Disappointing number of financials plan to come to Dublin post-Brexit

Dinarius

c_man wrote: »

If we're talking finance guys, then we have to talk about capital gains tax. In the UK you can put away 20k into a stocks ISA, no tax worries. Thereafter the allowance is something like 12k before CGT comes in. Dividends allowance is about 5k.

Ireland has no such ISA measures,CGT coming in at 1270 and no dividends allowance.

Ireland hates investors and the above is a massive tax rise for anyone sensible with their money who's coming from London.

Too right.

This country is run on direct taxation. The vast majority of what the State lives on is income tax and our (very high) 23% VAT rate. I think the the combined take on these is about 70% of total tax take.

So, if there’s a blip in employment, pay levels or consumer spending, the State has no fallback. It’s income diminishes rapidly.

We have had this quasi-Socialist mentality of “gi’s a job” pretty much since the foundation of the state. In other words, we attract inward job creation by having a practically sweet FA level of corporate taxation, in return for giving our workforce employment. We then tax that workforce’s salary and spending to the hilt in order to try and run a functioning State infrastructure. Is it a good model? There’s certainly very little margin for error with it.

Economies that make and sell goods (not just services) will always survive. c.f. Germany’s recovery after WW ll. can you you conceive of us designing and building a washing-machine or a car from scratch? Agriculture and food are as close as we get in this regard.

This is due in large part with our obsession with Third-Level university qualifications as the gold-standard; in fact, the only standard. Trade, design and craft are almost looked down upon.

Services, which we thrive on, are very vulnerable to discretionary spending.

D.

DEFTLEFTHAND

But they're not leaving Britain in the first place so how could they come here?

Dinarius

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Some good points there but I dont really see how you can allege that its keeping "keeping their construction industry paymasters happy".

Its more about keeping the local voters happy. They are the ones who decide if the TDs keep their seats. No one else.

I think that history (and a time when we’re clear of our bonkers libel laws) will show that Mr. T Parlon & Co. had considerable influence on government decision making.

D.

Ps. As an EU politician said recently, “We know exactly what the right thing to do is; but, we have no idea how to get re-elected if we do it.” How true.

While I detest everything he stands for, Donald Trump’s brand of politics - doing pretty much exactly what he said he was going to do in his manifesto, is refreshingly honest, whatever you think of the consequences.

Secondly, dealing with Cabinet appointment failures by immediately firing and replacing them is equally refreshing. No one can really accuse him of not exercising accountability. (Remember Noirín O’Sullivan, Frances Fitzgerald et al, and the pain we were put through; never mind failing to clean up the mess they were accused of having created.) If Trump is re-elected, it will be for his brutal honesty, if not his competence.

D.

Cina

rossie1977 wrote: »

Amsterdam is not a hub of European business and finance though. Cities like Brussels, Frankfurt and even a small city like Luxembourg are. All are smaller than Dublin with Luxembourg smaller than Cork.

People will go where the money is.

Not to be pedantic but both Frankfurt and Brussels are bigger than Dublin. Frankfurt especially has one of Europe's largest urban areas, and the third busiest airport in Europe.

Ray Palmer

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

When it comes to property, our politicians have a vested interest. As do a lot of home owners. And landowners.

Until we can cut through the Irish psychosis around "de land" and owning as much of "de land" as possible, we'll achieve nothing. And if we can't pop this fukcing stupid idea "dat you can only make money through property"....this will not change.

One way to drive down property prices is to essentially fix the market.

How vested is this interest? Less than a third own extra property. All the legislation has been punitive on landlords for the last 15 years. Higher prices are not evidence of them doing themselves favours. The presumption they own lots of property so they benefit isn't true. It is the Irish psychosis to believe in persecution by authority that make people believe this rubbish without any evidence.
When the ERSI said there would be a housing shortage a few years ago the public laughed. The general view from people was it was a trick to help the politicians make their property worth more and their builder friends. Same reason you claim they didn't want to build property. Same reason for doing something and not doing it. Both can't be true and it is the reverse story telling by the consequences that is the problem.
If you want to fix the prices houses can be sold at then you might as well tell all development to stop. Nobody is going to finance high risk development for small profit and demand can keep building. Won't make any difference to those financing the risk won't disappear and the margin stays the same. Meanwhile property would actually become more expensive to buy and rent.

rossie1977

Cina wrote: »

Not to be pedantic but both Frankfurt and Brussels are bigger than Dublin. Frankfurt especially has one of Europe's largest urban areas, and the third busiest airport in Europe.

