Time To Cut Social Welfare Payments

wolfpawnat

Boskowski wrote: »

I really feel for you so please don't take this the wrong way.

Do you really feel you were targeted by what I wrote?
Why is it that he doesn't want to 'go on disability'? Is it pride or something?

Pride is the main problem with a lot of people. We went from being carefree and making money, to the pit of society. My father was a naval man left not too long before he was supposed to get a pension (he should regret it until he dies) he is now on disability too, but mainly because of pride it took him 2 years to cop on and claim it.

i was a worker and a college student. I am now a single mum and no job and trying to get back to my degree. And i am too proud to go on OPFP and am on JSA because my PRSI contribution was not high enough even though I worked 8 to 5 five days a week. As it was contractual work it never added up to enough.

Pride is the thing crippling Ireland at the moment. It is humiliating having to admit defeat! I hope some of those here tarring all those on SW as spongers and accusing us all of claiming everything under the sun based on out dated figures published by the Daily Mail never find themselves in our position. We were where ye are before. I too thought SW was too much and allowed people to laze around and do nothing. God those words taste bitter now the shoe is on the other foot for me!

later10

later10 wrote: »

Furthermore, yes. The JSB must be cut, and I have no doubt but that it will be cut. The fact that you actually want an increase in rates is mind boggling at this stage.

I, and a few others, have pointed out the practicalities of a cut in the JSB. For all your talk about the realities of the situation, you're avoiding some rather simple points. For many of us, a cut not just make our lives even harder to maintain, but our ability to find/get work to replace the JSB diminishes drastically.

Keeping the rates as they are gives people the chance of finding new work. The people who are demanding cuts are essentially ensuring that we'll have to stayon welfare unless a miracle happens and something magically is offered locally. And TBH I'm a bit lost as to how the economy is expected to pick up again with so many people out of work... and unable to do anything to get it even should it become available in the future.

later12

I, and a few others, have pointed out the practicalities of a cut in the JSB.

Was your point the one about reducing the JSA and increasing the JSB?
Sorry if I've got that wrong, but that's the point i have responded to and the one that comes to mind.

Also, if that's the point, it does sort of run circular to the idea of cutting JSA if cutting rates decreases makes it harder to meet the cost of living and finding employment.

Keeping the rates as they are gives people the chance of finding new work.

how does a cut in the weekly rate by about 20 euro (for example) diminish the chance of finding new work?
The cut is not to force people off the dole - everyone knows there are no jobs to begin with. it will not change joblessness.
Rather, the cut is to make welfare slightly less detrimental to state spending and to appease investors.

Of course it is difficult to live on 196eur per week. But explaining the difficulties of this life still does not change the fact that there are too many people on this rate of payment and therefore, the rate must come down as it is choking our expenditure, and our expenditure is choking our ability to borrow on the international bond markets. So much so that we are about to borrow from the IMF.

Nobody saying it is easy, but it is unsustainable at national level.

SIX PACK

If social welfare is going to be cut anymore the only winners will be Lidl, Aldi, Penneys, Tesco own brands/special offers, Cheap drink etc etc etc... All high street shops Restraunts and the like are going to really feel the pinch...
I think its time to Emigrate anyone got any ideas ? somewhere warm preferably with enough to get by

caseyann

SIX PACK wrote: »

If social welfare is going to be cut anymore the only winners will be Lidl, Aldi, Penneys, Tesco own brands/special offers, Cheap drink etc etc etc... All high street shops Restraunts and the like are going to really feel the pinch...
I think its time to Emigrate anyone got any ideas ? somewhere warm preferably with enough to get by

Damn what social welfare are you collecting? :eek:

Mr McBoatface

later10 wrote: »

Was your point the one about reducing the JSA and increasing the JSB?
Sorry if I've got that wrong, but that's the point i have responded to and the one that comes to mind.

Also, if that's the point, it does sort of run circular to the idea of cutting JSA if cutting rates decreases makes it harder to meet the cost of living and finding employment.

how does a cut in the weekly rate by about 20 euro (for example) diminish the chance of finding new work?
The cut is not to force people off the dole - everyone knows there are no jobs to begin with. it will not change joblessness.
Rather, the cut is to make welfare slightly less detrimental to state spending and to appease investors.

Of course it is difficult to live on 196eur per week. But explaining the difficulties of this life still does not change the fact that there are too many people on this rate of payment and therefore, the rate must come down as it is choking our expenditure, and our expenditure is choking our ability to borrow on the international bond markets. So much so that we are about to borrow from the IMF.

Nobody saying it is easy, but it is unsustainable at national level.

Some have subtly suggested that the rent allowance which can be over a grand a month is not needed especially given the stock of empty houses all around the country now owned by the state via NAMA .

But rather than discussing cuts can somebody please discuss methods to return people to work.

I know it may be frowned upon but could a targeted tax incentives help get people back to work? Let me expand on the idea with an example :- a couple with children both working both earning a good wage are targeted with a tax break which makes it attractive for one to work part time or completely leave work. The reduction in child care costs, travel/car expense combined with an increase on take home pay on the one wage may make it a very attractive idea. The job slot made available by one leaving/reducing time in the workforce could be filled by an unemployed person. If done correctly the reduction in tax intake could be less than the reduction of social welfare payment leaving the state finances in a better position.

I've also suggested job-sharing schemes, I know these idea's are not going to generate lots of government revenue in fact the loss of tax v the loss of state payments via social welfare may be revenue neutral but it would help generate confidence in a shattered economy. Then again the suggestion may be unworkable but at least I'm thinking outside the cut & burn box that so many think is the only option.

Mr McBoatface

caseyann wrote: »

Damn what social welfare are you collecting? :eek:

Ex-government minister pension

caseyann

jobyrne30 wrote: »

Ex-government minister pension

lollllllllllllllllllll Always thought i got into wrong profession,who knew


http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0288/D.0288.197603100006.html

later10

later10 wrote: »

Was your point the one about reducing the JSA and increasing the JSB?
Sorry if I've got that wrong, but that's the point i have responded to and the one that comes to mind.

I don't support any such cuts in JSA or JSB.

how does a cut in the weekly rate by about 20 euro (for example) diminish the chance of finding new work?

You acknowledge that living on 196 is hard but don't understand how living on 176 would be worse? Read back a bit about the costs I had recently when traveling to other cities and abroad to do interviews. Considering how competitive the job market is (and likely this will continue well past this crisis), the requirement to travel to multiple interviews in other places is high. I couldn't even afford to stay the night when I went to London last week, and got a daily return flight skipping the chance to have other interviews on the following day.. simply because it would have cut too much into money already allocated for living expenses.

The cut is not to force people off the dole - everyone knows there are no jobs to begin with. it will not change joblessness.

So? Do you know what it will do? It will force us to leave Ireland. I'm already at the point where I'm barely making ends meet, and that's with occasional help from my family. A further drop in income will remove the chance to save towards those awkward bills that crop up, or the need to travel, or ... etc.

The two reasons that have kept me here this long are 1) my family (dealing with some illnesses), and 2) I own a house here. My house is barely making the mortgage, which is ok, but there's no chance of selling it, and the government continues to throw out further charges on property owners. I recently did my tax returns and they sent me back a letter stating that I owed the State €3k for the privilege of owning property. Never mind that I hadn't made a profit in the last 3 years of owning it, and I lived in it before that.

And I'm reaching the end, and coming damn close to saying "**** it all".

Rather, the cut is to make welfare slightly less detrimental to state spending and to appease investors.

