Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
GE Exit Poll 10 pm
Options
Comments
-
First lets address the serious flaw in your argument
You claim that department of finance costing are unreliable and yes I agree there is some justification in that.
Yet you do not make the point that the FF FG and other parties manifestos are equally unreliable and that we should equally disregard them on the same basis.
You argument is effectively as valid against FF FG SD Green or any other parties manifesto's, so to use it to attack one single party is nonsensical
I have actually done as much as I can to validate what ever policy I have read, from any party.
Personally, to me its worth the time and effort, and as I'm studying for an Astrophyiscs degree the maths doesn't scare me too much.
I have no source for which company independently assesses SF budget/manifesto but it would be be extremely foolish of any Party to make such claims if they were unable to back that up. I wish I did, it would have saved me hours of work
In a earlier post I demonstrated quite clearly how SF proposed spending and costs on their housing programme actually does work out. Not going to to re-post it here, its far too long. The important misconception that most people have is that SF intended to build 100,000 homes with only 6.5 billion. This is completely wrong. SF intend to spend an additional €6.5 billion to the existing government budget over the course of a 5 year period.
When you run the number as I have done it actually works out the same. In fact SF and FG use essentially the same methodology to cost their housing programmes.
FG claims it can provide homes for €160,000 SF claims it can provide them for about €126,000, but does so by using state owned sites and obviously because they are building rather then buying all profits are also removed. Both numbers seem low but both parties have removed VAT and other taxes.
you need to take a look at their shortened manifesto and jump right to the bottom and look at appendix 1 and apendix 2.
https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2020/SF_GE2020_Manifesto.pdf
As is clear to anyone who actually gives it a minutes thought, any budget set will work perfectly for a year. The knock on effects of that budget will have an effect on final numbers in subsequent years.
In year one SF will have a very substantial surplus with regards taxation measure of about 1.6 Billion euro.
The institute of Chartered Accountants Ireland actually did their own analysis of the SF manifesto and even they accept that year one figure for SF manifesto makes sense.
https://www.charteredaccountants.ie/News/the-sinn-fein-manifesto
They do question though whether the proposed changes in taxation will be effective in subsequent years and whether there might be a short fall and to be fair this is a perfectly valid question
At the end of year two there also will be a 4 billion expected windfall from NAMA. SF have factored this in to their costings.
So lets assume for the sake of argument that at the end of year two an un-adjusted budget does not balance the books. I doubt that any budget un-adjusted would find itself in deficit of well over €5.5 billion.
I doubt it would even swallow he 1.8 billion surplus from year one, but for subsequent years yes it looks like they could possibly be eating into that NAMA windfall. The fact remains though they would still be in surplus.
In the meantime SF have also proposed other cost saving measures that will take years to properly take effect. For instance they propose forcing the end of HSE over dependence on agency staff, instead transforming these positions into full time permanent positions, saving hundred of millions of euro just in the HSE. Obviously the problem here is how long would this transition take and how long would the other measure take to bear fruition?
Other issues that have not been addressed properly are the fact that FG and FF despite their arguments that narrowing the tax bands is bad, instead tinker with the allowances and benefits that will cost the state serious amounts of money. SF do not propose to do any such thing.
USC
FG will Reduce USC revenue by increasing the exemption threshold from €13,000 to €20,500
FF want to reduce the 4.5% rate to 3.5% ( which applies to income between c.€20k to €70k)
SF have said they will abolish it for incomes under €30k
Its hard to get costing and analysis for either of the FG or FF manifesto's
but my back of napkin calculations say that the FF proposal would cost as much and possibly more than the SF proposal.
FG will phase in an adjustment of the standard rate tax band to increase to the upper threshold from €35,000 to €50,000, single, over five years.
SF will do no such thing but this measure alone will cost FG billions.
FG intend to reduce the rate of capital gains tax downwards from 33% to 25% over 5 years. Again a measure that will cost hundreds of millions if not exceeding a billion
SF will do no such thing.
I can go on and on, showing where other parties are changing the tax system to reduce revenues that the government collects where as SF uses that revenue to contribute to its spending plans.
