Are the Government helping you

Donadea Leo

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The childcare subsidy, Reducing corruption to make Ireland the 17th least corrupt country in the world, ending the war in northern Ireland, employment laws which mean you can't just be turfed out of your job at the drop of a hat.

The OP says they're not a socialist but seems to be giving out about the government for not helping them to buy a house! Well OP the government didn't help me buy a holiday this year, nor did it help me buy a car. Should I be aggrieved too? We can be aggrieved together but I'm not saying any more bloody taxes

Just to clarify something here, I don't expect the government or anyone else here to buy me a house. I am concerned that once again we appear to be heading down the path of unaffordable homes. This would be less of an issue if we had a functioning rental market but we don't. Knowing people working in the homeless sector, they are seeing a new kind of homeless client, people whose lives are actually going according to plan but simply can't find a home to live in. Maybe we need to ensure we have a more professionalised landlord sector, I don't know, I would like the government to start trying to figure this out, that's hard to see.

Jim2007

Sand wrote: »

We do not vote for a government. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of constitutional fact. You are investing the Irish voter with far more influence than they actually have.

And you clearly have not got the foggiest idea how a parliament of Westminster style democracy works, despite the fact that it is one of most popular styles of democracy.

Who is rubberstamped by the President (a constitutional non-entity).

Again your ignorance of the constitution and history comes true. The President plays a fundamental role in our system as he is responsible for ensuring that the constitution is upheld. You only have to look at crises such as the arms trial, the Paddy Donegal speech, Brian Lenihan Snr. run for the presidency and the rejection of the 35 amendment to see that the Irish people most certainly do not consider the position a non-entity as you put it.

Because it is definitely not the job of the Dail to hold the government to account. Because the Dail takes it orders from the government and you don't hold your boss to account.

And yet all across the world in Westminster style democracies leaders are forced from office by the deputies elected to parliament.

Sand

Sand wrote: »

Its a good skit from Life of Brian, but the government doesn't deliver anything well.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It boils my p1ss when I see things like this. The government's job isn't to make everything run perfectly.

Well, I am not asking for perfection. I'm shooting for competent, principled or honest. I am sure that so unachievable for an Irish government that it might seem like I am demanding perfection though.

alastair wrote: »

The Irish electorate, like every other democratic electorate, vote for the formulation of a government, by choosing the mix of representatives that can make up a government.

You vote for a TD. You do not vote to select a government, or the makeup of that government, or the ministers appointed in that government or the programme of that government. The Irish voter is not consulted on any of those decisions - just the choice of a local TD.

micosoft wrote: »

And this is the fundamental problem with this country. Your statement is simply untrue.

No, my statement is entirely true.

micosoft wrote: »

As long as we have an electorate filled with people with this viewpoint we will continue to have poor policies driven by populism. An electorate that abdicates it's responsibility to vote in sensible policies but instead engages in the corrupt act of voting for politicians in return for short term localised gain is the real problem here.

This is the prevailing attitude I completely disagree with neatly summarised, so thank you for offering it so I can expand my position a little.

The most corrosive issue in Irish politics and the failure of successive Irish governments to govern competently is not the Irish voter - it is the failure of Irish governments, parties and the political classes to accept *any* personal responsibility in their appointed roles, the use of the powers granted to them or the carrying out of the policies and decisions. Political office or a senior civil service position is not seen as duty or a responsibility - it is seen as a chance to get your snout in the trough, to loot and pillage, to enjoy the perks and to share the spoils of victory at the taxpayers expense.

It is absolutely ludicrous to hold some random no-mark voter more accountable for the failures of Irish governance than the actual people, ministers and civil servants that comprise that government. People not only invent entirely imaginary powers for the Irish voter, they expect and demand more from the voter than they do from a Minister with a team of civil servants behind them! It is an attitude that only gives cover and support to the worst failures of Irish governments. Hold the individuals in the government accountable first for their own decisions and their own actions, demand better from them and then maybe talk about the voters.

Jim2007 wrote: »

And you clearly have not got the foggiest idea how a parliament of Westminster style democracy works, despite the fact that it is one of most popular styles of democracy.

Well, I wouldn't claim to be an expert but I am able to correct glaring errors like claims the Irish voters elect the government. I think you would agree that's untrue.

