The Fine Gael thread

[lynchbhoy]

Yes, and directing money to frontline services means hiring more doctors and nurses. It's still expenditure on staff. That's my point. The 80% is irrelevant.

Useful expenditure that has a direct impact upon the people that require help as opposed to useless expenditure that has no impact at all in medical help required by people.

Undoubtedly of massive interest and 80% is relevant.
Unless you can come back with some relevant statistic to prove that the extra staffing in civil service office blocks is in someway relevant . You've turned this into a mini argument due to trying to back up your ill conceived throwaway comment.
Give over your fooling no one here!
Come back to me with a decent thought out notion and we can discuss.

Yes, it's clear you have won the crowd with your logic. 

I don't think the girly clique gang intimidation tactics count for too much!
Esp when they get it arseways in a fumbled attempt of a post to seemingly ' protect' yourself!!

Cringeworthy

[Lar Naparka]

The CSO reckon there are 4.6 million people living in this State.
30,000 or 80,000 took part in an Ogle inspired march and he and others were roaring and shouting about how much support they had.
Some of them claimed it was the biggest protest ever
There were around 900,000 in the PAYE protests back in the late 70s.
Saw on the News tonight they say 1m of the 1.5m eligible public water supplied houses had registered.

Look, me oul' buddy, I don't think you really wanted to give the impression that everyone who did not march on Saturday supported the concept of water charges but that was the clear inference.

But I felt that if you wanted to play silly buggers, then so could I. Same as always- "anything you can do, I can do better" and all that.
However, since I based what I wrote on percentages, my point still stands. I'm quite happy to stand over my methodology and state that no more than 25% of the population are happy to pay this new tax.
For starters, going my the figures you saw last night, 0.5m of the "eligible public water supplied houses" have not registered yet.

Would you agree that none of them are likely to do so in the near future?
Would you further agree that while 100% of the unregistered house owners oppose water charges, far less than 100% of those who registered support the imposition of the water tax?
Over the weekend, it emerged that the govt was cooking the figures when giving details of the amount of land available for house building.
It could be said of Enda that he does not tell unnecessary lies but I'd leave it at that.
He was first elected on the back of the greatest stoke I've ever seen pulled Irish in politics. (Remind me to tell you about that one sometime.)
After the budget he breathlessly told the nation that hard-pressed taxpayers had gone to the trouble of phoning him personally to thank him for the rise in their take home pay. They didn't know where it had come from, sez he.
When he was asked to back up his claims, the bould Enda was stuck for words, to put it mildly.
GIven the nature of Irish politics and Enda's penchant for being creative with the truth, would you accept that if the latest CSO stats were altered in any way, it would be to "pump" the number of registered owners at the expense of those who refuse to pay?
Last but by no means least, would you accept that (very) many of those who did register did not do so out of a sense of moral obligation but felt it necessary for a host of other reasons?

Tell you what, Ross, you give me a convincing counter-argument to challenge any of my points above and I'll carry the flag for the "Give Ballagh Back" brigade.
Now, can't be any fairer than that, can I?

[Maguire01]

Yes, and directing money to frontline services means hiring more doctors and nurses. It's still expenditure on staff. That's my point. The 80% is irrelevant.

Useful expenditure that has a direct impact upon the people that require help as opposed to useless expenditure that has no impact at all in medical help required by people.

Undoubtedly of massive interest and 80% is relevant.
Unless you can come back with some relevant statistic to prove that the extra staffing in civil service office blocks is in someway relevant . You've turned this into a mini argument due to trying to back up your ill conceived throwaway comment.
Give over your fooling no one here!
Come back to me with a decent thought out notion and we can discuss.

Yes, it's clear you have won the crowd with your logic. 

I don't think the girly clique gang intimidation tactics count for too much!
Esp when they get it arseways in a fumbled attempt of a post to seemingly ' protect' yourself!!

Cringeworthy

[Rossfan]

I'm quite happy to stand over my methodology and state that no more than 25% of the population are happy to pay this new tax.

25% or so of the population are paying for having piped water supply into their homes all the time ( group schemes, private wells etc). We are all VERY HAPPY that the other 75% being subsidised by us should have to put their hands in their pockets.

I suspect NONE of the other 75% are "happy" to pay the new charge - (just as nobody is happy to pay any tax. Mind you we all still want Scandanavian level public services  )

[mikehunt]

These 80% type figures need a breakdown before you can draw any conclusion from them. Some things are "current" expenditure and some "capital" expenditure, these definitions can vary hugely. If the health service outsources the transport of samples instead of paying drivers then "wages" go down and "transport" goes up, without any change whatsoever in the reality of the use of people.

Salaries and wages are not and never will be capital costs, they are straight forward operating costs no matter what way you look at them.

[mikehunt]

I'm quite happy to stand over my methodology and state that no more than 25% of the population are happy to pay this new tax.

25% or so of the population are paying for having piped water supply into their homes all the time ( group schemes, private wells etc). We are all VERY HAPPY that the other 75% being subsidised by us should have to put their hands in their pockets.

I suspect NONE of the other 75% are "happy" to pay the new charge - (just as nobody is happy to pay any tax. Mind you we all still want Scandanavian level public services  )

ha ha, the irony of a public sector worker complaining about subsidising someone else's lifestyle.

[Maguire01]

These 80% type figures need a breakdown before you can draw any conclusion from them. Some things are "current" expenditure and some "capital" expenditure, these definitions can vary hugely. If the health service outsources the transport of samples instead of paying drivers then "wages" go down and "transport" goes up, without any change whatsoever in the reality of the use of people.

Salaries and wages are not and never will be capital costs, they are straight forward operating costs no matter what way you look at them.

