National Forum

Non-Gaa Forum

(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post


Replying To cavanman47:  "But he was never going to contest the next election. He said that a decade ago. Surely makes more sense to allow a new leader a few months to lead them into that election.

Nevertheless, the most likely make-up of the next government is still FF/FG with independents and greens likely supporting them."
No he didn't say that a decade ago. What he said is that he would leave politics by the time he was 50. That implies staying in politics for up to another 4 years anyway. But he sees the writing on the wall. HE knows his party will get hammered in the local elections in June so he has made the wise decision to jump now before he would be pushed out in the Autumn.

PoolSturgeon (Galway) - Posts: 1908 - 21/03/2024 11:17:32    2532465

Link

Replying To Seanfanbocht:  "Most of the world has property taxes including on residences."
That may be the case, and apologies I wasn't 100% clear in conveying what I meant. I agree with property tax if its used for its intended purpose: providing adequate services and infrastructure related to said properties.

In my original reply, I was responding to the poster who had asked how the shortfall would be made up if the tax takings from landlords were hypothetically reduced.

My question still stands to that poster: Why do you think we should be generating tax and income for landlords off the back of property ownership? In my opinion, if the amount if private landlords was reduced, we would see a fairer housing system which works for the majority of folk.

I have absolutely no political affiliations and would have very limited faith in the basic abilities of most politicians. But I would tend to have slightly more belief in them than a private entity that is answerable to only itself.

oceanofnoise (Meath) - Posts: 44 - 21/03/2024 11:44:43    2532467

Link

Replying To Seanfanbocht:  "What's Greens policy today becomes main stream in 10 years.
Get used to it."
Nothing wrong with green policies.

The means by which the Irish green party pursues those policies is the problem.

cavanman47 (Cavan) - Posts: 5028 - 21/03/2024 11:54:26    2532470

Link

Replying To PoolSturgeon:  "No he didn't say that a decade ago. What he said is that he would leave politics by the time he was 50. That implies staying in politics for up to another 4 years anyway. But he sees the writing on the wall. HE knows his party will get hammered in the local elections in June so he has made the wise decision to jump now before he would be pushed out in the Autumn."
Grab your calculator.

He'll be 46 when the next election comes round. And he'd be going to the electorate in his constituency asking them to vote him in for a potential 5 year term.

cavanman47 (Cavan) - Posts: 5028 - 21/03/2024 11:57:15    2532472

Link

Replying To KillingFields:  "What do you see as everyone being taxed fairly?
Home ownership(wrongly imo) has gone mad. Or at least the quest for ownership. Prices are ridiculous and we dont have alternatives."
Fair, in my opinion, is taxing people according to their means. If you earn more, you pay more tax.

I agree wholeheartedly that the property market is mad, ridiculous. The price of the average semi-D or any other "average" house at the moment is insane. There's no other way to describe it. What also really angers me are the prices being charged for properties that are absolutely falling down and which will need hundreds of thousands to make them habitable.

It's greed, and as a society we're all culpable.

Home ownership should be within the grasp of the majority, but like a lot of other things, it is the "upper" minority who pull the strings and dictate what the rest of us get to do.

In my opinion, one alternative is to eradicate as many private landlords from the market as possible.

oceanofnoise (Meath) - Posts: 44 - 21/03/2024 12:21:23    2532479

Link

Replying To oceanofnoise:  "That may be the case, and apologies I wasn't 100% clear in conveying what I meant. I agree with property tax if its used for its intended purpose: providing adequate services and infrastructure related to said properties.

In my original reply, I was responding to the poster who had asked how the shortfall would be made up if the tax takings from landlords were hypothetically reduced.

My question still stands to that poster: Why do you think we should be generating tax and income for landlords off the back of property ownership? In my opinion, if the amount if private landlords was reduced, we would see a fairer housing system which works for the majority of folk.

I have absolutely no political affiliations and would have very limited faith in the basic abilities of most politicians. But I would tend to have slightly more belief in them than a private entity that is answerable to only itself."
Tax and income for landlords, or from landlords?
Landlords rental income is taxed at 50 %,, that's not taken for them, it's taken from them. Pretty whopping amount too.
(and no Breff, that doesn't mean we should all cry for the poor landlords).
How would you make up the inevitable shortfall?

