Latest figures: €300m spent on rent allowance in 2004 alone

Cantab.

I was watching oireachtas report there last night and I was shocked to hear the secretary general of the department of social welfare stating that we paid out over €300m to private landlords in 2004! One can only imagine what this figure is in 2006.

I've no major problem with providing housing for those in need in our society (within strict reason), but why can't the state redirect this huge amount of money away from private landowners, and into more suitable accomodation designed to get people out of the welfare system and out to work?

There's one particular young woman I know of who has a child and lives in such rented accomodation paid for via rent allowance, and she has absolutely no intention of moving because she's quite comfortable in this 3-bed semi in a smart part of town, getting over €200 a week + medical expenses. Now this is wrong, and she should be booted out after six months of job-hunting were it not for the fact that her child would probably suffer more than her.

Anyway, landlords are lining their pockets with the €380 a month allowance direct debited into their accounts from the government regardless of whether or not the place might only cost €300 to rent.

Victor

Cantab. wrote:

There's one particular young woman I know of who has a child and lives in such rented accomodation paid for via rent allowance, and she has absolutely no intention of moving because she's quite comfortable in this 3-bed semi in a smart part of town, getting over €200 a week + medical expenses.

Now, I think you are mis-telling the truth. Who does she share the 3-bed semi with?

Anyway, landlords are lining their pockets with the €380 a month allowance direct debited into their accounts from the government regardless of whether or not the place might only cost €300 to rent.

Do you even know how the system works?

http://www.oasis.gov.ie/housing/renting_a_flat_or_house/help_with_paying_the_rent.html

samb

I agree completely. More than anything it creates a poverty trap (well not too impoverished). I was unemployed for a while and for some reason could not get rent allowance and had to struggle badly. I can't understand why it is so generous or else you get nothing. They pay nearly all the rent for many and nothing to others.
If you have a family and a job earning between 300 and 500 all you are entitled to is a crap family income supplement. But if you give up your job, you may well be better off.
I recently defended 'dole scroungers' on this boards recently because I don't think many (well very very few) actually enjoy being on the dole, or plan to be for long. But the current system of rent allowance makes it very difficult for some to afford to gain employment. What we need is a rent allowance that is proportionate to your income. In other words that people earning very low incomes should get a partial rent allowance.

Its also adding to higher rents, and therefore higher house prices. I don't think that particular young woman should be booted out, I think your attitude is wrong, she must be helped and encouraged to find employment. for her to get a job now she would lose all her rent allowance, medical cards, social welfare payment, and may have to pay for child minding.

I don't think you should blame her.

MrSinn

€300m should buy at least 8 houses in foxrock or ballsbridge!

joebhoy1916

There's one particular young woman I know of who has a child and lives in such rented accomodation paid for via rent allowance, and she has absolutely no intention of moving because she's quite comfortable in this 3-bed semi in a smart part of town, getting over €200 a week + medical expenses. Now this is wrong, and she should be booted out after six months of job-hunting were it not for the fact that her child would probably suffer more than her.

Shocking amount alright. Over €200 a week?
You cant rent allowance if your rent is over €170

Cantab.

Victor wrote:

Now, I think you are mis-telling the truth. Who does she share the 3-bed semi with?

Yes, shared accomodation Victor. A lack of precision on my behalf rather than sensationalism.

Victor wrote:

Do you even know how the system works?

http://www.oasis.gov.ie/housing/renting_a_flat_or_house/help_with_paying_the_rent.html

[/QUOTE]
Ah yes, this is how the system is supposed to work. Most landlords when you ring them up asking if they'll accept you on rent allowance they just hang up straight away. Landlords that will accept rent allowance tenants know they can get away with charging that little bit extra and are guaranteed payment (I know because I've talked to two such landlords).

Cantab.

samb wrote:

I agree completely. More than anything it creates a poverty trap (well not too impoverished). I was unemployed for a while and for some reason could not get rent allowance and had to struggle badly.

Perhaps becuase you hadn't been paying prsi in the previous year? In which case you can only get unemployment assistance rather than unemployment benefit. Stops students who paid no prsi coming out of college and going on the dole/rent allowance.

samb wrote:

I can't understand why it is so generous or else you get nothing. They pay nearly all the rent for many and nothing to others.
If you have a family and a job earning between 300 and 500 all you are entitled to is a crap family income supplement. But if you give up your job, you may well be better off.