Forgive me if I'm feeling a wee bit selfish, but right now I'm more concerned with my own life. There are plenty of areas in state spending which could and should be looked at first, rather than attacking many people's only income.

Of course it is difficult to live on 196eur per week. But explaining the difficulties of this life still does not change the fact that there are too many people on this rate of payment and therefore, the rate must come down as it is choking our expenditure, and our expenditure is choking our ability to borrow on the international bond markets. So much so that we are about to borrow from the IMF.

Damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

Tell me something. If Ireland manages to claw its way out of this problem, and hundreds of thousands of skilled people have left for other countries, how will Ireland maintain that success?

Nobody saying it is easy, but it is unsustainable at national level.

Sure it is. Cut something else. Cut many other smaller bills. God knows, just about every week we hear about some mismanagement, government bureaucracy scandal, pension scandal, or other such rubbish. Why not dig deeper into the crap that has been going on (and still goes on) and cut into their lives? Its not as if they're on the basics.

Boskowski

Look we're all in denial. Cuts will come, they are inevitable. No matter where you look people are after realising that. Where we are still in denial is when we say 'cuts ok, but not on my income, cut someone else first'. The social welfare receivers want everybody else to get cut but not themselves. Guess what. So do the OAPs. And the teachers. And the nurses. And the single mothers. And so on.
We have been living in a borrowed bubble that burst. Our increase in wealth and living standard was paid for by credit card (to some extent) and now the bill is after arriving. And that means a very tangible step backwards. For some more for some less - the usual - but welfare will not and cannot be excempt.

gurramok

later10 wrote: »

Hang on. Workers on the JSB? There are no workers on the JSB. There are ex workers. There are no workers on the JSA either, only ex workers. Those receiving the OPFP are all out of work or current workers.

Furthermore, yes. The JSB must be cut, and I have no doubt but that it will be cut. The fact that you actually want an increase in rates is mind boggling at this stage.

You are really not following the debate are you? 'JSB front' is obviously ex workers:rolleyes:

later10 wrote: »

No you didn't.

Yes I did. Not my problem if you do not understand how property values and the workings of the property market affect the banks.

later10 wrote: »

You failed to account for the fact that if the banks collapse totally, so does the country since we are no inextricably wound up in them. This applies even more so at 1700 today than it did at 1700 yesterday, considering recent developments at Merrion Street.

I wonder why I am even debating with someone who seems unable to read the replies he gets, seems unable to copy basic statistics, use google to find out rates or apparently has no basic knowledge of how the bank collapse is panning out.

Property values are not to be maintained. I am simply saying that te industry cannot be allowed to collapse totally. Because along with your idea of increasing JSB, you also agree that the property market should be allowed enter total collapse, remember?
I am saying that this cannot happen, because banks are dependent on mortgages right now. If the banks fail, so will re-capitalisation, nationalisation, and the EU-IMF bailout.

I don't like our dependence upon the banks, I think Anglo should have been let go, but it wasn't and we must face up to the reality of current economic conditions.

You are contradicting yourself. If property values are not to be maintained the banks will endure further losses hence a further collapse and they have already collapsed with liquidity from the ECB which had been keeping them afloat now drying up hence IMF intervention.

Make up your mind. one minute you want protection of property values and now in this latest post you do not and yet worry about the banks.

What you do not realise is that the property values must fall to their natural levels in order for the banks to know their real level of losses. Hence what happened to date is that the banks have not disclosed their full losses and the IMF coming into the rescue to examine the books.

If you cannot understand that basic part of economics, I do not know.

alejandro1977

sambora wrote: »

Such a biased attitude to have. The only way it would be easy to live on the dole was if everyone was able to claim EVERY single benefit under the sun.
Those who are just getting by on the 196 a week do not deserve to have their money cut. It is not their fault they are on the dole. Until recently I was in that exact situation. Things such as Rent Allowance is vital for some people out there, and when it becomes something that's assessed (if you happen to be getting other benefits such as "travel allowance") that's when people get into serious difficulty.

Has it ever occured to you that Rent Allowance is completely unnecessary considering that number of empty properties out there and is simply Landlord's Dole?

Cut it and Rents will fall

alejandro1977

alejandro1977 wrote: »

Has it ever occured to you that Rent Allowance is completely unnecessary considering that number of empty properties out there and is simply Landlord's Dole?

Cut it and Rents will fall

I fail to see the connection. Those empty properties are privately owned for the most part, and would still require rental payments from any occupants should they become occupied.

Or am I misunderstanding you completely? I've never been on rental allowance, nor have any of my previous tenants claimed it.

And as for rents falling, if what I'm charging falls any lower, I will certainly not be able to cover my losses, and the bank will take my house, and I'll still owe them a wollop of cash. I'm pretty sure a lot of landlords are in the same position. As things stand I make a small loss each quarter, but just enough that I can continue to make my repayments (I won't even talk about the extra costs when tenants move out).

alejandro1977

Deleted User wrote: »

I fail to see the connection. Those empty properties are privately owned for the most part, and would still require rental payments from any occupants should they become occupied.

Or am I misunderstanding you completely? I've never been on rental allowance, nor have any of my previous tenants claimed it.

are you kidding?
it's basic economics, there's an oversupply of properties, yet the government is handing out money to landlords, remove the subsidy the LLs will still have to find tenants, but at much lower rents. Have you noticed that rents in private sector have fallen dramatically since the recession/depression?

It's basic competition

I can understand the stance of the people calling for cuts. It is perfectly reasonable from a removed point of view. I was there once myself. I had a great job with a very good income, and everything was going perfectly. I would have looked at the current problems and claimed such cuts were reasonable and needed.

Well, I've learned a bitter lesson. All these "reasonable" suggestions screw many people over. And until you have lived on welfare, faced the bleak prospect of watching every cent spent for months, and with no realistic viewpoint as to when things will get better, you won't understand. Despite the claims about the realities of the situation, many posters here are too far removed from what it actually entails.

In many ways this thread remind me of economic lectures in college.. so easy to say that cuts, extra taxes, or layoffs were needed, but being completely removed from the pain that such measures would cause.

I'm done with this thread. Its obvious that the people not on welfare have no appreciation for how hard things really are for people, and the people who are on welfare (myself included) don't really care what happens as long as we're not screwed further. But we will be. I guess that's just the way things are.

alejandro1977

alejandro1977 wrote: »

are you kidding?
it's basic economics, there's an oversupply of properties, yet the government is handing out money to landlords, remove the subsidy the LLs will still have to find tenants, but at much lower rents. Have you noticed that rents in private sector have fallen dramatically since the recession/depression?

It's basic competition

Its basically a death sentence for the many people out there trying to keep their properties through renting them out. This will just mean that repossession of homes will increase dramatically, and the banks will hold far more property. Awesome. Even more empty properties. Outstanding.

gurramok

Deleted User wrote: »

Its basically a death sentence for the many people out there trying to keep their properties through renting them out. This will just mean that repossession of homes will increase dramatically, and the banks will hold far more property. Awesome. Even more empty properties. Outstanding.

Certainly is outstanding news. Helps our competitive edge.

Which is best?

A - keep the present system of high rents for LL's on borrowed money so they won't go under whereby the losers are the nations welfare bill and workers who rent.
B - reduce the rent subsidy, some LL's will go bust and banks will take some losses.

Take your pick, I'd prefer B.

later12

Deleted User wrote: »

You acknowledge that living on 196 is hard but don't understand how living on 176 would be worse?