The footprint of Dublin city is bigger than Brussels and quite a bit bigger than Frankfurt city proper

Yes the urban area within 200-300 miles of frankfurt is huge but the likes of european central bank could have chosen any of two dozen other cities to hq in which was my point to begin with.

Brussels would likely be a sleepy city if it wasn't for the EU setting up shop there. "If you build it they will come"

Ray Palmer

rossie1977 wrote: »

The footprint of Dublin city is bigger than Brussels and quite a bit bigger than Frankfurt city proper

Yes the urban area within 200-300 miles of frankfurt is huge but the likes of european central bank could have chosen any of two dozen other cities to hq in which was my point to begin with.

Brussels would likely be a sleepy city if it wasn't for the EU setting up shop there. "If you build it they will come"

Have you been to Brussels? It is huge compared to Dublin. Much higher density

rossie1977

Been to both. Was just in Frankfurt a few weeks ago

lawred2

Cina wrote: »

rossie1977 wrote: »

Amsterdam is not a hub of European business and finance though. Cities like Brussels, Frankfurt and even a small city like Luxembourg are. All are smaller than Dublin with Luxembourg smaller than Cork.

People will go where the money is.

Not to be pedantic but both Frankfurt and Brussels are bigger than Dublin. Frankfurt especially has one of Europe's largest urban areas, and the third busiest airport in Europe.

That's not being pedantic. That's just being accurate. Frankfurt smaller than Dublin? There are more people living in the Frankfurt Main region than the entirety of Ireland, and in both cases more people living in the city of Frankfurt than Dublin city and more people living in greater Frankfurt than greater Dublin.

It's also a highly efficient, well run and well serviced city with near unparalleled transport links.

Dublin does not come close.

MadYaker

There's nowhere for them to live due to our ridiculous and unsustainable phobia of high rise living. Building out and expecting people to commute an hour each way on a conjested motorway everyday is a non runner. Why would the people who run and work in these companies want to do that when they can go to Frankfurt and rent a reasonably priced appartment where they can walk to work or use public transport that actually functions.

riclad

Banks look at things like cost of rental accomodation,
is there high quality rental units avaidable for employees at a reasonable price.
We have a housing crisis in dublin , there is not enough quality rental
units on the market right now,
And i think rental costs in germany are lower than ireland.
We need a 10 year plan to provide social housing and encourage
the provision of rental units especially in dublin and other citys.
Most of the building going on in dublin now is new office buildings and
some student accomodation .
Builders say they cant make a profit building apartments in dublin.
We need to have area,s of high density, eg let them build up to 10
storeys in certain area,s .
Germany has a very advanced system of building units for long term rental .

LirW

MadYaker wrote: »

There's nowhere for them to live due to our ridiculous and unsustainable phobia of high rise living. Building out and expecting people to commute an hour each way on a conjested motorway everyday is a non runner. Why would the people who run and work in these companies want to do that when they can go to Frankfurt and rent a reasonably priced appartment where they can walk to work or use public transport that actually functions.

An hour each way just takes you to the outer parts of Dublin by car, that's extremely optimistic.

Idbatterim

Fg making a total balls of it. Christ it's such a backwards country. Don't invest in infrastructure, tax income at lie levels at insane rates. Don't build above a few floors. Then as you point out oernavear, low income workers contributing virtually nothing in direct taxes. Outrageous welfare. Recession a wasted opportunity to change this!

Fg are the best of an appalling lot, but Ireland could be doing a hell of a lot better than it is!

Dr Crayfish

Imagine how much cheaper the proposed metro that will never happen would have been if kicked off during recession. It’s been said already, but Dublin subsidises the rest of the country and we don’t get a lot in return. Decent transport for a capital is hardly too much to ask is it?

gjim

smurgen wrote: »

Yer talking ****e buddy.I've worked in Switzerland and Luxembourg and I can say that both have less events,less restaurants of high and middle standards than Cork let alone Dublin.We're not gonna attract the type of people who can afford a high standard of living in Paris or London but we should be doing alot better than we're doing at the moment.The housing situation is a massive issue.Higher rents will filter down into higher salary demands.

Eh? Where in Switerland did you live?

Switzerland is has around 120 Michelin starred restaurants - significantly more than there are in London despite a smaller and overall less metropolitan population.

In contrast, Ireland has 12 such restaurants and not one of them is in Cork. There are more michelin starred restaurants in St. Gallen (a city about the size of Limerick) as there are in the whole of Ireland.

Dinarius

Interesting points being made about living and transportation in Dublin.

The notion of a “Brexit bonus” because of (mostly) financials departing London for Dublin is the stuff of fantasy. There is simply nowhere for these people to live.

