The Frederick St protest and reaction

pjohnson

[Deleted User] wrote: »

bizzarrer and bizzarrer

paying into the shared pot means you cant complain at all

doing nothing means you should be lauded for lying in the street when you dont get free stuff

funny stuff again

Again when did I laud anyone :pac:

c montgomery

I would call middle Ireland those who already own a home, can afford to own a home in the future or who can rent a property without too much hassle.

tigger123

c montgomery wrote: »

I would call middle Ireland those who already own a home, can afford to own a home in the future or who can rent a property without too much hassle.

Going by that definition, being middle class has really been downgraded.

martingriff

Just wondering when they will get a stop on eviction looking forward to stop paying my mortgage and not have to worry about anything

hmmm

Deleted User wrote: »

On a saturday?

Lads, I know this whole "working" thing is a bit alien to you, but lots of people are at a work on a Saturday too.

Earning money, which you want to take off them and spend on social housing.

You know, those people? The ones who get to sit on a bus for an hour while you sit on the street.

Stop getting in the way of workers, as it is earning you no sympathy and actively turning people against you.

Wheeliebin30

pjohnson wrote: »

No as I said before theres two types of tax payers. Those who pay tax and get on with their lives and then theres tax payers like you

Get on with their lives?

Are we not allowed voice an opinion on why our taxes are been spunked on absolute wasters like the criminal Margaret Cash.

Ah sure I’ll just be a good boy and get in with it.

c montgomery

tigger123 wrote: »

Going by that definition, being middle class has really been downgraded.

Social mobility

y0ssar1an22

c montgomery wrote: »

I would call middle Ireland those who already own a home, can afford to own a home in the future or who can rent a property without too much hassle.

you know whats kind of sad, cash can afford to rent a home now.

dont understand how no one has asked her how she can afford all the crap she buys. i dont know what her gross wage would be, but its prob in the top 20% of the labour force.

Wheeliebin30

martingriff wrote: »

Just wondering when they will get a stop on eviction looking forward to stop paying my mortgage and not have to worry about anything

Stop paying your mortgage comrade.

After all were all entitled to not pay it.

y0ssar1an22

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Stop paying your mortgage comrade.

After all were all entitled to not pay it.

will i get a 4 bed in dublin?

Wheeliebin30

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

will i get a 4 bed in dublin?

If you sleep in a Garda station tonight. Well yes.....

Yer Da sells Avon

c montgomery wrote: »

I would call middle Ireland those who already own a home, can afford to own a home in the future or who can rent a property without too much hassle.

That differs considerably from Wheeliebin30's definition. You can't both be right.

Anyway, those who can afford to own a home in the future would undoubtedly benefit from a huge social housing project, as it would inevitably reduce demand, thus reducing house prices and giving them greater choice. Those who can rent a property without too much hassle, if such a person exists in the current climate, would also benefit from a huge social housing project, as it would inevitably reduce demand for private rentals, thus reducing rental prices and giving them greater choice.

Which leaves us with those who already own a home (and who are 100% certain that they'll never lose it). They are the only people within your 'middle Ireland' category who might have a legitimate (albeit wholly selfish) reason for objecting to anything that decreases demand for private housing.

martingriff

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Stop paying your mortgage comrade.

After all were all entitled to not pay it.

Right on comrade. Only wished I started sooner, think of all the money I could have saved

Wheeliebin30

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

That differs considerably from Wheeliebin30's definition. You can't both be right.

Anyway, those who can afford to own a home in the future would undoubtedly benefit from a huge social housing project, as it would inevitably reduce demand, thus reducing house prices and giving them greater choice. Those who can rent a property without too much hassle, if such a person exists in the current climate, would also benefit from a huge social housing project, as it would inevitably reduce demand for private rentals, thus reducing rental prices and giving them greater choice.

Which leaves us with those who already own a home (and who are 100% certain that they'll never lose it). They are the only people within your 'middle Ireland' category who might have a legitimate (albeit wholly selfish) reason for objecting to anything that decreases demand for private housing.

How many houses?

How much will it cost?

And finally who will pay for it?

Oh and will Margaret Cash the criminal be “entitled” to one of these?

hmmm

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Anyway, those who can afford to own a home in the future would undoubtedly benefit from a huge social housing project, as it would inevitably reduce demand, thus reducing house prices and giving them greater choice.

The most recent social housing build I saw mentioned in the paper had units costing 500k each to build.

