All's not well in FG.

Plumbthedepths

is_that_so wrote: »

How much will this cost taxpayers?

Nothing as I suspect FG will block it, just the optics won't be good for FG. I think FF know this aswell.

is_that_so

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Doesn't answer your claim that homeowners wouldn't be happy. I as a homeowner am indifferent as in the past I received the first time buyers grant.

Any more than your view of it suggests they will. It's a pre-election stunt and an opportune moment to exploit a weak government. I'm dubious about the effect of the freeze but it could do something but not effectively refunding rent paid.

McMurphy

is_that_so wrote: »

Your disdain for FG overrides it? Apart from flirting with renters I can see no reason for it that doesn't scream vote for me/us and we'll give you even more freebies. Never a fan of that type of thing from any party.

We'll that didn't answer the question asked.

Did you confuse homeowners with landlords perhaps?

is_that_so

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Nothing as I suspect FG will block it, just the optics won't be good for FG. I think FF know this aswell.

I'm inclined to agree on them blocking it but it would still be nice to see how SF have costed it. Optics are of little consequence at this stage. Roll on GE 2020.

Plumbthedepths

is_that_so wrote: »

Any more than your view of it suggests they will. It's a pre-election stunt and an opportune moment to exploit a weak government. I'm dubious about the effect of the freeze but it could do something but not effectively refunding rent paid.

You made a claim and not willing to offer a reason as to how you arrived at it, that's fine one can assume it's just made up and is just you guessing. I offered my own opinion as a homeowner.

Plumbthedepths

is_that_so wrote: »

I'm inclined to agree on them blocking it but it would still be nice to see how SF have costed it. Optics are of little consequence at this stage. Roll on GE 2020.

FG likes to remind the electorate of the failings of others. Do you not think the same tactics will be employed by others pointing to the blocking of certain legislation?

is_that_so

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

We'll that didn't answer the question asked.

Did you perhaps confuse homeowners with landlords perhaps?

Nope.

is_that_so

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

FG likes to remind the electorate of the failings of others. Do you not think the same tactics will be employed by others pointing to the blocking of certain legislation?

Putting a cost on it gives people a chance to evaluate the merit of it. If that is large it's not going to be pushed as a stick to beat them with. The government/FG counter is that it is a supply issue but that they are being built. General elections tend to be more broad strokes anyway. That's a bit too specific.

is_that_so

is_that_so wrote: »

How much will this cost taxpayers?

Not a red cent as twill never come to pass. Electioneering stunt by SF. FF are peed off that they didn’t think of it first!

is_that_so

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You made a claim and not willing to offer a reason as to how you arrived at it, that's fine one can assume it's just made up and is just you guessing. I offered my own opinion as a homeowner.

Any opinion can be called a claim if one is so minded.

Plumbthedepths

is_that_so wrote: »

Putting a cost on it gives people a chance to evaluate the merit of it. If that is large it's not going to be pushed as a stick to beat them with. The government/FG counter is that it is a supply issue but that they are being built. General elections tend to be more broad strokes anyway. That's a bit too specific.

One thing FG cannot do at the next election is take the high ground claiming fiscal responsibility.

Plumbthedepths

is_that_so wrote: »

Any opinion can be called a claim if one is so minded.

It's ok, no need to keep explaining. You can't back it up that's fine as I already said.

is_that_so

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

One thing FG cannot do at the next election is take the high ground claiming fiscal responsibility.

Well they do have a Budget surplus but it will probably be good old-fashioned what X will do versus what Y will do in the big ticket area. Whoever does get the biggest slice is likely to reap the rewards of that housing being built.

Plumbthedepths

I'm no fan of FF but this has got to be one of the stupidest claims made by a FG politician, well it's up there with the other FG TD ( forgot his name )describing water protestors as the Irish version of ISIS.
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fg-will-rely-on-brexit-in-election-but-an-attack-on-ff-over-eu-is-low-blow-38769615.html

James Brown

ELM327 wrote: »

Yes they would target evil landlords too

They should tax any property speculators to the hilt during a housing crisis. 1 in 4 TD's any way.

is_that_so wrote: »

How much will this cost taxpayers?

