FF/FG/Green Government - Part 3 - Threadbanned User List in OP

No like I said start with the political watch dogs both ex and current politicians and councilors who should of overseen better governance of this kind of work. Its time we hit the political class where it hurts their pocket. I bet if they were on the hook for the cost there would be a new found will to actually target the people who actually brought these blocks from quarry to the actual build.

But we can just lump on cost to people who have no hand act or part in any of this. It can be done with the stroke of a pen, like the levy paid with the likes of the insurance levy a few years back for insurance companies. We can start there politicians including ex politicians pay and pensions after all they were supposed to be on watch while all of this went on

It shows it can be done with regards to a scandal like this and for individuals I point you to the public sector pension levy where at the stroke of a pen all public sector employees finally had to contribute a bit to a pension they come no where near close to paying the full cost for. So it can be done and very quickly too.

No it wasn't it was on a subset of tax payers, who had a new levy imposed on them over night so it can and should be done in this case. Are you kidding your using an excuse that covers the vast majority of people your trying to impose the cost on. People paying property tax and people who are in the market for their first home didn't have anything to do with Mica yet you think they should pay and then you think you can apply this logic when you want to give others the expense and not apply it to people who are running the country and should of had more of a handle of what was going on with regards to safeguard and regulations. Your having a laugh aren't you. So lets start with all politicians both ex and current for a "mica lack of regulation levy".

What about home insurance every time I have ever had to get a mortgage I have been told I needed home insurance by the bank, why can these insurance companies not cover this, surely if a house if falling down its covered if not then home insurance is not needed and insurance companies and banks should be held liable for every payment ever made.

Politicians didn't make people buy cheap shoddy mica-infused blocks for their self-build McMansions either, so why should politicians bear the cost.

There was a political decision right across the spectrum that this burden be shared by the public. I disagreed with that, but there is no political party that reflected my view, the closest being FG who resisted the full bill.

Of all taxpayers, those who are renting and those who are homeless shouldn't have to bear the cost of fixing houses for those who own them. That means the fairest way of sharing the cost is through LPT increases. Again, if a particular county had a good inspection regime or careful purchasers of blocks and therefore only has a small mica problem, the LPT increase should be lower than in counties with a big liability. Therefore the costs per county should be recouped through LPT in those counties, as it is the least unfair way of getting the money from taxpayers.

I'll let Paschal explain it to you.

And is that the same with builders indemnity insurance?

And they walk off with a gold plated pension not much of a punishment is it now really

So, concrete is only used to build new houses.

I didn’t know that.

"finally had to contribute"...............ignoring that most PS have always being paying 6.5% pension contributions.

I'm sure you know this, as I've told you enough times.

The 10% PRD is *on top of*, as well as, the normal 6.5% pension contributions.

And with the career average scheme, there actually are doubts that it will pay out in the long run as much as people put in.

Correct, and it is appropriate and entirely correct that the employees contribution should not cover the full cost.

Because the employer contributes also, like in practically all pension schemes.

The weakness in your argument is the use of the word "full".

You suggest/imply that the employee should cover the full cost of their pension.

Should this be the case in the Siemens/AIB/Vodafone/ALDI pension schemes?

The implication of your suggestion is that employer contributions should not be allowed?

I feel you may reply: "but these companies aren't making losses, whereas the State often runs a Budget deficit".

I reply with two points:

(1) firms do continue with employer pension conts even through loss-making periods

(2) I support any call from you to reduce Budget deficits, via spending restraint/less waste, etc., For example, if you suggest higher pension conts from staff to reflect the true cost of their pensions, I could agree with you. I suggest a 33ee/66er split, or maybe 40ee/60er. If you could show that staff conts are not that high, then I agree that they should increase.

As I said, builders insurance wouldn't cover supply defects like this (being angry about it doesn't change this fact), the builder would also liquidate the company as it would be much cheaper than paying out (and many of the builders have long since disappeared anyway, so you're only penalising those that stuck around) it also doesn't cover the self builds where no builder is involved. The government is the only recourse most of the people effected can engage with, rightly or wrongly.

The worst thing is that an inspection system (which would have tested the bricks) was brought in after the pyrite scandal but was made optional via a waiver system, those that signed the waiver are still being bailed out by the taxpayer.

The opposition are pushing for unlimited bailouts for those affected, so be careful how you vote (if this is an important issue at poll time). There is a big thread on the Donegal forum that goes into all the details.

(I'm personally in favour of a limited bailout to a standard sized house rather than a like for like replacement of what they had).

Children's hospital to open by end 2024 at the earliest (rte.ie)

An Oireachtas committee has been told that the earliest potential opening for the new children's hospital is the end of 2024.

The new National Paediatric Hospital will be substantially complete by March 2024, the builders have said. At that time, it will be handed over to Children's Health Ireland for a period of commissioning.

The National Paediatric Hospital Development Board (NPHDB) has said that the spend on the hospital up to August was €1.1 billion.

The Government approved a budget of €1.4 billion in 2018.

In a statement for today's Joint Committee on Health, the development board said that definitive updates on costs cannot be provided at this time as it is a live contract.

The committee heard that there are 989 claims from the contractor still in play to be resolved but that a moratorium on claims had been agreed to allow the project progress.

Social Democrats Health Spokesperson Róisín Shortall said she was concerned that delaying the resolution of claims could have implications for the opening of the hospital and the final costs.

-----------------

Will they even finish it before the election? This is the FG legacy. The final costs will be enormous.