Our obsession with property ownership and is similar to Britain’s. But, if you look at, say, London, high-rise and lower-income go hand in hand. No one wants to arrive on the 24th floor on a Friday evening and think, “Sh*t, I forgot the milk!”.

Why aren’t builders forced to build mixed developments?

Why not build lots of quality 8-10 storey apartment structures in combination with office accommodation?

Who is going to occupy all this office space being built in Dublin at the moment? (Is it pre-let?)

When the next downturn happens (& it will happen) and interest rates are <1%, what will happen? Ten years ago, politicians and central bankers had 5-6% of interest deflationary downside room to defuse the situation - and they used up ALL of it. We’re now at virtually 0%. There is no more downside room.

So, what will happen after the next bust? In my opinion, the only choice for many mortgage holders will be to make mortgages inter-generational. The standard 20 year mortgage will become 30/40/45 year, whatever, in order to hold onto a property.

But, what of all this highly-geared, non-residential property we’re building? Nowhere to hide. Mothballed.

That’s the elephant in the room.

The idea that an entire continent of 27 economies can operate at the same speed, via a single interest rate is BS of the highest order. And when it goes belly up again, our service-led economy will suffer more than those that make/build and sell things, as I wrote in an earlier post.

Answers on a postcard...

D.

Cina

rossie1977 wrote: »

The footprint of Dublin city is bigger than Brussels and quite a bit bigger than Frankfurt city proper

Yes the urban area within 200-300 miles of frankfurt is huge but the likes of european central bank could have chosen any of two dozen other cities to hq in which was my point to begin with.

Brussels would likely be a sleepy city if it wasn't for the EU setting up shop there. "If you build it they will come"

Your measurement of a city by its footprint is plain wrong though. Frankfurt by standard metrics is far bigger than Dublin. Brussels is bigger too. Both have more people, better transports and more places to live, and that's what's important in this debate, not the footprint of the city.

Ray Palmer

Cina wrote: »

Your measurement of a city by its footprint is plain wrong though. Frankfurt by standard metrics is far bigger than Dublin. Brussels is bigger too. Both have more people, better transports and more places to live, and that's what's important in this debate, not the footprint of the city.

While some of that is true it cannot be underestimated how they got that way and how Dublin could not. Vast destruction of the cities during WWII. The rebuilding was also funded in a totally different way due to this. Much cheaper and easier to extend and maintain good infrastructure when you have funding, a blank canvas and don't have to worry about land rights when you start.

There was no way Dublin could have done this.

lawred2

Ray Palmer wrote: »

While some of that is true it cannot be underestimated how they got that way and how Dublin could not. Vast destruction of the cities during WWII. The rebuilding was also funded in a totally different way due to this. Much cheaper and easier to extend and maintain good infrastructure when you have funding, a blank canvas and don't have to worry about land rights when you start.

There was no way Dublin could have done this.

price of neutrality I suppose

riclad

There was an article i read ,it said local authority s and the government
own land that would provide 50 thousand new houses in dublin.
i do,nt think lack of land is the main obstacle to fixing the housing crisis.

gjim

Ray Palmer wrote: »

While some of that is true it cannot be underestimated how they got that way and how Dublin could not. Vast destruction of the cities during WWII. The rebuilding was also funded in a totally different way due to this. Much cheaper and easier to extend and maintain good infrastructure when you have funding, a blank canvas and don't have to worry about land rights when you start.

There was no way Dublin could have done this.

This theory doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. There are plenty examples of European cities which did not experience any bombing at all which have fantastic public transport systems.

And anyway, there was plenty of self-destruction in Dublin by city/traffic planners who levelled entire streets in the name of traffic improvement and making space for corporation flats. This was happening right up until the 90s.

I would argue that the reason Dublin has bad infrastructure is that Ireland and Dublin have been poor by European standards until comparatively recently and that there was little or no money to develop modern infrastructure. While that has changed, there has been a persistent anti-Dublin sentiment from the foundation of the state. Or more generally an anti-city/town sentiment and a romanticisation of rural living - dancing at the crossroads and all that. Ireland needs to overcome this and recognise that it needs world class cities to compete globally. Despite my sentimental attachement to Dublin, it compares poorly to similarly sized European cities in nearly every aspect.

Capt'n Midnight

Elijah Yellow Snob wrote: »

Hyperloop (or similar).

Surely e.g. if the technology was fully proven/available, in the UK instead of their HS2/3 rail (200mph max), it would be easier/cheaper to install?

The latest Estimate for HS2 is £56bn.