I'm not so sure those who "can afford to own a home in the future" would be happy to see a massive tax increase to pay for a huge social housing project. If we build 50,000 free houses (at a cost of 25 billion), someone has to pay for it - and you can be sure that it will be the usual income tax payers who will be the ones paying. There will also need to be a massive increase in the numbers of council staff to administer this program, and to look after the social housing into the future.

martingriff

I know this will be unpalatable to some but what we need is the developers to develop, builders to build and banks to lend. Will this mean that some of those we hate will come back and get rich so be it. If the laws are enforced then we get back to some normalcy.

martingriff

martingriff wrote: »

I know this will be unpalatable to some but what we need is the developers to develop, builders to build and banks to lend.

Controversial :pac: I cant see many of the proponents of todays march going for it though.

But yes I agree.

Houses and importantly apartments need to be built for an expanding population and I'm not particularly hung up on whether they are public or private.

Yer Da sells Avon

hmmm wrote: »

The most recent social housing build I saw mentioned in the paper had units costing 500k each to build.

I'm not so sure those who "can afford to own a home in the future" would be happy to see a massive tax increase to pay for a huge social housing project. If we build 50,000 free houses (at a cost of 25 billion), someone has to pay for it - and you can be sure that it will be the usual income tax payers who will be the ones paying. There will also need to be a massive increase in the numbers of council staff to administer this program, and to look after the social housing into the future.

Yeah, I forgot to mention the fact that it would create a large number of jobs, both short and long-term. That's somehow a 'bad' thing now. Jesus wept.

Also, they would not be 'free houses'. Tenants would pay rent. The Workers' Party has a good social housing policy (full document available here), whereby people on less than €35,000 would pay rent at a rate of 15% of their income. Those earning more than €35,000 (currently unfairly excluded from social housing) would pay 15% of the first €35,000 and then 30% of any income above that.

I know removing developers from the equation would be inexplicably unpalatable to some people on here, but I'd love to know why exactly. I mean, apart from the usual 'thocialism' 'reds-under-the-bed' shite that right-wingers are so fond of mindlessly spouting.

Wheeliebin30

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Yeah, I forgot to mention the fact that it would create a large number of jobs, both short and long-term. That's somehow a 'bad' thing now. Jesus wept.

Also, they would not be 'free houses'. Tenants would pay rent. The Workers' Party has a good social housing policy (full document available here), whereby people on less than €35,000 would pay rent at a rate of 15% of their income. Those earning more than €35,000 (currently unfairly excluded from social housing) would pay 15% of the first €35,000 and then 30% of any income above that.

I know removing developers from the equation would be inexplicably unpalatable to some people on here, but I'd love to know why exactly. I mean, apart from the usual 'thocialism' 'reds-under-the-bed' shite that right-wingers are so fond of mindlessly spouting.

Errmmm what caused the last property crash????

Seriously this is basic stuff.

Yer Da sells Avon

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Errmmm what caused the last property crash????

Seriously this is basic stuff.

Explain in detail, please.

upandcumming

pjohnson wrote: »

Eh would they not be smart enough to ensure they had enough money to do it up? Or buy a house that doesnt need such expensive doing up?

Like Mags should have done with her kids?

Wheeliebin30

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Explain in detail, please.

Build build build...

Ghost estates.

Yer Da sells Avon

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Build build build...

Ghost estates.

That argument might have had some validity, had it been a response to this post:

martingriff wrote: »

I know this will be unpalatable to some but what we need is the developers to develop, builders to build and banks to lend. Will this mean that some of those we hate will come back and get rich so be it. If the laws are enforced then we get back to some normalcy.

Kermit.de.frog

Anyone see the English guy who threw a severed pigeon's head at the (female) protesters?


Now, I despise the protesters as much as the next person but they are our protesters and I despise those type of English exceptionalist wa!kers even more.

10000maniacs

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I would tend to agree with you if we were not in the middle of a housing crisis. Use it or pay for the privilege of it sitting idle.

You are missing the point. The property is already paid for by hard-working citizens. Hands off lefties. Vacant properties have got nothing to do with you. Earn your own money.
There is a fine line between the left wing crap we are hearing in Ireland now and authoritarianist communism.

Sheep breeder

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Again.

Farmers protests.

Discuss.

Farmers protest was outside ag house on Kildare street not on the bridge at work hour traffic,

McMurphy

10000maniacs wrote: »

You are missing the point. The property is already paid for by hard-working citizens. Hands off lefties. Vacant properties have got nothing to do with you. Earn your own money.
There is a fine line between the left wing crap we are hearing in Ireland now and authoritarianist communism.

I believe the point might be that (according to the govt shills during the LPT debates) that a home/property is an asset, and an asset should be liable to be taxed.

If, for example you own property, and it's an inhabited one - it's taxed.