Of course I do. I have genuine sympathy with the unemployed, I was once unemployed myself. I was receiving 204 euro per week at the time, and believe me I have been in your situation. Everything suffers, you feel insecure about even going for lunch with mates because you don't know if you will be afford to pay your ESB bill. I totally understand that a cut to 175 euro would be terrible on a personal level.

However, it must happen. We spend 20 billion euros of Gross Current Expenditure on welfare, that's 1 in 3 euros spent. This cannot last at a time when we are borrowing at such high rates (that is, if we can still even borrow from bond markets, which is unlikely). You want to increase rates klaz? That is just crazy.
I do understand it's difficult, but no amount of personal difficulties or tears shed are going to change the balance sheet.

the requirement to travel to multiple interviews in other places is high.

Sorry, but travelling to London or even cork or Belfast, is not a common or weekly expenditure cost for the unemployed. It is not sufficient reason to increase the JSB. In that case, why not increase all unemployment welfare rates? It cannot be done, it would be logically, economically and morally wrong to do so.

So? Do you know what it will do? It will force us to leave Ireland.

I have a ticket for paris booked for the 6th of December. I'm going to be job hunting there in the run up to Christmas so I know about emigration.
The point is, people will need to leave, and on an immediate level, it will be beneficial. The dole queues need to be shortened one way or another, and emigration is an inevitability.

If it reduces our expenditure, so be it.

There are plenty of areas in state spending which could and should be looked at first, rather than attacking many people's only income.

Take 10% off the welfare budget (this is a rough figure) and you take (on average) 10% off recipients. Obviously rate will fluctuate, more can be taken from OAPs than from single mothers, for example. 10% is an average cut across the board. that saves the state 2 billion euro.

Can you tell me of a replacement cut that makes more sense? I'd love to hear it. And no amount of scrapping ministerial cars or abolishing the senate will save that kind of money, not even when combined.

gurramok wrote:

If property values are not to be maintained the banks will endure further losses hence a further collapse

No, incorrect. You advocated a total collapse of the property market. Read your own posts. i am saying a total collapse would be disastrous. Yes properties should be allowed depreciate, but we cannot pull the rug out completely. That would be stupid in the extreme and banks would crash, meaning an IMF intervention would be lost on us.

I am advocating a cut in all welfare rates, including rent allowance, and including JSB/ JSA/ OPFP. The cuts will vary. The reason I would advocate a slightly lower cut for rent supplement than for JSA/ JSB is because landlords tend to have more than one tenant on Rent Supplement, therefore the 10 - 12% cumulative effect will be much greater cut on him than a dole recipient with a total cut of 15%.

My problem with you is the short-sightedness of your advocation of allowing the property market to collapse. The IMF EU money that is about to be pumped into our banks would be lost, because the banks would collapse. We would be paying back our EU bailout money simply to support the bad debts of property investors. That is madness, but you are implicitly advocating this.

Of course, you mentioned a few pages ago that you are a first time buyer. Well, of course you want the market to collapse, that would suit you entirely because your purchasing power increases.

Equally klaz wants the JSB to be increased. Of course he does, he's on it.

Veiled interests are the reason this country is in the mire to begin with, it cannot be allowed to dictate the attempt at recovery.

gurramok

later10 wrote: »

No, incorrect. You advocated a total collapse of the property market. Read your own posts. i am saying a total collapse would be disastrous. Yes properties should be allowed depreciate, but we cannot pull the rug out completely. That would be stupid in the extreme and banks would crash, meaning an IMF intervention would be lost on us.

My problem with you is the short-sightedness of your advocation of allowing the property market to collapse. The IMF EU money that is about to be pumped into our banks would be lost, because the banks would collapse. We would be paying back our EU bailout money simply to support the bad debts of property investors. That is madness, but you are implicitly advocating this.

Of course, you mentioned a few pages ago that you are a first time buyer. Well, of course you want the market to collapse, that would suit you entirely because your purchasing power increases.

Equally klaz wants the JSB to be increased. Of course he does, he's on it.

Veiled interests are the reason this country is in the mire to begin with, it cannot be allowed to dictate the attempt at recovery.

I said let it collapse and it will recover just as fast to normal levels. The banks have already crashed, their losses are getting greater because their loans are gone toxic due to overlending on higher property prices than todays values.

What you seem to advocate is delaying the inevitable, you want prices maintained at their high levels in order to save banks. If that was put in place, the property market will never recover and prices will head south anyway due to lack of demand from buyers. I'd recommend let the prices reach their floor so the banks know where the level of impairment of bad loans is. They will never know this using your method.

There is a big difference between me who wants to buy a house at a reasonable price as a 'vested interest' and one who wants to maintain high property prices for the banks so they can get as much money out of me as possible. Buying a house should never be treated as a commodity.

Same for Klaz, he feels he should be rewarded for years contributing to the system via hard work, I totally agree with that position. Both are positions that are morally correct.

later12

gurramok wrote: »

I said let it collapse and it will recover just as fast to normal levels.

Excuse me... Based on what? You don't actually seem to comprehend what a collapse entails.

Why would the market suddenly recover after a collapse?
Firstly.
There would be a mass devaluation of properties, meaning investors take huge losses and confidence in the market disappears. Confidence is King, and investors are sheep, there is nothing to suggest that the market would "recover quickly".

Secondly,
any collapse whatsoever would arise in bad debts and bankruptcies by mortgage holders, not just those who are currently struggling, but also by those who are currently in plain sailing.
Why would you want to destroy the values of their homes when they are getting by just fine as it is?

Now thirdly, and very seriously (read this carefully),
there is also the question of who picks up the debt.
Tens of billions of IMF-EU money is about to be pumped into the Irish banks. This is because rightly or wrongly, the decision has been made at irish and european level that they cannot fail.
So, this IMF EU money is swallowed up by shoring up these banks. you want to expose these troubled banks to even more failed borrowers and their bankruptcies. Who covers this cost? The Irish and the european taxpayer. The IMF bailout becomes a bailout for even more property investors than it already is.

This is what you are advocating.

Now what i am suggesting, is very simple. You allow property values to depreciate slowly to a viable level. Margins shrink, sure, and values fall slowly but those who are currently getting by continue to survive.
The IMF bail out the banks, who are exposed to bad debts but nowhere near the level that they would be exposed to in the case of total property collapse.

This is the fastest route to economic recovery. It is also the fairest on the tax payer.

You might be happy with tax payers picking up the cost of an even more enormous bank bailout (thus an enormous property bailout), just so you pay less for your first house, but most people would consider a property collapse a pretty obvious disaster for the country.

Buying a house should never be treated as a commodity.

Haha. What a joke. Don't buy here then. Try Cuba.

gurramok

Firstly, Investors - the rental market is flooded. There is no need for any more investors.

Secondly, how would homeowners be destroyed? They will be fine as long as they can service their mortgages.

Thirdly, as I said before, more debts are going to happen anyway as property values are still overvalued, why deny it? The short sharp correction is way better than a long drawn out pain of stagnation with what you envisage.

later10 wrote:

Now what i am suggesting, is very simple. You allow property values to depreciate slowly to a viable level. Margins shrink, sure, and values fall slowly but those who are currently getting by continue to survive.
The IMF bail out the banks, who are exposed to bad debts but nowhere near the level that they would be exposed to in the case of total property collapse.

This is the fastest route to economic recovery. It is also the fairest on the tax payer.

