Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Leo is the new king of Ireland.
Comments
-
There are very few people in Ireland making 7-figure salaries, let alone high 6-figure salaries. The tax burden on those making €100k-€250k is insane in Ireland.And the very highly paid manage not to pay taxes at all largely, by taking their money out of the country. In the UK no tax is paid until £11,850 is earned - which would be a fair proportion of low earning or part time workers.
In France income tax is zero until €9,700, then 14% until €26k. So french lower paid workers are entering at a lower threshold, then paying a lower rate of tax.0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »There seem to be a lot of social houses which are boarded up in the North inner city; surely there is a way to quickly bring these up to spec and assign people to them?
That depends on their structural soundness and the amount of work required to bring them up to spec. And whether tehy actually are social housing stock.0 -
I think you might have mentioned you're from the Netherlands, so you might not be aware of some of these social housing buildings, but I'm talking about places like:That depends on their structural soundness and the amount of work required to bring them up to spec. And whether tehy actually are social housing stock.
Dominic Street Lower: https://goo.gl/maps/btVwvzHPSHn
A few weeks ago I also saw a few boarded up near Sheriff Street.
So I'm sure they are social and I'd be fairly sure they're structurally fine. In terms of quality of the interior, if the government can't get contractors out to do it, then there could be tax credits for construction companies that do this pro bono, community organisation, etc.0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »I think you might have mentioned you're from the Netherlands, so you might not be aware of some of these social housing buildings, but I'm talking about places like:
Dominic Street Lower: https://goo.gl/maps/btVwvzHPSHn
A few weeks ago I also saw a few boarded up near Sheriff Street.
So I'm sure they are social and I'd be fairly sure they're structurally fine. In terms of quality of the interior, if the government can't get contractors out to do it, then there could be tax credits for construction companies that do this pro bono, community organisation, etc.
No, I mentioned that I lived in the Netherlands, not that I'm from the Netherlands. I'm fully aware of what constitutes social housing stock in Ireland. And a quick glance at a building will not tell you if there are underlying structural issues.
I'd rather see a structural report by a building assessor than a photograph.0 -
You never stated you weren't from the Netherlands either... so...No, I mentioned that I lived in the Netherlands, not that I'm from the Netherlands.
Ok. It didn't seem that way - I'm wondering why else DCC would be boarding up houses in social estates? Perhaps given your apparent expertise you can enlighten me?I'm fully aware of what constitutes social housing stock in Ireland.And a quick glance at a building will not tell you if there are underlying structural issues.
I'd rather see a structural report by a building assessor than a photograph.
If there are other people living in there and there are structural issues, I guess we have bigger problems than a bunch of vacant units.
:rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
FreudianSlippers wrote: »You never stated you weren't from the Netherlands either... so...
Ok. It didn't seem that way - I'm wondering why else DCC would be boarding up houses in social estates? Perhaps given your apparent expertise you can enlighten me?
If there are other people living in there and there are structural issues, I guess we have bigger problems than a bunch of vacant units.
:rolleyes:
Because one unit has issues it does not follow that the one next door does. It doesn't require any expertise, just common sense. You also have to consider if the properties conform to building regs. This is the law.0 -
My point is that this can be done relatively quickly and easily.Because one unit has issues it does not follow that the one next door does. It doesn't require any expertise, just common sense. You also have to consider if the properties conform to building regs. This is the law.
What law specifically backs up the point that you're attempting to make? I'd make the argument (as a lawyer) that there are more than adequate provisions pursuant to both BCA 1990 and 2007 to deal with "building regs" - specifically for example section 5 BCA 1990.0 -
-
FreudianSlippers wrote: »My point is that this can be done relatively quickly and easily.
What law specifically backs up the point that you're attempting to make? I'd make the argument (as a lawyer) that there are more than adequate provisions pursuant to both BCA 1990 and 2007 to deal with "building regs" - specifically for example section 5 BCA 1990.
My point is that you simply don't know whether it can be done quickly and easily.0 -
So you're telling me that there is no way that these buildings can be surveyed quickly and easily? That there is then no way to quickly and easily remedy any habitability issues with these buildings (such as s5 BCA 1990)?My point is that you simply don't know whether it can be done quickly and easily.