Can I say Sinn Fein's manifesto is cast iron guaranteed, no I cant. But when you actually sit down and compare all the parties manifesto's side by side see where one party is extracting more revenue where as others are reducing revenue the SF manifesto actually does come out fairly on target.
Im not an accountant nor a actuary, nor do I profess to be, but looking through the detail I can see roughly how SF numbers do actually seem to add up.
What I can say is that Sinn Feins manifesto is not totally mad or totally unworkable when it is compared against FG's or FF' in many instances they actually use very similar costings and methodologies.
Though I appreciate the amount of detail you went into there, your whole argument is a strawman. I never said that FF, FG, or any other party had better approach to costing, in fact I've repeatedly stated the opposite, that they are all bordering on worthless.
The reason why the SF manifesto is more concerning is due to the fact that they are saying they will spend double the expecting fiscal space, when the other parties aren't.
Take the example developing a household budget for a year. When people do them they are just rough estimates, so for nearly everyone this doesn't align with how things turn out. That isn't too concerning when the person writing the budget keeps their expected income in line with previous years and expenditure matches this. However, it becomes dangerous when someone decides they want to double their expenditure, like moving into a much nicer apartment and buying a brand new car, based on an increased income source that isn't guaranteed to continue, like doing high amounts of overtime that is currently available. Neither budget might work out but one is clearly much more risky. No matter how many times the latter person says 'I did a budget', it won't make a bit of difference as the budget doesn't take into account the risk that the overtime will dry up after they increased their spending levels.
I agree that it would be be extremely foolish of any party to make such promises in their manifesto if they were unable to back that up but that is the situation SF are now in. Given the local and European results and the number of candidates they ran, it is clear they didn't think there was a chance they would be in a position to lead a government and they went full populist and over-promised.0 -
Though I appreciate the amount of detail you went into there, your whole argument is a strawman. I never said that FF, FG, or any other party had better approach to costing, in fact I've repeatedly stated the opposite, that they are all bordering on worthless.
The reason why the SF manifesto is more concerning is due to the fact that they are saying they will spend double the expecting fiscal space, when the other parties aren't.
Take the example developing a household budget for a year. When people do them they are just rough estimates, so for nearly everyone this doesn't align with how things turn out. That isn't too concerning when the person writing the budget keeps their expected income in line with previous years and expenditure matches this. However, it becomes dangerous when someone decides they want to double their expenditure, like moving into a much nicer apartment and buying a brand new car, based on an increased income source that isn't guaranteed to continue, like doing high amounts of overtime that is currently available. Neither budget might work out but one is clearly much more risky. No matter how many times the latter person says 'I did a budget', it won't make a bit of difference as the budget doesn't take into account the risk that the overtime will dry up after they increased their spending levels.
I agree that it would be be extremely foolish of any party to make such promises in their manifesto if they were unable to back that up but that is the situation SF are now in. Given the local and European results and the number of candidates they ran, it is clear they didn't think there was a chance they would be in a position to lead a government and they went full populist and over-promised.
Now you have me totally confused.
Where have SF said that will spend DOUBLE the expected fiscal space?
What makes you say this?
Yes they want to spend an additional 6.5 billion on housing but that is over a 5 year period, not a single year.
I have also shown in a previous post where building 100,000 homes over a 5 year period was not only achievable but it actually has been shown to be not only achievable but also prudent and has been supported by reputable economists.
Have a read of this
http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/lets-join-the-21st-century-with-an-easy-fix-for-housing-crisis-once-and-for-all/
I the meantime last year FG spent €170 million for emergency accommodation.
Last year the FG government spent €612 million on HAP, renting housing from private landlords to provide social housing. This figure can only rise.
As things stand in the next 5 years under the existing policies a government will have to spend in excess of 3.9 billion renting private property in order to provide social housing and that's WITHOUT build a single social home or taking account of increasing rents.
I have also shown where FG would remove hundreds of millions of euro each year from tax revenues without actually replacing this money
So please explain to me where SF are spending double the fiscal space?0 -
Originally Posted by sondagefaux View Post
A tale of two Michelles...