You might be happy with tax payers picking up the cost of an even more enormous bank bailout (thus an enormous property bailout), just so you pay less for your first house, but most people would consider a property collapse a pretty obvious disaster for the country.

Contradiction there. You want the market to deflate slowly over many years and yet want a faster recovery? That frankly does not happen.

Whatever my personal intentions are, are not directly related to wishing for a property collapse. A bubble burst, its happened to all the housing bubbles the world over, nothing new. The bursting ain't over yet hence what you propose Japan style is prolonging the disaster over many years and that is economic lunacy.

later12

gurramok wrote: »

Firstly, Investors - the rental market is flooded. There is no need for any more investors.

Hang on do you even know what a property collapse is?

A property collapse means investors sell en masse, or try to sell. they typically cannot sell because supply far outstrips demand. Values disappear. Rents dry up. Mortgages fail. Banks fail. State fails...

IMF EU bailout FAILS.

Secondly, how would homeowners be destroyed? They will be fine as long as they can service their mortgages.

The home owners currently getting by are getting by on the premise that their home still retains some value. If the market collapse, they enter deeper into negative equity until the value of their home doesn't resemble anything of that which they are paying in mortgage. They see houses going for next to nothing, so they do what has already been happening - they leave the keys in the door, and default. Taxpayer picks up the bill.


Personally, I would rather the situation where they pay their own mortgage

Thirdly, as I said before, more debts are going to happen anyway as property values are still overvalued, why deny it?

.
More bad debts will happen, but this has already been taken into account. We are bailing out the banks despite that.
What you suggest is total market collapse and the taxpayer will pay the cost because the IMF EU money (like it or not) is being thrown to the banks to cover the costs of bad debts.

The reasonable way of thinking, given the circumstnces in front of us, is let the IMF money cover the bad debts as they stand. It is reasonable to suggest that this will shore up confidence in the system, and allow the property market to survive. In that scenario, we coast by.

Contradiction there. You want the market to deflate slowly over many years and yet want a faster recovery? That frankly does not happen.

It's called a market correction, and yes it does. Look it up. Values depreciate slowly, the banks are buoyed up by whatever peripheral defaults there are, but the key is that the banks survive. Therefore properties do not lose all value, homeowners keep paying their mortgages, and confidence in property survives, preventing a crash.

It's like driving a car, you have to take your foot from the clutch as slowly as you accelerate.
You allow values to slowly fall slightly, but as long as economic strength is pushed, you are driven forwards.
Take your foot off the clutch and just accelerate and you will not get anywhere.

later10

later10 wrote: »

Equally klaz wants the JSB to be increased. Of course he does, he's on it.

I don't mind you arguing against point I have made, but don't put words in my mouth. Never once have I argued for an increase. I have said I don't favor a decrease.

gurramok

later10 wrote: »

Hang on do you even know what a property collapse is?

A property collapse means investors sell en masse, or try to sell. they typically cannot sell because supply far outstrips demand. Values disappear. Rents dry up. Mortgages fail. Banks fail. State fails...

IMF EU bailout FAILS.

Eh, most investors/BTL's who jumped on the gravy train are in negative equity already and they have tenants also so why has there been no selling by them en masse yet?

Hint: A fair chunk of landlords are professionals who bought within their means and also bought when property was cheap pre-boom.

later10 wrote: »

The home owners currently getting by are getting by on the premise that their home still retains some value. If the market collapse, they enter deeper into negative equity until the value of their home doesn't resemble anything of that which they are paying in mortgage. They see houses going for next to nothing, so they do what has already been happening - they leave the keys in the door, and default. Taxpayer picks up the bill.

Personally, I would rather the situation where they pay their own mortgage

There is no jingle mail in this country. Very surprised you did not know that. Anyone I know that is in negative equity have no intention of handing the keys to the bank just because its value has plummeted.

There has been no en masse repossessions nor flooding of the market with sellers due to mortgage defaulters on interest only holidays and on moratorium 1 yr delay in legal proceedings.

later10 wrote: »

.
More bad debts will happen, but this has already been taken into account. We are bailing out the banks despite that.
What you suggest is total market collapse and the taxpayer will pay the cost because the IMF EU money (like it or not) is being thrown to the banks to cover the costs of bad debts.

The reasonable way of thinking, given the circumstnces in front of us, is let the IMF money cover the bad debts as they stand. It is reasonable to suggest that this will shore up confidence in the system, and allow the property market to survive. In that scenario, we coast by.

It may or may not happen. Of course I reckon the majority of the bad debts have been exposed and yes there is still more to come but excluding the mortgage default scenario up the line the banks could whether the losses of a free market which I condone.

later10 wrote: »

It's called a market correction, and yes it does. Look it up. Values depreciate slowly, the banks are buoyed up by whatever peripheral defaults there are, but the key is that the banks survive. Therefore properties do not lose all value, homeowners keep paying their mortgages, and confidence in property survives, preventing a crash.

It's like driving a car, you have to take your foot from the clutch as slowly as you accelerate.
You allow values to slowly fall slightly, but as long as economic strength is pushed, you are driven forwards.
Take your foot off the clutch and just accelerate and you will not get anywhere.

This part is mind boggling. Where is this confidence coming from? Where is the easy credit coming from to help prevent a crash? In the Irish situation, how does it help economic recovery when banks keep having bad debts year on year in a slowly deflating bubble where they cannot lend to industry?

later12

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't mind you arguing against point I have made, but don't put words in my mouth. Never once have I argued for an increase. I have said I don't favor a decrease.

Apologies, no you didn't. That was Gurramok who suggested increasing the JSB. I apologise genuinely and unreservedly for tarnishing you with that outlandish suggestion.

gurramok wrote:

Eh, most investors/BTL's who jumped on the gravy train are in negative equity already and they have tenants also so why has there been no selling by them en masse yet?

Negative equity is fine, or is manageable as it stands. i'm talking about negative equity to the extent that the property industry collapses. Why don't you address the repercussions of that on the IMF money?

Of course I reckon the majority of the bad debts have been exposed and yes there is still more to come but excluding the mortgage default scenario up the line the banks could whether the losses of a free market which I condone.

the banks could weather the losses? That's rubbish, you do not understand what you are talking about.
The banks will not 'weather' (i.e. absorb) losses through bad debts. The tax payer will 'weather' them via the IMF EU fund as it is poured into the banks, this is already likely to arrive at a total of about 70 billion euros. Hopefully it works.

And you want to compromise us by putting us in a position where this does not work, because collapse in the sector will not be partial, as it stands, but total?

That's worse than anything FF have every suggested. Nobody with half a brain would encourage or suggest such stupidity. I have been reasonably patient trying to explain this to you but either you don't understand or you simply refuse to admit your mistake. The property collapse, which you advocate, would be little more than a get out of jail free card for developers, whose debt would be carried by the tax payer, given that the bank bailout has already been decided upon and is established policy. Get real or stop trying to prolong such an illogical line of mind numbing idiocy.

Misty Midlands

I hope the IMF cut the dole by at least 70euro, I know a lot of young people and they never have, never will work.
It goes from one generation to the next, the girls grow up, get pregnant, go on lone parent allowance, get a council house and move in their boyfriend. The boys grow up go on the dole, get a girl pregnant, then he moves in with her ,landlords are making a fortune out of the one parent family "industry".
It has to stop somewhere, so the IMF are our only hope.

Rodin

How about the dole is paid at some sort of rate dependent on how much you've paid into the fund?