Or are you just being contrary?0 -
Advertisement
-
FreudianSlippers wrote: »So you're telling me that there is no way that these buildings can be surveyed quickly and easily? That there is then no way to quickly and easily remedy any habitability issues with these buildings (such as s5 BCA 1990)?
Or are you just being contrary?
No my point is you - nor I - know whether these buildings can be brough up to spec quickly and easily. That's an entirely different proposition to carrying out a survey.0 -
No my point is you - nor I - know whether these buildings can be brough up to spec quickly and easily. That's an entirely different proposition to carrying out a survey.
That's a total misrepresentation of what I said and a shift of the goalposts.Because one unit has issues it does not follow that the one next door does. It doesn't require any expertise, just common sense. You also have to consider if the properties conform to building regs. This is the law.FreudianSlippers wrote: »My point is that this can be done relatively quickly and easily.
What law specifically backs up the point that you're attempting to make? I'd make the argument (as a lawyer) that there are more than adequate provisions pursuant to both BCA 1990 and 2007 to deal with "building regs" - specifically for example section 5 BCA 1990.
Emphasis mine.
Considering whether the properties confirm to building regulations can be done quickly and easily.
Do you want to reconsider where I said that "these buildings can be brough up to spec quickly and easily"?
It's amazing how people on here are quick to blame this on Leo, FG, FF, moon-men or anything else when at the end of the day people are negative about any potential suggestions to even solve some of the problems in housing.0 -
Just to come back on this point, yesterday on the Week in Politics, both the FF and FG Senators on the panel explicitly ruled out a coalition with SF.
Senator Neale Richmond of FG stated he would leave FG should they propose such a coalition, whilst Lorraine Clifford-Lee of FF stated that the majority of FF members would not accept a coalition with SF. So the question is - is this just posturing pre-election or do they actually mean it? Will the cold hard reality of the post election numbers cause a change to this stance from either FF or FG, or will they have to bite the bullet and coalesce?
Also, it puts to bed the lie that SF are excluding themselves from government when both of the other two main parties have explicitly and repeatedly stated they would exclude them.
I don't believe it's a case of SF can't do sums. As pointed out manifestos tend to be not worth the paper they are written on any way, so to surmise this is to do with SF policy ideas doesn't seem to fly. It's faux moral outrage playing to the grass roots, not unlike the impasse with the DUP IMO.
Stating FG going in with FF and having issues with SF, is indeed a bit rich. If FG genuinely believe all the things they've said about FF it shows bums on seats of power is what's important, regardless of how folk might view PBP the SD's etc. It's about keeping the opposition down in the face of knowing we'll always have a sizable grassroots FF, so to paraphrase any Fine Gael apologists there may or may not be in the country, FG are sticking to 'better the devil you know' as regards FF, with little concern about them having us 'practically eating out of bins'.FreudianSlippers wrote: »I think this post shows a shocking lack of macroeconomic awareness in addition to a level of whataboutery that is frankly ridiculous.
I disagree. Would you care to explain where I am wrong? I believe record breaking child homeless figures and near full employment with a growing economy is my proof. Where's yours?
Whataboutery is my calling out FG partnering up with FF and a response being criticism of a third party.
Or lack of a decent national housing strategy all on [insert local council].0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »That's a total misrepresentation of what I said and a shift of the goalposts.
Emphasis mine.
Considering whether the properties confirm to building regulations can be done quickly and easily.
Do you want to reconsider where I said that "these buildings can be brough up to spec quickly and easily"?
It's amazing how people on here are quick to blame this on Leo, FG, FF, moon-men or anything else when at the end of the day people are negative about any potential suggestions to even solve some of the problems in housing.
You've had more than one quote on this thread, and the one you chose wasn't the first of the exchange. So to reconsider, you might want to read the exchange in full. As regards your last paragraph - I haven't blamed this on anyone, and have over the course of the exchanged pointed out a range of factors - non-efficient use of taxes, lack of a domestic rates system to name but two.0 -
And the very highly paid manage not to pay taxes at all largely, by taking their money out of the country. In the UK no tax is paid until £11,850 is earned - which would be a fair proportion of low earning or part time workers.