This is true in most cases. Didn't Kevin Myers add up the figures in one of his columns recently and came up with the figure of €35,000 per annum when you consider a single mother with two kids living in a council flat? Anyway, as you rightly point out, it's still a poverty trap regardless of the short-term perceived benefits.

samb wrote:

I recently defended 'dole scroungers' on this boards recently because I don't think many (well very very few) actually enjoy being on the dole, or plan to be for long. But the current system of rent allowance makes it very difficult for some to afford to gain employment. What we need is a rent allowance that is proportionate to your income. In other words that people earning very low incomes should get a partial rent allowance.

Mmm. Not sure how that would work. I think the whole rent allowance scheme should be scrapped and the huge amounts of money redirected into state-owned properties (similar type houses/apartments to those in the affordable homes scheme) that can be monitored much more closesly by social welfare inspectors. I certainly don't agree with concentrating the social welfare recipients into high-rise complexs like in Ballymun and the north inner city. Integration is key.

samb wrote:

Its also adding to higher rents, and therefore higher house prices.

Most definitely is. Sure there's a huge vested interest in keeping investment properties occupied by those making the political decisions, so why rock the boat by making it unnecessarily competitive?

samb wrote:

I don't think that particular young woman should be booted out, I think your attitude is wrong, she must be helped and encouraged to find employment. for her to get a job now she would lose all her rent allowance, medical cards, social welfare payment, and may have to pay for child minding.

I don't think you should blame her.

Please read through what I originally posted and you'll find you're putting words in my mouth. I don't think a single mother with a child should be booted out on the street. It's not her fault for being in the welfare system either, it is her fault though, not to do anything about it.

Sand

Ah yes, this is how the system is supposed to work. Most landlords when you ring them up asking if they'll accept you on rent allowance they just hang up straight away. Landlords that will accept rent allowance tenants know they can get away with charging that little bit extra and are guaranteed payment (I know because I've talked to two such landlords).

Well, I usually say "No", then hangup But yeah, rent allowance is bad news. Youd want to be on your last legs literally before handing over your property to someone who cant keep it together enough to hold down a decent job and provide their own income - and then you would top up the rent by an extra 100-200 to cover the repair bill. And more than likely, if the rent allowance only meets 90-95% of the stated rent you can forget about the "topup" from the tenant. Bumping up the rent means you cover the expected shortfall from the tenant. If you want the tenants share, youll have to go and torment them to get an extra 50 euro or so every single month and who can be bothered with that? Saying no to rent allowance just nips all that hassle in the bud.

Mmm. Not sure how that would work. I think the whole rent allowance scheme should be scrapped and the huge amounts of money redirected into state-owned properties (similar type houses/apartments to those in the affordable homes scheme) that can be monitored much more closesly by social welfare inspectors. I certainly don't agree with concentrating the social welfare recipients into high-rise complexs like in Ballymun and the north inner city. Integration is key.

Wont happen - people forking out 400-500K dont want to be integrated with people who only needed to have 7 kids with 7 different fathers, any of whom may be sharing the house at any particular time. Rightly or wrongly, thats the way it is and middle class votes are the big factor in elections. Also people are desperate to live in Dublin and wont be happy living in Ballygohickspittle, which is about the only place the government can afford to buy land, build houses and save money on rent allowance...

ronbyrne2005

Sand wrote:

Well, I usually say "No", then hangup But yeah, rent allowance is bad news. Youd want to be on your last legs literally before handing over your property to someone who cant keep it together enough to hold down a decent job and provide their own income - and then you would top up the rent by an extra 100-200 to cover the repair bill. And more than likely, if the rent allowance only meets 90-95% of the stated rent you can forget about the "topup" from the tenant. Bumping up the rent means you cover the expected shortfall from the tenant. If you want the tenants share, youll have to go and torment them to get an extra 50 euro or so every single month and who can be bothered with that? Saying no to rent allowance just nips all that hassle in the bud.
Wont happen - people forking out 400-500K dont want to be integrated with people who only needed to have 7 kids with 7 different fathers, any of whom may be sharing the house at any particular time. Rightly or wrongly, thats the way it is and middle class votes are the big factor in elections. Also people are desperate to live in Dublin and wont be happy living in Ballygohickspittle, which is about the only place the government can afford to buy land, build houses and save money on rent allowance...

