What have we come to

hatrickpatrick

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

hatrickpatrick, fair play lad: brilliant patient posting. You’ve clearly articulated the problem and the required solutions.

Obviously you can go one step further from your rental analysis: that cohort paying such a high percentage of their take home for ever lessor rental options cannot save effectively to buy a house. So you’ve got this pissed off generation suffering a lower standard of living (or less independence) year on year who won’t be able to exit the rental trap unless they ‘get a lend off their Da’, as suggested by the head of state.

So they hear SF offering to lead a different approach to housing and they’re all for it.

Exactly - and indeed, this advice from the Taoiseach himself is one of the many instances that I've alluded to, in which regardless of what you think of FG's housing policy, their commentary and expressed attitude towards the problem is one of, as other posters have said, "let them eat cake". And if that's their policy as a party, and their target demographic are those on the ladder as opposed to those drowning in the wake of the ladder being retracted out of reach, then fair enough - that's democracy! They're free as a party to represent whatever demographic of voters they choose to represent. Of course they are.

What doesn't make sense though, are the reactions spanning seemingly genuine head scratching - "what happened? Why are young people voting this way? How could they reject us after we "fixed" the economy?" - to outright contempt and defensive attacking of the electorate - "the voters are too thick to understand how good we've been to them! They don't get it! Silly little voters!" which were on widespread display among the establishment parties and their cheerleaders in the commentariat in the days immediately following the election result. The reason I've been posting the arguments I've been posting is that some people seem to be genuinely in the dark as to what my generation is facing and why we're not buying in to the "quality of life is better now than it was ten years ago, and FG are to be thanked for that" mantra.

To those who don't care and feel that my generation isn't their target demographic, that's grand. I obviously don't approve and I won't be voting for ye, but it's a democracy and you have every right to chase whatever cohort of voters you feel are your most reliable ticket back into the Dáil. But do not attack my generation with condescending contempt or sit around wondering out loud "how did we come to this?" when the answers are staring you right in the face, not just from posts like mine on this thread but from the lived experience of millennials which is being widely shared in the form of frustrated "off my chest" style postings on social media, in newspaper comment sections, in articles, in tweets, at local political activist meetings, and on the doorsteps when politicians come around asking for votes. I don't understand the air of bewilderment among those who are bewildered.

If you preside over a period of stagflation which primarily hits those of one particular demographic, and then turn around and express contempt for that demographic's suffering when challenged on your performance, that demographic is not going to vote for you. It's such an almost moronically simple concept that I sort of feel like if it doesn't make sense now, it never will - but it makes me extremely sad that so many people could be so oblivious to the lived experience of their fellow country men and women, that an angry revolt at the ballot box comes as some kind of seismic shock as opposed to a depressingly predictable sequence of events.

James Brown

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Only ones who actually ‘did anything ‘ concrete(pardon the unintended pun)
about it.

Remainder have horsed out ideas and stuff but haven’t laid a block.

Let’s wait and see how they do, I hope they do well and fulfill their promises, but as of now they haven’t laid an official brick on a brick.

Making it worse is something. Quite right Brendan.

Weren't in government.

Hopefully they make a decent effort. I'd be happy with that.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

The majority of new builds are build to rent. These are entities feeding on the crisis and taxed at low rates because ...well that's a matter of opinion.

Bowie wrote: »

Yes.



I've posted other links over the months.

This is where you say..

"arra g'wan...something something".

Why do you keep posting lies? The statement in bold is a lie.

The link you provide does nothing to back it up, in fact it shows the lie for what it is. Build-to-rent is limited to the apartment sector. However, as your link says:

"But the stockbrokers said that apartments continue to represent a very low share of output in the country's residential sector and the sector is estimated to represent 17% of home completions last year. "

Even if build-to-rent accounted for all apartments built in the country last year, they would still only account for a minority of 17% of all new builds.