In France income tax is zero until €9,700, then 14% until €26k. So french lower paid workers are entering at a lower threshold, then paying a lower rate of tax.
http://www.colly.tv/irelands-income-tax-distribution-chart/
"54% of the population earn under 30k – In total they pay 3.1% of the tax.
16% of the population earn over 60k – They pay 74% of the tax."
Higher tax rates on those earning under 60k is the only way to get enough money to fund public services. It is simple mathematics.0 -
You've had more than one quote on this thread, and the one you chose wasn't the first of the exchange. So to reconsider, you might want to read the exchange in full. As regards your last paragraph - I haven't blamed this on anyone, and have over the course of the exchanged pointed out a range of factors - non-efficient use of taxes, lack of a domestic rates system to name but two.
So I'm sure it'd be fairly easy for you to provide that quote where I said what you claim I said. There isn't one, so you didn't.0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »There seem to be a lot of social houses which are boarded up in the North inner city; surely there is a way to quickly bring these up to spec and assign people to them?FreudianSlippers wrote: »So I'm sure it'd be fairly easy for you to provide that quote where I said what you claim I said. There isn't one, so you didn't.
There ya go.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »
I disagree. Would you care to explain where I am wrong? I believe record breaking child homeless figures and near full employment with a growing economy is my proof. Where's yours?
Whataboutery is my calling out FG partnering up with FF and a response being criticism of a third party.
Or lack of a decent national housing strategy all on [insert local council].
Yeah ok.
The economic recovery that is apparent on any view of the facts and reality. Our debt to GDP ratio has reduced from 119.6% in 2012 to 72.8% in 2016.Matt Barrett wrote: »
What recovery?
Regardless of how you want to spin it, this is a recovery.
I'm not sure what other metric one measures economic recovery?Are you speaking on a purely economic numbers basis?
This, for example, shows a fundamental lack of understanding of government funding and macroeconomics.We got a loan and prop up the 'economy' with incentives and subsidies funded by the tax payer.
The EU/IMF bailout is not propping up our economy at the moment... to say so is ludicrous.
Gladly, your definition of "recovery" is not one shared by people with a slight understanding of economics. It's absolute whataboutery to claim that there is no recovery simply because certain areas are not perfect - that's why it's a recovery and not "recovered".I know the housing/homeless crises and emergency accommodation bill are bothersome, but you can't have a cross the board recovery while sections of society are in continuous levels of record breaking crisis. The economic figures look good but do not translate to a recovery.
The housing issue is significantly caused by your type of attitude towards the recovery and economics in general.
Vulture funds are somehow to blame I'm sure - although wait... don't vulture funds increase housing stock? Yep. They do.0 -
I see in that quote a question that surely there is a way to quickly bring up a number of vacant stock to spec. I see no statement there that it would be quick and easy.There ya go.
Your later comment (in reference to an example of what you see empty to which I linked) that I claimed "these buildings" could be brought up to spec "quickly and easily" is patently untrue and incorrect.0 -
However, taking public transport for example - in the Netherlands I could travel from Rotterdam to Maastricht for around €25 on an hourly basis by train. It costs in the region of €40 for Dublin Cork. So that's €15 back in my pocket through the use of taxes to provide subsidised transport.
That's one example. There are many others which demonstrate more efficient - and beneficial - use of tax money.
You are comparing the most densely populated country in the EU, where rail travel makes very good sense, with Ireland, one of the least densely populated, where rail travel makes very little sense at all.
Not really a fair comparison.0 -
Advertisement
-
FreudianSlippers wrote: »I see in that quote a question that surely there is a way to quickly bring up a number of vacant stock to spec. I see no statement there that it would be quick and easy.
Your later comment (in reference to an example of what you see empty to which I linked) that I claimed "these buildings" could be brought up to spec "quickly and easily" is patently untrue and incorrect.
I'm not getting into a jesuitical argument with you. That's what was said. Others can draw their own conclusions.0 -
You are comparing the most densely populated country in the EU, where rail travel makes very good sense, with Ireland, one of the least densely populated, where rail travel makes very little sense at all.
Not really a fair comparison.
It's a perfectly valid comparison, when comparing the rail network pre 1960 with what it is now. Then comparing with other countries. And the Netherlands is only particularly densley populated in the Randstat area. South of the Rhine, it's not to dissimilar in terms of density to Ireland.0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »Yeah ok.