K-9

Donadea Leo wrote: »

Just to clarify something here, I don't expect the government or anyone else here to buy me a house. I am concerned that once again we appear to be heading down the path of unaffordable homes. This would be less of an issue if we had a functioning rental market but we don't. Knowing people working in the homeless sector, they are seeing a new kind of homeless client, people whose lives are actually going according to plan but simply can't find a home to live in. Maybe we need to ensure we have a more professionalised landlord sector, I don't know, I would like the government to start trying to figure this out, that's hard to see.

The rental sector is one of the big issues facing the Government as we are never going to get near the 80% house ownership figures we had in the 90's. Social housing is going to have to play a part and that is something that is recognised in the housing plan which is welcome.

As to what is needed to be done, well that's what all these experts are paid for, but if rents keep going the way they are when rises in incomes aren't anywhere near them, it's going to cause issues in the wider economy, never mind social costs.

El_Duderino 09

Donadea Leo wrote:

Just to clarify something here, I don't expect the government or anyone else here to buy me a house. I am concerned that once again we appear to be heading down the path of unaffordable homes. This would be less of an issue if we had a functioning rental market but we don't. Knowing people working in the homeless sector, they are seeing a new kind of homeless client, people whose lives are actually going according to plan but simply can't find a home to live in. Maybe we need to ensure we have a more professionalised landlord sector, I don't know, I would like the government to start trying to figure this out, that's hard to see.

I think something should be done but I can't think of anything that would be seen as a good idea. If they controlled rent and interest rates go up... If they make landlords become more professional then that will bring expense. If they try to invest in infrastructure then it will be seen as too costly and disruptive to build and too expensive to use. If I were in government i probably wouldn't bother either.

What would you suggest as solutions?

Tony EH

K-9 wrote: »

The rental sector is one of the big issues facing the Government as we are never going to get near the 80% house ownership figures we had in the 90's. Social housing is going to have to play a part and that is something that is recognised in the housing plan which is welcome.

As to what is needed to be done, well that's what all these experts are paid for, but if rents keep going the way they are when rises in incomes aren't anywhere near them, it's going to cause issues in the wider economy, never mind social costs.

We don't have a decently regulated rental sector in Ireland. It's all about gouging for as much as you can possibly rip people off for, with mickey mouse tenancy contracts of 12 months, that would be laughed at by most Europeans. Our private rental sector is a joke. Only it really isn't that funny. Renting for any length of time just isn't an option in this country, whereas in Europe, families can rent for generations.

The idea that rents in Dublin are now averaging out at €1500 a month should be absolutely appalling to every decent thinking person in the country, especially when the average wage is supposedly €33,000 per annum.

As a society, we simply cannot keep going down this path. It's really quite unsustainable. But, as long as there is no real political will to tackle this problem, and it very much a serious problem, it'll continue on to a new level of absurdity.

As someone who bought their house ten years ago, I shudder every time I hear about the cost of rent in this city and it simply reinforces the impression that we are remaining on the road of being a pretty shitty society.

Perhaps we need to take a leaf out of the 70's book and look into building social housing estates again. Sure they most definitely aren't the perfect answer, but at least it's an answer. The current approach is clearly unsustainable.

El_Duderino 09

Tony EH wrote:

Perhaps we need to take a leaf out of the 70's book and look into building social housing estates again. Sure they most definitely aren't the perfect answer, but at least it's an answer. The current approach is clearly unsustainable.

What would you say to the hard working entrepreneur who worked their arse off to buy a buy-to-let house in Dublin? They need €X to pay for their investment. Would you support a government telling them they can only charge half of €x for the foreseeable future?

I'm not asking because I don't think it should happen. I'm asking because you're suggesting a very socialist policy and I want to know what f you would actually support it. Are you willing to vote for and back a socialist government?

Donadea Leo

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think something should be done but I can't think of anything that would be seen as a good idea. If they controlled rent and interest rates go up... If they make landlords become more professional then that will bring expense. If they try to invest in infrastructure then it will be seen as too costly and disruptive to build and too expensive to use. If I were in government i probably wouldn't bother either.

What would you suggest as solutions?

I m no expert on these matters and not in government luckily for the Irish people but somehow property needs to be treated as homes once again, so if landlords had more responsibilities towards their tenants when it comes to them moving out, I.e. Something like they have to find them alternative suitable accommodation so when they rent out their property they are no longer providing a house and whatever its contents but a home with the security that provides, so there s a service element to the contract. This would clearly take investment and I do think landlords should be regulated but also rewarded for being good landlords, be that through taxation or breaks on certain expenditure. Clearly there needs to be availability of houses and apartments for landlords to help secure alternatives. A network of professionals may be able to work together to make this happen.