Edit: The second link you provided also showed that you were posting a lie.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/investors-pile-into-property-as-turnover-in-build-to-rent-sector-reaches-2-54bn-1.4177334

"In the past 12 months forward commitments accounted for about €1.3 billion, or 51 per cent, of activity, up from €531 million the previous year. Those sales comprised 2,850 homes, while the total number of units transacted last year is estimated to be in excess of 6,500."

That means the number of homes bought by build-to-rent in 2019 was 3,850 (6,500 minus the 2,850 forward commitments). That is a minority of the over 21,000 built in that year.

Brendan Bendar

Bowie wrote: »

Making it worse is something. Quite right Brendan.

Weren't in government.

Hopefully they make a decent effort. I'd be happy with that.

How could building units make things worse, like 100 units is always better than none or ten or twenty.

Strange kind of theory’s you have, I’ll have to surmise, very strange.


A decent effort???

I heard of 100k units..... what’s this ‘decent effort’ all about?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Why do you keep posting lies? The statement in bold is a lie.

The link you provide does nothing to back it up, in fact it shows the lie for what it is. Build-to-rent is limited to the apartment sector. However, as your link says:

"But the stockbrokers said that apartments continue to represent a very low share of output in the country's residential sector and the sector is estimated to represent 17% of home completions last year. "

Even if build-to-rent accounted for all apartments built in the country last year, they would still only account for a minority of 17% of all new builds.


Edit: The second link you provided also showed that you were posting a lie.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/investors-pile-into-property-as-turnover-in-build-to-rent-sector-reaches-2-54bn-1.4177334

"In the past 12 months forward commitments accounted for about €1.3 billion, or 51 per cent, of activity, up from €531 million the previous year. Those sales comprised 2,850 homes, while the total number of units transacted last year is estimated to be in excess of 6,500."

That means the number of homes bought by build-to-rent in 2019 was 3,850 (6,500 minus the 2,850 forward commitments). That is a minority of the over 21,000 built in that year.

It's not a lie. My links are weak I'll grant you that. It may have been an article you posted that I originally cited from, if I recall correctly.
You are basically parroting Brendan but with less manners.

You often say 'keep posting lies'. It's not true and when you are asked for examples you run away.

hatrickpatrick

Bowie wrote: »

The SD's and FF too. Seems FG are the only ones looking at the worsening crisis and thinking 'steady as she goes'.

SDs enjoyed a lot of transfers in the SF surpluses, in my view the only reason they didn't get more support was simply because they didn't have the air of being a big enough party to truly challenge the status quo. The #VoteLeftTransferLeft document which was widely circulated among folks my age advised voting SF #1, transferring to PBP, then left leaning independents, then SocDems.

The reason FF aren't trusted in this regard is more than just their record as having presided over the banking crises and property bubble, they were also widely trashed as having begun the policy FG accelerated, of knocking down social housing, selling half of the sites to the developers of the new PPP project, and then rebuilding them with a significantly reduced proportion of public housing included.

For those interested, this is the document which I believe was created by a PBP candidate (although it got shared so widely that I'm struggling to find the original posting of it) and was shared in every WhatsApp group and Facebook group I'm a member of, with a massively positive reaction among my own peers (who are generally in the 25-30 age group). Personally I didn't follow this one to the letter, in my constituency I voted PBP #1, SF #2, SocDem #3 and voted the whole way down the ballot paper to make sure that FF were at least above FG if the transfers went that far. That was a much about sending a message to FG as anything else, tbh.