Firstly its far more than 300million a year, people on disability and other social welfare payments are entitled to rent allowance,theres hundreds of thousnads of people entitled to it,i heard the figure is well over a billion euro a year.
SAND funnily enough many landlords on the askaboutmoney.com website take renta allowance from single mothers as they are usually excellent tenants.
Also as for people not wanting dole sroungers etc living beside them-this is already the case,most single mothers are renting in such areas ,there is an apartment complex beside me full of single mothers and 3 bed houses next door selling for over a million.Govenment can and is buying houses in city to house people,councils own private house in many estates around the country.if you dont integrate these people you create ghettos which overall are far worse for society etc.
government should increase purchases of private houses or build more integrated social housing liwk is done in rest europe.

Hobbes

Cantab. wrote:

I was watching oireachtas report there last night and I was shocked to hear the secretary general of the department of social welfare stating that we paid out over €300m to private landlords in 2004! One can only imagine what this figure is in 2006.

Just curious but do you also have the housing list figures (how many waiting for a house?) and prehaps how many houses the government has on hand to allocate to those people.

A lot of these landlords rent out to the government (eastern health board do anyway) because they get a steady guaranteed rent at the end of the month.

There's one particular young woman I know of who has a child and lives in such rented accomodation paid for via rent allowance, and she has absolutely no intention of moving because she's quite comfortable in this 3-bed semi in a smart part of town, getting over €200 a week + medical expenses.

Don't knock it until you tried it. 200 a week with a child is feck all.

Anyway, landlords are lining their pockets with the €380 a month allowance direct debited into their accounts from the government regardless of whether or not the place might only cost €300 to rent.

There is a guy in work who rents out to government. It might seem like they are getting a lot, but they are also expected to look after the house and generally a morgage tends to be a wee bit more then that a month.

Anyhow.. figures like percents are meaningless on thier own. by your estimates there are 65,790 people currently getting thier rent paid. Do you have any more stats to corrolate with it?

DublinWriter

Cantab. wrote:

I've no major problem with providing housing for those in need in our society (within strict reason), but why can't the state redirect this huge amount of money away from private landowners, and into more suitable accomodation specifically designed to get people out of the welfare system and out to work?

Yeah, I believe it was tried once, and called the Magdelene Launderies.

Don't you think motherhood is a full time job in itself, or are you one of those right-wing cranks that thinks single-mothers and assylum seekers are the root of all societies ills?

You know what? Her kid is going to be contributing to your state pension in about 30 years time.

silverharp

The one advantage with using private landlords is that there is less stigma attached to the people involved as the neighbours are unlikely to know the status of the renters, it has to beat the old Ballymun model.

On the flip side I know people who are renting out apartments in Sandymount to people on welfare and I have to ask myself is the state paying over the odds and upping the rents for everyone else.

Cantab.

DublinWriter wrote:

Yeah, I believe it was tried once, and called the Magdelene Launderies.

Oh please, don't start the anti-Catholic rant, we've read it all before in the Sindo et. al.

Do you actually think that spending over €300m a year of taxpayers' money on rent for the unemployed represents good value for money?

I think it would make much more economic sense for the government to allocate houses in affordable housing schemes for use by medium-term/long-term rent allowance recipients. As a short-term, emergency measure, I don't see major problems with using hostels, B&Bs and private accomodation, but it should have a time limit of 6 months on it.

DublinWriter wrote:

Don't you think motherhood is a full time job in itself, or are you one of those right-wing cranks that thinks single-mothers and assylum seekers are the root of all societies ills?

Your own surmise, not mine.

I don't think motherhood is 'a job' that can be quantified in monetary terms. I believe strongly that mothers who wish to stay at home and raise their children ought to be supported by their spouse and incentivised by the government - Imo, the family unit is paramount to a healthy society.

DublinWriter wrote:

You know what? Her kid is going to be contributing to your state pension in about 30 years time.

Sociologists would say the opposite, in that, children of unemployed parents are much more likely to be unemployed themselves - a feature of intergenerational social mobility. While I don't like it, it is a reality.

