Leo is the new king of Ireland.

Colonel Claptrap

charlie14 wrote: »

If you are having trouble with any of my figures relating to My posts on Irish Water then as I have said to another poster here please free to post yours



As to your question.

Irish Times Abortion Referendum Tracker January 2018 when FG TD`s were contacted first by email and later by text.


16 in favour.
3 opposed.
31 refused to state their intention

January? Really?

Your claim that up to 50% of FG TD's did not declare their intentions is based on a survey from January - 4 months before the referendum took place. In which case most of those TD's later declared anyway.

You even went out of your way to suggest that when it came to the vote, those undeclared TDs probably voted no.

This is Grade A obfuscation. Bordering on outright lying.

For clarity, 14 TD's out of 158 were undeclared mere days before the vote. A paltry 9% of all TD's across all parties.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/junior-ministers-reveal-abortion-views-as-14-tds-stay-undeclared-36933138.html

I'm not contesting your IW posts. But I am sceptical of your intentions and credibilty when you come out with clangers like this below.

charlie14 wrote: »

People keep talking about how liberal FG now on the strenght of this referendum result, but there are reports of up to 50% of its TD`s refusing to say how they were prepared to vote on the issue.
Which is safe I imagine to say wasn`t yes.

You either lied, spoofed or have an agenda.

When you doubled down with an incomplete survey from January, all became clear for me.

"there are reports of...."
Pull the other one Charlie.

Wheeliebin30

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Can't believe you're serious here.

But alas, in case you missed it......

Irish Water director hired as personal driver by Minister

Never seen that before.

charlie14

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

January? Really?

Your claim that up to 50% of FG TD's did not declare their intentions is based on a survey from January - 4 months before the referendum took place. In which case most of those TD's later declared anyway.

You even went out of your way to suggest that when it came to the vote, those undeclared TDs probably voted no.

This is Grade A obfuscation. Bordering on outright lying.

For clarity, 14 TD's out of 158 were undeclared mere days before the vote. A paltry 9% of all TD's across all parties.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/junior-ministers-reveal-abortion-views-as-14-tds-stay-undeclared-36933138.html

I'm not contesting your IW posts. But I am sceptical of your intentions and credibilty when you come out with clangers like this below.



You either lied, spoofed or have an agenda.

When you doubled down with an incomplete survey from January, all became clear for me.

"there are reports of...."
Pull the other one Charlie.

You asked where I got the report, I told you.
It was complete enough to show that 31 FG TD`s refused to confirm or deny if they approved or disapproved of their own party`s policy in January.
If you have a problem with the veracity of the survey take it up with the Irish Times.

Colonel Claptrap

charlie14 wrote: »

You asked where I got the report, I told you.
It was complete enough to show that 31 FG TD`s refused to confirm or deny if they approved or disapproved of their own party`s policy in January.
If you have a problem with the veracity of the survey take it up with the Irish Times.

There are reports the government might bailout the banks.



...the reports are from 2008

James Brown

Good loser wrote: »

Thing is your comments are relentlessly negative and destructive.



Loads of whinging about the housing crisis etc but no solutions other than the Govt should not be doing what it is now doing.


If nothing else the Govt would have €600m per annum extra for the housing if they didn't have to pay the water charges. Would you support that? Think about it!

Complete personalised nonsense.
Build social housing. That's my solution. Stop interfering in the housing market.
Where do you stand on Murphy passing off purchasing private property as building social housing?
Where do you stand on taking people off the homeless list but the state continuing to pay their rent to a private home owner?

blackwhite wrote: »

Trying to label anyone and everyone possible as homeless just for an opportunity for political point-scoring is stupid - but it’s not surprised to see it’s the same people over and over again who try to do so to push their own political agenda.

Completely agree.

blackwhite wrote: »

This notion that someone should be housed for life by the state if they ever have a short period where they cannot house themselves is also ridiculous - especially from people who pretend that they are looking to save the taxpayer from waste - yet they want them in the hook to pay for everything for people (but only certain people) from the cradle to the grave.

Completely agree.

blackwhite wrote: »

Agenda-driven pushing of the notion that every “homeless” person should be provided a “forever home” is merely trying to drive a nouveau-Marxist ideal whereby the state is expected to provide everything in perpetuity, and remove the responsibility from people to get off their backsides and actually try and improve things for themselves.

Repeating yourself, but again, I agree. Those found not genuinely seeking work should be penalised.