Galway9801 (Galway) - Posts: 1761 - 21/03/2024 15:29:40    2532514

Link

Replying To Galway9801:  "Tax and income for landlords, or from landlords?
Landlords rental income is taxed at 50 %,, that's not taken for them, it's taken from them. Pretty whopping amount too.
(and no Breff, that doesn't mean we should all cry for the poor landlords).
How would you make up the inevitable shortfall?"
This shortfall only exists if the view is taken that that property ownership is a vehicle for generating income and tax.

In a hypothetical world where you sourced your water from a water oligarch, would you be concerned about tax shortfalls if the government decided to tax water barons out of existence? I would respectfully suggest that you'd be more concerned with ensuring that you had an adequate water supply. I use water as an analogy as it is a basic human right, equivalent to the right to own a property.

Surely most rational people would be of the view that the property "market" is not working. With the greatest of respect, if all you're worried about is the tax shortfall, then I think that says it all really.

oceanofnoise (Meath) - Posts: 44 - 21/03/2024 17:27:29    2532536

Link

Replying To cavanman47:  "Grab your calculator.

He'll be 46 when the next election comes round. And he'd be going to the electorate in his constituency asking them to vote him in for a potential 5 year term."
You would get a job in the Fine Gael P.R. department if you are not employed there already.

Politicians dont announce at the age of 40 that they'll retire by 50 and then leave at the age of 45 unless circumstances change and they see the writing on the wall. He is getting out before the heat gets too hot and cant blame him for doing so. What would normally happen is that the taoiseach would lead his party into the next general election , if his party did well enough to be in government again, he would stay on as taoiseach and, if really determined to retire by 50, smoothly hand over the leadership of the party and the taoiseach role to his successor 2 to 3 years into the life of the next government. He knows the party will get hammered in June and more than likely in the general election next year also and he is getting out before it all goes pear-shaped and the stain of it is left on his CV. He is a smart man.

PoolSturgeon (Galway) - Posts: 1908 - 21/03/2024 17:50:46    2532540

Link

Replying To oceanofnoise:  "Fair, in my opinion, is taxing people according to their means. If you earn more, you pay more tax.

I agree wholeheartedly that the property market is mad, ridiculous. The price of the average semi-D or any other "average" house at the moment is insane. There's no other way to describe it. What also really angers me are the prices being charged for properties that are absolutely falling down and which will need hundreds of thousands to make them habitable.

It's greed, and as a society we're all culpable.

Home ownership should be within the grasp of the majority, but like a lot of other things, it is the "upper" minority who pull the strings and dictate what the rest of us get to do.

In my opinion, one alternative is to eradicate as many private landlords from the market as possible."
I would suggest that a better alternative would be to allow banks to offer 100% mortgages.

A simple move that could literally be brought about with the strike of a pen from the regulator instantly would remove the biggest barrier to home ownership in this country - no, not landlords - the time taken for those paying high rents to get a deposit together.

cavanman47 (Cavan) - Posts: 5028 - 21/03/2024 17:52:35    2532541

Link

Replying To oceanofnoise:  "This shortfall only exists if the view is taken that that property ownership is a vehicle for generating income and tax.

In a hypothetical world where you sourced your water from a water oligarch, would you be concerned about tax shortfalls if the government decided to tax water barons out of existence? I would respectfully suggest that you'd be more concerned with ensuring that you had an adequate water supply. I use water as an analogy as it is a basic human right, equivalent to the right to own a property.

Surely most rational people would be of the view that the property "market" is not working. With the greatest of respect, if all you're worried about is the tax shortfall, then I think that says it all really."
Are you saying that if the government collectively decided that it's wrong to tax people on their properties,and abandoned the policy, the shortfall would automatically disappear? Could you explain how?
Property ownership is not by definition a vehicle for generating tax, but it is in practice, and a pretty lucrative one too id imagine.
Di you believe that society could function without taxation? If not,and if you believe that taxation is required to keep things ticking over, explain the system you'd use to determine what's taxed and what's not.


For the record, I was born in 1985, there have always been landlords as long as I've been alive,even when property was affordable and plentiful. Landlords are not the sole, or even the primary, cause of our present crisis.

Galway9801 (Galway) - Posts: 1761 - 21/03/2024 19:26:52    2532557

Link

Replying To PoolSturgeon:  "You would get a job in the Fine Gael P.R. department if you are not employed there already.

Politicians dont announce at the age of 40 that they'll retire by 50 and then leave at the age of 45 unless circumstances change and they see the writing on the wall. He is getting out before the heat gets too hot and cant blame him for doing so. What would normally happen is that the taoiseach would lead his party into the next general election , if his party did well enough to be in government again, he would stay on as taoiseach and, if really determined to retire by 50, smoothly hand over the leadership of the party and the taoiseach role to his successor 2 to 3 years into the life of the next government. He knows the party will get hammered in June and more than likely in the general election next year also and he is getting out before it all goes pear-shaped and the stain of it is left on his CV. He is a smart man."
Government parties, and historically FG in particular, tend to get hammered in local elections.

