Room to Improve.

screamer

I think it was lovely to see them retain and renovate the old house. Too many people these days are full of **** and want their big new sprawling blight on the landscape houses. TBH fair play to them for getting all that work done for that price but if I have one criticism of the show I don't think the end cost is reflective of what it would actually cost a Joe soap to have done. I think there's a certain amount of work done FOC by the contractors because they are getting advertising out of it and of course have to show a wonderfully finished house in the reveal. So similarly to don't tell the bride it contributes to unrealistic expectations price wise.

amdublin

amdublin wrote: »

For me I was expecting a teenager or early 20s chap. And then this little teeny 6 year old appears.


So I know he is the son of one of them. it's the age of the little boy versus mammy that threw me.

I wouldn't be very good at judging people's ages to be honest, but both of the women are pretty good looking in my opinion I'm sure have decent sex lives. I wouldn't be overly surprised by one of them having a 6 year old. Only for this thread, it genuinely never crossed my mind.

Zhane wrote: »

Absolutely. They can dress it up anyway they want but thats what it boils down to. By all means criticise the house and furnishing, but comments about the people are very clearly sour grapes. These people have saved or have the means to build their dream home, and have every right to do so however they see fit.

In fairness, there's a difference between building a house, and applying to RTE and wanting to build a house in front of a national audience.

I would guess that about 1/5th of the show is just about the people. What they do, where they're from, their friends and family. Solely from watching room to improve I've seen footage of a chap in a triathlon, a pilot getting lifts to the airport, a GAA coach on the pitch, etc. and then the 'house party' with comments from locals at the end.

The show is very much about the building, but it's equally trying to portray the people in the house and who they are, what they do, etc. presumably to try to make the show more relatable (rather than TV shows featuring billionaires that can do what they want, they're trying to get the average joe on board, who can cringe at paying 12k for foundations or criticise a concrete wall, etc.)

Turnipman

Quazzie wrote: »

Really enjoyed reading that. Do you know if she still does the sales?

Sorry, but I'm not sure. I suspect that if she still was, then it would have got a mention on Sunday's show.

She used to throw the whole of her house and garden open and erect tents and everything - the old stone store room would have been full of stuff and the parking outside was absolute mayhem! Funnily enough, as I write this, I'm sitting on a lovely chair that the missus bought there for a song about a decade ago!

AndrewJRenko

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I had a look on the website. It's a new pilot programme.

https://www.seai.ie/grants/home-grants/deep-retrofit-programme/

It's not a €40k grant but 50% of the cost of the energy efficiency works.

Thanks for the link.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

The Warmer Homes Scheme, mentioned above, is there for those with the least resources, no?

There doesn't have to be one grant scheme for all. There are different programmes.

Sleepy wrote: »

If you look into the scheme on the seai site, it appears to be 50% for groups representing 5 or more houses or 95% for Housing Associations or those "in energy poverty" (based on the Warmer Homes Scheme). As the granny would be the legal home-owner, assuming she gets the Fuel Allowance along with her pension, she'd have qualified under this as like most means tests or taxation laws in this country, it's based on income, rather than wealth.

If that's the case, it sounds like a big stretch for how the scheme would be intended. I'm wondering why the State would want to top up a €200k investment? Maybe they should have just built a smaller house and gotten their A3 rating with a small house from their own resources. Or maybe the scheme rules should look beyond the legal owner to see who really benefits?

ted1 wrote: »

Thst real cash went out the door that it cane in a few seconds earlier, so no it didn’t cost the taxpayer anything.

Grand, so if you withdraw €250 from an ATM, and I whip €50 out of your hand, that didn't cost you anything because it came in a few seconds earlier, right?

Quazzie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Grand, so if you withdraw €250 from an ATM, and I whip €50 out of your hand, that didn't cost you anything because it came in a few seconds earlier, right?

no what Ted is saying is that if you hand me 20 quid but you've done something nice that makes my life easier in the future and I give you back 15 quid then I'm not down any money.

AndrewJRenko

Quazzie wrote: »

no what Ted is saying is that if you hand me 20 quid but you've done something nice that makes my life easier in the future and I give you back 15 quid then I'm not down any money.

Maths says otherwise. Maths says you're down €15.

deco nate

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Maths says otherwise. Maths says you're down €15.

5 quid?!

I haven't read the rest of the posts, sorry. But that 5 quid was more than worth it from the post you quoted?. Must read back, but too late for now.

Sleepy

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If that's the case, it sounds like a big stretch for how the scheme would be intended. I'm wondering why the State would want to top up a €200k investment? Maybe they should have just built a smaller house and gotten their A3 rating with a small house from their own resources. Or maybe the scheme rules should look beyond the legal owner to see who really benefits?

It's a fairly glaring problem with our tax system in general TBH. A family of 4 with an income of 75k (one earning national avg of 45k, the other earning 30k to be the primary care giver) will pay €16,480 in income tax, and a further €420 a year in property tax if they own an average 300k house. Assuming the house is mortgaged and they have no other financial assets, they're paying almost 17k a year in tax (and probably the same again in childcare).

