minimum wage. However I just don't see how only forcing a certain age group into these jobs helps. And as another poster previously said is there any evidence that a surplus of these jobs exist that under 24's could be taking up?

ei.sdraob · 23-10-2009 2:35pm

brian076 wrote: »

However I just don't see how only forcing a certain age group into these jobs helps.

experience, i had to flip burgers and fry fish in my day, taught me a lot about work

brian076 wrote: »

And as another poster previously said is there any evidence that a surplus of these jobs exist that under 24's could be taking up?

go to supermacs site, see plenty of job offers

go into supermacs, alot of non irish working there because the locals would not take that job since

you better of on welfare not working than busting your balls on min wage all week

thebman · 23-10-2009 2:53pm

brian076 wrote: »

Firstly I'm playing Devils Advocate on this one as really I think it should be an across the board cut.

But replying to this point, I really don't see why a child free 23 year old should be in a better position to child free 30 year old. If anything they have just had less time to build up a safety net of funds. It is discrimination, just as it would be if they proposed that all those within 5 years of retirement would have there dole halved as they should have funds to live from.

I whole heartedly agree that there is something wrong with the system when the dole is the preferrable option to a job at minimum wage. However I just don't see how only forcing a certain age group into these jobs helps. And as another poster previously said is there any evidence that a surplus of these jobs exist that under 24's could be taking up?

They are just going on the average when deciding to make cuts. What your asking for is a system that assesses each persons needs and pays accordingly. That would be fine except the 30 year old paid PRSI for longer than the 24 year old and so is probably entitled to the extra money where as the 24 year old will likely have contributed very little to the system that is going to be paying out for him.

Klingon Hamlet · 23-10-2009 3:00pm

That only your last 6 months of contributions are taken into account already? So for example, I've worked since I was 17, so if I was 23 and let go, you think I don't deserve equal treatment, despite six years' work???

And that claim that under 24s have less obligations. [EMAIL="Bullcr@p"]Bullcr@p[/EMAIL]. My friend who's 22 has a morgage god love him. What if he's let go? What then?

And how do we know, say, a 27 year old didn't go to college at 18, finish at 22/23, do a post grad, finish up completely at say 26, do 1 year of work, and get more dole?

23-10-2009 3:03pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

the banks might fail, woopty do! i dont agree with giving the banks a cent so your point is moot

So because you don't agree with what is fact, my point is moot :pac:

I don't agree with it either, I don't want to pay a penny of my taxes to bail out the banks but it does and right now there is very little I can do about it. I work my ass off (well clearly I'm taking a break from that right now, ahem) and have done for years and years and it breaks my heart to see the country falling apart the way it is. So believe it or not, I totally understand your anger, and agree with your sentiments for the most part. But unfortunately everything is not as black and white as it seems and that's what people need to realise.

My original argument was not that people should get extra dole benefits for their mortgage, I don't think I have stated that anywhere, the point I made was that it is silly to have people handing back property and then claiming rent allowance - one way or another it is yours (and my) tax paying for it. You surely agree with this?

dvpower · 23-10-2009 3:03pm

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

The overriding myth that under-24s are living in family homes and can survive on their parents' spare income is ridiculous. Many who do live at home have parents who got wage cuts or lost jobs. So look at us: cutting repeatedly at the blue-collars, the victims of our selfish, desperate mission to save as many pennies as possible.

Under 24s who want to avoid the proposed cut can simply take up a place in education or training. No big deal.

thebman · 23-10-2009 3:05pm

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

That only your last 6 months of contributions are taken into account already? So for example, I've worked since I was 17, so if I was 23 and let go, you think I don't deserve equal treatment, despite six years' work???

And that claim that under 24s have less obligations. [EMAIL="Bullcr@p"]Bullcr@p[/EMAIL]. My friend who's 22 has a morgage god love him. What if he's let go? What then?