With a very small footprint (compared to rail), a few magnetic vacuum tubes (800mph) could be four-times better than old railway technology.

Think the journey time for Belfast-Dublin would be an astonishing 17.5mins.

LOL a more realistic calculation for HS2 based on previous projects is £112Bn

You could shave most of that by having trains that weren't quite as fast.
or even better



Hyperloop is a pipe dream. At the speeds they quote two deductions can be made. Radius of curvature will have to be very large to avoid g forces. This limits what can be avoided without insanely expensive tunnels. The other bit is the size and speed limit the number of passengers per hour. ( 28 passengers, with at least one minute separation because of minimum braking distance without any margin for error) Hyperloop is not going to be carrying 1,750 people on each train at peak every 90 seconds like the Tube in London does, on each line.

And the projected costs ignore bridging , tunnelling , right of way and other costs. And the cost of financing the cost and insurance and other dead money costs.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Geuze

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I agree with the tone of your point, but please note that the public service PS have always made pension conts of 6.5%.

They now pay 6.5% plus the PRD of 10% / 10.5%.

Also note that the over 70 GMS med card is now means-tested.

But the means test is more generous than the under 70 card.

Geuze

Mr.Micro wrote: »

We have not a rail or tram link to the airport yet.

The busiest airport without a rail link in Europe, I think.

Dinarius

Geuze wrote: »

The busiest airport without a rail link in Europe, I think.

We don’t need a rail link to Dublin airport.

Aircoach (I use it every week) can get you from many parts of Dublin to Dublin Airport in under an hour. (45-50 minutes in my case from UCD) It’s a no-brainer. (€14 return - one fifth the price of a taxi from where I live)

If we had a rail link, you would have to make your way to a handful of stations to use it. You would not be able to avail of it over the wide area that Aircoach can be boarded.

And if we did have a rail link, and you did live near one of the stations, how much faster would it get you there?

A rail link specifically for the airport would be an obscene waste of money. Bus lanes have been a triumph for buses and taxis alike.

D.

Ps. And no, I have no connection whatsoever with Aircoach. Just a very satisfied customer. I’m self-employed.

Dinarius

Ps. If we don’t experience a Brexit bonus in Dublin, it will have nothing whatsoever to do with Dublin Airport and transport links; it will be because there is nowhere for a large influx of people to live in Dublin.

D.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

conorhal

gjim wrote: »

This theory doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. There are plenty examples of European cities which did not experience any bombing at all which have fantastic public transport systems.

And anyway, there was plenty of self-destruction in Dublin by city/traffic planners who levelled entire streets in the name of traffic improvement and making space for corporation flats. This was happening right up until the 90s.

I would argue that the reason Dublin has bad infrastructure is that Ireland and Dublin have been poor by European standards until comparatively recently and that there was little or no money to develop modern infrastructure. While that has changed, there has been a persistent anti-Dublin sentiment from the foundation of the state. Or more generally an anti-city/town sentiment and a romanticisation of rural living - dancing at the crossroads and all that. Ireland needs to overcome this and recognise that it needs world class cities to compete globally. Despite my sentimental attachement to Dublin, it compares poorly to similarly sized European cities in nearly every aspect.

You know what, that's bull$s1t.

What Dublin lacks is planning and will.

The money that has been spent over the years planning an underground system could have actually built one by now. But no, Paddy had a better plan and that plan is not to do something, it's to form a committee to pay itself handsomely to talk about doing something.... for a couple of decades.

Andrew Beef

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As it did in London, that ultimately affects everyone. When hedge fund man buys in Area X, existing rich guy gets pushed into Area Y, which pushes not so rich guy into Area Z and so on.

Dinarius

Dinarius wrote: »

We don’t need a rail link to Dublin airport.

Aircoach (I use it every week) can get you from many parts of Dublin to Dublin Airport in under an hour. (45-50 minutes in my case from UCD) It’s a no-brainer. (€14 return - one fifth the price of a taxi from where I live)

If we had a rail link, you would have to make your way to a handful of stations to use it. You would not be able to avail of it over the wide area that Aircoach can be boarded.

And if we did have a rail link, and you did live near one of the stations, how much faster would it get you there?

A rail link specifically for the airport would be an obscene waste of money. Bus lanes have been a triumph for buses and taxis alike.

D.

Ps. And no, I have no connection whatsoever with Aircoach. Just a very satisfied customer. I’m self-employed.

it's 11Km from O'Connell Bridge to Dublin Airport. is getting there in under an hour (which is heavily dependant on Dublin traffic as well) something to be proud of?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dinarius

Aegir wrote: »

it's 11Km from O'Connell Bridge to Dublin Airport. is getting there in under an hour (which is heavily dependant on Dublin traffic as well) something to be proud of?