Michelle 1, no extra money for nursing staff in Northern Ireland:
Michelle 2, supporting striking NHS workers in Northern Ireland:
An excellent example of how Sinn Féin behave in government.
First of all SF ARE NOT in government in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Executive is nothing more than a super county council.
It does not collect a single penny of tax revenue, every single penny collected goes straight to Westminster.
The Northern Ireland executive has no control over taxation measures and cannot set spending budgets, this is also done by the British government.0 -
Now you have me totally confused.
Where have SF said that will spend DOUBLE the expected fiscal space?
What makes you say this?
Yes they want to spend an additional 6.5 billion on housing but that is over a 5 year period, not a single year.
I have also shown in a previous post where building 100,000 homes over a 5 year period was not only achievable but it actually has been shown to be not only achievable but also prudent and has been supported by reputable economists.
Have a read of this
http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/lets-join-the-21st-century-with-an-easy-fix-for-housing-crisis-once-and-for-all/
I the meantime last year FG spent €170 million for emergency accommodation.
Last year the FG government spent €612 million on HAP, renting housing from private landlords to provide social housing. This figure can only rise.
As things stand in the next 5 years under the existing policies a government will have to spend in excess of 3.9 billion renting private property in order to provide social housing and that's WITHOUT build a single social home or taking account of increasing rents.
I have also shown where FG would remove hundreds of millions of euro each year from tax revenues without actually replacing this money
So please explain to me where SF are spending double the fiscal space?
It was widely reported in the media and I saw it presented to SF representatives repeatedly without any push back from them, instead they just resorted to repeating the 'costing' propaganda. Some quick googling confirms all this.
The SF manifesto clearly states an increase in spending by 22bn during the next period in government. Fiscal space is generally deemed to be what the Department of Finance shows as being "unallocated resources” and for that same period it is expected to be 11bn (which doesn't even take into account any increases in public service pay, or Brexit going badly, or a worldwide slowdown, etc etc)
FG and FF kept their manifestos generally in line with the 11bn figure, while SF used double that, before even getting into the tax cuts they also offered. SF needed to make up the difference by increasing a number of other taxes, many of which you've admitted aren't guaranteed long term.
You're getting into the weeds of specific policies, like housing, while ignoring the health and risks of their headline figures.0 -
First of all SF ARE NOT in government in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Executive is nothing more than a super county council.
It does not collect a single penny of tax revenue, every single penny collected goes straight to Westminster.
The Northern Ireland executive has no control over taxation measures and cannot set spending budgets, this is also done by the British government.
So your argument is that Sinn Féin has never really been in government?
That seems to contradict what SF tells people about itself:Turning to the role of leadership, Declan Kearney added:
“The overarching societal priorities and outcomes we are all working towards will not be easily delivered. But our responsibility in regional and local government is to ensure we are successful.
“We all, as leaders in the public and private sectors, and in community and voluntary organisations, need to take responsibility for making sustainable change on behalf of our citizens.
“A new opportunity to do just that now stems from the requirement on our power sharing, five party government to deepen civic engagement in relation to the co-design of public policy and the implementation of outcomes-based programmes for government which make a real difference to people’s lives.”
https://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/560310 -
Advertisement
-
sondagefaux wrote: »So your argument is that Sinn Féin has never really been in government?
That seems to contradict what SF tells people about itself:
https://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/56031
I would argue that he is wrong but even if he insists on calling it government the fact remain the Northern Ireland Executive has no control over taxation and spending budgets in Northern Ireland.
Taxation and setting of budgets in Northern Ireland are all controlled by the British government. If the Northern Ireland Executive has no control over these it hardly what we would call government here in the republic. As I have said it would be better described as a super county council.0 -
It was widely reported in the media and I saw it presented to SF representatives repeatedly without any push back from them, instead they just resorted to repeating the 'costing' propaganda. Some quick googling confirms all this.