Lifelong losers who couldnt be arsed working would earn much less than an engineer with SR Technics with 30 years work behind them

In so so many areas of this country, Ireland needs a firm hand, and a kick up the backside

later12

Misty Midlands wrote: »

I hope the IMF cut the dole by at least 70euro, I know a lot of young people and they never have, never will work.
It goes from one generation to the next

Then why did it suddenly stop during the boom years?

Yes, the dole must be cut. But it has nothing to do with spongers, the root of the problem, depressingly, is not the sponger effect. It is down to the fact that these hundreds of thousands of people suddenly cannot find work.

They have not suddenly become lazy

gurramok

later10 wrote: »

Negative equity is fine, or is manageable as it stands. i'm talking about negative equity to the extent that the property industry collapses. Why don't you address the repercussions of that on the IMF money?

What do you mean? That everyone is in negative equity? You're not very clear on that.

later10 wrote: »

the banks could weather the losses? That's rubbish, you do not understand what you are talking about.
The banks will not 'weather' (i.e. absorb) losses through bad debts. The tax payer will 'weather' them via the IMF EU fund as it is poured into the banks, this is already likely to arrive at a total of about 70 billion euros. Hopefully it works.

And you want to compromise us by putting us in a position where this does not work, because collapse in the sector will not be partial, as it stands, but total?

That's worse than anything FF have every suggested. Nobody with half a brain would encourage or suggest such stupidity. I have been reasonably patient trying to explain this to you but either you don't understand or you simply refuse to admit your mistake. The property collapse, which you advocate, would be little more than a get out of jail free card for developers, whose debt would be carried by the tax payer, given that the bank bailout has already been decided upon and is established policy. Get real or stop trying to prolong such an illogical line of mind numbing idiocy.

Huh? I had said most of the bad debts have been realised so far and there is more to come as the bottom of the property market has not arrived yet. That more to come is why the IMF are here, they know the banks will have more bad debts and will need support over the next few years.

The IMF are here to offer a package over the next few years, that concurs with my analysis of the banks having more bad debts over the next few years. What you wanted is for all this to be postponed for years and yet the market will still be dead. You'd want to get real pal.

murphaph

This debate is about reducing RS is it not? Why are we debating property market collapses here? The property market has already taken a massive blow. It should not be important anyway to be honest, people buying houses from each other should not form a large part of the government's revenue stream in the first place.

If RS is cut further, it will not lead to a "collapse" of the property market anyway. Most people live in their own homes, so it will affect them not a jot, unless they want to sell and they are in NE, which to be blunt is nobody else's problem.

It will affect rents (so the likes of me as a landlord will see reduced income, again, nobody else's problem) and this is a good thing for the economy as a whole. A minority of landlords will be forced to sell up if they are not in NE, sell up and cover the difference or default. I believe the numbers of landlords that will be forced to default on their mortgages and be repossessed is actually quite low. Not enough to worry about wrt the national finances certainly.

The only reason RS hasn't been drastically cut is because quite a number of politicians (of all shades) have a direct interest in that not happening as they are amongst the most exposed to rental falls. They know that if RS falls, ALL rents will fall.

later12

gurramok wrote: »

What do you mean? That everyone is in negative equity? You're not very clear on that.

No, it's pretty obvious I'm talking about the magnitude of negative equity. We know that values have fallen on average 50-60% overall. You are correct to say this is less so in the more desirable areas, for example, where a Ranelagh property may only have fallen by 30%.
i am talking about a case where negative equity sky rockets, as would happen in a total property collapse.

I will ask you this yet again, and yet again you will probably not answer.

If

1. There is mass defaulting on properties in the event of a total collapse, and
2. Given that it has been established that the IMF money is being poured into the banks to cover their current bad debt exposure, and subsequent lack of external confidence in our banking system,

then how can you defend this suggestion of yours that the tax payer should be so deliberately and so savagely attacked with such a further enormous burden? You want to waste even more borrowed money in bailing out the borrowers who got us into this mess.

A total property collapse is not inevitable, no economist or professional is suggesting it is. By saying you're in favour of a total property collapse, you are merely demonstrating your self interest as someone in the market for a house at the moment.

I had said most of the bad debts have been realised so far and there is more to come as the bottom of the property market has not arrived yet.

Hang on, what proof have you that property values are going to fall further, especially if most of the bad debt (as you say, but I disagree) has been realised? What proof?

The IMF are here to offer a package over the next few years, that concurs with my analysis of the banks having more bad debts over the next few years.

Wheat are you talking about, where's the connection? That is a logical non sequitur. That's also a very liberal use of the term 'my analysis'. More like an anarchist's ranting on economics based on something he read on the back of a cereal bar.

If you want to know what the IMF and the EU are talking about as it relates to the Irish banks it is covered in three clear points by the Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1120/1224283770339.html?via=rel

How to shrink the size and number of banks so they are not as reliant on outside funding;
How to inject further capital into the banks to reassure the financial markets who lend to them that they can absorb any possible losses in the future;
How to ensure there is certainty around their liquidity and funding so that they can survive the loss of the tens of billions in deposits that have been withdrawn from them.

There is nothing in there about paying for future losses incurred by bad debts. it is an issue of restoring confidence in Irish banks so that ultimately these bad debts don't arise to begin with. Prevention is better than cure.

They are certainly not trying to hang, draw and quarter us by suggesting we wnter economic anarchy and let the whole property and banking industries collapse completely. No reasonably intelligent human being would actually suggest such a thing at a time when we are trying to pour enough of taxpayers money into investors' and speculators' bad debts as it stands.

ArtSmart

murphaph wrote: »

This debate is about reducing RS is it not? Why are we debating property market collapses here? The property market has already taken a massive blow. It should not be important anyway to be honest, people buying houses from each other should not form a large part of the government's revenue stream in the first place.

If RS is cut further, it will not lead to a "collapse" of the property market anyway. Most people live in their own homes, so it will affect them not a jot, unless they want to sell and they are in NE, which to be blunt is nobody else's problem.

It will affect rents (so the likes of me as a landlord will see reduced income, again, nobody else's problem) and this is a good thing for the economy as a whole. A minority of landlords will be forced to sell up if they are not in NE, sell up and cover the difference or default. I believe the numbers of landlords that will be forced to default on their mortgages and be repossessed is actually quite low. Not enough to worry about wrt the national finances certainly.

The only reason RS hasn't been drastically cut is because quite a number of politicians (of all shades) have a direct interest in that not happening as they are amongst the most exposed to rental falls. They know that if RS falls, ALL rents will fall.

As I said before it would create a price ceiling - resulting in higher rents.

gurramok

later10 wrote: »

No, it's pretty obvious I'm talking about the magnitude of negative equity. We know that values have fallen on average 50-60% overall. You are correct to say this is less so in the more desirable areas, for example, where a Ranelagh property may only have fallen by 30%.
i am talking about a case where negative equity sky rockets, as would happen in a total property collapse.

I will ask you this yet again, and yet again you will probably not answer.

If

1. There is mass defaulting on properties in the event of a total collapse, and
2. Given that it has been established that the IMF money is being poured into the banks to cover their current bad debt exposure, and subsequent lack of external confidence in our banking system,

then how can you defend this suggestion of yours that the tax payer should be so deliberately and so savagely attacked with such a further enormous burden? You want to waste even more borrowed money in bailing out the borrowers who got us into this mess.

A total property collapse is not inevitable, no economist or professional is suggesting it is. By saying you're in favour of a total property collapse, you are merely demonstrating your self interest as someone in the market for a house at the moment.