On the other hand, a Lotto winner, retiree or benefactor of inheritance could be sitting pretty in a mortgage-free million euro house with millions in the bank or other investments. Their property tax would come to the grand total of €1,530 a year. Careful tax management of any pension income would keep their "income" untaxed and DIRT and CAT taxes are at much lower levels than Income Tax.

We don't tax wealth, we tax income. And all of our grant schemes seem to be based on the same.

ligerdub

Sleepy wrote: »

It's a fairly glaring problem with our tax system in general TBH. A family of 4 with an income of 75k (one earning national avg of 45k, the other earning 30k to be the primary care giver) will pay €16,480 in income tax, and a further €420 a year in property tax if they own an average 300k house. Assuming the house is mortgaged and they have no other financial assets, they're paying almost 17k a year in tax (and probably the same again in childcare).

On the other hand, a Lotto winner, retiree or benefactor of inheritance could be sitting pretty in a mortgage-free million euro house with millions in the bank or other investments. Their property tax would come to the grand total of €1,530 a year. Careful tax management of any pension income would keep their "income" untaxed and DIRT and CAT taxes are at much lower levels than Income Tax.

We don't tax wealth, we tax income. And all of our grant schemes seem to be based on the same.

I know you're not having a pop at those people, but those people have already been taxed on what is sitting in their bank accounts. Those people needed income, which was taxed, to build up that level of wealth. Even in the case of the lottery winner that person's jackpot win was after tax was applied or a chunk of the funds used in other projects. In the case of a retiree with no mortgage (seems like a reasonable expectation to me) and other investments around the place, what's the issue? If somebody is in a position to repay a mortgage and keep investments going outside of this then fair play to them.

Why should wealth be taxed even more? It isn't a problem with the tax system at all. There aren't a huge amount of people blessed with that issue either.

The inheritance tax on somebody inheriting €1m would be quite chunky I assure you.

The tax rate in the example you gave would work out at 22%, hardly a grave injustice. If they have a home worth €300k and a net salary of 40 grand a year they should be reasonable well able to finance that over a 25 year term say, especially considering the deposit already ploughed into it.

Anyways, off-topic so I'll leave it at that.

Back on topic........So where was the kids Dad then?

Glebee

ligerdub wrote: »

I know you're not having a pop at those people, but those people have already been taxed on what is sitting in their bank accounts. Those people needed income, which was taxed, to build up that level of wealth. Even in the case of the lottery winner that person's jackpot win was after tax was applied or a chunk of the funds used in other projects. In the case of a retiree with no mortgage (seems like a reasonable expectation to me) and other investments around the place, what's the issue? If somebody is in a position to repay a mortgage and keep investments going outside of this then fair play to them.

Why should wealth be taxed even more? It isn't a problem with the tax system at all. There aren't a huge amount of people blessed with that issue either.

The inheritance tax on somebody inheriting €1m would be quite chunky I assure you.

The tax rate in the example you gave would work out at 22%, hardly a grave injustice. If they have a home worth €300k and a net salary of 40 grand a year they should be reasonable well able to finance that over a 25 year term say, especially considering the deposit already ploughed into it.

Anyways, off-topic so I'll leave it at that.

Back on topic........So where was the kids Dad then?

Living in the shed......

Shop40

Finally got around to watching it. I liked the result, but then again I always do on RTI. Dermot never gets it wrong in my opinion!! (Fan) But my heart sank looking at Ma's room in the end:( Seriously, why put the granny in the tiny room and give the 6 year old the bigger room? I was in a box room when I was a kid, and it doesn't matter at that age, especially with a good garden to play in. No matter how sociable Ma is, she'll be in her room when she wants to listen to the "wireless" or whatever, it's not just a place to lay her head. This "mammy won't mind" mentality that is oh so common is so disrespectful!

I personally thought that’s what the granny wanted. It was still in the old house and I thought she wanted very little change anyway so that’s why her room stayed the same.

ainy

Alexa Savory Tweet wrote:

I personally thought that’s what the granny wanted. It was still in the old house and I thought she wanted very little change anyway so that’s why her room stayed the same.

I thought the same plus they said a couple of times, it was the closest one to the kitchen which makes sense.

iamwhoiam

Shop40 wrote: »

Finally got around to watching it. I liked the result, but then again I always do on RTI. Dermot never gets it wrong in my opinion!! (Fan) But my heart sank looking at Ma's room in the end:( Seriously, why put the granny in the tiny room and give the 6 year old the bigger room? I was in a box room when I was a kid, and it doesn't matter at that age, especially with a good garden to play in. No matter how sociable Ma is, she'll be in her room when she wants to listen to the "wireless" or whatever, it's not just a place to lay her head. This "mammy won't mind" mentality that is oh so common is so disrespectful!

Not only has he garden to play in he has a whole field and beach too ! Lucky kid .!Personally I would have liked to Ma's room with space for an armchair and small table where she could sit and listen to her wireless with a cuppa .

Shop40

Alexa Savory Tweet wrote: »

I personally thought that’s what the granny wanted. It was still in the old house and I thought she wanted very little change anyway so that’s why her room stayed the same.