Uninhabited ones, or not fit to be escape said tax.

So if you own property (which is an asset mind) if you're owning it with the sole intention of hoarding it, it should be liable to a tax also.

Land banks and property speculation should be taxable (as assets) the same as.

martingriff

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

That argument might have had some validity, had it been a response to this post:

I think building out will be something to happen. Maybe if jobs were in other places then Dublin and the government encouraged this then the housing shortage may be less

McMurphy

Sheep breeder wrote: »

Farmers protest was outside ag house on Kildare street not on the bridge at work hour traffic,

Hard to define what exactly constituents work hour traffic on a weekend.

Regardless,



Looks like blocking a public highway to me.

Bastards.

10000maniacs

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I believe the point might be that (according to the govt shills during the LPT debates) that a home/property is an asset, and an asset should be liable to be taxed.

If, for example you own property, and it's an inhabited one - it's taxed.

Uninhabited ones, or not fit to be escape said tax.

So if you own property (which is an asset mind) if you're owning it with the sole intention of hoarding it, it should be liable to a tax also.

Land banks and property speculation should be taxable (as assets) the same as.

But everybody who owns property is liable to pay property tax whether its occupied or not. Are you suggesting an extra tax on top of that?

McMurphy

10000maniacs wrote: »

But everybody who owns property is liable to pay property tax whether its occupied or not. Are you suggesting an extra tax on top of that?

Um, no they're not.

Are you familiar with LPT rules at all?

10000maniacs

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Um, no they're not.

Are you familiar with LPT rules at all?

Unoccupied and uninhabitable properties

If a residential property is suitable for use as a dwelling but is unoccupied, it is liable for LPT.

Wheeliebin30

Tax tax tax.

For the wasters and arts folk.

Heard a self employed female of the arts today giving out she can’t afford this and that and a house....

Self employed artist????????

Wheeliebin30

Margaret Cash doesn’t work.

She is a criminal.

Her fella is a convicted burglar who terrorizes old people but but...

They deserve a house for free.

Defend that mofos.

McMurphy

10000maniacs wrote: »

Unoccupied and uninhabitable properties

If a residential property is suitable for use as a dwelling but is unoccupied, it is liable for LPT.

Unoccupied and uninhabitable properties
If a residential property is suitable for use as a dwelling but is unoccupied, it is liable for LPT. However, if the property is not suitable for use as a dwelling, it is not liable for LPT and you do not need to make an LPT return. If you think that your property is not suitable for use as a dwelling and it is not being lived in, you must notify Revenue as soon as possible after receiving your LPT return. You must also include relevant supporting documentation, for example, an engineer’s report. Revenue will consider your claim and make a decision using the documentation you provide.

Thems the rules.

Do you think the premises this thread is centred on, (apparently unused for x amount of years) would be classed as a property fit to be lived in?

Did it have running water/electric and whatever else makes the distinction between a property that is habitable, and one that isn't?

My guess (it's only a guess admittedly) is that it's prob not in a state that would make it fall under the LPT rules.

Only a guess mind.

But I'd also guess that leaving it unlived in, for these years without rent/use is a terrible waste of a property. (Assuming it was fit to be lived in)

Specially in the midst of a housing and homeless crises.

Franz Von Peppercorn

10000maniacs wrote: »

You are missing the point. The property is already paid for by hard-working citizens. Hands off lefties. Vacant properties have got nothing to do with you. Earn your own money.
There is a fine line between the left wing crap we are hearing in Ireland now and authoritarianist communism.

Maybe it was inherited by idle citizens.

McMurphy

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Margaret Cash doesn’t work.

She is a criminal.

Her fella is a convicted burglar who terrorizes old people but but...

They deserve a house for free.

Defend that mofos.

Margaret Cash's dingo ate my baby.

Arghus

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Margaret Cash doesn’t work.

She is a criminal.

Her fella is a convicted burglar who terrorizes old people but but...

They deserve a house for free.

Defend that mofos.

That may be all very true, but it doesn't make the housing situation any less farcical.

Don't get yourself tied into knots about Margaret Cash, loads of people are struggling to find decent accommodation, loads of hard working decent people, who are more than willing to pay their hard earned money. Margaret Cash this, Margaret Cash this - that's a cop out, focusing on one person because they conform to all your sterotypes. She's not the only one out there struggling.

Wheeliebin30

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Thems the rules.

Do you think the premises this thread is centred on, (apparently unused for x amount of years) would be classed as a property fit to be lived in?

Did it have running water/electric and whatever else makes the distinction between a property that is habitable, and one that isn't?