I point you to the following publication from NUI Maynooth:
http://www.nuim.ie/academic/economics/pdf/N730997.pdf
In their conclusions they state that "We find that sons who had fathers who were unemployed were almost twice as likely to experience unemployment than sons whose father was not unemployed."

So actually, I would prefer to see her getting herself out of the poverty trap that is child benefit, unemployment benefit and rent allowance and make life better for herself, her child and society as a whole.

bonkey

Cantab. wrote:

Do you actually think that spending over €300m a year of taxpayers' money on rent for the unemployed represents good value for money?

That would depend on what its being spent on, how much we could save by taking a different approach, and what the non-financial impact of such a saving would be.

I think it would make much more economic sense for the government to allocate houses in affordable housing schemes for use by medium-term/long-term rent allowance recipients.

You mean build ghettos?

Ship all the poor people into "poor people's quarters"?

And what harm if the available affordable housing isn't in their locale - they're poor, they're getting handouts, they can be told to move wherever we like....right?

As for allocating...who will actually own the houses? Are you suggesting we supplant 300 mill in rent with the equavalent one-off cost in purchasing enough houses? Can we afford that?

As a short-term, emergency measure, I don't see major problems with using hostels, B&Bs and private accomodation, but it should have a time limit of 6 months on it.

Why? What do you do after the 6 months? Throw them out on the street? Tell them to move where you want them to go to?

I don't think motherhood is 'a job' that can be quantified in monetary terms. I believe strongly that mothers who wish to stay at home and raise their children ought to be supported by their spouse and incentivised by the government - Imo, the family unit is paramount to a healthy society.

Right...so its ok to pay for this, as long as its not in the form of rent that you consider to be too mich?

Soooo....cut her rent, and give her a "mother's salary" instead? Would that make you happier? Even if the net cost went up?

So actually, I would prefer to see her getting herself out of the poverty trap that is child benefit, unemployment benefit and rent allowance and make life better for herself, her child and society as a whole.

But you'd also support government incentives to pay a single mother for having kids. Contradictory, no?

jc

RedPlanet

bonkey wrote:

But you'd also support government incentives to pay a single mother for having kids. Contradictory, no?

jc

He didn't say that exactly. He said "I believe strongly that mothers who wish to stay at home and raise their children ought to be supported by their spouse and incentivised by the government."

He didn't specify the sort of incentive. But you and Dublinwriter are trying to put words in his mouth.

I agree with the OP, i know a girl from england that is from a solidly middle-class background that came to ireland, went "hippy" and has a child now. She hasn't worked a day in her life but lives in a cozy country cottage with a second hand car bought and paid for by we taxpayers. She has no desire to find a job or anythng and refuses her families attempts to entice her and child back to England to go to college etc.

bonkey

RedPlanet wrote:

He didn't say that exactly. He said "I believe strongly that mothers who wish to stay at home and raise their children ought to be supported by their spouse and incentivised by the government."

He didn't specify the sort of incentive. But you and Dublinwriter are trying to put words in his mouth.

What type of incentive can you offer that's not financially centred?

i know a girl from england that is from a solidly middle-class background that came to ireland, went "hippy" and has a child now. She hasn't worked a day in her life but lives in a cozy country cottage with a second hand car bought and paid for by we taxpayers. She has no desire to find a job or anythng and refuses her families attempts to entice her and child back to England to go to college etc.

But what percentage of the unemployed fall into such a category? Of the 300 million how much are we talking about? I'm just asking because it would seem foolish to not care about what we were doing to 99% of the people in order to deal with the 1% we really had an issue with. I'm not suggesting the figures are necessarily that extreme, but with unemployment down around what is generally accepted as maximum employment, it would suggest that the majority of the unemployed are genuine cases. If nothing else, does this not suggest that we should seek to obtain a clearer picture before jumping to conclusions about what needs to be done, especially when we've no real figures by which to determine how much any possible solution would save, and how much it would cst.

I have no issue with the suggestion that the government should be called to justify the expenditure, and to supply better detail on how and where it is being spent....but until thats been done, I find any calling to account hard to fully distinguish form victimisation.

jc

RedPlanet

I know a number of persons on the dole and while i get on with them all just grand and consider many of them my mates; personally i think that not one single of them are legitimately unemployed. Rather, they have gotten used to living on the dole are are content to stay there.