Idbatterim

hattrickpatrick, your post hits the nail on the head again, most of my mates, all workers, some mid thirties and not unemployed a day in their lives, previously voted Fg. 2011 election no brainer, the 2016 election, rock and hard place, but give them benefit of doubt, no other viable options. But like you say, not only did they no cut income taxes like they said they would (and I understand why they couldnt / didnt, but that predicament is of their own making) but aside from whatever mickey mouse tax cuts they may have given, the cost of housing annihilates any other expenditure most of us have. Then thing is, you have the posters you describe, "I have a house, I'm alright jack" , yeah, how many of you would have qualified for your mortgage, under the current lending rules? Probably a good percentage, and a good percentage that wouldnt! Or got their houses decades ago for a pittance. So you have the younger non owner ex fg voters, who thought they represented them, now going to SF or possibly not voting at all, because they have become dissilusioned. The pensioners go mad when they cant extort the government every budget for a fiver and they think the young should start selling organs to afford property and put up or shut up? The level of delusion and imcompetence is beyond any form of belief, decades of living in this country and you think you can no longer be shocked... Wrong!!!!

James Brown

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

How could building units make things worse, like 100 units is always better than none or ten or twenty.

Strange kind of theory’s you have, I’ll have to surmise, very strange.


A decent effort???

I heard of 100k units..... what’s this ‘decent effort’ all about?

If they don't hit targets but move sufficiently in that direction I'll be happy re: housing be it FF/SF or whomever.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

It's not a lie. My links are weak I'll grant you that. It may have been an article you posted that I originally cited from, if I recall correctly.
You are basically parroting Brendan but with less manners.

You often say 'keep posting lies'. It's not true and when you are asked for examples you run away.

Your links contradict you.

You said that the majority of new builds are build to rent. That is simply not true, a lie in other words.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Your links contradict you.

You said that the majority of new builds are build to rent. That is simply not true, a lie in other words.

I am not a liar Blanch.

Shefwedfan

Bowie wrote: »

I am not a liar Blanch.

No you just have issues with the truth :P

Shefwedfan

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

SDs enjoyed a lot of transfers in the SF surpluses, in my view the only reason they didn't get more support was simply because they didn't have the air of being a big enough party to truly challenge the status quo. The #VoteLeftTransferLeft document which was widely circulated among folks my age advised voting SF #1, transferring to PBP, then left leaning independents, then SocDems.

The reason FF aren't trusted in this regard is more than just their record as having presided over the banking crises and property bubble, they were also widely trashed as having begun the policy FG accelerated, of knocking down social housing, selling half of the sites to the developers of the new PPP project, and then rebuilding them with a significantly reduced proportion of public housing included.

For those interested, this is the document which I believe was created by a PBP candidate (although it got shared so widely that I'm struggling to find the original posting of it) and was shared in every WhatsApp group and Facebook group I'm a member of, with a massively positive reaction among my own peers (who are generally in the 25-30 age group). Personally I didn't follow this one to the letter, in my constituency I voted PBP #1, SF #2, SocDem #3 and voted the whole way down the ballot paper to make sure that FF were at least above FG if the transfers went that far. That was a much about sending a message to FG as anything else, tbh.

I think you need to get new mates

Unless the peers you are talking to are unemployed then I doubt you got any positive reaction

PBP didn't want anything to do with SF, then seen SF was getting a bit of following and they trying to jump on bandwagon. They where f**king useless when they got in and Ruth Coppinger was a great example. All mouth to get in and then done nothing, kicked to touch in this election along with a lot of her cronies.....the one that did stay in spent more time worried about what jacket Leo was wearing than doing any work

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

I am not a liar Blanch.

I didn't say that you were a liar.

I said that the statement you posted was not true, in other words, a lie.

It may well be that you genuinely didn't understand the statistics and the meaning of what you posted, or you may have deliberately posted an untruth, or it may have been irrational exuberance, or there may be some other reason or rationale. I don't know, that is for you to consider.

Yurt2

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I think you need to get new mates


Unless the peers you are talking to are unemployed then I doubt you got any positive reaction

Here we go on the merry-go-round again. Everyone who voted in a manner you disagreed with is an unemployed sponger. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Shefwedfan

Yurt! wrote: »

Here we go on the merry-go-round again. Everyone who voted in a manner you disagreed with is an unemployed sponger. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Anyone with a decent job are looking at losing wages from 5% up if they voted SF......