As I pointed out above, the most likely make-up of the next Government is still FF/FG + others. Current projections (prior to Varadcar's announcment) suggest FG will gain seats vs the 2020 election.

So not sure if the writing on the wall you're referring to really exists.

And an FYI - I am not and have never been a FG voter.

cavanman47 (Cavan) - Posts: 5028 - 21/03/2024 19:42:24    2532558

Link

Replying To Galway9801:  "Are you saying that if the government collectively decided that it's wrong to tax people on their properties,and abandoned the policy, the shortfall would automatically disappear? Could you explain how?
Property ownership is not by definition a vehicle for generating tax, but it is in practice, and a pretty lucrative one too id imagine.
Di you believe that society could function without taxation? If not,and if you believe that taxation is required to keep things ticking over, explain the system you'd use to determine what's taxed and what's not.


For the record, I was born in 1985, there have always been landlords as long as I've been alive,even when property was affordable and plentiful. Landlords are not the sole, or even the primary, cause of our present crisis."
There's that shortfall word again!
A shortfall is something that happens when there's a deficit in the expected amount.

So it must follow that there can only be a shortfall if property ownership is expected to generate taxable income.

I have consistently stated that I agree with taxation. I vehemently disagree with the reality which presents itself in this country at present: citizens of this country are being denied the basic human right to have their own roof over their heads.

Like it or not, yes, landlords are actually a huge problem in all this. They are not the sole problem, but they are a large part of it. Why? Because a large cohort of people who want to buy property cannot do so, due in large part to the exorbitant rent they have to fork out every month. There is another group of people who don't even have a place to rent: the voiceless homeless, amongst them 4,000+ children.

I sometimes genuinely despair at the mentality of some people in this country. As a people we are generally kind, empathetic, generous to a fault. I think we are losing sight of this a little, in the race to the bottom.

Can you not look past the "shortfall" and see the impact this crisis (and it absolutely is a crisis) is having on our society?

oceanofnoise (Meath) - Posts: 44 - 21/03/2024 21:12:09    2532565

Link

Replying To oceanofnoise:  "There's that shortfall word again!
A shortfall is something that happens when there's a deficit in the expected amount.

So it must follow that there can only be a shortfall if property ownership is expected to generate taxable income.

I have consistently stated that I agree with taxation. I vehemently disagree with the reality which presents itself in this country at present: citizens of this country are being denied the basic human right to have their own roof over their heads.

Like it or not, yes, landlords are actually a huge problem in all this. They are not the sole problem, but they are a large part of it. Why? Because a large cohort of people who want to buy property cannot do so, due in large part to the exorbitant rent they have to fork out every month. There is another group of people who don't even have a place to rent: the voiceless homeless, amongst them 4,000+ children.

I sometimes genuinely despair at the mentality of some people in this country. As a people we are generally kind, empathetic, generous to a fault. I think we are losing sight of this a little, in the race to the bottom.

Can you not look past the "shortfall" and see the impact this crisis (and it absolutely is a crisis) is having on our society?"
Shortfall is an acceptable word to use.

Taxed rental income is worth a fortune to our economy, and probably goes a long way to subsidising affordable housing and council housing, I agree that it's hard, probably impossible, for couples to save for a deposit while simultaneously paying rent,, but banks are incredibly stringent with the rules after the credit crunch 10 /15 years ago, that has nothing to do with landlords.

If the government did decide to follow your plan too it would be interesting to see the knock on effect it would have on other aspects of the economy. Countries need wealth creation, investors , employers etc,the state itself produces nothing , a stunt like your proposing may scare them away,fearing they will be next.

Galway9801 (Galway) - Posts: 1761 - 22/03/2024 14:31:47    2532657

Link

Replying To Galway9801:  "Shortfall is an acceptable word to use.

Taxed rental income is worth a fortune to our economy, and probably goes a long way to subsidising affordable housing and council housing, I agree that it's hard, probably impossible, for couples to save for a deposit while simultaneously paying rent,, but banks are incredibly stringent with the rules after the credit crunch 10 /15 years ago, that has nothing to do with landlords.