Alongside this as already pointed out and planned we need to invest in social housing in a meaningful way.
I understand lots of landlords would baulk at such suggestions but I have to say of the landlords I have had, they have all been fair reasonable people who do want what's best for their tenants, its not a huge stretch to take that a little further.

Anyway, that might be fantasy and I m sure lots of people can point out a million reasons why that won't work but so be it.

Tony EH

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What would you say to the hard working entrepreneur who worked their arse off to buy a buy-to-let house in Dublin? They need €X to pay for their investment. Would you support a government telling them they can only charge half of €x for the foreseeable future?

I'm not asking because I don't think it should happen. I'm asking because you're suggesting a very socialist policy and I want to know what f you would actually support it. Are you willing to vote for and back a socialist government?

I'm not trying to say that I know what the answer is. But I DO see that we simply cannot continue where we are going. We certainly need to institute SOMETHING as opposed to nothing though. Standing by and watching things rocket up to extremes is mere folly.

BTW, if any "entrepreneur" is "work(ing) their arse off" to let in the current climate, they may need to check their reality. Rents are unaffordable for a lot of people at present and there's a real possibility that the arse is going to drop out of that market.

Sand

Donadea Leo wrote: »

I m no expert on these matters and not in government luckily for the Irish people but somehow property needs to be treated as homes once again, so if landlords had more responsibilities towards their tenants when it comes to them moving out, I.e. Something like they have to find them alternative suitable accommodation so when they rent out their property they are no longer providing a house and whatever its contents but a home with the security that provides, so there s a service element to the contract. This would clearly take investment and I do think landlords should be regulated but also rewarded for being good landlords, be that through taxation or breaks on certain expenditure. Clearly there needs to be availability of houses and apartments for landlords to help secure alternatives. A network of professionals may be able to work together to make this happen.

Alongside this as already pointed out and planned we need to invest in social housing in a meaningful way.
I understand lots of landlords would baulk at such suggestions but I have to say of the landlords I have had, they have all been fair reasonable people who do want what's best for their tenants, its not a huge stretch to take that a little further.

Anyway, that might be fantasy and I m sure lots of people can point out a million reasons why that won't work but so be it.

That would pretty much kill the rental market stone dead. Between fees and taxes the 'profits' on rental income are not worth the hassle of being someones mum and having to mind them to the extent you envisage. If you try to put those sort of obligations on landlords they will simply exit in even greater numbers than they already* are, reducing supply of rental properties and increasing rents even further.

*16K properties to rent 5 years ago. 5K properties to rent last year. 3,600 properties earlier this year and just 1,400 in Dublin itself. Landlords exit, supply decreases, rents rise.

jesus_thats_gre

Don't normally post on serious threads but couldn't help myself here.

Have to admit that I am really starting to question my future in this country. I am quite lucky to have a very good salary and job but I feel that I am paying far too much tax relative to what I get back in return. I am generally able to appreciate the bigger picture but I just don't see where is all going anymore.

Tony EH

Those in power don't seem to have a clue either and that's what's really scary.

El_Duderino 09

Donadea Leo wrote:

Something like they have to find them alternative suitable accommodation so when they rent out their property they are no longer providing a house and whatever its contents but a home with the security that provides, so there s a service element to the contract. This would clearly take investment and I do think landlords should be regulated but also rewarded for being good landlords, be that through taxation or breaks on certain expenditure.

Would you actually support a government who did this though? It's a very bold move and would love a major additional onus on landlords.

Donadea Leo wrote:

Alongside this as already pointed out and planned we need to invest in social housing in a meaningful way. I understand lots of landlords would baulk at such suggestions but I have to say of the landlords I have had, they have all been fair reasonable people who do want what's best for their tenants, its not a huge stretch to take that a little further.

Imagine the government built social housing and prices went down. Can you imagine the number if people who would be out in negative equity again? Or driven further into negative equity with reduced fixed rent prices. Rent can't pay the mortgage and they can't afford to sell. They could either become a slave working just to top up the mortgage or they could throw their hands up and foreclose.

Again I'm not saying the government shouldn't do it, I'm asking if you would actually support a government who did it.

Tony EH wrote:

I'm not trying to say that I know what the answer is. But I DO see that we simply cannot continue where we are going. We certainly need to institute SOMETHING as opposed to nothing though. Standing by and watching things rocket up to extremes is mere folly.