Read my post. I said under 50 minutes from UCD.

Aircoach stops on O’Connell Street. It never takes more than 25 minutes from there.

People think train travel must be faster, without having the wit to think that you have to get to a station first, and don’t bother to factor in the time and cost of getting to that station. A bus can (theoretically) pick you up from just about anywhere. A train can not.

The cost of a rail network would build umpteen apartment blocks to rent to the myriad bankers who won’t be relocating to Dublin.

D.

Dinarius

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That argument assumes churn in the rental market. There isn’t any.

Also, two year limitations on rent increases, and the security this brings for tenants, makes rental turnover even slower.

That said, foreign workers wouldn’t necessarily have the obsession with ownership that we have. So, they would have a more flexible approach.

It’s all about infrastructure - but, getting to and from the airport would be the least of their concerns.

D.

Dinarius

Dinarius wrote: »

Read my post. I said under 50 minutes from UCD.

Aircoach stops on O’Connell Street. It never takes more than 25 minutes from there.

People think train travel must be faster, without having the wit to think that you have to get to a station first, and don’t bother to factor in the time and cost of getting to that station. A bus can (theoretically) pick you up from just about anywhere. A train can not.

The cost of a rail network would build umpteen apartment blocks to rent to the myriad bankers who won’t be relocating to Dublin.

D.

and using the aircoach presumes you are living in Dublin and close to an aircoach stop.

train travel is faster and it is more consistent as well. It is also permanent, so once built, it is there forever and can be upgraded as required. it also leads in to a transport hub so that a decent city wide transport network can be built, not the hap hazard abortion we have at the moment.

BillyBobBS

Fail to prepare, prepare to fail. You could add that to any political party who's been in power in this republic for the duration of my 44 years on this planet. It was always going to go this way.

Dinarius

Aegir wrote: »

and using the aircoach presumes you are living in Dublin and close to an aircoach stop.

train travel is faster and it is more consistent as well. It is also permanent, so once built, it is there forever and can be upgraded as required. it also leads in to a transport hub so that a decent city wide transport network can be built, not the hap hazard abortion we have at the moment.

I despair.

D.

Dinarius

Dinarius wrote: »

I despair.

D.

I think the rail line to the airport is part of a much broader plan for rail on the north side of the city to service the expanding populations of Ballymun and Swords. Its been in planning for ages and similar to the Luas will be heavily used as soon as it goes into operation.

The accident in the port tunnel yesterday morning screwed the traffic and bus services into the city completely.

nilescraneo

Exorbitantly priced housing and awful public transport, Dublin must be the only city in the world that has spent hundreds of millions on a public transport upgrade, only to wind up with worse public transport than before.

No surprise firms decided on setting up somewhere more sensible.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Andrew Beef

Dinarius wrote: »

We don’t need a rail link to Dublin airport.

Aircoach (I use it every week) can get you from many parts of Dublin to Dublin Airport in under an hour. (45-50 minutes in my case from UCD) It’s a no-brainer. (€14 return - one fifth the price of a taxi from where I live)

If we had a rail link, you would have to make your way to a handful of stations to use it. You would not be able to avail of it over the wide area that Aircoach can be boarded.

And if we did have a rail link, and you did live near one of the stations, how much faster would it get you there?

A rail link specifically for the airport would be an obscene waste of money. Bus lanes have been a triumph for buses and taxis alike.

D.

Ps. And no, I have no connection whatsoever with Aircoach. Just a very satisfied customer. I’m self-employed.

That’s a shambles to be fair.

Coaches are fine for students and the destitute, but are a million miles from what a modern commercial hub should be doing.

cycle4fun

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Dublin can't cope with the current population, adding another 20k workers would be a bad idea.

That is for sure. Should make some other city or town in Ireland a centre.

Capt'n Midnight

The Luas gets 34 million passengers a year.

Dublin Airport gets 30 million and that doesn't including those seeing off or meeting passengers. And a rail link could attract more business from Belfast.


in contrast the last Airport Hopper bus leaves the airport at 9:50pm so not much use if you are on one of the later flights from London.

The National Planning Framework "Ireland 2040"is now in the works.....

Its being greeted in the way Iv come to expect from irish politicians :pac:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/2040-planning-framework-will-kill-rural-ireland-tds-36554909.html

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/tds-form-cross-party-group-to-oppose-national-planning-framework-825812.html

Itll kill rural ireland yadda yadda......