Hear what you're saying and take your point. But honestly I thought she looked disappointed when she first saw the size of it (before it was finished). Don't think I'd feel right that my mother was in a box room.
And if she wanted to be near the kitchen, maybe two doors from the kitchen would have been okay?!!
Just seemed so grim compared to the other rooms, I felt sorry for her.

GT_TDI_150

By the way the house was done ... i assume the one with the library, walk in wardrobe and onsuite was the sister paying for the job?

ted1

ted1 wrote: »

Thst real cash went out the door that it cane in a few seconds earlier, so no it didn’t cost the taxpayer anything.

Grand, so if you withdraw €250 from an ATM, and I whip €50 out of your hand, that didn't cost you anything because it came in a few seconds earlier, right?[/quote]

No it’s completely different. Because you are a third party.

AndrewJRenko

ted1 wrote: »

No it’s completely different. Because you are a third party.

Grand, so if you withdraw €250 from an ATM, and the bank manager steps out of the bank and whips €50 out of your hand, that didn't cost you anything because it came in a few seconds earlier, right?

Quazzie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Grand, so if you withdraw €250 from an ATM, and the bank manager steps out of the bank and whips €50 out of your hand, that didn't cost you anything because it came in a few seconds earlier, right?

You're really not getting this are you.

Taking money out of your account is only moving your own money around. I'm assuming you're intelligent to know that the ATM isn't some sort of magic machine that prints money. All it's doing is giving you access to your own money. Essentially moving it from your left pocket to your right. Taking it out doesn't change the amount of money you had at all. It's nothing similar to the point that is being made above. I'm not sure if you're actually thick or just being obtuse for the sake of it.

AndrewJRenko

Quazzie wrote: »

You're really not getting this are you.

Taking money out of your account is only moving your own money around. I'm assuming you're intelligent to know that the ATM isn't some sort of magic machine that prints money. All it's doing is giving you access to your own money. Essentially moving it from your left pocket to your right. Taking it out doesn't change the amount of money you had at all. It's nothing similar to the point that is being made above. I'm not sure if you're actually thick or just being obtuse for the sake of it.

Grand, so if your employer pays you €250 cash for the job you did, and then whips €50 out of your hand, that didn't cost you anything because it came in a few seconds earlier, right?

Quazzie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Grand, so if your employer pays you €250 cash for the job you did, and then whips €50 out of your hand, that didn't cost you anything because it came in a few seconds earlier, right?

That's exactly how our tax system works. Congratulations. Welcome to adulthood.

ShamoBuc

This thread has become comedy gold.

AndrewJRenko

Quazzie wrote: »

That's exactly how our tax system works. Congratulations. Welcome to adulthood.

Except that your employer doesn't keep the tax money, so that's not really how tax works at all, but nice try for a diversion.

Quazzie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Except that your employer doesn't keep the tax money, so that's not really how tax works at all, but nice try for a diversion.

And these people didn't get to keep the grant money. What's your point?

Greybottle

ShamoBuc wrote: »

This thread has become comedy gold.

It's become a PITA to open every time I get a notification about a new post. I keep thinking there'll be new info on the last project or whatever, but it's just about people fighting about money and grants.

AndrewJRenko

Quazzie wrote: »

And these people didn't get to keep the grant money. What's your point?

Eh yes, they did - they kept the grant money when they got the grant. Do I need to draw a picture of how it works?

Quazzie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Eh yes, they did - they kept the grant money when they got the grant. Do I need to draw a picture of how it works?

Please do.

Make sure to use your favourite crayons :rolleyes:

Mr E

Lads, take it to PM please.

Greybottle

On the issues of the grants, it's a lot more complex than just giving the 50% of the cost back to the home owner; there are far more issues at stake here. I'll try to give a rough idea of how it works on that house.

IIRC they got a 50% grant, getting €40K back, so the total cost of the energy saving measures installed in that house would be €80,000.

Let's say if the grants were not available, how much would they have spent on heating and insulation measures in general...€15K ?, €20K ?, €30K ?

It's hard to say, a lot depends on personal desires and budget, but it is sadly one area where a lot of people incorrectly try to save money, as it is detrimental in the long run.

So we'll day that they spent an extra €50K on the retro fit that they would not normally have saved.
This is €11,500 that the state got extra in VAT. This does not include other taxes that the state earned on it through transport, excise duties etc. etc., and especially not he extra employment that it created.

People were employed to install the equipment and materials, meaning they were earning wages, thus paying PAYE, USC etc. They also have a higher disposable income so they contribute to more jobs in the economy. And they are not on the dole thus saving the state money.

On the other hand they are learning a skill and experience in an area that is badly needed in this country and one that is becoming more important.

And the state going forward will be emitting less emissions, thus helping us to pay less fines.

The people who own the house will in the future be paying less for energy, thus keeping more money circulating in the Irish economy, I think we import 70% of our energy and a house like that would traditionally run on gas or oil, meaning they would probably be importing near to 100% of their energy.

There are many other factors, yes, 50% is a lot, maybe too much, but schemes like this need a kick start for a few years, but it's far more complex than simply saying that a huge percent was ripped out of taxpayers pockets or whatever.

honeybear

Where’s tonight’s episode coming from?