Tony EH wrote:

BTW, if any "entrepreneur" is "work(ing) their arse off" to let in the current climate, they may need to check their reality. Rents are unaffordable for a lot of people at present and there's a real possibility that the arse is going to drop out of that market.

Lots of people bought in Dublin as an investment. Lots more are accidental landlords. You're talking about wiping out those people's investment. It's extremely socialist and would be very easy to paint as anti-capitalist. A lot of hard working decent people would be burned. That's why I'm asking if you would actually support the government who did it.

Sand wrote:

That would pretty much kill the rental market stone dead. Between fees and taxes the 'profits' on rental income are not worth the hassle of being someones mum and having to mind them to the extent you envisage. If you try to put those sort of obligations on landlords they will simply exit in even greater numbers than they already* are, reducing supply of rental properties and increasing rents even further.

Here's an example of the counter argument to the government getting involved in the rental market.

Tony EH wrote:

Those in power don't seem to have a clue either and that's what's really scary.

Thus is an example of the narrative that would emerge after the stories about who has been hurt by any government measures. Why bother to do anything? They won't be thanked by anyone so there's no incentive.

'We' the electorate have a role to play in democracy. We need to create political from for them to manure. 'We' don't know what we want. We definitely want them to do something but we don't want them to implement any individual plan.

The housing market has been left to its own capitalist devices and gas grown wild. We all agree that it needs to be pruned but we won't agree on how to prune it. If the people stood together with a government who made these very socialist policies, then they might do it. As it stands there's no incentive for a government to touch the housing market. If you were in power I'm sure you'd all conclude the same.

alastair

Sand wrote: »

You vote for a TD. You do not vote to select a government, or the makeup of that government, or the ministers appointed in that government or the programme of that government. The Irish voter is not consulted on any of those decisions - just the choice of a local TD.

Again - it's a representational democracy. We mandate representatives to act on our behalf, including forming a government,and then actually governing. Ireland is no different to any other democracy in that respect. No state has direct popular franchise elections of a government.

Donadea Leo

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Would you actually support a government who did this though? It's a very bold move and would love a major additional onus on landlords.



Imagine the government built social housing and prices went down. Can you imagine the number if people who would be out in negative equity again? Or driven further into negative equity with reduced fixed rent prices. Rent can't pay the mortgage and they can't afford to sell. They could either become a slave working just to top up the mortgage or they could throw their hands up and foreclose.

Again I'm not saying the government shouldn't do it, I'm asking if you would actually support a government who did it.






Lots of people bought in Dublin as an investment. Lots more are accidental landlords. You're talking about wiping out those people's investment. It's extremely socialist and would be very easy to paint as anti-capitalist. A lot of hard working decent people would be burned. That's why I'm asking if you would actually support the government who did it.



Here's an example of the counter argument to the government getting involved in the rental market.



Thus is an example of the narrative that would emerge after the stories about who has been hurt by any government measures. Why bother to do anything? They won't be thanked by anyone so there's no incentive.

'We' the electorate have a role to play in democracy. We need to create political from for them to manure. 'We' don't know what we want. We definitely want them to do something but we don't want them to implement any individual plan.

The housing market has been left to its own capitalist devices and gas grown wild. We all agree that it needs to be pruned but we won't agree on how to prune it. If the people stood together with a government who made these very socialist policies, then they might do it. As it stands there's no incentive for a government to touch the housing market. If you were in power I'm sure you'd all conclude the same.

I agree with you on this, we as a people don't know what we want as a collective. We all have our interests and advantages or disadvantages based on what policies are being implemented or what's being ignored.

We tend to vote on what's in our own interest and maybe become disillusioned when the governments we elect don't go far enough for our own interests.

When it comes to housing, I think we need to change the mentality slowly and over time to houses being about homes and not investments. Obviously we need investment to build buy rent houses and we need to decide how we want to do that. Do we want landlords to be people who buy at the bottom of a market, put as little into their houses, rent them to meet repayments and bounce them once they hit the profit they want to make. Personally, I d like to see a change to this. I m not sure how they manage their rental sectors in Europe but we are told they work so what are they doing and could we do something similar.