And how do we know, say, a 27 year old didn't go to college at 18, finish at 22/23, do a post grad, finish up completely at say 26, do 1 year of work, and get more dole?

Correct but I'm going on general trends not individual circumstances which is what the government pretty much has to do as they can't afford to assess everyone individually.

Klingon Hamlet · 23-10-2009 3:10pm

thebman wrote: »

Correct but I'm going on general trends not individual circumstances which is what the government pretty much has to do as they can't afford to assess everyone individually.

Simple solution:

ICB everyone: loans, credit cards etc are all taken into account as a means test. Come up with final income/outgoings equations. Work from there.

They''re going to bhave to spend the money. Otherwise all the kids duped into working in the building industry during the boomtimes, when Cowen and his cronies crowed about how buying Irish property was the most patriotic thing the new Irish people could do to sustain said boom, are now jobless, in debt, and having the pennies they're scraping by on halved.

As I say there is a ripple effect to this. Entire families are seeing their hours/wages/jobs cut. Entier generations crumble under the weight of enforced poverty, while Public Sector cuts have been fairly minimal. Majority of pain has been felt by the most needed: nurses etc... The fatcats plod on, the bureuacrats hide in their maze of offices, whilst the younger and more vulnerable have thier blood sucked dry, all under a banner of Future Growth and Sustainability.

Julesie · 23-10-2009 3:13pm

thebman wrote: »

What your asking for is a system that assesses each persons needs and pays accordingly. That would be fine except the 30 year old paid PRSI for longer than the 24 year old and so is probably entitled to the extra money where as the 24 year old will likely have contributed very little to the system that is going to be paying out for him.

Sorry, but where in the post you're quoting does it say that??? As far as I read it they say, cuts across the board. If anything YOU are the person assessing peoples needs on a somewhat arbitrary statistic (their age). Also there is absolutely no guarantees that a 30 year old has contributed more to the system than a 24 year old.

The only fair method is to have a one size fits all payment. Not one level if you are under/over certain age, if you live in Dublin or the country, if you are a man or a woman, if you are Irish or immigrant, if you have kids don't have kids, etc.

Kered75 · 23-10-2009 3:15pm

josey_whale wrote: »

Something wrong about this statement....

Whats wrong with it.I would much rather see someone save up their dole money and emigrate than to sit around for years waitng for jobs that may or may not happen.During the eighties this emigration was the norm for many,how did you think they paid for this???
Many that did emigrate also sent home thousands of pounds of their hard earned cash.

ei.sdraob · 23-10-2009 3:17pm

Deleted User wrote: »

So because you don't agree with what is fact, my point is moot :pac:

I don't agree with it either, I don't want to pay a penny of my taxes to bail out the banks but it does and right now there is very little I can do about it. I work my ass off (well clearly I'm taking a break from that right now, ahem) and have done for years and years and it breaks my heart to see the country falling apart the way it is. So believe it or not, I totally understand your anger, and agree with your sentiments for the most part. But unfortunately everything is not as black and white as it seems and that's what people need to realise.

My original argument was not that people should get extra dole benefits for their mortgage, I don't think I have stated that anywhere, the point I made was that it is silly to have people handing back property and then claiming rent allowance - one way or another it is yours (and my) tax paying for it. You surely agree with this?

im angry that this country is in such a mess

but im a pragmatic person

as i said before the only way out of this

is to either:

1 * hugely increase productivity and exports (not gonna happen)
2 * cut down on spending, with PS and welfare being the biggest elephants in the room

or a mix of above

but any proposals to cut welfare results in moaning

while any proposals to cut PS results in strikes

you know what, lets do nothing and continue as we are, few years down the road well be handing our balls to IMF or others

then all of welfare and most of PS would go

that be something

people really do need to face up to the stark facts

thebman · 23-10-2009 3:28pm

Julesie wrote: »

Sorry, but where in the post you're quoting does it say that??? As far as I read it they say, cuts across the board. If anything YOU are the person assessing peoples needs on a somewhat arbitrary statistic (their age). Also there is absolutely no guarantees that a 30 year old has contributed more to the system than a 24 year old.