How many people are willing to lose 5% more of their wages to pay for a group of spongers as you call them....I prefer wasters myself

blanch152

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

SDs enjoyed a lot of transfers in the SF surpluses, in my view the only reason they didn't get more support was simply because they didn't have the air of being a big enough party to truly challenge the status quo. The #VoteLeftTransferLeft document which was widely circulated among folks my age advised voting SF #1, transferring to PBP, then left leaning independents, then SocDems.

The reason FF aren't trusted in this regard is more than just their record as having presided over the banking crises and property bubble, they were also widely trashed as having begun the policy FG accelerated, of knocking down social housing, selling half of the sites to the developers of the new PPP project, and then rebuilding them with a significantly reduced proportion of public housing included.

For those interested, this is the document which I believe was created by a PBP candidate (although it got shared so widely that I'm struggling to find the original posting of it) and was shared in every WhatsApp group and Facebook group I'm a member of, with a massively positive reaction among my own peers (who are generally in the 25-30 age group). Personally I didn't follow this one to the letter, in my constituency I voted PBP #1, SF #2, SocDem #3 and voted the whole way down the ballot paper to make sure that FF were at least above FG if the transfers went that far. That was a much about sending a message to FG as anything else, tbh.

If young people voted on the basis of that document, I despair for the future.

No consideration of what is good for the country, no consideration of policy, just a personality-based decision.

Shefwedfan

blanch152 wrote: »

If young people voted on the basis of that document, I despair for the future.

No consideration of what is good for the country, no consideration of policy, just a personality-based decision.

Anyone with a decent IQ wouldn't

Yurt2

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Anyone with a decent job are looking at losing wages from 5% up if they voted SF......


How many people are willing to lose 5% more of their wages to pay for a group of spongers as you call them....I prefer wasters myself

The levy of 5% was/is to kick in at 140k to my understanding. 'Decent jobs' don't start at 140k, but I'll leave you to your illusions.

blanch152

Yurt! wrote: »

The levy of 5% was/is to kick in at 140k to my understanding. 'Decent jobs' don't start at 140k, but I'll leave you to your illusions.

A couple on two decent incomes earning 75k each, just got their huge mortgage and will be delighted to pay the extra 5%.

smurgen

blanch152 wrote: »

A couple on two decent incomes earning 75k each, just got their huge mortgage and will be delighted to pay the extra 5%.

If they have to get a huge mortgage it means that FG made their housing unaffordable.

Shefwedfan

Yurt! wrote: »

The levy of 5% was/is to kick in at 140k to my understanding. 'Decent jobs' don't start at 140k, but I'll leave you to your illusions.

Two people married earning 70k each?


Trying topay for kids, mortgage etc. That's the people SF want to screw


140 this year, 120k next year, 100k the following year, anything to keep the waster fed is the SF way

Shefwedfan

smurgen wrote: »

If they have to get a huge mortgage it means that FG made their housing unaffordable.

No it doesnt

smurgen

Shefwedfan wrote: »

No it doesnt

Low iq poster makes low iq post.colour me shocked!

Yurt2

blanch152 wrote: »

A couple on two decent incomes earning 75k each, just got their huge mortgage and will be delighted to pay the extra 5%.

That's not how tax credits or the PAYE system works. Are you sure you're a clever hard working boy on loadzadosh?

smurgen

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Two people married earning 70k each?


Trying topay for kids, mortgage etc. That's the people SF want to screw


140 this year, 120k next year, 100k the following year, anything to keep the waster fed is the SF way

Keep posting nonsense.keep linking Blanche's posts.the electorate will continue to punish fine Gael.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Why do you keep posting lies? The statement in bold is a lie.

The link you provide does nothing to back it up, in fact it shows the lie for what it is. Build-to-rent is limited to the apartment sector. However, as your link says:

"But the stockbrokers said that apartments continue to represent a very low share of output in the country's residential sector and the sector is estimated to represent 17% of home completions last year. "

Even if build-to-rent accounted for all apartments built in the country last year, they would still only account for a minority of 17% of all new builds.