In relation to would I vote for a government who actually did x,y or z. Its a good question as at this point I have no idea who I would vote for or what the right idea is. I think we need leadership and someone to lead regardless of consequences, they may well be pushed out in the next election but so be it. I m sure we would all be back here criticising them again but leaving things to their own devices is a risky strategy for many in our population

EndaHonesty

alastair wrote: »

Again - it's a representational democracy. We mandate representatives to act on our behalf, including forming a government,and then actually governing. Ireland is no different to any other democracy in that respect. No state has direct popular franchise elections of a government.

And yet, despite the majority of the electorate NOT voting for Fine Gael, they form the majority of the government.

Representational democracy is a fine ideal but in reality it is a clever way of allowing slimey politicians to follow their own agenda under the guise of "democracy"!

micosoft

Tony EH wrote: »

We don't have a decently regulated rental sector in Ireland.

So the answer is to hire a "regulator" and they wave a magic want and supply suddenly appears? It's just that simple eh? Seems to be the battlecry of some people that we need to regulate everything as if thats the solution to all our ills.

As an aside the evidence is that the increased regulation in the Irish Rental market has simply led to one thing - landlords selling up. Reducing the supply of rental properties.

The issue in Dublin is very very very simple. There is a lack of supply of housing. It's that simple. Nothing more, nothing less. The idea that a regulator or anybody else for that matter can wave a wand and wish away the lack of supply is beyond belief.

The solution is to build more housing. But that believe it or not takes time. It's not like going to Ikea.

- You need serviced land. It takes 2-3 years to service large tranches of land to make them suitable for building homes on. But when you starve some of your utilities (IW) and don't give Councils an income then you don't have the capacity to create serviced land in a timely way. I think we can firmly blame the electorate here for refusing and resisting the sensible property and utility charges that every other OECD country has. Of course the fact the councils have no funding leads to no social housing along with the insistence of those who take social housing to keep it as a permanent life subsidy.

- We need developers. But we've just gone through the biggest housing bust the west has seen. So this is unsurprising. It' takes about 5 years (in the best of worlds) from planning to delivery. We can blame an electorate that voted to make money out of selling property to each other and voting in FF three times in a row for this one.

- We need people to be realistic and accept people are not entitled to live where they want just as people can't afford to live where they would like in capital cities around the world. The bizarre idea that housing is too expensive in only Dublin when just next door in London, in Copenhagen etc etc all have much bigger issues around affordability. The solution here is Public transport which expands the area people can commute. Of course this takes decades in Ireland due to extraordinary planning requirements, lack of say by the Cities, and the lack of return for national governments. So we get a silly unused rail line in the west instead of a comprehensive public transport system. That's without getting into the Irish demand of low density housing driving up land use and making public transport uneconomical.

So in short, it takes time (years), adequate local funding (property taxation and utility charges) and city control (avoiding national populism) to ensure an adequate supply of housing. If we wanted to have a supply of housing on tap we needed to have started in 2009/10. For obvious reasons we didn't and TBH I suspect all the posters railing against the state now for not having invested are the same who said the world was over back in 2009 and that we were forever poor. Just look at the posts back then.

micosoft

EndaHonesty wrote: »

And yet, despite the majority of the electorate NOT voting for Fine Gael, they form the majority of the government.

Representational democracy is a fine ideal but in reality it is a clever way of allowing slimey politicians to follow their own agenda under the guise of "democracy"!

So what's your alternative to representational democracy then?

micosoft

Sand wrote: »

That would pretty much kill the rental market stone dead. Between fees and taxes the 'profits' on rental income are not worth the hassle of being someones mum and having to mind them to the extent you envisage. If you try to put those sort of obligations on landlords they will simply exit in even greater numbers than they already* are, reducing supply of rental properties and increasing rents even further.

*16K properties to rent 5 years ago. 5K properties to rent last year. 3,600 properties earlier this year and just 1,400 in Dublin itself. Landlords exit, supply decreases, rents rise.

Exactly this. Simple solutions to complex problems lead to unintended consequences...

EndaHonesty

micosoft wrote: »

So what's your alternative to representational democracy then?

We have no need for politicians anymore.
They are an impediment to the advancement of society.
They are all compromised individuals who are beholden to other agendas.

Technology now exists where we can have active direct democracy.
We need to move towards that form of democracy.
Politicians will not move us in that direction.

Tony EH

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lots of people bought in Dublin as an investment. Lots more are accidental landlords. You're talking about wiping out those people's investment. It's extremely socialist and would be very easy to paint as anti-capitalist. A lot of hard working decent people would be burned. That's why I'm asking if you would actually support the government who did it.