I am dubious of these government unemployment statistics being the case that there is no reason the government cannot massage these numbers. Such as persons on X scheme are not counted to be on Unemployment benefit, persons on Back to School Allowance are probably not counted.. i wonder are persons on emergency dole, or short-term benefit counted? Is it only ones on Long Term dole? People on a FAS scheme? Back to Work scheme?

on edit:
Also, i am not the poster proposing such incentives, so i cannot answer that question, but could brainstorm some ideas i'm sure.

ISAW

MrSinn wrote:

€300m should buy at least 8 houses in foxrock or ballsbridge!

Not if you buy in block and build en masse. three adjacent houses neasr me in foxrock sold for 21 million. One could probably have bought any of these houses for 2.5 -3 million. So they tripled their price. One could build 50-70 housing units (say 50 family units) there. Thats about 500,000 per unit.

Te problem with houses is that the council does nopth ave the land and land is expensive. Then if they have the land the rezoning planning etc. runs into more costs. Morotways, houses public buildings etc. all are held up and run into costs.

Maybe land prices could only be allowed inflate based on their zoning. Thus if I buy agricultural land for 20,000 and acre and it is re zoned then I cant only get the agricultural price and not the say 200 million that ballsbridge is getting a ten million per cent markup! Also give the purchaser five years to develop the land so if he buys agricultural and rezones and sells houses then he can make money but if he does it more than five years later then he must supply all the costs of the building and cant make money on the price of the land e.g whatever profit he makes on house he must pay the going rate for the land out of that.

ISAW

Do you actually think that spending over €300m a year of taxpayers' money on rent for the unemployed represents good value for money?

Well relatively yes. don't you think we could pay for this by fining banks or the like who embessle 600 million? the amount of welfare fraud pails to insignificance compared to business fraud and legal rip offs.

I think it would make much more economic sense for the government to allocate houses in affordable housing schemes for use by medium-term/long-term rent allowance recipients.

I think the demand is currently outstripping supply in spite of the fact that Dublin is building more houses thasn the whole of England. Billions is being spent in building houses. Irish people want to own their own house. We probably wont meet demand by 2010. Private sector housing is increasing in supply which is why rents are coming down.

As a short-term, emergency measure, I don't see major problems with using hostels, B&Bs and private accomodation, but it should have a time limit of 6 months on it.

Most of them are full. People are not homeless by the way. there are maybe 150 to 200 on the streets of a 1.2 million population area. It isnt better for people to live with a family in a B&B, though in some cases their landlords do have dreadfull conditions.

I don't think motherhood is 'a job' that can be quantified in monetary terms.

But a housewife does work. It just happens to be unpaid.

I believe strongly that mothers who wish to stay at home and raise their children ought to be supported by their spouse and incentivised by the government - Imo, the family unit is paramount to a healthy society.

I agree 100 per cent. I also believe that the idea of single paretnt is not good for society in the long term. I think the current ICCL demany for gay marriage remove the family and marriage as central to society form the constitution is wrong! This isnt necessarily a religious view. Families are more stable with parents. Parents should be preferable biological. If you cant have children then you are not creating the next generation. In my view a childless couple are missing something and not contribution something to society. I also dont favour making kabutts in ireland. So single parents are nothing to be applauded (although some of those I know I respect and admire one is a doctor with two kids. i dont know how she does it. I am sure she would prefer to be with a partner.)

Sociologists would say the opposite, in that, children of unemployed parents are much more likely to be unemployed themselves - a feature of intergenerational social mobility. While I don't like it, it is a reality.

I also dont like the idea of "forcing" single parents out to work. And lets face it I mean mainly mothers there since we discriminate against fathers who want to care for their own children.

In their conclusions they state that "We find that sons who had fathers who were unemployed were almost twice as likely to experience unemployment than sons whose father was not unemployed."

Probably even worse with no father and mothers working for latch key kids.
[/quote]
So actually, I would prefer to see her getting herself out of the poverty trap that is child benefit, unemployment benefit and rent allowance and make life better for herself, her child and society as a whole.[/QUOTE]

Not if the only alternative is becoming a stressed out wage slave and a bad mother.

