Room to Improve.

LirW · 18-03-2018 9:17pm

I think it's a house in Killester?

AndrewJRenko · 18-03-2018 9:45pm

Greybottle wrote: »

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.

Yep, it is certainly more complex, but I don't think you've been over-generous in your interpretation here.

Greybottle wrote: »

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.

This 'state funding creates economic activity' doesn't really stand up. If it did, the state would be giving me money to take my family out for dinner this weekend.

Greybottle wrote: »

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.

Now we're getting somewhere - these are indeed beneficial. But the question remains why the state funds to create these benefits would be targeted at private homes of those with the most substantial resources to fund these improvements.
Maybe the state should be making these improvements to the property it owns - public housing. And what about the houses of those with the least resources, these who are just ticking over from week to week, who are most vulnerable to energy bills - instead of those who already have substantial resources.
These other approaches would achieve the benefits you outline, but without targeting the better off.

Greybottle wrote: »

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.

Who's to say that the savings made by the property owner will keep more money circulating here? Maybe they'll use the savings to fund their holiday apartment in Spain? Or their annual trips to the US or Australia? Who knows - that's a big leap to say the savings will result in more money circulating here.
If you focus funding on people who are worse off, there is a far bigger chance that the savings will be spent here, as people who are worst off spend most of their money on the basics here - food, drink, basic services. The better off you are, the more likely that a significant part of your income will be spent out of the country.

Greybottle wrote: »

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.

My concerns aren't about the 'kick start'. My concerns are about the targeting of the kick-start at those who already have substantial resources at their disposal.