The vast majority of people buy a house to have a home, not an investment. Let's make that clear. Also lots of people are "accidental landlords", because they found out that they couldn't pay their stupidly overpriced mortgage after they lost the job they though they were going have forever.

The situation we - or better put, the government - is creating now is a scenario where a HUGE number of people won't ever own their home and in too many cases have to go through the nightmare of an uncertain domestic existence in our laughable renting "market", to be at the whim of landlords who can and do raise rents at a drop of a hat on ridiculous 12 month leases. When you can't afford a home, the option open to you SHOULD be renting. But in Ireland, that has become a Hobson's choice. That means the renter will never know where they will even be living in 12 months time, thus impacting on their lives in the most terrible way. How can one have a kid, if you don't even know if you'll be in traveling distance of a school in 12 months time?

You talk of "wiping out" the landlord class. Well, they've leaving in droves already, apparently, so one might say so what? A decision to help the people of the state have a home to live in might be considered more important than the needs of a few landlords, whose goal is the profit they can make off of desperate people. I actually know a few landlords who have got out in the last year. They got out because their own kids can't afford to rent or buy their own homes. So their daddy has passed the previously rented property onto them.

You keep mentioning "Socialist", but surely there can be a balance struck, where the housing needs of the people of the country can be catered for as well as the relatively small number of private landlords that exist here. I'd vote for a party who ideas included a sensible approach to the very real (and constantly growing) problem we face regarding homes in Ireland.

As it stands, we have power brokers who seem happy to stand by until the situation goes pop.

K-9

EndaHonesty wrote: »

And yet, despite the majority of the electorate NOT voting for Fine Gael, they form the majority of the government.

Representational democracy is a fine ideal but in reality it is a clever way of allowing slimey politicians to follow their own agenda under the guise of "democracy"!

Well yes, but they were still the largest party and the rest of the Dail was too fragmented to offer an alternative.

We did end up with the FF/FG arrangement so it isn't that unrepresentative.

Tony EH

micosoft wrote: »

So the answer is to hire a "regulator" and they wave a magic want and supply suddenly appears?

Don't try to put words in my mouth.

El_Duderino 09

Tony EH wrote:

The vast majority of people buy a house to have a home, not an investment. Let's make that clear. Also lots of people are "accidental landlords", because they found out that they couldn't pay their stupidly overpriced mortgage after they lost the job they though they were going have forever.

That was all a side point. If you built a load of houses, house purchase and renting prices would drop. That's the point isn't it? House prices drop and it doesn't matter whether they're investment houses or private. People would have a less valuable investment.

I brought it up because it's a very anti capitalist policy. I would support it but I think the general public would turn completely against any government who did that.

Tony EH wrote:

You talk of "wiping out" the landlord class. Well, they've leaving in droves already, apparently, so one might say so what? A decision to help the people of the state have a home to live in might be considered more important than the needs of a few landlords, whose goal is the profit they can make off of desperate people.

I quoted someone else who talked about wiping out landlords. Is it ok to change the rules for landlords and home owners who invested in a house under the current set of laws? Would you support taking the rug from under them by changing the laws and potentially turning their investment into a millstone around their neck? Genuine question.

Tony EH wrote:

You keep mentioning "Socialist", but surely there can be a balance struck, where the housing needs of the people of the country can be catered for as well as the relatively small number of private landlords that exist here. I'd vote for a party who ideas included a sensible approach to the very real (and constantly growing) problem we face regarding homes in Ireland.

The balance you're talking about is a big step to the left. Social housing to drive down the price of privately owned a houses and investment properties, telling people how much they can charge for their product. The balance you're talking about is about introducing a socialist element to the equation.

If you're not willing to call it socialist and commit to supporting it then it will never get the support it needs. No government will touch it if the voter won't back them.

Again I ask, would you back the government who actually implement the policies your proposing?

Tony EH

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That was all a side point. If you built a load of houses, house purchase and renting prices would drop. That's the point isn't it? House prices drop and it doesn't matter whether they're investment houses or private. People would have a less valuable investment.

That's the danger of the market. If prices keep going up and the bubble bursts again, people are still in the same boat. My concern is the ability of people to be able to put a roof over their heads and live in a home. The current direction suggests that that is going to become more and more difficult for people to do and frankly, that's not a direction we should be going in. To me that outweighs the business concerns of a few landlords.