You still don't get it. That mass defaulting has happened plus more of it is down the line hence thats why the IMF are here to provide a protection base for the banks. The burden is already there so there is no basis for you denying it.
The collapse is been falsely held back by what I has stated already - interest only holidays and moratoriums on default. Ad hominem attacks destroy your argument.

later10 wrote: »

Hang on, what proof have you that property values are going to fall further, especially if most of the bad debt (as you say, but I disagree) has been realised? What proof?

Oh boy, we are debating the IMF with relation to the state of the economy and you ask for the proof of property values not falling in the future?! Seriously, are you taking the mick? Never thought i'd see a property market bull in 2010.

later10 wrote: »

Wheat are you talking about, where's the connection? That is a logical non sequitur. That's also a very liberal use of the term 'my analysis'. More like an anarchist's ranting on economics based on something he read on the back of a cereal bar.

If you want to know what the IMF and the EU are talking about as it relates to the Irish banks it is covered in three clear points by the Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1120/1224283770339.html?via=rel

There is nothing in there about paying for future losses incurred by bad debts. it is an issue of restoring confidence in Irish banks so that ultimately these bad debts don't arise to begin with. Prevention is better than cure.

They are certainly not trying to hang, draw and quarter us by suggesting we wnter economic anarchy and let the whole property and banking industries collapse completely. No reasonably intelligent human being would actually suggest such a thing at a time when we are trying to pour enough of taxpayers money into investors' and speculators' bad debts as it stands.

Oh, so you think there is zero link between confidence and bad debts. That's totally absurd. The reason the banks have had their deposit base shrinking was because confidence had evaporated due to their bad debts. Any intelligent human being can see that.

You sound like a poster stuck in a timewarp, as if you are debating in 2006. Still in denial.

gurramok

murphaph wrote: »

This debate is about reducing RS is it not? Why are we debating property market collapses here?

Perhaps a mod could split this thread and move the posts about the property market into a new thread?

later12

gurramok wrote: »

That mass defaulting has happened plus more of it is down the line hence thats why the IMF are here to provide a protection base for the banks. The burden is already there so there is no basis for you denying it.

Yes, but there will not be total property collapse, such as that which you are advocating. Defaults will occur on loans that are currently criticised. In fact you are the one who said

most of the bad debts have been realised so far

If there was a total collapse, prices would plummet (obviously you'd like that, you're in the market) but people who never defaulted and whose loans are not criticised would end up defaulting.

The state bill would increase, and the tax payers would be even more indebted because of even more defaulters. Get it? Probably not.

Oh boy, we are debating the IMF with relation to the state of the economy and you ask for the proof of property values not falling in the future?

Yep. If it's that easy, give me the proof. Where is it? Where is the proof that a crash is inevitable?

You're all talk, in fact you appear to know next to nothing about economics or the banking crisis.

gurramok

later10 wrote: »

Yes, but there will not be total property collapse, such as that which you are advocating. Defaults will occur on loans that are currently criticised. In fact you are the one who said

If there was a total collapse, prices would plummet (obviously you'd like that, you're in the market) but people who never defaulted and whose loans are not criticised would end up defaulting.

The state bill would increase, and the tax payers would be even more indebted because of even more defaulters. Get it? Probably not.

And thats why the IMF are here as they know the property market will fall further resulting in more bad debts. Your solution of preventing values falling is crazy talk.

later10 wrote: »

Yep. If it's that easy, give me the proof. Where is it? Where is the proof that a crash is inevitable?

This just gets better. We're in a crash already as you obviously haven't noticed yet and the crash ain't over.

later10 wrote: »

You're all talk, in fact you appear to know next to nothing about economics or the banking crisis.

Speak for yourself.

later12

gurramok wrote: »

And thats why the IMF are here as they know the property market will fall further resulting in more bad debts.

No they fear the property values will fall further (although that is certainly not why they are here). They are not in Ireland because a crash is an inevitability, they are here to oversee a structural adjustment process, which, we hope, will rebuild trust in our banking system to provide day to day credit and transactional facilities. They are not here to oversee a property crash - you are simply mistaken, you simply do not understand what you are talking about.

Your solution of preventing values falling is crazy talk

It's not my solution. My solution wouldn't be the extension of the bank guarantee, for one thing, and the pouring of IMFEU funds into the black hole of debt. You think it's fine to let the property industry collapse, thereby wasting more money in that black hole to burden future generations of the Irish people just so that you geta cheap house. Jesus Christ.

We're in a crash already as you obviously haven't noticed yet and the crash ain't over.

No, a crash happened in Q1 of 2007, and we are in a decline, but if you watch the charts, the decline is tailing off. We are nowehre near total collapse, which you advocate. Nobody else, not in Government and not even on boards (as far as I can see), is advocating total collapse of construction and housing. So what's so special about you?

Again, if it's so "obvious", where is your proof about an inevitable total collapse of property? I keep asking you but you always forget to post it. So where is it gurramok? Where?

murphaph

ArtSmart wrote: »

As I said before it would create a price ceiling - resulting in higher rents.

You believe that to be the case but I totally disagree with you on it.

valeriadaniel

what about all the foreigners that are flying over from their own country every 3 months to collect child allownce, family allowance ect??? i wont lie i dont work at the minute im a stay at home mum but i know alot of ppl including myself are beating are brains out because i cant get work, if it wasnt for the dole me and my little girl would be out on the street, i know technically its called child allowance but we'll call a spade a spade. only thing is ya have to think of other peoples curcumstance before saying yes cut it by 10 percent i know your more than intitalled to ur opinion but just think thats 10 percent will but a nice warm jacket on a child... a healthy meal.... or just a santa present.

caseyann

valeriadaniel wrote: »

what about all the foreigners that are flying over from their own country every 3 months to collect child allownce, family allowance ect??? i wont lie i dont work at the minute im a stay at home mum but i know alot of ppl including myself are beating are brains out because i cant get work, if it wasnt for the dole me and my little girl would be out on the street, i know technically its called child allowance but we'll call a spade a spade. only thing is ya have to think of other peoples curcumstance before saying yes cut it by 10 percent i know your more than intitalled to ur opinion but just think thats 10 percent will but a nice warm jacket on a child... a healthy meal.... or just a santa present.

I am sorry to say you dont deserve it as far as some Irish are concerned and although they benifited from it themselves growing up and your parents and everyone elses parents paid taxes in this country,but the refugees who when they get here and have never paid a red cent to the country,and get residency do deserve it.Wonder will they agree to cutting their money aswell Dont figure does it :P

Amhran Nua

later10 wrote: »

You think it's fine to let the property industry collapse

That's a misnomer, property development could never credibly be called an industry. All it does is create debt for nonproductive assets, destroying future productive capital in interest payments. If you let that dog off the leash, don't expect to find anything left in the fridge.

later10 wrote: »

Again, if it's so "obvious", where is your proof about an inevitable total collapse of property? I keep asking you but you always forget to post it. So where is it gurramok? Where?

If prices for any given item decline by 10%, that's considered serious. 20% to 40%, thats a crash. 50%+, that's a collapse. We're already in the middle of a collapse, and one of the hallmarks of such an event is that the bottom is entirely unpredictable.

At the end of the day as far as predictions go, banks determine the property prices the market can support, since banks determine the maximum amount of loans which will be handed out. Given the severe restrictions on credit lately and for the foreseeable future (possibly the next generation or more), I don't see how any justification could be put forward for property prices stabilising soon.