Edit: The second link you provided also showed that you were posting a lie.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/investors-pile-into-property-as-turnover-in-build-to-rent-sector-reaches-2-54bn-1.4177334

"In the past 12 months forward commitments accounted for about €1.3 billion, or 51 per cent, of activity, up from €531 million the previous year. Those sales comprised 2,850 homes, while the total number of units transacted last year is estimated to be in excess of 6,500."

That means the number of homes bought by build-to-rent in 2019 was 3,850 (6,500 minus the 2,850 forward commitments). That is a minority of the over 21,000 built in that year.

Okay...

The largest increase was in apartments, with 613 new apartments completed in the first three months of the year. This was a rise of 28pc on last year.
There has been a surge in fast-track applications for build-to-rent apartment blocks from developers, with most of these unlikely to go on sale to families.
https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/revealed-how-many-new-homes-were-completed-in-the-first-three-months-of-2019-38117821.html

Rent-only apartment schemes on the up but ownership declines
Dublin will have 3,000 new apartments in 2019 – most privately rented
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/rent-only-apartment-schemes-on-the-up-but-ownership-declines-1.3778903?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Fcommercial-property%2Frent-only-apartment-schemes-on-the-up-but-ownership-declines-1.3778903

Dublin investment market dominated by private rented sector in 2019
Build-to-rent sector poised for five years’ sustained growth in capital and other cities
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/dublin-investment-market-dominated-by-private-rented-sector-in-2019-1.4101973?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Fcommercial-property%2Fdublin-investment-market-dominated-by-private-rented-sector-in-2019-1.4101973

Most, or majority, take your pick, of new builds are build to rent.
These aren't even the original article which I believe you posted that I quoted from.
Point is we are moving in that direction and FG policy encourages it. Hopefully this will change.
I never called you are liar for peddling the false narrative about the percentage of vulture fund properties. It's called keeping it country Blanch.

Hats off though. A master class in pedantry and insults, yet divulge no opinion on topic.

James Brown

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Anyone with a decent job are looking at losing wages from 5% up if they voted SF......


How many people are willing to lose 5% more of their wages to pay for a group of spongers as you call them....I prefer wasters myself

Relax FG are out. Dara in europe...not sure were Kenny is...

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

Okay...







Most, or majority, take your pick, of new builds are build to rent.
These aren't even the original article which I believe you posted that I quoted from.
Point is we are moving in that direction and FG policy encourages it. Hopefully this will change.
I never called you are liar for peddling the false narrative about the percentage of vulture fund properties. It's called keeping it country Blanch.

Hats off though. A master class in pedantry and insults, yet divulge no opinion on topic.

21,000 homes were built in 2019.

The numbers of build to rent that you quote are nowhere near a majority - it is incredible that you keep posting this untruth.

Take just the first article you post: "A total of 4,275 homes and apartments were completed in the first quarter"

"The largest increase was in apartments, with 613 new apartments completed in the first three months of the year"

"There has been a surge in fast-track applications for build-to-rent apartment blocks from developers, with most of these unlikely to go on sale to families"

On what planet is a fraction of 613, or even the vast majority of 613, a majority of 4,275?

I am going to just leave it there now.

Shefwedfan

smurgen wrote: »

Keep posting nonsense.keep linking Blanche's posts.the electorate will continue to punish fine Gael.

You seem to have issues with capitals, full stop and sentences.....will say no more

Shefwedfan

Yurt! wrote: »

That's not how tax credits or the PAYE system works. Are you sure you're a clever hard working boy on loadzadosh?

Did you actually read what was in the manifesto, once you are earning 140k then its the 5%, it is not if you take home pay is above 140k.....seriously read the manifesto before you start defending it


Great example of the Irish voter, not a breeze what is going on

Plus it starts at 100k.....Taper out tax credits on incomes over €100,000 up to €140,000 (€185m in tax revenue)

So once you and partner earn over 100k they start to tax the ass off you.....