The economic recovery that is apparent on any view of the facts and reality. Our debt to GDP ratio has reduced from 119.6% in 2012 to 72.8% in 2016.
Regardless of how you want to spin it, this is a recovery.
I'm not sure what other metric one measures economic recovery?
It's an economic recovery only, in the sense that there is no recovery in some areas. In fact they are constantly record breakingly worse. I think you misunderstood my posts. I fully acknowledge the economic numbers look good and we have an economic recovery, but it is not having much societal effect, in fact it could be argued feeding the economic recovery is adding to the myriad crises. Short sighted profit making and ever increasing reliance on the tax payer.
There is no broad recovery, IMO. Fine Gael have proven that an economic recovery is little or nothing to do with a recovery.FreudianSlippers wrote: »This, for example, shows a fundamental lack of understanding of government funding and macroeconomics.
The EU/IMF bailout is not propping up our economy at the moment... to say so is ludicrous.....
Gladly, your definition of "recovery" is not one shared by people with a slight understanding of economics. It's absolute whataboutery to claim that there is no recovery simply because certain areas are not perfect - that's why it's a recovery and not "recovered".
The housing issue is significantly caused by your type of attitude towards the recovery and economics in general.
Vulture funds are somehow to blame I'm sure - although wait... don't vulture funds increase housing stock? Yep. They do.
We got a loan and currently the tax payer is keeping this flawed 'economy' afloat. The costs of maintaining it increases. You must look at everything. Compartmentalising problems as unsolvable or dismissing them while the cost of badly maintaining or servicing them grows shows a major disconnect and bad governing, intentional or not.
Don't vulture funds buy up loans like government aided debt collection agencies? Yes they do do that. Do they pay a lot of tax, no they don't do that.
Has the government gone from NAMA in some cases selling back businesses to the wives of the very people who bankrupted them at the tax payers expense, to setting up a developer friendly bank with rates of loans more favourable than any other lender? Yes, the tax payer took the hit for these people and is now bank rolling them. Keep the recovery going sure.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »
Or lack of a decent national housing strategy all on [insert local council].
The problem for a national housing strategy - which there is one - is that power and responsibility to implement it rests at local level under the control of the council.
So on the one hand, the Department of Housing produce planning guidance and many other policies for implementation by local authorities:
http://www.housing.gov.ie/planning/guidelines/planning-guidance
They have also published a Homelessness Strategy with Pillar 3 devoted to Build More Homes:
http://rebuildingireland.ie/Rebuilding%20Ireland_Action%20Plan.pdf
It says at one part:
"The latest data from the Task Force indicates that planning permission currently exists for approximately 27,000 new homes in Dublin, with zoned and developable land capable of delivering at least a further additional 50,000 homes"
They have also put in place a Social Housing Strategy 2020
http://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/social-housing/social-housing-strategy/social-housing-strategy-2020
"Local authorities will continue to have a vital role in the provision of new social
housing. They have a wealth of operational experience in managing social housing construction projects and meeting the needs of a large proportion of the total number of households receiving housing supports. Local authorities are positioned in the short term to quickly ramp up their social housing programme, although capacity within the housing function of some local authorities will have to be increased. While a return to local authority construction involves a significant change to the composition of social housing provision of recent years, it allows time for a transition to funding models that are more sustainable and are not overly reliant on Exchequer capital funding. It is necessary to allow for this transition not only to support delivery in the short-term, but to ensure that the future social housing infrastructure developed is sustainable and can manage the issues associated with the new funding models. As noted, local authorities have traditional strengths in many aspects of social housing delivery, but additional local authority borrowing to fund social housing would add to the national debt in a period when there will be continuing constraints on public borrowing."
So, as you can see, local authorities are key.
Unfortunately, on the other hand, you have this:
https://www.dublininquirer.com/2017/11/28/councillors-move-to-protect-kilmainham-mills-by-rezoning-it/
Councillors trying to stop development.
https://www.theplanner.co.uk/news/major-dublin-housing-scheme-gets-the-cold-shoulder-from-the-city-council
City Council trying to stop development
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/two-dublin-authorities-fail-to-list-any-sites-on-land-hoarding-register-1.3350053
The Government introduced legislation for derelict sites, two Dublin councils have so far failed to do anything about it.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/dublin-council-chief-objects-to-o-devaney-gardens-project-1.2768489
Going back a bit further, we have councillors trying to ghettoise social housing.