Where do you stand on Murphy passing off purchasing private property as building social housing?
Where do you stand on taking people off the homeless list but the state continuing to pay their rent to a private home owner?

charlie14

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

There are reports the government might bailout the banks.



...the reports are from 2008

The report you asked for and I provided on FG TD`s being asked if they favoured or opposed their own party`s proposal was not from 2008.


.....the report was from 2018.

Colonel Claptrap

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Build social housing. That's my solution. Stop interfering in the housing market.

Say that again, but slowly.

James Brown

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Say that again, but slowly.

The important word here is 'state'. It's means publicly built and owned.
Where do you stand on Murphy buying privately off the market, at market rates, and passing it off as social housing builds?

ancapailldorcha

Enough of the personal digs please. There are multiple posts in the last page of this thread with them and it ends now.

Colonel Claptrap

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The important word here is 'state'. It's means publicly built and owned.
Where do you stand on Murphy buying privately off the market, at market rates, and passing it off as social housing builds?

Publicly built and owned social housing is, by definition, an interference in the housing market. You cannot square that circle. You either want no interference in the market or you want social housing.

Including those houses in the social builds category is not right. And should be rightly called out as incorrect. No qualms from me.

Not sure what significance market rate has to the discussion. A house has a value. If the state tenders a builder to build social housing, why would it not be at the market rate?
If the state owns the underlying land, that is a different story. Not all social housing is built on state land. Also, part 5 housing is transferred at a discount to the state, which is another consideration.

Social housing is multifaceted and complex. Throw HAP, RTB, central bank lending limits, HTB scheme, housing schemes, lack of skilled tradesmen, debt riddled banks, and interest rate risk into the mix and you have a volatile housing portfolio with many stakeholders vying for the minister's attention.

I don't envy his job. I don't know how to solve the problems at his department. And I certainly wouldn't throw out flippant solutions like:

Build social houses
Or
End market interference


There are no silver bullets.

There are plenty of detractors however.

James Brown

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Publicly built and owned social housing is, by definition, an interference in the housing market. You cannot square that circle. You either want no interference in the market or you want social housing.

You have a point. However, interfering in the market helps to keep rents and sale prices artificially high, IMO. If the customer base cannot afford it, the tax payer takes a hit. There is no incentive to lower prices nor incentive to push back on rates/taxes and it's role in causing high pricing, from the builder/landlord perspective.
Building social housing is a great deal for the tax payer as it will cost the tax payer less than buying privately built houses from the market place at market rates. The only interference this has on the market will be the tax payer not having to buy so many houses at market rate nor rent so many houses/rooms at private market set rates.

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Including those houses in the social builds category is not right. And should be rightly called out as incorrect. No qualms from me.

Great.

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Not sure what significance market rate has to the discussion. A house has a value. If the state tenders a builder to build social housing, why would it not be at the market rate?
If the state owns the underlying land, that is a different story. Not all social housing is built on state land. Also, part 5 housing is transferred at a discount to the state, which is another consideration.

Hiring someone to build a house is cheaper than buying a house at market. This is basic stuff. If you build a house you pay for work and materials. Then when you sell it on the market, it's not to break even, it's to make a profit and as much profit as you can get.
All social housing should be built on publicly owned land.

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Social housing is multifaceted and complex. Throw HAP, RTB, central bank lending limits, HTB scheme, housing schemes, lack of skilled tradesmen, debt riddled banks, and interest rate risk into the mix and you have a volatile housing portfolio with many stakeholders vying for the minister's attention.

Building social housing is very straightforward. The bias is towards putting the tax payer first and making the bill for those who need housing assistance less reliant on privately set market rates.

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

I don't envy his job. I don't know how to solve the problems at his department. And I certainly wouldn't throw out flippant solutions like:

Build social houses
Or
End market interference


There are no silver bullets.

There are plenty of detractors however.

Certainly, because we are in crisis. FG created this problem, and continue to exacerbate it with piss poor housing policy weighted towards costing the tax payer while not helping matters.

Colonel Claptrap

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Building social housing is a great deal for the tax payer as it will cost the tax payer less than buying privately built houses from the market place at market rates.

Building huge amounts of social housing discourages people from working hard and saving to buy their own home.
If the local authorities are handing out social houses like sweets, then I'd think twice about putting my hand up for overtime at work, doing that college course, looking for promotion, pay rises or furthering my career. If I can maintain my modest income, the state will always have a 'free' house ready to hand out to me. And if they don't, maybe having a kid with my girlfriend will clinch it for me.