If the government did decide to follow your plan too it would be interesting to see the knock on effect it would have on other aspects of the economy. Countries need wealth creation, investors , employers etc,the state itself produces nothing , a stunt like your proposing may scare them away,fearing they will be next."
Good evening me oul mucker.

It's hardly "a stunt" to consider a system where a basic human right such as housing is placed within reach of ALL, or whomever may want to avail of it?

No more than water or the air we breathe, housing should be protected and deemed to be far more than just another method for people to make money off the back of it. You don't appear to agree on this point, because the potential s****fall is far more important.

If I can't appeal to your human rights sensibilities, how about another hypothetical situation: your next door neighbour owns a few cars, one of which they rent to you. They charge a very high weekly rent, because that's "the market rate". As a result of paying out all this car rental money every week, you will never own your own car. As time goes on, you continue to rent this car, but now it's not suitable for your personal circumstances, which have changed during the intervening period. You can't afford to rent or buy a more suitable car largely because of the car rental "market rate" you are being essentially forced to pay. Your quality of life is much reduced, as your neighbour's AKA your car landlord's fleet of cars grows, financed in part by your good self.

But this is all OK, right? Because a car is just a car, and just one other object which we can use for for generating money and tax. And if any moves were made to modify the car rental market, that could only have downsides, because the tax take is too lucrative to even consider an alternative.

Of course countries need strategies for wealth creation, but my question still remains: why does this have to so heavily involve generating income from property ownership and not focus more on activities like manufacturing, tourism, agriculture? You keep saying that property ownership is a huge contributor of tax money, without stating why you see this as a good thing. It's like saying we should never try to eradicate something like smoking, because the tax take on tobacco products is too lucrative.

But then again, a landlord who smokes would never be able to see past their own interests because they are contributing soooo much to society by virtue of all the tax they pay...

I'm enjoying our debate, but we will probably have to agree to disagree on this one!

oceanofnoise (Meath) - Posts: 44 - 22/03/2024 17:40:02    2532694

Link

Replying To Galway9801:  "Shortfall is an acceptable word to use.

Taxed rental income is worth a fortune to our economy, and probably goes a long way to subsidising affordable housing and council housing, I agree that it's hard, probably impossible, for couples to save for a deposit while simultaneously paying rent,, but banks are incredibly stringent with the rules after the credit crunch 10 /15 years ago, that has nothing to do with landlords.

If the government did decide to follow your plan too it would be interesting to see the knock on effect it would have on other aspects of the economy. Countries need wealth creation, investors , employers etc,the state itself produces nothing , a stunt like your proposing may scare them away,fearing they will be next."
Lending rules have literally everything to do with landlords

The majority of Nama repossessions were speculative buyers.

State enterprises have provided the best quality employment, and some of the best infrastructure in the world.

Do you know the profile of our largest property owners?

Do you know the actual numbers for taxed rental income?

The concept of a landlord for anyone other than a student is morally wrong. That's it.

We're witnessing our own people doing exactly what the British did to us.

Doylerwex (Wexford) - Posts: 2759 - 23/03/2024 07:59:16    2532758

Link

Replying To oceanofnoise:  "Good evening me oul mucker.

It's hardly "a stunt" to consider a system where a basic human right such as housing is placed within reach of ALL, or whomever may want to avail of it?

No more than water or the air we breathe, housing should be protected and deemed to be far more than just another method for people to make money off the back of it. You don't appear to agree on this point, because the potential s****fall is far more important.

If I can't appeal to your human rights sensibilities, how about another hypothetical situation: your next door neighbour owns a few cars, one of which they rent to you. They charge a very high weekly rent, because that's "the market rate". As a result of paying out all this car rental money every week, you will never own your own car. As time goes on, you continue to rent this car, but now it's not suitable for your personal circumstances, which have changed during the intervening period. You can't afford to rent or buy a more suitable car largely because of the car rental "market rate" you are being essentially forced to pay. Your quality of life is much reduced, as your neighbour's AKA your car landlord's fleet of cars grows, financed in part by your good self.

But this is all OK, right? Because a car is just a car, and just one other object which we can use for for generating money and tax. And if any moves were made to modify the car rental market, that could only have downsides, because the tax take is too lucrative to even consider an alternative.

Of course countries need strategies for wealth creation, but my question still remains: why does this have to so heavily involve generating income from property ownership and not focus more on activities like manufacturing, tourism, agriculture? You keep saying that property ownership is a huge contributor of tax money, without stating why you see this as a good thing. It's like saying we should never try to eradicate something like smoking, because the tax take on tobacco products is too lucrative.