Salaries can indeed be capitalised if they are part of the cost of a capital project, such as new buildings or IT systems.

[mikehunt]

These 80% type figures need a breakdown before you can draw any conclusion from them. Some things are "current" expenditure and some "capital" expenditure, these definitions can vary hugely. If the health service outsources the transport of samples instead of paying drivers then "wages" go down and "transport" goes up, without any change whatsoever in the reality of the use of people.

Salaries and wages are not and never will be capital costs, they are straight forward operating costs no matter what way you look at them.

Salaries can indeed be capitalised if they are part of the cost of a capital project, such as new buildings or IT systems.

capital costs generally involve one off investment costs like buying a machine or property. Salaries and wages in the HSE would not be classed as Capital Costs. Doctor, nurses, admin salaries are separate to the cost of an investment project. It's well you know this.

[AZOffaly]

Magure is right. Capital costs can include salaries if they are booked against a capital project.

[Lar Naparka]

The CSO reckon there are 4.6 million people living in this State.
30,000 or 80,000 took part in an Ogle inspired march and he and others were roaring and shouting about how much support they had.
Some of them claimed it was the biggest protest ever
There were around 900,000 in the PAYE protests back in the late 70s.
Saw on the News tonight they say 1m of the 1.5m eligible public water supplied houses had registered.

No problem in agreeing with all of that Ross, but it still doesn't address my point.
The vast majority of the PPI, plain people of Ireland, either can't or won't voluntarily pay this tax.
Erring on the (very) generous side, I'd say less than 25% see it as their moral obligation to pay the effin' charge.
The main reason for this resistance is a financial one. People just don't have enough to get by as it is.
I know plenty of lads on four legs and with a tail who can understand the reasons for this. At least they'd make a better shot at it than those here who rabbit on and on about peoples' moral duties and the likes.
Could anyone seriously expect the thousands of homeowners and their families to pay when they face eviction from their homes?
Here's a link to chew on.
Banks attempt to repossess 7,000-plus homes
Mortgage holders' spokesman warns that repossessions will reach 25,000 this year

According to the same article there are close on 38,000 house owners in arrears of over 720 days.
No mistake about it we have a housing crisis of catastrophic proportions and we are talking about evictions and the return of the pickaxe and grobar brigade.
I'll take the word of The Guardian any day before I'd take Enda Kenny's.
Here's another link you might care to consider. According to this, 10% of homeowners are now struggling to meet their repayments.
The catch is that the article is dated Monday 28 February 2011, before the present government was elected.
Whaddya think the figure is now?
Another very important factor in the inability to meet repayments is the fact than the bare minimum wage and zero hour contracts are the norm at present.
Anyone who thinks the PPI are being unpatriotic by refusing to pay charges they can't afford should really get up off his arse and go take a look at the real world.

[Maguire01]

These 80% type figures need a breakdown before you can draw any conclusion from them. Some things are "current" expenditure and some "capital" expenditure, these definitions can vary hugely. If the health service outsources the transport of samples instead of paying drivers then "wages" go down and "transport" goes up, without any change whatsoever in the reality of the use of people.

Salaries and wages are not and never will be capital costs, they are straight forward operating costs no matter what way you look at them.

Salaries can indeed be capitalised if they are part of the cost of a capital project, such as new buildings or IT systems.

capital costs generally involve one off investment costs like buying a machine or property. Salaries and wages in the HSE would not be classed as Capital Costs. Doctor, nurses, admin salaries are separate to the cost of an investment project. It's well you know this.

Ask any accountant.

[foxcommander]

Getting back on track with the liars....

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0322/688916-no-record-kept-of-2012-irish-water-meetings/

Now why would you do something like that? Lets see who'll give us the party blurb...

Still nothing from the usual suspects on the board. Muppet, Maguire, Armaniac....you usually have something to counter with...

What, do you want people to argue with you for the sake of it?

No, I'd actually love to hear your take on it. Surely there is a reason why this was done off the record. It's not like Phil Hogan and FG to not provide a level of transparency in their dealings (as per election promises)

[Maguire01]

Getting back on track with the liars....

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0322/688916-no-record-kept-of-2012-irish-water-meetings/

Now why would you do something like that? Lets see who'll give us the party blurb...

Still nothing from the usual suspects on the board. Muppet, Maguire, Armaniac....you usually have something to counter with...

What, do you want people to argue with you for the sake of it?

No, I'd actually love to hear your take on it. Surely there is a reason why this was done off the record. It's not like Phil Hogan and FG to not provide a level of transparency in their dealings (as per election promises)

You won't find me defending Phil Hogan or FG.

[foxcommander]

Getting back on track with the liars....

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0322/688916-no-record-kept-of-2012-irish-water-meetings/

Now why would you do something like that? Lets see who'll give us the party blurb...

Still nothing from the usual suspects on the board. Muppet, Maguire, Armaniac....you usually have something to counter with...

What, do you want people to argue with you for the sake of it?

No, I'd actually love to hear your take on it. Surely there is a reason why this was done off the record. It's not like Phil Hogan and FG to not provide a level of transparency in their dealings (as per election promises)

You won't find me defending Phil Hogan or FG.

Fair enough but going back to my previous comment - why would such meetings be conducted in such a fashion. I'd understand if it was internal government business but not the case this time.

[mikehunt]

Magure is right. Capital costs can include salaries if they are booked against a capital project.

Not the salaries of nurses, doctors and admin staff which is what we are talking about. These are operating costs. Capital investment expenses do not include run of the mill salaries. We are not talking about Capital Investment. We are talking about day to day salaries which are operating expenses.