Obviously, i'm being flippant here. But I believe the state should strike a balance between providing housing for those who truely need a helping hand, and those who have untapped potential to work for their forever home.

My fear is that oversupply of social housing leads to ghettos and fostering a culture where hard work is no longer rewarded.

Today, unfortunately, the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Yes, we should provide more social housing. But it should be done through mixed developments (private/social) and planned properly using both private and state land together, rather than vast swathes of state land.

I say this as somebody who comes from a social housing estate.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Hiring someone to build a house is cheaper than buying a house at market. This is basic stuff. If you build a house you pay for work and materials. Then when you sell it on the market, it's not to break even, it's to make a profit and as much profit as you can get.

There are no bricklayers, roofers, or crane drivers in the civil service. When the state builds social housing it does so by tendering the contract to a builder. The builder prices the job, adds on his margin, and makes the pitch. By building this estate for the State the builder has an opportunity cost - to build a private estate down the road where he sets the price. The social housing estate has to compete with the private estate on cost and margin. Otherwise the bulder will choose the private estate every time. That's why the social estate is sold to the local authority at market value.

James Brown

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Building huge amounts of social housing discourages people from working hard and saving to buy their own home.
If the local authorities are handing out social houses like sweets, then I'd think twice about putting my hand up for overtime at work, doing that college course, looking for promotion, pay rises or furthering my career. If I can maintain my modest income, the state will always have a 'free' house ready to hand out to me. And if they don't, maybe having a kid with my girlfriend will clinch it for me.

Obviously, i'm being flippant here. But I believe the state should strike a balance between providing housing for those who truely need a helping hand, and those who have untapped potential to work for their forever home.

My fear is that oversupply of social housing leads to ghettos and fostering a culture where hard work is no longer rewarded.

Today, unfortunately, the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Yes, we should provide more social housing. But it should be done through mixed developments (private/social) and planned properly using both private and state land together, rather than vast swathes of state land.

I say this as somebody who comes from a social housing estate.

As is often put forward, we'll always have homeless people. The same is true of genuine hard working people in low paying work. So do we continue to pay or subsidise in part, their rent to a private pocket at privately set rates, with costs increasing year on year or save ourselves some money?

Currently hard work is not rewarded for everyone. I know the 'forever home' thing grates on people, but it's a nonsense when the alternative to the actual reality is costing us more money year on year. Rather than build social housing we've a housing minister pretending to do so and tax payers told in effect that paying through the nose to private landlords and developers is better than paying for social housing builds. I've grown up in and around social housing. It has it's problems but apart from a few chancers, the vast great majority are decent hard working people who simply cannot afford a home of their own. We have seen generations move on from social housing. The current plan creates perpetual tenants and that is a gross waste of tax payer money.

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

There are no bricklayers, roofers, or crane drivers in the civil service. When the state builds social housing it does so by tendering the contract to a builder. The builder prices the job, adds on his margin, and makes the pitch. By building this estate for the State the builder has an opportunity cost - to build a private estate down the road where he sets the price. The social housing estate has to compete with the private estate on cost and margin. Otherwise the bulder will choose the private estate every time. That's why the social estate is sold to the local authority at market value.

There are no cement or tarmac layers either, but we have roads built.
Are you suggesting builders or developers will not take on work?
These are two separate things. There is being contracted to build for a third party and building to sell. Very often the company building the private estate is doing so for another private company and often the skilled workers are working for a series of smaller companies.
All the state would be doing is tendering out the contract and a company will price it, and take over orchestrating the build, which the state will own upon completion.
You tell me how buying houses from the market at market rates is a better deal for the tax payer? Murphy obviously feels there's some cachet to be had in social housing builds or he wouldn't be pretending to do it.

Consonata

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/families-on-income-of-100000-shouldnt-be-seen-as-rich-varadkar-36985519.html

Sacre bleu. This is out of touch even for him

Families on income of €100,000 shouldn't be seen as rich - Varadkar

A family with a joint income of €100,000 should not be considered rich against the backdrop of high mortgage and childcare costs, Leo Varadkar has admitted.
The Taoiseach has strongly rejected suggestions from Regina Doherty that the children's allowance could be means-tested.
In a striking intervention, his spokesman contacted the Irish Independent to categorically kill the idea first mentioned by Social Protection Minister last Friday.

