The Frederick St protest and reaction

Johnny Dogs

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Increasingly unhinged styled ramblings.

Settle petal.

Wheeliebin's dream is to abolish all taxation and deregulate everything and 'let the market decide'.

hmmm

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

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.

Just let us know where the money is coming from.

So far it's all magic money tree.

And I asked a simple question with that - are these houses for life?

Franz Von Peppercorn

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

A loan??

From who?

Banks, building societies, bond etc.

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

It absolutely was.

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

The people who now get subsidised rent.

Also they don’t get to own the property. That’s a Thatcherite belief system. Nor are cheaper houses to buy a good idea as it makes earning more a liability. It’s just social rentals. Instead of the private sector being tasked to provide long term family residencies (which it is not equipped for) the state takes over.

All Seeing Eye

There always seems to be convicted criminals involved in these free house for losers movements. Suppose you have to have the mentality of a thief to think you have the right to a house for free.

10000maniacs

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

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?

Ill take a stab at it.
Oh yes...
It's none of my business.
It's none of your business.
Or the business of leftie agitators who can't help but sniff around other peoples money when they should be earning their own and/or advising their supporters to earn their own.

Franz Von Peppercorn

hmmm wrote: »

Just let us know where the money is coming from.

So far it's all magic money tree.

And I asked a simple question with that - are these houses for life?

I already explained where the money will come from. A loan to begin with taken out by the council or state. Paid back via the rental earned and taxation. All less than the cost of paying private rent now. Which the government has to pay (increasing every year). This has already been done which is why I pointed out that 42% of the housing stock was council in Britain at one stage. Not sure if the maximum here.

The houseisn’t free. You pay rent. It shouldn’t be a house for life if your earning power increases. Rent should track earnings in fact, being low for low earners and higher for high earners, never exceeding market rent.

McMurphy

hmmm wrote: »

Just let us know where the money is coming from.

So far it's all magic money tree.

And I asked a simple question with that - are these houses for life?

120bn in FGs National Development Plan.

Shaking the magic money tree there too, right?

McMurphy

10000maniacs wrote: »

Ill take a stab at it.
Oh yes...
It's none of my business.
It's none of your business.
Or the business of leftie agitators who can't help but sniff around other peoples money when they should be earning their own and/or advising their supporters to earn their own.

This is where you let yourself down.

I engaged you with pretty civil and adult conversation, polite and uncondescending at all times.

Then I hit you with a fairly logical question, I get the scutter above?

We're done here.

10000maniacs

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

This is where you let yourself down.

I engaged you with pretty civil and adult conversation, hit you with a fairly logical question, I get the scutter above.

We're done here.

Your welcome.

Franz Von Peppercorn

10000maniacs wrote: »

Ill take a stab at it.
Oh yes...
It's none of my business.
It's none of your business.
Or the business of leftie agitators who can't help but sniff around other peoples money when they should be earning their own and/or advising their supporters to earn their own.

I pay 52% marginal. Some of which is paying off the last time capitalists, financial geniuses, developers and bankers shat the carpet.

It’s absolutely my business how the place is run.

hmmm

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

All less than the cost of paying private rent now. Which the government has to pay (increasing every year).

The private rental now is a short-term thing. Once someone gets a job, they pay their own rent.

You're talking about handing out an entirely free house for life which is what social housing is in this country.

Rent should track earnings in fact, being low for low earners and higher for high eaves never exceeding market rent.

Your plan appears to be to penalise people for trying to get a better job for themselves. Better job, more tax, higher rent.

It's a great message to send to our kids.

McMurphy

10000maniacs wrote: »

Your welcome.

Good night.

Visit me again when your argument has some merit worth defending.

hmmm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

120bn in FGs National Development Plan.

Shaking the magic money tree there too, right?

I'm assuming you want every bit of capital investment in our country diverted into free houses for people who don't work?

Not a school, hospital, road or bridge to be built until we can give everyone a free 3bed semi-d.

There's lots we can do to help alleviate the cost of housing, and cost of rents, but the "free houses" crowd have hijacked the debate.

c montgomery

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I already explained where the money will come from. A loan to begin with taken out by the council or state. Paid back via the rental earned and taxation. All less than the cost of paying private rent now. Which the government has to pay (increasing every year). This has already been done which is why I pointed out that 42% of the housing stock was council in Britain at one stage. Not sure if the maximum here.

The houseisn’t free. You pay rent. It shouldn’t be a house for life if your earning power increases. Rent should track earnings in fact, being low for low earners and higher for high earners, never exceeding market rent.

Someone else pays for it basically !!! Just say that.

