26 County General Election 2020

[armaghniac]

Am I missing something in the economics talk here?

Firstly - I thought SF's manifesto was costed by the Department of Finance and they concluded that when their numbers were run that a budget surplus was still expected?

Secondly - what is the acceptable right/centre-right way of raising the funds to fix the housing, homelessness and housing crises? As I see it you can either tax, borrow or ignore the problem - those are your choices. So assuming you can't ignore it, and you don't want to add to the astronomical  national debt, then presumably you'll raise the funds via tax. If that's your conclusion then surely you want to tax progressively (I.e. richest pay the most) and is that not how SF have proposed to fix these problems?

We are supposed to already have the most progressive tax system in EU and 2nd in OECD.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-has-eu-s-most-progressive-tax-system-study-finds-1.4148368%3fmode=amp

That article refers to how our taxation system brings out income inequality pre tax to the EU average. There's room for it to be more progressive. Either that or address gross income inequality.

Income inequaliy is partly a function of having some well paid jobs in international industries, there is no particular advantage to preventing people getting  these jobs, as they pay most of the tax. There is a limit to income taxation if it is not to discourage people working.

There's massive waste in public finances (Children's hospital overrun). There's definitely plenty of money for important things if we stop wasting money through incompetence.

There is no doubt about this. But efficiency rarely enters into the debate. Which is  the most  efficient local authority, for instance? All he discussion is on the amount spent, but not on the bang for the buck.  Some public spending is as efficient as other countries, e.g. education, others is nowhere near as efficient e.g. health.  If SF improve efficiency, I'll join their party, but I am not holding my breath.

[MayoBuck]

Am I missing something in the economics talk here?

Firstly - I thought SF's manifesto was costed by the Department of Finance and they concluded that when their numbers were run that a budget surplus was still expected?

Secondly - what is the acceptable right/centre-right way of raising the funds to fix the housing, homelessness and housing crises? As I see it you can either tax, borrow or ignore the problem - those are your choices. So assuming you can't ignore it, and you don't want to add to the astronomical  national debt, then presumably you'll raise the funds via tax. If that's your conclusion then surely you want to tax progressively (I.e. richest pay the most) and is that not how SF have proposed to fix these problems?

SF want to abolish property tax, one of the most progressive tax mechanisms we have. They also don't say where that shortfall will be made up in terms of local authority funding.

[armaghniac]

SF want to abolish property tax, one of the most progressive tax mechanisms we have. They also don't say where that shortfall will be made up in terms of local authority funding.

This was pointed out, but massive numbers still voted for them. What is their explanation, I wonder.

[Eamonnca1]

Am I missing something in the economics talk here?

Firstly - I thought SF's manifesto was costed by the Department of Finance and they concluded that when their numbers were run that a budget surplus was still expected?

Secondly - what is the acceptable right/centre-right way of raising the funds to fix the housing, homelessness and housing crises? As I see it you can either tax, borrow or ignore the problem - those are your choices. So assuming you can't ignore it, and you don't want to add to the astronomical  national debt, then presumably you'll raise the funds via tax. If that's your conclusion then surely you want to tax progressively (I.e. richest pay the most) and is that not how SF have proposed to fix these problems?

SF want to abolish property tax, one of the most progressive tax mechanisms we have. They also don't say where that shortfall will be made up in terms of local authority funding.

The greens want to replace property tax with a land value tax, which is a sensible proposal that economists have been advocating for years. If they end up in coalition with SF then they might get their wish.

[OgraAnDun]

Am I missing something in the economics talk here?

Firstly - I thought SF's manifesto was costed by the Department of Finance and they concluded that when their numbers were run that a budget surplus was still expected?

Secondly - what is the acceptable right/centre-right way of raising the funds to fix the housing, homelessness and housing crises? As I see it you can either tax, borrow or ignore the problem - those are your choices. So assuming you can't ignore it, and you don't want to add to the astronomical  national debt, then presumably you'll raise the funds via tax. If that's your conclusion then surely you want to tax progressively (I.e. richest pay the most) and is that not how SF have proposed to fix these problems?

SF claim that alright but from their manifesto:

Provide an additional €6.5 billion in order  to deliver over 100,000  public  homes on public  land  to meet social and affordable housing needs

Which seems impossible by any measure. Apart from the labour shortage, I can't see how that number of houses can be built for that kind of money no matter how the money itself is raised.