Also, it depends on who is building the homes. I'm suggesting that we look at the housing estate solution that helped a lot of people in the 70's and 80's, where people pay rent to the state and are able to live in a home long term (generational in the majority of cases). As I said, it's not a perfect solution as those estates have their own problems, but it's A solution.

If that hurts some landlords, so be it. The needs of a few landlords shouldn't impact the needs of people who need homes and a stable living situation. The situation now is absolute chaos and in the end will help nobody.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I brought it up because it's a very anti capitalist policy. I would support it but I think the general public would turn completely against any government who did that.

Would it be better to simply let things take its course and have the bubble go pop again? It's like we learned nothing from the previous collapse. And frankly, I don't care about "anti-capitalist" or "socialist". Unlike some on Boards, I'm not here to merely push a political viewpoint or agenda. However, I can recognise when something is seriously out of control and have to question how we got here and what it is that the current people in power are doing to address the problem.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I quoted someone else who talked about wiping out landlords. Is it ok to change the rules for landlords and home owners who invested in a house under the current set of laws? Would you support taking the rug from under them by changing the laws and potentially turning their investment into a millstone around their neck? Genuine question.

Difficult to know, without seeing actual plans. But, as I said, landlords are leaving the game in large numbers. The current situation doesn't benefit them either, or their kids for that matter. Genuine answer - I'd like to see SOMEONE come up with some sort of solution, because at the moment, nobody in power seems to even care.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The balance you're talking about is a big step to the left. Social housing to drive down the price of privately owned a houses and investment properties, telling people how much they can charge for their product. The balance you're talking about is about introducing a socialist element to the equation.

So what if it is a step to the left? I have no fear of left or right, so long as the solutions make sense. Simply sitting back and watching things unfold, which is what seems to be happening now, isn't the course of action. I don't know, maybe the actual plan is to let the whole thing go bust. Who the hell does that help?

If a "socialist" solution helps people in a good way, then so be it. I have no fear of that.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Again I ask, would you back the government who actually implement the policies your proposing?

That very much depends on what their other policies are too. I have no political badge. I'm middle-the-roads, with leanings to either side depending on the situation. However, at present there is really nobody in current political circles that I can bring myself to vote for. That's the sad reality.

Seth Brundle

Tony EH wrote: »

Those in power don't seem to have a clue either and that's what's really scary.

Equally, those in opposition are setting unrealistic expectations.

EndaHonesty wrote: »

And yet, despite the majority of the electorate NOT voting for Fine Gael, they form the majority of the government.

There was no one party that received a majority. Would you have been any happier if SF or independents for example formed the majority of the government?

Similarly, the majority of the electorate voted for a FG led government in 2011 but when they started implementing their policies people complained in the thousands.

Dohnjoe

EndaHonesty wrote: »

We have no need for politicians anymore.
They are an impediment to the advancement of society.
They are all compromised individuals who are beholden to other agendas.

Technology now exists where we can have active direct democracy.
We need to move towards that form of democracy.
Politicians will not move us in that direction.

Explain how this system will work

Geuze

Akrasia wrote: »

T
Did Apple have that 13/19 billion euros set aside on their balance sheet as a future tax liability to the countries that they owed that money to? (and in fact, the 13 billion euro figure would be much much higher if the local corporate tax rates were applied, and not the 12.5% Irish rate of cpt)

If not, then they were blatantly evading tax, and we were facilitating it.

Yes, they have a deferred tax liability in their accounts.

Mentioned here, and any web search will return info:

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2014/04/30/inversions-deferral-and-the-us-tax-code/

Suryavarman

EndaHonesty wrote: »

We have no need for politicians anymore.
They are an impediment to the advancement of society.
They are all compromised individuals who are beholden to other agendas.

Technology now exists where we can have active direct democracy.
We need to move towards that form of democracy.
Politicians will not move us in that direction.

Direct democracy doesn't work. The average voter isn't informed enough for direct democracy to work. That is especially true in Ireland.

Jim2007

Suryavarman wrote: »

That is especially true in Ireland.

It most certainly is not!

You only have to look at referenda on the same day as elections to see their ability to decide what is in their best interests, their twice rejection of first past the post voting, the various surveys that show they are better informed about EU issues than most EU citizens etc... The fact that they many not vote the way you would like them to vote is something else.

I have lived and worked in 5 European countries over the last 30 years and I can say without hesitation that Irish voters are far better informed politically that most European citizens and we won't even mention the Americans.