Yer Da sells Avon

hmmm wrote: »

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

And those people would pay taxes too. And they'd buy stuff, which helps sustain other people's jobs. Hmmm, hmmm, maybe you're the one who needs to learn some basic economics. Having people employed is a good thing, whether it's in the public or private sector.

hmmm wrote:

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

Deduct it at source then. Problem solved.

hmmm wrote:

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?

Just be open and honest with people - everyone who works, and can't afford to buy a house, should pay 50% of their income to a private landlord. And in return, wealth can be transferred to people who already have lots of it. What's not to love?

McMurphy

hmmm wrote: »

I'm assuming you want every bit of capital investment in our country diverted into free houses for people who don't work?

Not a school, hospital, road or bridge to be built until we can give everyone a free 3bed semi-d.

No.

You'd be assuming wrong.

However I'm assuming that when the great plan was announced on how 120bn was planned to be spent , you didn't wonder where the cash was coming from.

At ease again.

Franz Von Peppercorn

hmmm wrote: »

The private rental now is a short-term thing. Once someone gets a job, they pay their own rent.

You're talking about handing out an entirely free house for life which is what social housing is in this country.

No I’m not. I’m talking about charging rent for social housing relative to income. Stop making up your own strawman arguments. Secondly some people in the present system are in private rental (subsidised by the tax payer) for decades. This is a huge and increasing cost.

Your plan appears to be to penalise people for trying to get a better job for themselves. Better job, more tax, higher rent.

First you say that the house is free then you don’t like the idea that rent increases in council housing as income increases. Of course it should. And if the social householder gets a high enough income he can buy a house. Which should be cheaper as fewer landlords will be competing as private rents will be lower.

It's a great message to send to our kids.

It is. Start off with a cheap council house as end up in a private house. Exactly how my parents did it.

hmmm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

However I'm assuming that when the great plan was announced on how 120bn was planned to be spent , you didn't wonder where the cash was coming from.

We know where the money is coming from - the government builds hospitals etc. out of the budget and the existing tax base.

Where are your billions coming from?

jluv

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.

But she is the poster child for homelessness. Given air time. Supported by politicians.
I'm all for supporting all who need help. I am NOT in favour of helping her or her ilk.

BBFAN

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.

You know you sound like the drunken old uncle in the corner waking up every half hour having a rant now don't you?

hmmm

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

No I’m not. I’m talking about charging rent for social housing relative to income.

Why would I or anyone else care about what plan you have dreamed up? This thread is about the protests we're currently seeing, and I've seen absolutely no coherent or costed plan from that group.

Instead you're sitting around on the Interwebs thinking up pie in the sky plans, which fly in the face of all experience we have to date - social housing is generally for life & currently in Dublin 26% are in arrears from their already meagre "rent".

McMurphy

hmmm wrote: »

We know where the money is coming from - the government builds hospitals etc. out of the budget and the existing tax base.

Where are your billions coming from?

Let's start with a land bank, empty properties tax?

Assets etc?

Small acorns and all that jazz.

Franz Von Peppercorn

c montgomery wrote: »

Someone else pays for it basically !!! Just say that.

Christ. That’s exactly what I wasn’t saying in the part where I said the council renter will pay rent.

If the house is paid for and the loan paid off (which will happen eventually) do you think that a house generating income costs more or less than subsidising the same type of house. One is generating income the other is a continuing liability.

You cretins do realise that we pay billions already to subsidise housing?

Franz Von Peppercorn

hmmm wrote: »

We know where the money is coming from - the government builds hospitals etc. out of the budget and the existing tax base.

Where are your billions coming from?

Ffs. The billions are coming from the same place as the billions that now fund social housing via subsidised private rental.

jluv

BBFAN wrote: »

You know you sound like the drunken old uncle in the corner waking up every half hour having a rant now don't you?

Everything he says is true though? Why are we not highlighting a family who is a two parent working family who through no fault of their own( sick kid,ailing parent,loss of job etc,you get it) .Ms Cash is someone who has done nothing to help herself so she should not even be part of this conversation. This should be about people who are homeless through no fault of their own and have no way of sorting it without help. Ms cash does not fit that description and Mary Lou(who I actually like normally) should not be endorsing someone who does not want to involve and contribute to our society..

McMurphy

jluv wrote: »

Everything he says is true though? Why are we not highlighting a family who is a two parent working family who through no fault of their own( sick kid,ailing parent,loss of job etc,you get it) .Ms Cash is someone who has done nothing to help herself so she should not even be part of this conversation. This should be about people who are homeless through no fault of their own and have no way of sorting it without help. Ms cash does not fit that description and Mary Lou(who I actually like normally) should not be endorsing someone who does not want to involve and contribute to our society..

No one really gives a fiddlers fart about Mag Cash..

Poster baddy.


Context.