The only fair method is to have a one size fits all payment. Not one level if you are under/over certain age, if you live in Dublin or the country, if you are a man or a woman, if you are Irish or immigrant, if you have kids don't have kids, etc.

It was an interpretation based on what he said. He's either advocating assessing or no cuts and no cuts to social welfare isn't an option and isn't what is being discussed in the thread leaving one alternative.

23-10-2009 3:30pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you asked for figures and facts

i provided them to backup my point

where is your maths and references to backup your statements?

There are actually alot of figures out there to back up my point, however, they are not necessarily from legitimate sources, what I mean is, they may have been manipulated for certain organsations, so rather than me quote this rubbish, give me some time to verify this numbers and I will get back to you. Fair enough?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

im angry that this country is in such a mess

but im a pragmatic person

as i said before the only way out of this

is to either:

1 * hugely increase productivity and exports (not gonna happen)
2 * cut down on spending, with PS and welfare being the biggest elephants in the room

or a mix of above

but any proposals to cut welfare results in moaning

while any proposals to cut PS results in strikes

you know what, lets do nothing and continue as we are, few years down the road well be handing our balls to IMF or others

then all of welfare and most of PS would go

that be something

people really do need to face up to the stark facts

You know, the funny thing is, I share your views for the most part, but what I don't want is my money (and yours and anyone else who has paid tax) to rent allowance and millions of euros worth of social housing, we can't afford that either.

Instead of hitting a 23 year old married man with a mortgage and child and 5 years of PRSI payments behind him. Why not hit the guy who has been 10 years on the dole. Who didn't get off his lazy arse when there were jobs all over the country to be had.

It just angers me so much that it is always joe ordinary that gets hit! The people who have actually contributed to the economy are the ones who are now suffering the most from it's downturn.

PaulieD · 23-10-2009 3:39pm

I am open to correction on this, but will this proposal hit those on JA and not those on JB?

Supplementary Budget April 2009, announced a number of changes to Jobseeker's Allowance for new claimants under 20 years of age. The changes are as follows:
The personal rate of Jobseeker’s Allowance will be reduced to €100 per week for new claimants under 20 years of age (first week of May 2009). The maximum Increase for a Qualified Adult payable to a new Jobseeker’s Allowance claimant aged under 20 will also be reduced to €100 per week (first week of May 2009). However, there are some exceptions - see 'Rates' below.
If you are under 20 and getting Jobseeker's Allowance before the first week of May you will not be affected by these changes.
There is no change to Jobseeker’s Benefit for claimants under 20 years of age.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/unemployed-people/jobseekers-allowance

Anyone able to shed any light on this?

PaulieD · 23-10-2009 3:42pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Instead of hitting a 23 year old married man with a mortgage and child and 5 years of PRSI payments behind him. Why not hit the guy who has been 10 years on the dole. Who didn't get off his lazy arse when there were jobs all over the country to be had.

It just angers me so much that it is always joe ordinary that gets hit! The people who have actually contributed to the economy are the ones who are now suffering the most from it's downturn.

Hi whoopsadaisydoodles,

I think it is those on JA who will be hit, not those on JB who have paid their share of contributions. I am open to clarification on this.

Klingon Hamlet · 23-10-2009 3:43pm

PaulieD wrote: »

Hi whoopsadaisydoodles,

I think it is those on JA who will be hit, not those on JB who have paid their share of contributions. I am open to clarification on this.

True until their stamps run out and they re-claim under JA, and then they're screwed to the wall.

PaulieD · 23-10-2009 3:47pm

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

True until their stamps run out and they re-claim under JA, and then they're screwed to the wall.

So its directed at those on JA who have not made enough contributions? Generally, how long does somebody have on JB have until their stamps run out?

Halve Dole for Under 24s

Comments