All in all, there is no doubt that the local authorities have performed dismally over the last 3 or 4 years on the issue of housing, despite the government passing legislation to facilitate development.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »It's an economic recovery only, in the sense that there is no recovery in some areas. In fact they are constantly record breakingly worse. I think you misunderstood my posts. I fully acknowledge the economic numbers look good and we have an economic recovery, but it is not having much societal effect, in fact it could be argued feeding the economic recovery is adding to the myriad crises. Short sighted profit making and ever increasing reliance on the tax payer.
There is no broad recovery, IMO. Fine Gael have proven that an economic recovery is little or nothing to do with a recovery.
We got a loan and currently the tax payer is keeping this flawed 'economy' afloat. The costs of maintaining it increases. You must look at everything. Compartmentalising problems as unsolvable or dismissing them while the cost of badly maintaining or servicing them grows shows a major disconnect and bad governing, intentional or not.
Don't vulture funds buy up loans like government aided debt collection agencies? Yes they do do that. Do they pay a lot of tax, no they don't do that.
Has the government gone from NAMA in some cases selling back businesses to the wives of the very people who bankrupted them at the tax payers expense, to setting up a developer friendly bank with rates of loans more favourable than any other lender? Yes, the tax payer took the hit for these people and is now bank rolling them. Keep the recovery going sure.
You criticise bad governance of our sovereign debt yet you were the one arguing burn the bondolders a few days ago in one of your rants.
It's becoming harder and harder to take you seriously.
By the way, 'vulture funds' have been investing in Ireland for decades. They are responsible for financing vast swathes of our infastructure. They just never had the populist-triggering 'vulture' tagline until recently. You can thank the media for that.
It's funny how a financier for a children's hospital is seen as a saint but somebody who buys bad debt is a bogeyman.
It's completely lost on some people that they are often the same entity.
Don't forget, if you invest in your own private pension there's a good chance that YOU are the vulture fund.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22734
I don't want to close this thread, but if people don't head the many mod warnings already posted about debating in a civil and constructive fashion, we may have no choice.0 -
What other kind of recovery is there?Matt Barrett wrote: »It's an economic recovery only,
Source very much required.in the sense that there is no recovery in some areas. In fact they are constantly record breakingly worse.
POBAL deprivation index would tend to be contrary to your points. It does show that the slowest recovery is in areas with population less than 5,000 people (but there is improvement).
ESRI's income distribution paper from June 2017 makes a few key findings as well which I would highlight:In 2008, the poorest 10 per cent of households had a 3.6 per cent share of disposable income. By 2013, this had fallen to 3.1 per cent; this represents a fall of almost 15 per cent in the share of income in the bottom decile. The top two deciles, particularly decile 9, experienced a combined increase of about 1 percentage point in their share of income. Between 2013 and 2015, the income share of the bottom decile recovered to 3.3 per cent. The top decile lost most during this period, with its share of income falling from 24.7 to 23.9.
I would also note Table 2 on page 9 indicates that only the top two deciles (i.e. the highest earning) are worse off than they were in 2008.Average real income grew in each decile between 2013 and 2015, with the largest gains concentrated at the bottom of the distribution, partially offsetting the larger than average losses for the lowest income households during the crisis.
There is very little evidence to support this claim (if any).I think you misunderstood my posts. I fully acknowledge the economic numbers look good and we have an economic recovery, but it is not having much societal effect,
I'm not sure what this means tbh.in fact it could be argued feeding the economic recovery is adding to the myriad crises. Short sighted profit making and ever increasing reliance on the tax payer.
Ditto.There is no broad recovery, IMO. Fine Gael have proven that an economic recovery is little or nothing to do with a recovery.
That's how states generally tend to fund themselves. I'd love a magic money tree where we paid no tax and borrowed nothing, but I'm feeling like that's fairly unrealistic.We got a loan and currently the tax payer is keeping this flawed 'economy' afloat.