There was an excellent talk on Morning Ireland yesterday involving academics in the field who said that the scheme amounted to building homes for around €234k, of which €6.5bn would come from the public purse. The academic was a strong supporter of the policy and suggested that more than €6.5bn will be spent by the state over the next few years in rent to private landlords (if we keep going the way we are).

[Itchy]

Am I missing something in the economics talk here?

Firstly - I thought SF's manifesto was costed by the Department of Finance and they concluded that when their numbers were run that a budget surplus was still expected?

Secondly - what is the acceptable right/centre-right way of raising the funds to fix the housing, homelessness and housing crises? As I see it you can either tax, borrow or ignore the problem - those are your choices. So assuming you can't ignore it, and you don't want to add to the astronomical  national debt, then presumably you'll raise the funds via tax. If that's your conclusion then surely you want to tax progressively (I.e. richest pay the most) and is that not how SF have proposed to fix these problems?

SF claim that alright but from their manifesto:

Provide an additional €6.5 billion in order  to deliver over 100,000  public  homes on public  land  to meet social and affordable housing needs

Which seems impossible by any measure. Apart from the labour shortage, I can't see how that number of houses can be built for that kind of money no matter how the money itself is raised.

There was an excellent talk on Morning Ireland yesterday involving academics in the field who said that the scheme amounted to building homes for around €234k, of which €6.5bn would come from the public purse. The academic was a strong supporter of the policy and suggested that more than €6.5bn will be spent by the state over the next few years in rent to private landlords (if we keep going the way we are).

I heard the same. 50k of these new houses are already budgeted for  the challenge isnt the money or the approach, the challenge is getting the labour to build the houses.

[Angelo]

Am I missing something in the economics talk here?

Firstly - I thought SF's manifesto was costed by the Department of Finance and they concluded that when their numbers were run that a budget surplus was still expected?

Secondly - what is the acceptable right/centre-right way of raising the funds to fix the housing, homelessness and housing crises? As I see it you can either tax, borrow or ignore the problem - those are your choices. So assuming you can't ignore it, and you don't want to add to the astronomical  national debt, then presumably you'll raise the funds via tax. If that's your conclusion then surely you want to tax progressively (I.e. richest pay the most) and is that not how SF have proposed to fix these problems?

SF claim that alright but from their manifesto:

Provide an additional €6.5 billion in order  to deliver over 100,000  public  homes on public  land  to meet social and affordable housing needs

Which seems impossible by any measure. Apart from the labour shortage, I can't see how that number of houses can be built for that kind of money no matter how the money itself is raised.

There was an excellent talk on Morning Ireland yesterday involving academics in the field who said that the scheme amounted to building homes for around €234k, of which €6.5bn would come from the public purse. The academic was a strong supporter of the policy and suggested that more than €6.5bn will be spent by the state over the next few years in rent to private landlords (if we keep going the way we are).

The Stoops/FF won't like that one.

[Itchy]

There was an all out assault on Sinn Fein before the election by vested interests, most of them with very close links to FF and FG. Here, after the election, is what IBEC and others are now saying. Striking the difference isnt it....


Ibec says Sinn Féin 'not mad' when it comes to the economy
'Manifestos are one thing, but programmes for government are a different animal'

Senior members of the Irish business world envisage no difficulty developing a working partnership with Sinn Féin, should the left-leaning party be part of the next government.

As the dramatic result of the election took shape, global financial newswire Bloomberg suggested now "could be a good time to dump the country's bonds" as risks may increase, citing reasons such as spending promises by Sinn Féin.

However, Brian Hayes, the top lobbyist for Irish bankers, and a former Fine Gael junior finance minister, believes suggestions of increased political risk in fiscal matters is "exaggerated".

Tax
"People need to be relaxed about this," said Mr Hayes, chief executive of Banking and Payments Federation Ireland.

"With Sinn Féin, it's all about what a programme for government says. Manifestos are one thing, but programmes for government are a different animal."

In its manifesto, Sinn Féin made huge spending promises and effectively said it would narrow the tax base. However, it also pledged to retain the 12.5 per cent corporation tax rate and protect funding for investment agency, IDA Ireland.

"It was a change election. If people were talking about radical change to investment policy and free movement of capital, that would be a worry. But I don't think they are. I'm confident of a stable government."

Danny McCoy, director general of employers' lobby group, Ibec, said he could "absolutely" see the Irish business world being able to work with Sinn Féin: "We have seen them in action in the North. Their instincts are not that mad when it comes to business."

Mr McCoy called for the next government to enter a process of "social dialogue" with business and societal groups to discuss investment in infrastructure and public spending.

"The public sector is too small for the size of the private sector, and that is really something for Ibec to say. The lack of doctors, the lack of guards etc. You can feel it. We agree there needs to be an allocation of resources towards issues that affect people's everyday lives, like housing."

He called on Sinn Féin, if it enters government, not to "frighten the horses" when it comes to issues such as attracting foreign investment.

The American Chamber of Commerce Ireland, which represents many US-based FDI investors here, said it wants the next government to provide stability and "remain committed to Ireland's business friendly environment".

Prominent property developer, Johnny Ronan, called on the party to be "pragmatic" if it enters government: "Their manifesto makes clear that the party recognises the benefits and jobs that have flowed to Ireland as a result of foreign direct investment. It's crucial that commitment is maintained."

He said much of Sinn Féin's investment promises were "sensible stuff. Business is part of the solution here, not part of the problem".

Mr Ronan has previously developed premises for FDI investors such as Amazon, and is currently building a new headquarters for Facebook. He also has a pipeline of up to 1,400 residential units. One of Sinn Féin's signature election promises was a rent freeze and a promise to invest €6 billion in housing.

"The electorate has sent a clear message about the importance of delivering affordable housing. Every unit built is part of the solution here," he said.

Mr Ronan criticised building height restrictions in Dublin, however, and said the new government "simply has to get a proper grip on the planning process".

"We recently had permission granted by An Bord Pleanála to deliver over 600 residential units. Dublin City Council is now seeking a judicial review of that decision, holding up residential construction in the middle of a housing crisis."

[johnnycool]

Albert Reynolds, one of the greatest Taoiseachs in the history of the state, in my opinion didn't have a third level education

Either he did or he didn't. 

Bloody Oxford comma's   

[seafoid]

There was an all out assault on Sinn Fein before the election by vested interests, most of them with very close links to FF and FG. Here, after the election, is what IBEC and others are now saying. Striking the difference isnt it....


Ibec says Sinn Féin 'not mad' when it comes to the economy
'Manifestos are one thing, but programmes for government are a different animal'

Senior members of the Irish business world envisage no difficulty developing a working partnership with Sinn Féin, should the left-leaning party be part of the next government.

As the dramatic result of the election took shape, global financial newswire Bloomberg suggested now "could be a good time to dump the country's bonds" as risks may increase, citing reasons such as spending promises by Sinn Féin.

However, Brian Hayes, the top lobbyist for Irish bankers, and a former Fine Gael junior finance minister, believes suggestions of increased political risk in fiscal matters is "exaggerated".

Tax
"People need to be relaxed about this," said Mr Hayes, chief executive of Banking and Payments Federation Ireland.

"With Sinn Féin, it's all about what a programme for government says. Manifestos are one thing, but programmes for government are a different animal."

In its manifesto, Sinn Féin made huge spending promises and effectively said it would narrow the tax base. However, it also pledged to retain the 12.5 per cent corporation tax rate and protect funding for investment agency, IDA Ireland.

"It was a change election. If people were talking about radical change to investment policy and free movement of capital, that would be a worry. But I don't think they are. I'm confident of a stable government."

Danny McCoy, director general of employers' lobby group, Ibec, said he could "absolutely" see the Irish business world being able to work with Sinn Féin: "We have seen them in action in the North. Their instincts are not that mad when it comes to business."

Mr McCoy called for the next government to enter a process of "social dialogue" with business and societal groups to discuss investment in infrastructure and public spending.

"The public sector is too small for the size of the private sector, and that is really something for Ibec to say. The lack of doctors, the lack of guards etc. You can feel it. We agree there needs to be an allocation of resources towards issues that affect people's everyday lives, like housing."

He called on Sinn Féin, if it enters government, not to "frighten the horses" when it comes to issues such as attracting foreign investment.

The American Chamber of Commerce Ireland, which represents many US-based FDI investors here, said it wants the next government to provide stability and "remain committed to Ireland's business friendly environment".

Prominent property developer, Johnny Ronan, called on the party to be "pragmatic" if it enters government: "Their manifesto makes clear that the party recognises the benefits and jobs that have flowed to Ireland as a result of foreign direct investment. It's crucial that commitment is maintained."

He said much of Sinn Féin's investment promises were "sensible stuff. Business is part of the solution here, not part of the problem".

Mr Ronan has previously developed premises for FDI investors such as Amazon, and is currently building a new headquarters for Facebook. He also has a pipeline of up to 1,400 residential units. One of Sinn Féin's signature election promises was a rent freeze and a promise to invest €6 billion in housing.

"The electorate has sent a clear message about the importance of delivering affordable housing. Every unit built is part of the solution here," he said.

Mr Ronan criticised building height restrictions in Dublin, however, and said the new government "simply has to get a proper grip on the planning process".

"We recently had permission granted by An Bord Pleanála to deliver over 600 residential units. Dublin City Council is now seeking a judicial review of that decision, holding up residential construction in the middle of a housing crisis."

That article is nuts
It is not possible to simultaneously please Johnny Ronan, Brian Hayes, Foreign investors who want things to be "business friendly" and people who can't afford to buy a house and voted SF. 

[macdanger2]

Am I missing something in the economics talk here?

Firstly - I thought SF's manifesto was costed by the Department of Finance and they concluded that when their numbers were run that a budget surplus was still expected?

Secondly - what is the acceptable right/centre-right way of raising the funds to fix the housing, homelessness and housing crises? As I see it you can either tax, borrow or ignore the problem - those are your choices. So assuming you can't ignore it, and you don't want to add to the astronomical  national debt, then presumably you'll raise the funds via tax. If that's your conclusion then surely you want to tax progressively (I.e. richest pay the most) and is that not how SF have proposed to fix these problems?

SF claim that alright but from their manifesto:

Provide an additional €6.5 billion in order  to deliver over 100,000  public  homes on public  land  to meet social and affordable housing needs

Which seems impossible by any measure. Apart from the labour shortage, I can't see how that number of houses can be built for that kind of money no matter how the money itself is raised.

There was an excellent talk on Morning Ireland yesterday involving academics in the field who said that the scheme amounted to building homes for around €234k, of which €6.5bn would come from the public purse. The academic was a strong supporter of the policy and suggested that more than €6.5bn will be spent by the state over the next few years in rent to private landlords (if we keep going the way we are).

I heard the same. 50k of these new houses are already budgeted for  the challenge isnt the money or the approach, the challenge is getting the labour to build the houses.

Just listened to it there, good piece - you'd wonder why there wasn't more of this type of thing before the election; getting experts to assess policies rather than politicians sh*ting on with soundbites and one liners.

The upshot of it seems to be:
- 50k houses already budgeted for (presumably under Rebuilding Ireland). Didn't say how much budget was already put by for these
- 30k houses using the "O'Cualann" model (https://www.ocualann.ie/about) for affordable purchase. Basically the govt provdies a free site & no development levies on the site (costing ~ 50k/unit) and get someone like O'Cualann to build them (~1.5Bn). (Note that this group has only delivered 50 units to date so 30k looks difficult but the model seems to be good)
- 10k houses for affordable social housing & 10k houses for affordable rental housing - these will cost 234k/unit (4.7Bn)

Assuming they can agree on how to fund this, the main difficulty for the next govt is going to be delivering these within the next 5 years.

They also talked about bulk-buying for raw materials to reduce cost but considering the bureaucracy involved at all levels of govt, it's hard to see that materialising.

[Eire90]

whats the obssesion in ireland with owning a house.

[macdanger2]

whats the obssesion in ireland with owning a house.

The current problem isn't necessarily with owning a house, it's moreso the fact that a lack of supply of housing overall has caused rents to increase hugely resulting in increased homelessness and many people spending a large % of their income on rent

[Angelo]

whats the obssesion in ireland with owning a house.

The current problem isn't necessarily with owning a house, it's moreso the fact that a lack of supply of housing overall has caused rents to increase hugely resulting in increased homelessness and many people spending a large % of their income on rent

It's moreso with the fact that there's a huge incentive for wealthy individuals or investors to purchase housing units and commodities that will yield big profits and appreciate in value.

More housing units need to be supplied but that's probably more a second issue, the rental market has filtered out of control and it's a product of FG/FF policies and it's not by accident, it's by design. Plenty of FF/FG TDs have vested interests in a market that profits landlords.

[macdanger2]

whats the obssesion in ireland with owning a house.

The current problem isn't necessarily with owning a house, it's moreso the fact that a lack of supply of housing overall has caused rents to increase hugely resulting in increased homelessness and many people spending a large % of their income on rent

It's moreso with the fact that there's a huge incentive for wealthy individuals or investors to purchase housing units and commodities that will yield big profits and appreciate in value.

So are you saying that supply is not the problem?