But then again, a landlord who smokes would never be able to see past their own interests because they are contributing soooo much to society by virtue of all the tax they pay...

I'm enjoying our debate, but we will probably have to agree to disagree on this one!"
There's no point trying to appeal to humanity or morality. It isn't there.

Doylerwex (Wexford) - Posts: 2759 - 23/03/2024 08:00:16    2532759

Link

Leo trying to dampen down rumours before they start….. A real sign he has something to hide or keep hidden…

ForeverBlue2 (Cavan) - Posts: 1985 - 23/03/2024 08:53:34    2532767

Link

Replying To oceanofnoise:  "Good evening me oul mucker.

It's hardly "a stunt" to consider a system where a basic human right such as housing is placed within reach of ALL, or whomever may want to avail of it?

No more than water or the air we breathe, housing should be protected and deemed to be far more than just another method for people to make money off the back of it. You don't appear to agree on this point, because the potential s****fall is far more important.

If I can't appeal to your human rights sensibilities, how about another hypothetical situation: your next door neighbour owns a few cars, one of which they rent to you. They charge a very high weekly rent, because that's "the market rate". As a result of paying out all this car rental money every week, you will never own your own car. As time goes on, you continue to rent this car, but now it's not suitable for your personal circumstances, which have changed during the intervening period. You can't afford to rent or buy a more suitable car largely because of the car rental "market rate" you are being essentially forced to pay. Your quality of life is much reduced, as your neighbour's AKA your car landlord's fleet of cars grows, financed in part by your good self.

But this is all OK, right? Because a car is just a car, and just one other object which we can use for for generating money and tax. And if any moves were made to modify the car rental market, that could only have downsides, because the tax take is too lucrative to even consider an alternative.

Of course countries need strategies for wealth creation, but my question still remains: why does this have to so heavily involve generating income from property ownership and not focus more on activities like manufacturing, tourism, agriculture? You keep saying that property ownership is a huge contributor of tax money, without stating why you see this as a good thing. It's like saying we should never try to eradicate something like smoking, because the tax take on tobacco products is too lucrative.

But then again, a landlord who smokes would never be able to see past their own interests because they are contributing soooo much to society by virtue of all the tax they pay...

I'm enjoying our debate, but we will probably have to agree to disagree on this one!"
But housing is realistically protected, even with landlords in the market. There was no housing crisis throughout the 90s, and there were landlords then.
When did I say the shortfall was more important?
I said it's an issue to be taken into consideration.

The car analagy is no different to owning a home. If you can't afford one it's nothing to do with the fella loaning you his second one, it's to do with the fella refusing to give you the mortgage.

Galway9801 (Galway) - Posts: 1761 - 23/03/2024 09:21:39    2532771

Link

Replying To Doylerwex:  "Lending rules have literally everything to do with landlords

The majority of Nama repossessions were speculative buyers.

State enterprises have provided the best quality employment, and some of the best infrastructure in the world.

Do you know the profile of our largest property owners?

Do you know the actual numbers for taxed rental income?

The concept of a landlord for anyone other than a student is morally wrong. That's it.

We're witnessing our own people doing exactly what the British did to us."
Nama repossessions were of speculative buyers because they went after medium-large scale developments.

There's a distinction to be made between these speculative buyers, the vulture funds etc. and the small private landlord.
There is absolutely a place, and a need, in the market for landlords. It isn't just students who relocate temporarily for work.

As for the state providing the highest quality employment. . .really?? I'd argue that a Web developer for Google experiences better working conditions than a nurse in St James.

cavanman47 (Cavan) - Posts: 5028 - 23/03/2024 10:19:32    2532775

Link

Replying To cavanman47:  "Nama repossessions were of speculative buyers because they went after medium-large scale developments.

There's a distinction to be made between these speculative buyers, the vulture funds etc. and the small private landlord.
There is absolutely a place, and a need, in the market for landlords. It isn't just students who relocate temporarily for work.

As for the state providing the highest quality employment. . .really?? I'd argue that a Web developer for Google experiences better working conditions than a nurse in St James."
Google aren't as well looked after as they used to be.

Massive uncertainty over contracts there at the minute.

Why are working conditions poor in hospitals? Through deliberately sabotaging for eventual privatisation, which actually supports my point.

I accept your point on shorter term relocations for work.

There's a place for it, but not at the expense of thousands of families.

What we're seeing now is a racketeering scam.

Doylerwex (Wexford) - Posts: 2759 - 23/03/2024 13:05:18    2532807

Link