He also noted that the "average salary" for somebody working full-time in Ireland is now €44,000.

"So a middle-income couple where both are working could easily have a combined salary of €100,000. This doesn't make them rich. They have high costs like rent, mortgage, childcare and all the cost associated with raising a family," Mr Varadkar's office said.

For a man who is a medical graduate, its surprising he doesn't understand basic math surrounding averages.
44,000 is the Mean wage in Ireland. However this means squat because of income inequality and us being a tax haven. The median income is €27,000, vastly lower than what he accounted for.

Colonel Claptrap

The media realtions spokesman for the office of An Taoiseach is a medical graduate but crap at maths?

Off with his head!

Certainly a slow news day in here lads. Again.

Meanwhile, if you look closely in the video the taoiseach wore a white shirt today but the minister for health wore a 'blue shirt'.

So out of touch.

That's it. I'm not getting up early in the morning.

.
.
.

Ah... who am I kidding? It's the last day of sunshine before that horrible rain returns. Bloody government!

blanch152

Consonata wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/families-on-income-of-100000-shouldnt-be-seen-as-rich-varadkar-36985519.html

Sacre bleu. This is out of touch even for him



For a man who is a medical graduate, its surprising he doesn't understand basic math surrounding averages.
44,000 is the Mean wage in Ireland. However this means squat because of income inequality and us being a tax haven. The median income is €27,000, vastly lower than what he accounted for.

I don't see the issue.

The median or mean wage is 44,000 is correct, as it only includes those who get up off their backside and go out to work.

The median income of 27,000 includes all of those who sit at home every day.

Simply a case of different measures. Leo isn't too far wrong.

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't see the issue.

The median or mean wage is 44,000 is correct, as it only includes those who get up off their backside and go out to work.

The median income of 27,000 includes all of those who sit at home every day.

Simply a case of different measures. Leo isn't too far wrong.

Like pensioners, stay at home mums or dads, who because of the cost of childcare, have to work hard at homemaking!
Sure if you are a pensioner or a homemaker worker, get a job and work, otherwise you are classed as a sit on your arse good for nothing, yes definitely a FG ideology!

blanch152

Edward M wrote: »

Like pensioners, stay at home mums or dads, who because of the cost of childcare, have to work hard at homemaking!
Sure if you are a pensioner or a homemaker worker, get a job and work, otherwise you are classed as a sit on your arse good for nothing, yes definitely a FG ideology!

That is not what I was saying.

Those who earn a wage should be higher than those who get an income. Otherwise, why would anyone work?

FreudianSlippers

Consonata wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/families-on-income-of-100000-shouldnt-be-seen-as-rich-varadkar-36985519.html

Sacre bleu. This is out of touch even for him



For a man who is a medical graduate, its surprising he doesn't understand basic math surrounding averages.
44,000 is the Mean wage in Ireland. However this means squat because of income inequality and us being a tax haven. The median income is €27,000, vastly lower than what he accounted for.

Maths aside, the merit of his statement holds true.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

That is not what I was saying.

Those who earn a wage should be higher than those who get an income. Otherwise, why would anyone work?

My understanding of the mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group, whereas the median income is the amount where 50% earn more than this figure and 50% earn less.


With unemployment at just 6% and a median income of 27,000 then does it not show that there are a lot of very low paid jobs. ?


While Varadkar may not view a couple with an income of 100,000 as rich, the 50% on 27,000 or less I image would beg to differ.

Colonel Claptrap

charlie14 wrote: »

My understanding of the mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group, whereas the median income is the amount where 50% earn more than this figure and 50% earn less.


With unemployment at just 6% and a median income of 27,000 then does it not show that there are a lot of very low paid jobs. ?


While Varadkar may not view a couple with an income of 100,000 as rich, the 50% on 27,000 or less I image would beg to differ.

A husband and wife on 50k each is very different from a husband on 27k and a wife on 73k. For a start their tax bill is very different. But it also skews all of those metrics when looking at the wider population.

Using 100k gross as an arbitrary yard stick to measure eligibility for children's allowance makes absolutely no sense. It has rightly been binned before seeing the light of day.

Remember, it was proposed by IBEC and simply considered by the minister, as is her remit. The kite had its day in the sun and has now been packed away into the attic, never to be seen again.

Chips Lovell

Talking about what average incomes are is quite tricky.