The SF manifesto clearly states an increase in spending by 22bn during the next period in government. Fiscal space is generally deemed to be what the Department of Finance shows as being "unallocated resources” and for that same period it is expected to be 11bn (which doesn't even take into account any increases in public service pay, or Brexit going badly, or a worldwide slowdown, etc etc)
FG and FF kept their manifestos generally in line with the 11bn figure, while SF used double that, before even getting into the tax cuts they also offered. SF needed to make up the difference by increasing a number of other taxes, many of which you've admitted aren't guaranteed long term.
You're getting into the weeds of specific policies, like housing, while ignoring the health and risks of their headline figures.
So SF want to spend an additional 22 billion?
The biggest chunk of the SF proposed spending is in capital expenditure costing in total 9.8 billion over the 5 year period.
leaving 11.2 billion which uses up most if not all the existing fiscal space
They will also increase taxation netting approximately €3.8 BILLION per year to ensure they remain within the fiscal space.
11.2 + 3.8 = 15
15 billion will be the new fiscal space if SF manifesto is implemented and there will be about 3 billion surplus every year.
Even if knock on effects take place in taxation it would be impossible for them to swallow that additional revenue.
When a government decides its going to spend €6.5 billion on capital expenditure for housing it doesn't hand over €6.5 billion cash. Do ordinary people buy their homes or cars for cash?
Did the FG government hand over 750 million cash for the new bridge on the New Ross bypass? Will they hand over more than a billion when they start building the new M20 for Limerick to Cork? Of course they will not, this is capital expenditure and will be amortised so that the payments are spread over 20 to 25 years meaning that it will cost approx 250 million per year over 25 years
If you dont understand how capital expenditure works read this
http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/lets-join-the-21st-century-with-an-easy-fix-for-housing-crisis-once-and-for-all/
SF has been very open in order to do that it has made it plain they intend to raise taxation by putting in a new tax band. They will also be insisting the banks start paying taxation on their profits. These will offset the costs of their capital expenditure and will still leave them well inside the fiscal space available.
FG want to raise increase in the standard rate cut-off point to €50,000. This tax change alone will cost 500 million.
FG currently spend €612 million a year renting private homes for social housing use.
FG also spent €170 million for emergency accommodation last year
Yet you seem to be going nuts that SF will spend less than half of this building homes, and reducing those costs.
Seriously do you not take the time or effort to actually read these manifestos for yourself, get out the calculator and do some simple maths?
Or do you have to get all your information from some columnist who has been sloppy in their work, couldn't be bothered to do the maths, and has their own biased agenda?0 -
Hate to break it to you but saying you will collect those taxes is not the same as collecting them. They are targeting groups who employ top accountants to avoid paying taxes. It's a pie in the sky tax policy. If they said they will collect extra 100 billion taxes if would be just as realistic.So SF want to spend an additional 22 billion?
The biggest chunk of the SF proposed spending is in capital expenditure costing in total 9.8 billion over the 5 year period.
leaving 11.2 billion which uses up most if not all the existing fiscal space
They will also increase taxation netting approximately €3.8 BILLION per year to ensure they remain within the fiscal space.
11.2 + 3.8 = 15
15 billion will be the new fiscal space if SF manifesto is implemented and there will be about 3 billion surplus every year.0 -
Hate to break it to you but saying you will collect those taxes is not the same as collecting them. They are targeting groups who employ top accountants to avoid paying taxes. It's a pie in the sky tax policy. If they said they will collect extra 100 billion taxes if would be just as realistic.
How do you propose they avoid those taxes?
I suppose they could all take pay cuts so that they dont earn over 140k.
Have you better suggestion?
With regards the banks, they too couldn't avoid them unless they wish to become non-profit organisations.
Tax advisers can only advise on ways to limit tax obligations. They can advise on ways to avoid taxation not evade taxation.
When it come to simple matters such as income tax there is no possibility to avoid it.
The self employed might use avoidance by deciding that their company pays them a lower wage below the €140k threshold, but then face the problem that profits belong to the company not the individual or share holder(s) that own the company.
If the company is in profit they could then decide to pay dividends on those profits, but can only be paid if the company IS in profit. These would be also taxable (admittedly at a lower rate) and must shared proportionally to ALL shareholders depending on how may share their possess.
