Is it not time EVERYONE considers not voting for FF or FG in the upcoming election

is_that_so

smurgen wrote: »

I can say by the profit margin the person who bought the site off Nama and subsequently resold it made. In the one example where a 1.3 million euro site was sold for 13 million euro within 12 months that's a 900% profit. Now if there was modest profits of 40% etc I might have doubt but no legal asset class could give you IRR rates like that.

NAMA sold a site as per their remit. It was no longer theirs/ours and therefore of no interest to them what happened to it after that. It's not the first nor the last time that will happen.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

I did dodge?

Yes.

christy c wrote: »

You seem to already have concluded that investigation in your own head due to the amount of times you post about it.

christy c wrote: »

No I didn't, it was another state entity as you have now said. I thought that as someone who posts about it as regularly as you do that you would have known that. You have also implied wrongdoing in that case, despite acknowledging that there are no findings yet. So in reality there was nothing there for me to dodge.

Maybe something will come out about Noonan, maybe not.

False advertising Christy. I raised Siteserv, you commented on how often I raise it.
I countered, then you said it was Anglo.
I've conceded it was IBRC, but you did dodge.
Now back to the personal :rolleyes:

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Yes.





False advertising Christy. I raised Siteserv, you commented on how often I raise it.
I countered, then you said it was Anglo.
I've conceded it was IBRC, but you did dodge.
Now back to the personal :rolleyes:

As I explained in my last post there was nothing for me to dodge, as it related to a different entity and also there are no findings yet. Also absolutely nothing false about what I said, unless you're interpreting things backwards.

smurgen

christy c wrote: »

I did dodge? No I didn't, it was another state entity as you have now said. I thought that as someone who posts about it as regularly as you do that you would have known that. You have also implied wrongdoing in that case, despite acknowledging that there are no findings yet. So in reality there was nothing there for me to dodge.

Maybe something will come out about Noonan, maybe not.

Seems like there's 7 million from the Northern Ireland project eagle ended up in an offshore account and it's still under investigation.

https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2019/01/26/news/pps-gets-file-on-eight-nama-fraud-suspects-1536514/

Beasty

Matt Barrett is now banned from posting in this thread again

SantaCruz

smurgen wrote: »

Here you go have a good read of this.
Few great examples in here such as one site sold to a fund for 1.3 million and resold for 13 million a year later with no development money spent.

https://www.businesspost.ie/insight/how-namas-billions-fed-the-vulture-funds-d964c8cd

"Nama’s €2.3 billion surplus is actually a loss of €40-plus billion, but it seems clear that the agency is trying to spin its way out of this"

But yeah poor peoples and dole scroungers are really to blame.

A question for you: what percentage of our catastrophic rise in national debt post 2008 would you say was due to bailing out the banks?

smurgen

SantaCruz wrote: »

A question for you: what percentage of our catastrophic rise in national debt post 2008 would you say was due to bailing out the banks?

About 40%. And our interest on that debt is about 5.4 billion a year. Not to mind all the USC individuals pay.
What's worse is we have no real tools left to fight downturns and have not made any infrastructure investments. Anyone and I mean anyone saying fg and FF are sensible need to be laughed out of it.

christy c

smurgen wrote: »

Anyone and I mean anyone saying fg and FF are sensible need to be laughed out of it.

I may have said sensible in the past but I would have meant that as sensible in relation to the other candidates. Look at SF cheerleading Syriza, or "the demographics will look after themselves".

SantaCruz

smurgen wrote: »

About 40%. And our interest on that debt is about 5.4 billion a year. Not to mind all the USC individuals pay.
What's worse is we have no real tools left to fight downturns and have not made any infrastructure investments. Anyone and I mean anyone saying fg and FF are sensible need to be laughed out of it.

Can you cite where you got that figure from please?

smurgen

SantaCruz wrote: »

Can you cite where you got that figure from please?

Rough calc.

https://countryeconomy.com/national-debt/ireland

the_syco

smurgen wrote: »

Anyone and I mean anyone saying fg and FF are sensible need to be laughed out of it.

Anyone saying that SF is better than either of those two eejits should also be laughed at.