BBFAN

jluv wrote: »

Everything he says is true though? Why are we not highlighting a family who is a two parent working family who through no fault of their own( sick kid,ailing parent,loss of job etc,you get it) .Ms Cash is someone who has done nothing to help herself so she should not even be part of this conversation. This should be about people who are homeless through no fault of their own and have no way of sorting it without help. Ms cash does not fit that description and Mary Lou(who I actually like normally) should not be endorsing someone who does not want to involve and contribute to our society..

It's very simple, no truly vulnerable person would come forward to subject themselves to this kind of scrutiny, vitriol, vile, disgusting abuse.

Would you like your fanny/dick discussed on a public forum in relation to housing?

We don't get to decide who gets housed based on whether we like them or not.

jluv

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

No one really gives a fiddlers fart about Mag Cash..

Poster baddy.


Context.

She is given voice time at a lot of their protests so I see her at a poster child. Taking away from true cases IMO..

hmmm

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Ffs. The billions are coming from the same place as the billions that now fund social housing via subsidised private rental.

Government forecast is 3 billion over next five years. That would pay for only 6000 houses.

mynamejeff

BBFAN wrote: »

It's very simple, no truly vulnerable person would come forward to subject themselves to this kind of scrutiny, vitriol, vile, disgusting abuse.

Would you like your fanny/dick discussed on a public forum in relation to housing?

We don't get to decide who gets housed based on whether we like them or not.

well to be fair almost as many people have passed trough her fanny as have been president of Ireland

would it be acceptable to you if we decided who gets housed biased on how much and how long they have contributed to the country ?

back of the line scroungers like her

Arghus

jluv wrote: »

She is given voice time at a lot of their protests so I see her at a poster child. Taking away from true cases IMO..

Then worry about the true cases then.

People seem to be more worked up about the media coverage she has gotten than they can manage to be about anything else. A lot of wasted energy IMO.

jluv

BBFAN wrote: »

It's very simple, no truly vulnerable person would come forward to subject themselves to this kind of scrutiny, vitriol, vile, disgusting abuse.

Would you like your fanny/dick discussed on a public forum in relation to housing?

We don't get to decide who gets housed based on whether we like them or not.

It's not actually a case of whether I like her or not. It's actually a case of whether she's deserving or not. And in comparison to others she is much less deserving. Show how you have tried to provide housing for your kids. Show how you have worked to provide a house and standard of living for your kids. Show how you have struggled.I know a lot of people who can do that. I read and see people who do that and struggle and have kids who have issues etc .People who have given and been productive members of society.
We have a housing issue. We need to prioritise who get assistance.

jluv

Arghus wrote: »

Then worry about the true cases then.

People seem to be more worked up about the media coverage she has gotten than they can manage to be about anything else. A lot of wasted energy IMO.

Well when you see a senior member of politics seated beside her,basically promoting her,what do you think?

10000maniacs

hmmm wrote: »

Government forecast is 3 billion over next five years. That would pay for only 6000 houses.

€3 billion?, €30 billion?, €300 billion?. Who cares where it comes from. There seems to be these elves who get up at 7:00am, go somewhere incomprensible and arrive home at 7:00pm. And then there is money to build our free houses. Its magical. Oh look, theres some of those elves in that Lidl store. Lets go rob it and then bulldoze it. Put them out of work for six months.

dreamers75

hmmm wrote: »

Government forecast is 3 billion over next five years. That would pay for only 6000 houses.

Depends on who is building them really.

I reckon I could build 24k homes for that price*


Assuming the land was free

Arghus

jluv wrote: »

Well when you see a senior member of politics seated beside her,basically promoting her,what do you think?

I think that she's probably shouldn't be used as one of the main figures in a campaign about homelessness - there's way too much questionable stuff about her - but people need to use their brains and know that there is a genuine housing crisis going on in the country, that's affecting a lot more than Margaret Cash. I have no control over who puts her on television.

Think about it: when things get out of hand, as they are right now, with accommodation in this country does it not make logical sense that the first people to complain will be the long term unemployed and/or homeless. As much as everyone here seems to think that they all en-masse have beautiful care free lives, when a crunch like this occurs it's that section of society that ferls the pressure first and with the greatest force.

Yer Da sells Avon

BBFAN wrote: »

You know you sound like the drunken old uncle in the corner waking up every half hour having a rant now don't you?

If she didn't exist, they'd have to invent her. Anything to avoid having an honest discussion about the effect of the housing crisis on working people, who they also don't give a fuck about.

Wheeliebin30

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

No one really gives a fiddlers fart about Mag Cash..

Poster baddy.


Context.

She was on RTÉ 6 news

jluv

Arghus wrote: »

I think that she's probably shouldn't be used as one of the main figures in a campaign about homelessness - there's way too much questionable stuff about her - but people need to use their brains and know that there is a genuine housing crisis going on in the country, that's affecting a lot more than Margaret Cash. I have no control over who puts her on television.