Any smart self employed businessman whose company is already making €140k profit would be stupid if they are not already using this avoidance loophole.
Simply pocketing a companies profit for personal use is a criminal offence and will result in prosecution.
So we are back to square one. SF have used existing Department of finance figures, the only loophole will already have been used by those that can use it, so the estimates that the department of finance have given to SF will still be valid.
So I hate to break it is you but you who is living in dream land.
What you suggest cant happen, there would be no way of avoiding this taxation unless you were a business owner but anyone capable of using the dividends loophole is already currently using it.
Just because you might not agree with the policy doesn't mean it will not work.0 -
We need doctors. Doctors are in your 140k bracket. How do they avoid paying taxes? They move out of Ireland in even bigger numbers. Highly mobile technology multinationals and their staff can pack up in a year. I'm not saying everyone will but do you really think SF is the first party in the history who came up with original idea of taxing the rich. Ireland has well educated, highly mobile work force that speaks the same and probably most dominant language as some of the richest countries in the world. What could go wrong? Do you think consultants here are too stupid to do the maths and see what options they have in other countries?0
-
Advertisement
-
Hate to break it to you but saying you will collect those taxes is not the same as collecting them. They are targeting groups who employ top accountants to avoid paying taxes. It's a pie in the sky tax policy. If they said they will collect extra 100 billion taxes if would be just as realistic.
Correct and right, unfortunately these idealists are just what they are-idealists.
They assume that they can squeeze the guts out of, basically, not to put a tooth in it, people who gained qualifications, gained valuable skills, managed their lives well and in short ‘looked after’ themselves.
They don’t like the Multis even though they provide tens of thousands of jobs and millions in taxes from the employees.
They would rather risk them moving on rather than work with them to achieve what’s good for both.
If they think they can horse that amount of moolah into their ‘policies’ as sure as night follows day someone will have to pay- and it won’t be their support base, not even a little bit .
It will be the squeezed middle who have to pay for everything.0 -
We need doctors. Doctors are in your 140k bracket. How do they avoid paying taxes? They move out of Ireland in even bigger numbers? Highly mobile technology multinationals and their staff can pack up in a year. I'm not saying everyone will but do you really think SF is the first party in the history who came up with original idea of taxing the rich. Ireland has well educated, highly mobile work force that speaks the same and probably most dominant language as some of the richest countries in the world. What could go wrong? Do you think consultants here are too stupid to do the maths and see what options they have in other countries?
Some might choose to relocate, the vast majority will not. Those job will be filled by others.
The governments over the last 20 years have through their lack of capital expenditure brought on this housing crisis and they could see it happening but did absolutely nothing to stop it. Do we now do nothing?
Do we continue to let FG spend €612 million every year renting homes from the private sector to provide social housing. Do we also let them spend €170 million a year for emergency accommodation, while at the same time see thousand of people with no roof over their heads.
The SF house building program is going to cost the state approx 250 million a year plus interest over a 20 to 25 year period, and at the present time that interest is extremely low at approx 1.5%
If we continue on as is, and there is no rise in rental prices which we know is never going to happen, over the next 25 years the government will have spent at least 4.5 BILLION on renting private homes for social housing use and as we both know the demand for these homes will increase not decrease. At the end of those 25 year the cycle starts again but it will cost even more and the state still has absolutely nothing, not one brick, to show for it.
SF propose to spend 6.5 billion in addition to the existing home building budget to build 100,000 home in the next 5 year. Not only will that provide most of the homes this country needs but it will reduce the reliance and cost of renting homes in the private sector, which to be honest is a scandalous waste of public money, and reduce the pressure in the private sector so that those working don't see more than 50% of their income disappearing in rent. Now that homes have gone up to un-affordable values for most young couples renting is their only option.
There really is no alternative but to build these homes.
So bottom line is the government will have to raise 250 million in additional taxation every year in order to pay for it. So who is going to pay for it.
The squeezed middle have been squeezed so much they can hardly breath let alone keep their head above water.