SantaCruz

smurgen wrote: »

Rough calc.

https://countryeconomy.com/national-debt/ireland

That's a bit too rough to be honest.

The bailout cost is netted down to just over 40 billion now.

Our debt ballooned from around 50 billion to 220 billion or so, so it increased by 170 billion.

40 billion is less than 25% of 170 billion.

This means that over 75% of the increase in our national debt was due to current spending on services, pensions, dole payments etc.

Also, the interest on the banking debt is about 1.2 billion a year, rather than the 5.4 billion you claimed.

Let's try to be accurate - the figures are easily available.

smurgen

the_syco wrote: »

Anyone saying that SF is better than either of those two eejits should also be laughed at.

You provide a compelling argument.i for one am convinced and shall cast them aside come Saturday!

Wrongway1985

The absolute cheek of Martin on the pension issue with the spin of telling people to be wary of SF and look to the North,the pension fund there isn't applicable to the workers who've grafted and paid in here, ours was put in jeopardy precisely because his shower at the time presented it to the banks and that's why we have this issue.

smurgen

SantaCruz wrote: »

That's a bit too rough to be honest.

The bailout cost is netted down to just over 40 billion now.

Our debt ballooned from around 50 billion to 220 billion or so, so it increased by 170 billion.

40 billion is less than 25% of 170 billion.

This means that over 75% of the increase in our national debt was due to current spending on services, pensions, dole payments etc.

Also, the interest on the banking debt is about 1.2 billion a year, rather than the 5.4 billion you claimed.

Let's try to be accurate - the figures are easily available.

Why did you ask me if you are so sure?
Also USC is 4 billion a year. So in total that's 5.2 billion a year specifically over the bank bailout.Where's your links?

Also the government has outsourced social housing to private landlords adding to the social welfare costs. Nama helped drive up the cost of social as well as affordable housing. And HAP payments to funds have ballooned. So we're getting less accommodation at a vastly inflated cost.

SantaCruz

smurgen wrote: »

Why did you ask me if you are so sure?

You made a claim, and I wanted to see if it was correct.

Then I checked, and you were completely wrong, or spreading lies.

smurgen wrote: »

Also USC is 4 billion a year. So in total that's 5.2 billion a year specifically over the bank bailout.Where's your links?

The cost of the bank debt, per the article, is 1.2 billion per year or so. What the USC brings in has nothing to do with the cost of the bank debt. You might as well throw in duty on cigarettes while you are at it and make it a really big number.

smurgen

SantaCruz wrote: »

You made a claim, and I wanted to see if it was correct.

Then I checked, and you were completely wrong, or spreading lies.

The cost of the bank debt, per the article, is 1.2 billion per year or so. What the USC brings in has nothing to do with the cost of the bank debt. You might as well throw in duty on cigarettes while you are at it and make it a really big number.

Wait wait wait. USC has as much to do with the bank bailout as duty on cigarettes? Sorry I was taking you serious there for awhile.please rabble on...

SantaCruz

smurgen wrote: »

Wait wait wait. USC has as much to do with the bank bailout as duty on cigarettes? Sorry I was taking you serious there for awhile.please rabble on...

So you agree that the USC (a levy that gets paid into central funds) has nothing to do with the 1.2 billion cost of servicing the bank debt?

Or are you still trying to pretend that 5.4 and 1.2 are the same number?

mouthful

I would rather ............. than vote for FF or FG
Fill in the gap

For me it is watch my children leave Ireland again because they saw no hope here!! Then take the sad lonely journey home with my wife not knowing what I could say to ease her heartbreak.