FG don't care about tax payers. We sold houses to vulture funds through NAMA and then bought them back to use as social housing, some respect.

is_that_so wrote: »

Any more than your view of it suggests they will. It's a pre-election stunt and an opportune moment to exploit a weak government. I'm dubious about the effect of the freeze but it could do something but not effectively refunding rent paid.

They all engage in these stunts including 'change the way we do business' 'end the scandal of hospital trolleys' Fine Gael right?

is_that_so

Matt Barrett wrote: »

They should tax any property speculators to the hilt during a housing crisis. 1 in 4 TD's any way.



FG don't care about tax payers. We sold houses to vulture funds through NAMA and then bought them back to use as social housing, some respect.

Given they are not keen on this at all one might suggest they are on the taxpayer's side!

They all engage in these stunts including 'change the way we do business' 'end the scandal of hospital trolleys' Fine Gael right?

The "scandal" has been with us for a very long time and will continue no matter who we have until someone figures out all the moving parts and gets them working. Even then the changing demographics may well make it a headline in 2030, 40,50, even 2100!

James Brown

is_that_so wrote: »

Given they are not keen on this at all one might suggest they are on the taxpayer's side!


The "scandal" has been with us for a very long time and will continue no matter who we have until someone figures out all the moving parts and gets them working. Even then the changing demographics may well make it a headline in 2030, 40,50, even 2100!

The topic was election stunts. So you are in agreement promising to 'end the scandal of hospital trolleys' was a stunt.
Very defeatist attitude.

is_that_so

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The topic was election stunts. So you are in agreement promising to 'end the scandal of hospital trolleys' was a stunt.
Very defeatist attitude.

I don't think it set out that way but there was political capital to be had if it had been successful. Ultimately it was hubris and a lack of understanding of all aspects of the problem that brought it down. It was like many political promises, overpromising without checking if it could even be done.

James Brown

is_that_so wrote: »

I don't think it set out that way but there was political capital to be had if it had been successful. Ultimately it was hubris and a lack of understanding of all aspects of the problem that brought it down. It was like many political promises, overpromising without checking if it could even be done.

So promises are not stunts if FG make them. Even when they have opportunity but remain unfulfilled. Fair enough.

McMurphy

is_that_so wrote: »

Nope.

But won't or can't elaborate on why exactly it would upset homeowners.

Fair enough, I'll chalk it down as nonsense so.

Idbatterim

ELM327 wrote: »

See, I was just about to agree 100% with your post, but a SF led government would be a catastrophe for everyone.


I agree with the sentiments in your post, but SF is not the answer. It's like trying to avoid a war by detonating nuclear bombs everywhere. The war is avoided but there's noone left to see it!

the thing is though, it would be a SF coalition, the notion of any party coming close to a majority here again are LOOOOOOONG gone! Matt they dont have to be landlords to want rising prices, they are all homeowners with a vested interest in rising prices !

Calhoun

ELM327 wrote: »

I reckon we'd return to PAYE tax levels from the 80's, rising unemployment due to the loss of 500k jobs directly or indirectly classed as FDI - as SF would raise corporation tax. Everyone on the dole would have free houses and allowances out the wazoo and any idiot like me who was raised with a sense of ambition that has a job will be taxed to the hilt.

I would also recon the same, its why even though im unhappy with FG/FF id still vote for them ahead of allot of the left in Ireland.

Simply put as a middle income earner, i am already being squeezed and i can guarantee it would be a hell of allot worse. Until we move to a more equitable tax system then don't expect any changes in voting patterns.

is_that_so

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So promises are not stunts if FG make them. Even when they have opportunity but remain unfulfilled. Fair enough.

Well if you'd bothered to read my post properly you'd notice that I didn't say that at all. Pretty clear that you have a dim view of a certain party and that's fine.

James Brown

Calhoun wrote: »

I would also recon the same, its why even though im unhappy with FG/FF id still vote for them ahead of allot of the left in Ireland.

Simply put as a middle income earner, i am already being squeezed and i can guarantee it would be a hell of allot worse. Until we move to a more equitable tax system then don't expect any changes in voting patterns.