Do we ask those paying the existing higher band to pay for it? Do we ask every tax payer through the lower band to pay for it.
The bottom line is that the only people that can afford to pay additional taxation at the moment are those who are earning wages at the higher end of the pay scale.
The simple fact is FF and FG have left the country in a complete mess.
What good is it to say the economy seems to be working if the majority of tax payers see no benefit at all. The only reason we are in any sort of surplus is because they dropped all capital expenditure programs and now the country has to pay the price. While FG and FF were giving tax revenues away in election gimmicks the problem was getting progressively worse.
I agree we need to keep our best and brightest, but how else can the problem be solved.
So who is going to pay that price? The already squeezed to death middle income earners, those on minimum wage, or those that benefited most during austerity and can afford it?
What would be your solution?
We both know the FG solution simply is not going to work and probably make matters considerably worse.0 -
Some might choose to relocate, the vast majority will not.
It's not just about doctors leaving Ireland. It's about getting them to come back. If you have someone who spends 8 or 10 years post graduation training in Ireland and goes to North America, the UK or Australia for a fellowship, they're not going to be keen to come back to Ireland to work in a system where there's already a shortage of 500 consultants and they have to work far more than they would elsewhere.
4 or 5 years ago Sinn Fein were talking about capping consultants at 100k a year. Now they've decided theyre going to hire 1000 more doctors, how are they going to do that?0 -
thomasdylan wrote: »It's not just about doctors leaving Ireland. It's about getting them to come back. If you have someone who spends 8 or 10 years post graduation training in Ireland and goes to North America, the UK or Australia for a fellowship, they're not going to be keen to come back to Ireland to work in a system where there's already a shortage of 500 consultants and they have to work far more than they would elsewhere.
4 or 5 years ago Sinn Fein were talking about capping consultants at 100k a year. Now they've decided theyre going to hire 1000 more doctors, how are they going to do that?
so what is your solution?
How do you propose the homes be built and paid for?0 -
@efanton
I'm not going to even reply in detail because if you believe SF figures make sense none of the arguments will persuade you. SF programme is good for fairyland but in real world housing costs more and we don't have enough labour to do it. But since your asking good start would be not to cut existing taxes, implement carbon tax and leave property tax alone. Basically do exactly opposite to what SF are suggesting but people don't want to hear that because promising pie in the sky paid by rich people is so much better.0 -
I'm not going to even reply in detail because if you believe SF figures make sense none of the arguments will persuade you. SF programme is good for fairyland but in real world housing costs more and we don't have enough labour to do it. But since your asking good start would be not to cut existing taxes, implement carbon tax and leave property tax alone. Basically do exactly opposite to what SF are suggesting but people don't want to hear that because promising pie in the sky paid by rich people is so much better.
No I want to hear your solution.
I wanted to vote for SF because they were the only ones who were seriously trying to address the issue. I'm not saying their proposals were the only way to do it, but given all the parties policies they were the only ones to actually propose a solution on a scale that would address the problem.
It's not question of whether the country really needs these homes, its a question of how those homes are paid for.
So give me a solution as to where the money will come from that builds sufficient homes to solve the problem
BTW FG are cutting taxes. They want to raise the threshold of the existing upper band to €50,000. That little sweetner is going to cost the country €500 million0 -
No I want to hear your solution.
I wanted to vote for SF because they were the only ones who were seriously trying to address the issue. I'm not saying their proposals were the only way to do it, but given all the parties policies they were the only ones to actually propose a solution on a scale that would address the problem.
It's not question of whether the country really needs these homes, its a question of how those homes are paid for.
So give me a solution as to where the money will come from that builds sufficient homes to solve the problem
BTW FG are cutting taxes. They want to raise the threshold of the existing upper band to €50,000. That little sweetner is going to cost the country €500 million
I didn't say I agree with FG about cutting taxes. I think state building programme is needed, I agree with SF that much. Land should be taxed. No taxes should be cut, property tax revaluation is overdue, the rate to lower the rate should be taken away from councils, carbon tax should be implemented. Different private investment should be looked into but all this still won't build you the numbers of houses we need. We don't have enough labour and all this will take time to resolve.0 -
so what is your solution?