FFG do not care about the working poor!!!!

smurgen

So our social housing costs have ballooned in the last few years. Maybe if we didn't sell property at a massive discount in the fire sale of NAMA we could have developed the housing ourselves. In the long run we have now reduced the assets of our state balance sheet and increased the annual expenses. Ireland Inc is literally being driven into the ground.

https://www.thejournal.ie/housing-private-payments-4507508-Feb2019/

smurgen

So aul Dinny's jet fuel will be avoid the carbon tax? Fair play!FG know how to look after their own

https://twitter.com/davegibney/status/1224836923161792516?s=19

SantaCruz

smurgen wrote: »

So aul Dinny's jet fuel will be avoid the carbon tax? Fair play!FG know how to look after their own

https://twitter.com/davegibney/status/1224836923161792516?s=19

It's fair to question whether there should be taxes on aviation fuel (I think there should) but presumably this would drive up the cost of your holiday flights etc., and hit the tourist industry. A price I would say is worth paying, but others might not. And I don't think the longstanding, global non-taxing of aviation fuel is a Fine Gael conspiracy to help D'OB, so let's not imply otherwise...

It's also worth pointing out that there's only one Denis O'Brien (and I too hate the guy) but hundreds of thousands of grannies.

smurgen

SantaCruz wrote: »

It's fair to question whether there should be taxes on aviation fuel (I think there should) but presumably this would drive up the cost of your holiday flights etc., and hit the tourist industry. A price I would say is worth paying, but others might not. And I don't think the longstanding, global non-taxing of aviation fuel is a Fine Gael conspiracy to help D'OB, so let's not imply otherwise...

It's also worth pointing out that there's only one Denis O'Brien (and I too hate the guy) but hundreds of thousands of grannies.

A joke.

LillySV

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's not hypocritical in the slightest.
I have explained exactly what my issue is - several times - you don't seem to think it's an issue but haven't made any effort to tell me why you think giving €700m to private landlords is sound economic policy.
I have said why I believe it isn't.

I can't help you understand my position as you have failed to explain your position.[/quote
Don’t waste your time with this person... troll

the_syco

smurgen wrote: »

So we're getting less accommodation at a vastly inflated cost.

I find that the government uses private landlords so they can fudge the numbers. Instead of saying 100 in social housing, they can say that there are 20 in social housing as the other 80 are on HAP.

The government shouldn't allow council tenants to buy the house that they live in. So once they move or die, the house is given to the next homeless person. As opposed to selling stock within the canals, either not replenishing said stock, or replenishing said stock far away where no-one picks.

Finally, allow people to decline 3 properties three times, then put them into a hostel. To hell with this crap that people can live in hotels whilst continually declining houses in the hopes of getting one near their family! If you want a house near your family, BUY IT.

SantaCruz

the_syco wrote: »

Finally, allow people to decline 3 properties three times, then put them into a hostel. To hell with this crap that people can live in hotels whilst continually declining houses in the hopes of getting one near their family! If you want a house near your family, BUY IT.

Before people jump down your throat and call you names, I'll point out that I didn't especially enjoy paying half a million euros for the privilege of living 200 kilometres from my family, but I had to because that was where I need to be for work.

smurgen

SantaCruz wrote: »

Before people jump down your throat and call you names, I'll point out that I didn't especially enjoy paying half a million euros for the privilege of living 200 kilometres from my family, but I had to because that was where I need to be for work.

Fair play to you and I will soon have to do the same.but I feel your vitriol is somewhat misplaced. Anyway off to bed.more tax to earn tomorrow.

Edgware

SantaCruz wrote: »

Before people jump down your throat and call you names, I'll point out that I didn't especially enjoy paying half a million euros for the privilege of living 200 kilometres from my family, but I had to because that was where I need to be for work.

Ask the I.D.A. to build a factory near home especially for you

Idbatterim

watchng universal credit. Inside the welfare state on bbc two. Holy **** it’s the others extrehe there nearly. One poor Irish man on it , lost job and sleeping on street the streets , was attacked. Homelessness now. Had 262 pounds to live on for the month !

Bannasidhe

Idbatterim wrote: »

watchng universal credit. Inside the welfare state on bbc two. Holy **** it’s the others extrehe there nearly. One poor Irish man on it , lost job and sleeping on street the streets , was attacked. Homelessness now. Had 262 pounds to live on for the month !

I can't help but feel that is what many would like to see here.

It's all "getting tough with those on welfare" isn't it.
Sure why can't the Irishman go home?
Wasn't he an economic migrant?
Why is he claiming British social welfare?
Why should the British State house him? Haven't they enough homeless of their own?