My guess (it's only a guess admittedly) is that it's prob not in a state that would make it fall under the LPT rules.

Only a guess mind.

But I'd also guess that leaving it unlived in, for these years without rent/use is a terrible waste of a property. (Assuming it was fit to be lived in)

Specially in the midst of a housing and homeless crises.

Who’s business is it????

Communism my comrades.

You have something I don’t, give me that.

Yep worked well in the USSR.

Christ.

hmmm

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Yeah, I forgot to mention the fact that it would create a large number of jobs, both short and long-term. That's somehow a 'bad' thing now. Jesus wept.

It "creates jobs" which require more taxes to pay. Learn some basic economics will you.

Also, they would not be 'free houses'. Tenants would pay rent.

26% of existing social housing are in rent arrears, even though the amounts being charged are pitiful. It's a joke.

Just be open and honest with people - everyone who works should pay an extra 50% tax, and in return they can see free houses handed out to people who don't work. What's not to love?

Wheeliebin30

Arghus wrote: »

That may be all very true, but it doesn't make the housing situation any less farcical.

Don't get yourself tied into knots about Margaret Cash, loads of people are struggling to find decent accommodation, loads of hard working decent people, who are more than willing to pay their hard earned money. Margaret Cash this, Margaret Cash this - that's a cop out, focusing on one person because they conform to all your sterotypes. She's not the only one out there struggling.

Well why was she allowed be the mouth piece for the “homeless” today then?????????

10000maniacs

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Thems the rules.

Do you think the premises this thread is centred on, (apparently unused for x amount of years) would be classed as a property fit to be lived in?

Did it have running water/electric and whatever else makes the distinction between a property that is habitable, and one that isn't?

My guess (it's only a guess admittedly) is that it's prob not in a state that would make it fall under the LPT rules.

Only a guess mind.

But I'd also guess that leaving it unlived in, for these years without rent/use is a terrible waste of a property. (Assuming it was fit to be lived in)

Specially in the midst of a housing and homeless crises.

I know the rules. A property is classed as uninhabitable for a reason. Um...…. It can't be lived in. Thems the rules.:)
Why would the protesters snatch and occupy uninhabitable properties? Anyway they haven't so far.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

How many houses?

I think they used to build 5000 a year.

How much will it cost?

Depends on how many are built.

And finally who will pay for it?

Initially a loan at low interest rates paid back by rent payments or taxes. Should be less than the ever increasing cost of rent subsidies.

Oh and will Margaret Cash the criminal be “entitled” to one of these?

Probably.

Arghus

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Well why was she allowed be the mouth piece for the “homeless” today then?????????

I haven't a clue and I don't really care.

McMurphy

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Who’s business is it????

Communism my comrades.

You have something I don’t, give me that.

Yep worked well in the USSR.

Christ.

Increasingly unhinged styled ramblings.

Settle petal.

hmmm

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Initially a loan at low interest rates paid back by rent payments or taxes. Should be less than the ever increasing cost of rent subsidies.

Will these be houses for life?

I'm assuming a rent subsidy stops when someone can afford to rent privately i.e. gets an education & gets a job.

What happens when interest rates on the national debt starts to increase?

10000maniacs

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Maybe it was inherited by idle citizens.

So will the secret police carry out checks to find this out in your utopia?

Wheeliebin30

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I think they used to build 5000 a year.



Depends on how many are built.



Initially a loan at low interest rates paid back by rent payments or taxes. Should be less than the ever increasing cost of rent subsidies.



Probably.

A loan??

From who?

It wasn’t viable in the past and it isn’t now.

Next question- who can avail of these knock down houses?

Franz Von Peppercorn

hmmm wrote: »

It "creates jobs" which require more taxes to pay. Learn some basic economics will you.

26% of existing social housing are in rent arrears, even though the amounts being charged are pitiful. It's a joke.

Just be open and honest with people - everyone who works should pay an extra 50% tax, and in return they can see free houses handed out to people who don't work. What's not to love?

You realise all this used to work and work fairly well, and taxes weren’t that high. 42% of the U.K. lived in social housing at one time.

McMurphy

10000maniacs wrote: »

I know the rules. A property is classed as uninhabitable for a reason. Um...…. It can't be lived in. Thems the rules.:)
Why would the protesters snatch and occupy uninhabitable properties? Anyway they haven't so far.

This takes us back to the asset being taxed argument.

Why should a family who are paying lpt on their home, including all the taxes on top of the upkeep of said home be taxed on it, because the property (or home) is an asset, yet those who own a property, bought for investment purposes (that's an asset, right?) Not be

It's a circle that needs squared.

Fancy taking a stab at it?