But two key points are:

Mean =/= Median

and

Income =/= Wages

Also, you need to be careful about distinguishing full time workers from part time workers. If you're using data that includes part time workers, then saying "X is the average annual salary" can be misleading, since lots of people assume that it's the average salary for full time work.

Finally, CSO stats aren't entirely representative as lots of high earners aren't in there, which means averages are dragged down somewhat:

This Central Statistics Office (CSO) data does not include many of the highest paid, eg many sole practitioners, doctors, accountants or solicitors in partnerships, nor the incomes – including gains made – of the very wealthy.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

My understanding of the mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group, whereas the median income is the amount where 50% earn more than this figure and 50% earn less.


With unemployment at just 6% and a median income of 27,000 then does it not show that there are a lot of very low paid jobs. ?


While Varadkar may not view a couple with an income of 100,000 as rich, the 50% on 27,000 or less I image would beg to differ.

No, it shows nothing of the sort.

Measures of median income and mean income include those on pensions, social welfare and disability benefit in their calculations.

Measures of median wage and mean wage (which Varadkar was talking about) only include those working.

The point behind what Varadkar is saying, and it is a very good one, is that we can't keep taking from the same people all of time, especially as they are the ones paying for everyone else.

Colonel Claptrap

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Finally, CSO stats aren't entirely representative as lots of high earners aren't in there, which means averages are dragged down somewhat:

Excellent point.

Also, black/grey market income is not included.

charlie14

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

A husband and wife on 50k each is very different from a husband on 27k and a wife on 73k. For a start their tax bill is very different. But it also skews all of those metrics when looking at the wider population.

Using 100k gross as an arbitrary yard stick to measure eligibility for children's allowance makes absolutely no sense. It has rightly been binned before seeing the light of day.

Remember, it was proposed by IBEC and simply considered by the minister, as is her remit. The kite had its day in the sun and has now been packed away into the attic, never to be seen again.

My post had nothing to do with the children`s allowance.


It was simply an observation that the median income in Ireland is 27,000 euro which shows that with 6% unemployment then for 50% of incomes being below that 27,000 euro then there are obviously a lot of very low paid jobs in Ireland.



Attempting to pair someone up on 27,000 with someone on 73,000 to reach Varadkar`s 100,000 is novel, I`ll grant you that, but not economic reality I`m afraid .

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

No, it shows nothing of the sort.

Measures of median income and mean income include those on pensions, social welfare and disability benefit in their calculations.

Measures of median wage and mean wage (which Varadkar was talking about) only include those working.

The point behind what Varadkar is saying, and it is a very good one, is that we can't keep taking from the same people all of time, especially as they are the ones paying for everyone else.

So what are you saying, that the median of 27,000 does not show that with just 6% unemployment that 50% have an income of less than 27,000?

charlie14

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Talking about what average incomes are is quite tricky.

But two key points are:

Mean =/= Median

and

Income =/= Wages

Also, you need to be careful about distinguishing full time workers from part time workers. If you're using data that includes part time workers, then saying "X is the average annual salary" can be misleading, since lots of people assume that it's the average salary for full time work.

Finally, CSO stats aren't entirely representative as lots of high earners aren't in there, which means averages are dragged down somewhat:

Mean average and median are not the same thing.


Median (in Ireland 27,000) is the figure above which 50% have an income of more than that figure, whereas the remaining 50% have an income of less.

Chips Lovell

charlie14 wrote: »

Mean average and median are not the same thing.

That's what I was pointing out.

Chips Lovell

Where is the €27,000 median income figure coming from BTW? CSO does household income but I've never come across individual income.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't see the issue.

The median or mean wage is 44,000 is correct, as it only includes those who get up off their backside and go out to work.

The median income of 27,000 includes all of those who sit at home every day.

Simply a case of different measures. Leo isn't too far wrong.

Is that what we're doing now? Cherry picking 'facts'? Murphy buys houses from the market and lists them as 'Social housing builds'. I mean they were built and they are being used for social housing, right? Now we can say 100% of people go to the library, if we only count those with library cards?
If Denis O'Brien lived in Ireland it would increase everyone's income

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Maths aside, the merit of his statement holds true.

That's very big of you.

I'm reminded of a mistake I made recently.

With Irish people having the highest level of personal debt in the EU

I should have said, highest level of debt per person in the EU. I was miss-outing from a previous post, which I'd linked to source.
But hey, the merit of my post, (including the other 99.9% of it which went ignored) held true, so no harm.