Think about it: when things get out of hand, as they are right now, with accommodation in this country does it not make logical sense that the first people to complain will be the long term unemployed and/or homeless. As much as everyone here seems to think that they all en-masse have beautiful care free lives, when a crunch like this occurs it's that section of society that ferls the pressure first and with the greatest force.

See,I'm in agreement with you here,long term unemployed/genuine homeless I want to be there for. Targeting big useless housing in Dublin is not the way though..He's rich and shouldn't have his house lying idle..no..lay blame where blame should lie. County councils sold off housing which should be for people who need help! Thats done ,nothing can be done about it..where next..
Council estates..bring up every vacant house to living standard..ghost estates ,houses are practibly built,would take very little to bring them up to standard. Offer to families within a one hour radius (an acceptable criteria when accepting a job offer) If refused then name taken off register as you are now deemed not homeless,.

Annasopra

hmmm wrote: »

The private rental now is a short-term thing. Once someone gets a job, they pay their own rent.

You're talking about handing out an entirely free house for life which is what social housing is in this country.

Your plan appears to be to penalise people for trying to get a better job for themselves. Better job, more tax, higher rent.

It's a great message to send to our kids.

This is sheer utter drivel and nonsense. Social housing in this country is not entirely for free in this country. People living in social housing pay rent. When they work they pay a higher rent proportionate to their wages.

Its actually laughable the comments on here from people opposed to social housing dont actually know what they are talking about.

Annasopra

jluv wrote: »

It's not actually a case of whether I like her or not. It's actually a case of whether she's deserving or not. And in comparison to others she is much less deserving. Show how you have tried to provide housing for your kids. Show how you have worked to provide a house and standard of living for your kids. Show how you have struggled.I know a lot of people who can do that. I read and see people who do that and struggle and have kids who have issues etc .People who have given and been productive members of society.
We have a housing issue. We need to prioritise who get assistance.

Ah ok. There we have it.
We want to go back to victorian times of extreme judgementalism and dividing people into "deserving poor" "undeserving poor"

McMurphy

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

She was on RT6 news

I didn't put her there.....

Have you emailed RTE yet and asked why they did?

Johnny Dogs

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

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?

What makes you think that they’re not paying LPT or aren’t liable for it? A property has to be on the point of collapse before it’s exempt. Lack of water and electricity aren’t enough.

Alrigghtythen

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ah ok. There we have it.
We want to go back to victorian times of extreme judgementalism and dividing people into "deserving poor" "undeserving poor"

Who's poor? Not Ms. Cash.

Tell us why you support choosing to keep children homeless.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

What makes you think that they’re not paying LPT or aren’t liable for it? A property has to be on the point of collapse before it’s exempt. Lack of water and electricity aren’t enough.

Passing opinion as fact?

Where did you get that nugget of information from?

sexmag

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Passing opinion as fact?

Where did you get that nugget of information from?

There are other instances that people have a house vacent, a big issue for Irish people these daus is inherited houses from deceased parents,not only do they have to pay a massive amount of inheritance tax but they would then have to pay further tax for it to be vacent or they have to rent it out thus becoming these desipised landlords you are all referring too,you are penalizing people even further for the death of their parents and they can't win either way

Johnny Dogs

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Passing opinion as fact?

Where did you get that nugget of information from?

Passing knowledge as fact.

Graces7

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ah ok. There we have it.
We want to go back to victorian times of extreme judgementalism and dividing people into "deserving poor" "undeserving poor"

and the y all in those days ended up in the dreaded "workus"..

McMurphy

sexmag wrote: »

There are other instances that people have a house vacent, a big issue for Irish people these daus is inherited houses from deceased parents,not only do they have to pay a massive amount of inheritance tax but they would then have to pay further tax for it to be vacent or they have to rent it out thus becoming these desipised landlords you are all referring too,you are penalizing people even further for the death of their parents and they can't win either way

Firstly, I don't depsise anyone, but I think it's interesting that you feel someone with property (which we were told is an asset ref LPT) can afford to have sitting idle, but going back to your first analogy about inheriting a house.

How is this any different to a working person or couple who were taxed on every cent they earned in order to gather up a deposit to buy their home, maybe pay stamp duty on it, and vat on all the goods and services associated with owning and running a home, and then have to pay an annual recurring property tax because the property they own and live in is "an asset"

Yet someone who inherits property, can afford to have it sitting unused in the midst of a housing and homeless crises, possibly increasing in value every week should escape this tax?

Ditto for those with vast land banks.

You can't have it both ways, either a property is an asset or it is not.

Sh1t or get off the pot.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

Passing knowledge as fact.

No it's not really, the LPT exemption rules were posted earlier and there was no mention to your facts/knowledge.

Saying something is fact doesn't make it so.