We may ultimately be forced to subsidise interest repayments if that proves cheaper than another bank recapitalisation, but the preferred method of dealing with the issue is to provide plenty of well paying jobs and letting mortgage holders work it off like everyone else.

murphaph

valeriadaniel wrote: »

what about all the foreigners that are flying over from their own country every 3 months to collect child allownce, family allowance ect??? i wont lie i dont work at the minute im a stay at home mum but i know alot of ppl including myself are beating are brains out because i cant get work, if it wasnt for the dole me and my little girl would be out on the street, i know technically its called child allowance but we'll call a spade a spade. only thing is ya have to think of other peoples curcumstance before saying yes cut it by 10 percent i know your more than intitalled to ur opinion but just think thats 10 percent will but a nice warm jacket on a child... a healthy meal.... or just a santa present.

I believe that children's allowance payments made to Irish workers and dole recipients have to be made to foreign workers and dole recipients, even if their children do not reside in the state, so long as they reside in another EU state. This is EU law. The problem is that irish payments are so high compared to say, Polish payments, that it makes it financially attractive to leave your child in Poland and claim benefits for that child in Ireland. My GF's father is a German-Hungarian translator and he often deals with claims for German welfare from Hungarian citizens so this issue is not confined to Ireland.

I personally believe this is an EU law too far and we should aim to subvert it if possible, perhaps by introducing a universal payment and actually eliminating child benefit as a standalone payment. I would eliminate it entirely for workers and compensate (partially) by way of tax credit increases or tax rate decreases. For social welfare recipients it's not as easy to cover the "loophole" as they cannot compensate for the loss of child benefit through taxation benefits. The option would be to reduce the premium paid for having a child, but that would affect all recipients, whether their children were resident in the state or not.

I fully support the right of foreign (EU) workers to their child benefits IF they stay in Ireland and either work or claim benefits for which they've contributed to the system. My only gripe is claiming a benefit and shipping the money off to a foreign country to be spent there.

A civilised society can't really eliminate an extra payment to an unemployed person due to having children. The way in which the payments are made however can be changed, food stamps or precharged debit type cards that can only be used in Irish retail outlets and with no cash back facility need to be looked at, to prevent irish benefit payments being "exported". I should also state that I don't see this problem as being huge on its own, but it's like everything, look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves.

AlekSmart

I personally believe this is an EU law too far and we should aim to subvert it if possible, perhaps by introducing a universal payment and actually eliminating child benefit as a standalone payment.

+1 to that Murphaph and perhaps it might start a trend in reviewing other counterproductive EU "Directives" such as the insane "Working Time Directive" now enshrined into Irish Law to ensure that Workers,ie: Contributors,cannot legally work more than a notional number of hours.

This type of wild fanciful legislation will most assuredly NOT contribute to the notion of productivity or "Work-Ethic" so necessary for any real recovery in Ireland.

Few Irish folk appear to under the true nature of a State Social Welfare mechanism at all.
It is only an extension of the age-old principle of "Insurance" to the greater populace.....it`s a very simple system and based upon a single premise.

THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE MANY GO TO PAY THE CLAIMS OF THE FEW.

Modern Ireland established a new norm in this area by reversing that basic premise and that`s a major part of what has us where we are today.

caseyann

murphaph wrote: »

I believe that children's allowance payments made to Irish workers and dole recipients have to be made to foreign workers and dole recipients, even if their children do not reside in the state, so long as they reside in another EU state. This is EU law. The problem is that irish payments are so high compared to say, Polish payments, that it makes it financially attractive to leave your child in Poland and claim benefits for that child in Ireland. My GF's father is a German-Hungarian translator and he often deals with claims for German welfare from Hungarian citizens so this issue is not confined to Ireland.

I personally believe this is an EU law too far and we should aim to subvert it if possible, perhaps by introducing a universal payment and actually eliminating child benefit as a standalone payment. I would eliminate it entirely for workers and compensate (partially) by way of tax credit increases or tax rate decreases. For social welfare recipients it's not as easy to cover the "loophole" as they cannot compensate for the loss of child benefit through taxation benefits. The option would be to reduce the premium paid for having a child, but that would affect all recipients, whether their children were resident in the state or not.

I fully support the right of foreign (EU) workers to their child benefits IF they stay in Ireland and either work or claim benefits for which they've contributed to the system. My only gripe is claiming a benefit and shipping the money off to a foreign country to be spent there.

A civilised society can't really eliminate an extra payment to an unemployed person due to having children. The way in which the payments are made however can be changed, food stamps or precharged debit type cards that can only be used in Irish retail outlets and with no cash back facility need to be looked at, to prevent irish benefit payments being "exported". I should also state that I don't see this problem as being huge on its own, but it's like everything, look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves.

But the Irish receivers of Child allowance money is paid back into the Irish economy through clothes shoes bills and food,school books,school fees etc....
Where as child benefit going out of the country is not and also is not.
And as far as i know cost of living is not as high in Poland as it is here,so therefore the amount of money they receive and send back is costing Ireland and they are profiting?
Isnt it true that they get paid child benefit twice,once here and once there?

gurramok

later10 wrote: »

No, a crash happened in Q1 of 2007, and we are in a decline, but if you watch the charts, the decline is tailing off. We are nowehre near total collapse, which you advocate. Nobody else, not in Government and not even on boards (as far as I can see), is advocating total collapse of construction and housing. So what's so special about you?

Again, if it's so "obvious", where is your proof about an inevitable total collapse of property? I keep asking you but you always forget to post it. So where is it gurramok? Where?

How is one suppose to debate with you when you haven't the foggiest idea what a property crash is?:rolleyes:

Educate yourself young man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_bubble

Amhran Nua re-answered the question for you. There is nothing in the immediate future to support the stabilisation or the rising of property values.

As well as severe retraction of credit, the impending rise in interest rates, the massive unemployment, the emigration of tens of thousands of young people the only way is down.

Please put forward your pathetic argument for a stabilisation or the rising of prices in the immediate future, this we all have to hear from must be the only property bull on boards in 2010.

later12

gurramok wrote: »

How is one suppose to debate with you when you haven't the foggiest idea what a property crash is?:rolleyes:

Educate yourself young man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_bubble

Young man? Educate yourself? Wikipedia? You have lost all credibility. You're trying to prove a point using wikipedia, and to make things worse, using wikipedia for an article that is totally irrelevant to the object that I keep asking you to prove, but which you continue to run away from.

So I'll just keep asking.

Prove that a total collapse of the property industry is in fact inevitable. We all know what a property bubble is, and we all know what the property crash was, but I am talking about total collapse, the same total collapse that you keep advocating simply because you want to buy a house.

And furthermore, why don't you finally admit what would happen with the IMFEU structural readjustment funds in your bizarre suggestion? They would be swallowed up, who knows, maybe tenfold, from the current figure based on current bad debt and current criticised debt.

Why is nobody else advocating this "total collapse" of property and construction? No economists, no government ministers, no members of the opposition? The anarchists probably are, but why are you the only genius who seems to have come up with this masterplan?

Lets not forget you are the same poster who actually wants to see an increase - an increase - in job seekers benefit. Enough said.
Again, I don't know anyone else on this site or in the wider economy even contemplating such a thing apart from total lefty wackos like People before Profit, probably.

Amhran Nua re-answered the question for you.