But you can't TBF. Not pushing for SF in particular, but we are on the road to a crash. The tax payer won't be able to support the profits of private interests forever. Essentially we are subsidising people so they can afford to rent off companies we are selling public land to.

is_that_so wrote: »

Well if you'd bothered to read my post properly you'd notice that I didn't say that at all. Pretty clear that you have a dim view of a certain party and that's fine.

You said FG promising an ending the scandal of hospital trolleys was not a stunt. Am I reading you wrong?
FG promised it, but might not have thought it out. Whereas other parties are cynically making promises they know they can't keep as 'stunts'. Right?

I've a very dim view and I'm quite vocal as to why.

Calhoun

Matt Barrett wrote: »

But you can't TBF. Not pushing for SF in particular, but we are on the road to a crash. The tax payer won't be able to support the profits of private interests forever. Essentially we are subsidising people so they can afford to rent off companies we are selling public land to.

Look at it from a tax payer perspective, i get ****ed either way. At least ill probably get less ****ed with FG/FF. With SF ill pay more tax, get less services, compared to people who contribute very little who will get a nice house built more than likely closer to employment than i currently am.

The only way i would consider voting for a more left aligned party is i saw some considerable change in how we manage our welfare system and what people get. We cannot even manage the current council stock from the perspective of occupancy rates and moving people around because people think its a house for life.

Additionally, until they get rid of some more of the extreme heads in Sinn Fein i wouldn't fancy them in government. We aren't to far off the Marie Cahill controversy.

Idbatterim

Calhoun wrote: »

Look at it from a tax payer perspective, i get ****ed either way. At least ill probably get less ****ed with FG/FF. With SF ill pay more tax, get less services, compared to people who contribute very little who will get a nice house built more than likely closer to employment than i currently am.

The only way i would consider voting for a more left aligned party is i saw some considerable change in how we manage our welfare system and what people get. We cannot even manage the current council stock from the perspective of occupancy rates and moving people around because people think its a house for life.

Additionally, until they get rid of some more of the extreme heads in Sinn Fein i wouldn't fancy them in government. We aren't to far off the Marie Cahill controversy.

I really dont know about this logic, a large part of it depends on your property status. If you are renting or own etc... I mean FG have done nothing of any relevance on income taxes, despite all of Lieo's spin

Calhoun

Idbatterim wrote: »

I really dont know about this logic, a large part of it depends on your property status. If you are renting or own etc... I mean FG have done nothing of any relevance on income taxes, despite all of Lieo's spin

They haven't overly increased them yet but they also rolled back some of the USC rather than having a tax system that everyone pays a bit we have allot who pay nothing.

Either way, i don't know if i voted for Sinn Fein or a more left leaning party if i wouldn't be in a worse shape as they probably see my income bracket as the enemy.

Idbatterim

Calhoun wrote: »

They haven't overly increased them yet but they also rolled back some of the USC rather than having a tax system that everyone pays a bit we have allot who pay nothing.

Either way, i don't know if i voted for Sinn Fein or a more left leaning party if i wouldn't be in a worse shape as they probably see my income bracket as the enemy.

of course, sure could you imagine they just cut the upper rate, so only the "rich" on 35k plus benefited :rolleyes:

I believe in other eu countries, you can actually earn 200k plus before being hit with their highest rate, here? 35k and you are working poor if you are on that money, certainly in dublin!

Calhoun

Idbatterim wrote: »

of course, sure could you imagine they just cut the upper rate, so only the "rich" on 35k plus benefited :rolleyes:

The worst about it as well is i am getting pretty ****ed over at the moment as my daughter is on the spectrum and getting zero services she should be getting, yet i am paying allot in taxes.

There is no party out there right now that i would be comfortable with voting in on the left that wouldn't tax the hell out of me and make it worse on our family life.

If there was an option to do it in an equitable way i would but I don't see that happening.

Idbatterim

Calhoun wrote: »

The worst about it as well is i am getting pretty ****ed over at the moment as my daughter is on the spectrum and getting zero services she should be getting, yet i am paying allot in taxes.

There is no party out there right now that i would be comfortable with voting in on the left that wouldn't tax the hell out of me and make it worse on our family life.

If there was an option to do it in an equitable way i would but I don't see that happening.

labour in the uk seem to be something many of us would be ok with, they seem pretty balanced! the options here are just comedy , comedy!