How do you propose the homes be built and paid for?
Are SF proposing to build these 100,000 houses by borrowing 6.5Billion, which would leave each house costing 65,000 to build, or is that on top of 6.5Billon from this projected fiscal space which would mean every house would cost 130,000 each to build ?
Even if it is the latter, that price seems very optimistic. Especially as we have a shortage of labour in the construction industry.0 -
Are SF proposing to build these 100,000 houses by borrowing 6.5Billion, which would leave each house costing 65,000 to build, or is that on top of 6.5Billon from this projected fiscal space which would mean every house would cost 130,000 each to build ?
Even if it is the latter, that price seems very optimistic. Especially as we have a shortage of labour in the construction industry.
No. Its a common misconception that SF expect to build a home for €65,000 but totally wrong.
SF said they will spend 6.5 billion IN ADDITION to existing budgets for home building.
FG has costed homes at €160,000. SF claim they will do it for €126,000.
Both parties have obviously deducted VAT and other taxes to get those figure.
SF will only build on sites that are currently owned by the state so obviously the cost of a site does not appear in their cost, but because FG are buying homes already built by developers that cost is included.
Also SF will be building those homes directly, whereas FG will be buying property built by developers. Obviously there would be a profit margin included in the FG figure but not in the SF figure. Both figures appear to be reasonably accurate.0 -
No. Its a common misconception that SF expect to build a home for €65,000 but totally wrong.
SF said they will spend 6.5 billion IN ADDITION to existing budgets for home building.
FG has costed homes at €160,000. SF claim they will do it for €126,000.
Both parties have obviously deducted VAT and other taxes to get those figure.
SF will only build on sites that are currently owned by the state so obviously the cost of a site does not appear in their cost, but because FG are buying homes already built by developers that cost is included.
Also SF will be building those homes directly, whereas FG will be buying property built by developers. Obviously there would be a profit margin included in the FG figure but not in the SF figure. Both figures appear to be reasonably accurate.
By building these houses directly, does that mean SF will be directly managing all stages of the build from purchasing materials to employing all the labour required ?
Tbh, that doesn`t sound feasible imo.0 -
Advertisement
-
The figures from recent social housing on free public land is put at €210K. You can take VAT off that if you wish.
BTW we seem to have plenty workers to keep building student accommodation. A switch over to housing would help.0 -
By building these houses directly, does that mean SF will be directly managing all stages of the build from purchasing materials to employing all the labour required ?
Tbh, that doesn`t sound feasible imo.
I have no idea.
I would assume it would be through a government tender with one single company overseeing the whole project that would then sub-contract, but who knows.
Throw Doherty an email.0 -
They could use officials from department of health. They have experience with building tenders.
0 -
Water John wrote: »The figures from recent social housing on free public land is put at €210K. You can take VAT off that if you wish.
BTW we seem to have plenty workers to keep building student accommodation. A switch over to housing would help.
Unless my figure are away off deducting 13.5% vat from 210K leaves the cost at 185K.
That is near as makes no difference 50% more than the 126K SF are pricing them at.0 -
-
I have no idea.
I would assume it would be through a government tender with one single company overseeing the whole project that would then sub-contract, but who knows.
Throw Doherty an email.
If that is the plan then neither a company winning a tender or the sub-contractors are going to do it without a profit.
There is also the factor that half this money to build will have to be borrowed as it is outside the fiscal space,, so the interest payments will also add to the costs0 -
-
The public at this stage know their is no, free lunch. The majority of people want housing and health fixed, not tax cuts.0
-
Water John wrote: »The public at this stage know their is no, free lunch. The majority of people want housing and health fixed, not tax cuts.
Good luck with that.........
Some chance with housing ........health.....won’t hold my breath.
Too many vested interests, unions, jobsworths.0 -
Advertisement
-
Totally agree, improve health is the best that can be hoped for. Cut the waiting lists using whatever means, treatment purchase fund etc.0
Advertisement