No Amhran Nua didn't, while I disagree with him on his points, at least he was clear and as far as I can see isn't actually advocating a total collapse of property values and the construction industry.

gurramok

later10 wrote: »

Young man? Educate yourself? Wikipedia? You have lost all credibility. You're trying to prove a point using wikipedia, and to make things worse, using wikipedia for an article that is totally irrelevant to the object that I keep asking you to prove, but which you continue to run away from.

So I'll just keep asking.

Prove that a total collapse of the property industry is in fact inevitable. We all know what a property bubble is, and we all know what the property crash was, but I am talking about total collapse, the same total collapse that you keep advocating simply because you want to buy a house.

And furthermore, why don't you finally admit what would happen with the IMFEU structural readjustment funds in your bizarre suggestion? They would be swallowed up, who knows, maybe tenfold, from the current figure based on current bad debt and current criticised debt.

Why is nobody else advocating this "total collapse" of property and construction? No economists, no government ministers, no members of the opposition? The anarchists probably are, but why are you the only genius who seems to have come up with this masterplan?

Lets not forget you are the same poster who actually wants to see an increase - an increase - in job seekers benefit. Enough said.
Again, I don't know anyone else on this site or in the wider economy even contemplating such a thing apart from total lefty wackos like People before Profit, probably.

No Amhran Nua didn't, while I disagree with him on his points, at least he was clear and as far as I can see isn't actually advocating a total collapse of property values and the construction industry.

You are waffling again. You havent the floggiest idea what a property bubble is, I linked to Wikipedia rather than an economic site to help you understand it in basic English.

If you are trying to quote me on what i'm saying, you should speak the truth. I said the property market will face collapse and will recover just as fast to sustainability. It will NOT disappear, ffs.

For yet the umpteenth time, the property market(or industry in your crazy words) will collapse totally. It has already collapsed a long way so far and there is more to come for a total collapse, thats a part of the reason the IMF are here as they see further bad debts for the banks down the line from such a total collapse.

And as you didn't bother to read what I had stated the reasons for further property values decreasing, here they are again.

"As well as severe retraction of credit, the impending rise in interest rates, the massive unemployment, the emigration of tens of thousands of young people the only way is down."

Now for the 2nd time, answer the question..

Please put forward your pathetic argument for a stabilisation or the rising of prices in the immediate future, this we all have to hear from must be the only property bull on boards in 2010.

later12

gurramok wrote: »

If you are trying to quote me on what i'm saying, you should speak the truth. I said the property market will face collapse and will recover just as fast to sustainability. It will NOT disappear, ffs.

Correction: you advocated allowing a total collapse of property to occur. That is the central point of my disagreement. Disagreement being an understatement.

For yet the umpteenth time, the property market(or industry in your crazy words)

Gurramok, do you actually know the difference between a market and an industry?

It has already collapsed a long way so far and there is more to come for a total collapse,

It has already crashed, but the distinction is being made between a crash and a collapse. As I indicated earlier, the crash is now tailing off, nobody seriously disputes that. That's why I keep asking you for proof that a "total collapse" of property is about to come. You say there is proof, yet the best you can do is link to wikipedia about some article on property bubbles! Your argument is a joke. You do not understand this discussion.

thats a part of the reason the IMF are here as they see further bad debts for the banks down the line from such a total collapse.

Eh... such as total collapse? Where did they - or anyone - mention total collapse.

You are, it would seem, the only person on this island advocating or expecting a total collapse.

Please put forward your pathetic argument for a stabilisation or the rising of prices in the immediate future,

I have already provided you with information that the fall in values of property prices is tailing off. I do not envisage any rise in the short term, nobody does.
The crash is not over, but the crash has happened. But just as the CPI fell, so to did the HPI - the cost of goods is not likely to collapse totally any more than the cost of houses. That is my logic. Now, again, gurramok, where is your evidence to the contrary?? Where is it? And again, why are you the only person here advocating this total collapse?

Where are the economists, the academics, the politicians or anybody else who share your advocation of a total collapse?

gurramok

later10 wrote: »

Correction: you advocated allowing a total collapse of property to occur. That is the central point of my disagreement. Disagreement being an understatement.

Gurramok, do you actually know the difference between a market and an industry?

I certainly think you do not! And how is that 'industry' so important anyway? Buying and selling too many houses to each other got us in this mess.

later10 wrote: »

It has already crashed, but the distinction is being made between a crash and a collapse. As I indicated earlier, the crash is now tailing off, nobody seriously disputes that. That's why I keep asking you for proof that a "total collapse" of property is about to come. You say there is proof, yet the best you can do is link to wikipedia about some article on property bubbles! Your argument is a joke. You do not understand this discussion.

So you dish the Wikipedia article on property bubbles, did you even bother to read it? Hint, its factually correct, you are the only person on the planet disagreeing with what a property bubble is.

How do you know the crash is tailing off? I gave you proof already from the other side of the coin, now provide yours.

later10 wrote: »

Eh... such as total collapse? Where did they - or anyone - mention total collapse.

You are, it would seem, the only person on this island advocating or expecting a total collapse.

How do you know, did you ask everyone?:rolleyes:

Why on earth do you think the banks are living on 120bn ECB liquidty? Has it not dawned on you that their present and future bad debts are so severe and that is why the IMF are here in the first place?

later10 wrote: »

I have already provided you with information that the fall in values of property prices is tailing off. I do not envisage any rise in the short term, nobody does.
The crash is not over, but the crash has happened. But just as the CPI fell, so to did the HPI - the cost of goods is not likely to collapse totally any more than the cost of houses. That is my logic. Now, again, gurramok, where is your evidence to the contrary?? Where is it? And again, why are you the only person here advocating this total collapse?

Where are the economists, the academics, the politicians or anybody else who share your advocation of a total collapse?

Where? You provided nothing. Only FF and certain estate agents support your position. The crash ain't over yet.

I gave you concrete evidence already, twice. Here it is for the 3rd time
""As well as severe retraction of credit, the impending rise in interest rates, the massive unemployment, the emigration of tens of thousands of young people the only way is down.""

I asked you earlier to back up your statement that the ECB and the EU support your position on property values will not fall further, you failed to provide the evidence. No surprise there.

muireann50

I'd just like to bring it back to the issue of cutting social welfare.

I don't know whether to be sad or angry about the ignorance of people who can say so lightly to just cut the dole. After finishing college I worked for about 4 years until the industry i was in collapsed at the start of the recession. I went back to college,using my own savings, to train in a different sector. I finished college about 9 months ago and havent been able to find work yet. My boyfriend who I live with was in the same sector and has been unemployed for the last 18 months.

Because we are a couple who live together, the state has decided that the standard rate of €196 each is too much. We receive €160 each a week. I applied for rent allowance months ago and have not got any answer as to if I will actually get any yet. We live in Dublin, our 1 bed flat costs €750 a month, which is on the lower scale of rent. About €190 of our dole each week goes to rent. So we live on €130 a week between us. We have to pay for electricity, fuel for the fire, food, travel etc. Believe me it doesnt leave much money spare. Some months we really struggle to pay rent in time. We live in fear of any large bill suddenly arriving becasue we just don't have the ability to save any amount of money. The thought of people turning down a wage of €15 per hour is ridiculous, I would be delighted with a min. wage job at this stage.

People who don't have any clue about how much of a struggle it is living on the dole need to just shut up and get their facts straight. Once I get a job(soon hopefully) I would be glad to pay extra tax, take a paycut, whatever. Until you see your electricity bill coming through the door and get a feeling of utter dread opening it up, just praying its not a large bill, you don't have any right to spout s**t like 'just cut some off the social welfare payments'. Get a clue