A country with decreasing budgetary costs is not in a great position, so this is probably a good thing.The costs of maintaining it increases.
Fundamentally misunderstanding the source of problems - or more appropriately perhaps attributing a false source to a set of problems - is your problem here.You must look at everything. Compartmentalising problems as unsolvable or dismissing them while the cost of badly maintaining or servicing them grows shows a major disconnect and bad governing, intentional or not.
Not really.Don't vulture funds buy up loans like government aided debt collection agencies? Yes they do do that.
Source required.Do they pay a lot of tax, no they don't do that.
I'd say "source required" but I know anything you post in this regard is likely to be highly defamatory, so I'll avoid that here.Has the government gone from NAMA in some cases selling back businesses to the wives of the very people who bankrupted them at the tax payers expense,
Seems like an extremely good idea to stimulate the construction of necessary housing and other development.to setting up a developer friendly bank with rates of loans more favourable than any other lender?0 -
Colonel Claptrap wrote: »You criticise bad governance of our sovereign debt yet you were the one arguing burn the bondolders a few days ago in one of your rants.
It's becoming harder and harder to take you seriously.
By the way, 'vulture funds' have been investing in Ireland for decades. They are responsible for financing vast swathes of our infastructure. They just never had the populist-triggering 'vulture' tagline until recently. You can thank the media for that.
It's funny how a financier for a children's hospital is seen as a saint but somebody who buys bad debt is a bogeyman.
It's completely lost on some people that they are often the same entity.
Don't forget, if you invest in your own private pension there's a good chance that YOU are the vulture fund.
You seem to be side stepping points and inferring others.
Vulture funds act in a different manner and are often steered by different groups. To try tar them all with the same brush makes no sense and I have not done so. I understand some of your confusion. It's vulture funds dealing in buying up mortgages in arrears and those with whom Noonan had inappropriate behaviour, the ones who also pay little tax.
Again, saying FG show lack of moral or political fortitude because the are in unofficial partnership with FF is not waving the flag for SF, simply pointing out the faux moral nonsense of FG, IMO. It's political protectionism and playing up to the grass roots.
A government overseeing record breaking child homeless figures and ever increasing emergency accommodation costs, is not in recovery. IMO. Recovery would be things getting better not worse surely? You could roll out 'these things take time', it must be gathering a little dust at this point.
EDIT***FreudianSlippers wrote: »
Source required.
I'd say "source required" but I know anything you post in this regard is likely to be highly defamatory, so I'll avoid that here.
FYI: an accusation of something illegal would need be inferred. None of this behaviuor I have commented on is illegal. I read about family members buying back a company. I know of a son-in-law buying back the father-in-laws family home at a marked discount after him going NAMA style bankrupt, so nothing defamatory in referring to such legal practices.Up to 24 vulture funds paid less than €20,000 in taxhttps://www.irishtimes.com/business/media-and-marketing/up-to-24-vulture-funds-paid-less-than-20-000-in-tax-1.2929366?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Fmedia-and-marketing%2Fup-to-24-vulture-funds-paid-less-than-20-000-in-tax-1.2929366Nama would provide cheap loans to developers under new plan
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/nama-would-provide-cheap-loans-to-developers-under-new-plan-1.3241877FreudianSlippers wrote: »Seems like an extremely good idea to stimulate the construction of necessary housing and other development.
They'll certainly pass any savings on in reduced market pricing right? :rolleyes:0 -
I am sick of hearing about vulture funds, they are out to make money like you I and every one else! Its the bloody government failure here at every level!!! did the vulture funds make the decision to flog off loads of housing for nothing? for a start!
Lads also this talk about recovery, yeah fair enough, things are going in the right direction in some ways. But everyone I know, is becoming worse off when you factor in rent or property price hikes in dublin. they are becoming more and more squeezed all the time...
they can talk all they want about wage growth, but over half it goes up in smoke, unless you are on a pittance... So say there is 4% wage growth, half of it goes in smoke... No way is inflation, when you factor in property price inflation, running at 2%!of course that is only an example of a figure...0 -
Advertisement
-
Yeah... that's not correct either.Matt Barrett wrote: »
FYI: an accusation of something illegal would need be inferred. None of this behaviuor I have commented on is illegal.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement