Commentary on the policies and actions of the Government of the day who ever they may be.
With it's beginnings under Bertie's Fianna Fail, despite the bubble and crash the state insists on following the same model of depending on private business to cure public ills.
Handsome Boards posters have been saying similar for a long time.
Intentionally or not, the state is using tax payer money to fill the pockets of housing speculators profiting off the housing crisis in an effort to, giving the benefit of the doubt, tackle the housing problem. This is driving up rents and sale prices making the public and the state more dependent on private enterprise and around and around we go until the bottom falls out.
Would love to know of any public figures involved with I-RES.
Do we just keep on with this model to begrudge the anecdotal numbers of chancers and pretenders sleeping in Garda stations and the like?
Mod: Matt, I hope you don't mind but I have changed the thread title as it was a tad vague.
Just on this part M - I seen an article a day or 2 ago that covered how the constituency office of the housing minister was forcibly closed without a replacement being found, resulting in his constituency business now having to be conducted from his Leinster house.
The article skirts around the insinuation that Murphy was effectively left homeless as a direct result of his own policies and the competitive Dublin rental prices may have added to his problems.
I think it's very short sighted to shrug off some of the things exacerbating the broader problem. We've PTSB selling off loans to a vulture fund because allegedly they were bad loans and what's a business to do, when not crying to the tax payer? It turned out not to be the entire story. It's just business, sure, but in the long run it'll come back to bite the tax payer.
If we can create or uphold policy that benefits such moves as AIB paying no tax on profits for 30 odd years, surely we can truly look after our own, and by that I mean everyone working and paying tax.
Any property speculators, during a crisis, should be heavily taxed IMO. It's profiting from misery and making the crisis worse.
There are several major problems facing the Gov at the moment - housing and health are the top two.
Homeless is a term that covers a whole range of problems, some of which show in statistics and some that does not. Rough sleepers are homeless - sometime out of choice, some out of addiction or mental health problems, and some out of social problems. Others do sofa surfing with friends, and do not get counted. Some decide to declare themselves homeless in the hope of jumping the housing queue. Others are evicted by greedy landlords looking to profit from the current situation.
Someone was on the radio the other day living on his own in a four bedroom council house with no gas*, and under notice to be moved by the council to more suitable accommodation, but nothing has happened since before Christmas. He would be quite happy to move to a one bed unit, and a family could take over his house. Who is at fault there?
Solution - give sites and money from NAMA to DCC to build, build, build. The can tender for housing units to be built by building contractors in say 100 units per contract that would allow smaller builders to get involved, and get council houses back for housing those on the waiting list. If one third was social houses (for rent), one third same houses but sold as affordable, and one third higher spec but sold at full market rate. 45% of the cost returns to Gov in the form of VAT, income tax, PRSI, and other taxes.
*He was brought up in the house, and his many siblings have moved away, with his widowed mother deceased last year. I think he was unable to cope after she died. At least, that was my understanding of his story.
are they major problems for the government though? FG are doing brilliantly, if you believe the polls. If they are actually gaining seats, from this pathetic failure on health and housing, as usual. Why would they change anything? I really think the problem in this country is, that they will maintain the status quo, unless forced to change. Who is forcing them to change?
There is no feasible political alternative and we, the voters, arent flexing our muscles...
Yes, Dublin rental prices. So who runs the Dublin, Sinn Fein being the largest party, combined with similar left wingers comprise of the largest block, run Dublin City Council.
Do they have no impact into this issue?
Local elections are on next year, I suggest you have a chat to DCC about the housing issues in Dublin.
The issues with the loans are clear-cut.
1) This is a directive from the ECB, the government cannot intervene on this issue, no matter what TD or interest group tells you otherwise.
2) These loans have been festering now for the guts of 10 years, yes 10 years. Ireland is unique in the situation where a homeowner cannot or doesn't want to pay a mortgage and keep their home for up to 10 years. On average in other EU countries, the figure is 6 months.
3) It shows us that the courts will rarely if ever order eviction notices to owner-occupiers. It is almost impossible for a bank to regain its collateral if they give out a mortgage. This, in turn, has a knock on effect elsewhere.
4) We pay the highest interest rates in the EU, precisely because of the issues outlined above. This means that you, me and every other responsible person who pays for their own home is paying for others. This adds up over the lifetime of the mortgage to tens of thousands of extra euros you have to pay.
5) Selling off these loans is the fastest way to get the Irish banking back to normal business, where impaired loans are marginal and credit is perhaps slightly freer, where developers can build more much-needed houses and responsible savers and rents can get a mortgage.
6) The tax these funds pay is a separate issue and falls under the corporate tax regime of the state. The term, vulture funds is sexy and is like manna from heaven for the looney left, but they are often more reasonable to deal with than Irish banks.
The government could buy them.
These loans have a variety of cases, some are chancers and should be thrown out, some are misfortune and will have to be housed by the State anyway. The government should take control of the latter.
That would just increase the level of deficit the state has and possibly infringe ECB rules, would it not?
NAMA or the NTMA could be used o create one of those special purpose vehicles to fund the purchase of these loans. They could then get the original bank to manage the exit of the problem by separating the 'can't pay' from he 'wont pay'.
11% of I-RES properties rented to HAP?
And somehow this is a criticism of government policy?
Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought for years that posters have been on here whinging and whinging, not just in the politics thread but also in the accommodation threads, that private landlords would not rent to those in receipt of HAP and that the government should do something about it.
So one of two things seem to be true:
(1) The government has done something about it and they should be congratulated.
(2) It was never true and landlords always did rent to those in receipt of HAP, just not to particular people in receipt of HAP. Should the focus be on why some people are turned down by landlords? Perhaps the absence of a reference because of previous behaviour, for example?
I don't know which of the above two is correct, but one of them has to be if Matt is right in his assertion that 11% of I-REP housing is being rented to those on HAP.
A good note to start the thread on, to show that the problem of landlords not renting to HAP recipients is an urban myth.
what and elect in those supporting higher density? who is that exactly?
God no! Just no.
We already have people like Margaret Cash, who is taking in over €50,000 tax free from the state demanding more.
Do you honestly think if the state started down the road of buying bad loans from banks because people decided not to pay their mortgage, knowing that the state will just buy the loan and leave those in the property alone?
Besides, the ECB would never allow it.
I have no idea, but you can ask them. I think the Greens might be worth a shot.
Then again, the national government has pulled the plug on the LA's endless vetoing