MrPudding

Cantab. wrote:

Do you actually think that spending over €300m a year of taxpayers' money on rent for the unemployed represents good value for money?

I think it is a nessecary evil. What are the other options? If a single woman get pregnant it is going to serious impact her ability to look after herself and her child financially.

If you are so worried about single unemploted women soaking up tax payers money perhaps you should consider lobbying to allow women to have abortions. One off fee and they will be back to work in a week. Job done.

Cantab. wrote:

I think it would make much more economic sense for the government to allocate houses in affordable housing schemes for use by medium-term/long-term rent allowance recipients. As a short-term, emergency measure, I don't see major problems with using hostels, B&Bs and private accomodation, but it should have a time limit of 6 months on it.

And what happens after six months? The mother gets a minimum wage job and then goes on the game to find the other €500 she needs each month for the creche plus whatever she needs to live on?

Cantab. wrote:

Sociologists would say the opposite, in that, children of unemployed parents are much more likely to be unemployed themselves - a feature of intergenerational social mobility.

Yeah, wouldn't it e better if they just......disappeared.

It is unfortunate that there are people in our society that simply can't look after themselves. TBH I am quite happy to help them. I have been very lucky and am willing to spread the love.

Don't get me wrong, I really do not like the thought of my hard earned cash going to parasitic scumbags but I would rather see them get money than someone who genuinely needs it not get it.

gurramok

The OP's estimate seems to be an under-estimate now.
According to RTE, its now €440m!!! http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0523/rent.html?rss

What happened to the proposed massive building in subsidised housing that was suppose to help these people instead of throwing away huge rents at private landlords?

Cantab.

gurramok wrote:

The OP's estimate seems to be an under-estimate now.
According to RTE, its now €440m!!! http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0523/rent.html?rss

What happened to the proposed massive building in subsidised housing that was suppose to help these people instead of throwing away huge rents at private landlords?

Good heavens!

It was also interesting to note that over 55% of people on rent allowance have been receiving it for over 2 years - so much for rent allowance being a short term measure!

ISAW

gurramok wrote:

The OP's estimate seems to be an under-estimate now.
According to RTE, its now €440m!!! http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0523/rent.html?rss

What happened to the proposed massive building in subsidised housing that was suppose to help these people instead of throwing away huge rents at private landlords?

According to an ISME spokesperson yesterday on radio somewhere between 600 million and 1000 million is lost to people taking several days off a year by going to the doctor and saying they are "stressed out"

As regards housing this is twhat the Department say:

http://www.environ.ie/DOEI/DOEIPol.nsf/0/b90ddfd0a73dbfdc80256f0f003bc7eb/$FILE/Housing Leaflet.pdf

4,000,000,000 will be spent in the nest three years on housing. thats ten times the rent allowance budget.

500,000 houses have been built in the last ten years.

What do you suggest the government do? Should they build quicker? How? The construction industry is flat out in a boom! How will they pay for extra houses? More tax? Or what other areas should we cut back?

It also mentions 23,000 social housing units (6000 in 2006)
http://www.environ.ie/DOEI/doeipub.nsf/0/daac160e1d73c27d80256f0f003dbc05/$FILE/Housing Statistics for Dept web site_ travellers to Anne 22 May'06.XLS

In 2004/05 local authorities built 7748 houses, plus 2957 voluntary non- profit built
plus 147,206 private. thats about 158,000 houses in 2004/05
In 2006 first quarter it is another 21,894. what more do you expect?
Here is something from the same source over the 2004 period.
Rented houses inspected-7,232 Number found to be sub standard- 2,106
Legal actions taked - 4.
Thats FOUR! Amazing! and those four probably ones with 20 refugees to a room or phillipino nurses. what about the 2,104 others?

ISAW

Hobbes wrote:

Just curious but do you also have the housing list figures (how many waiting for a house?) and prehaps how many houses the government has on hand to allocate to those people.

A lot of these landlords rent out to the government (eastern health board do anyway) because they get a steady guaranteed rent at the end of the month.

Don't knock it until you tried it. 200 a week with a child is feck all.

Try item 279 and 280 from the Household budget survey for how much households spend on rent .

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/pr_hseholds.htm

Final results in hard copy only.

there is also census 2002 on housing: http://www.cso.ie/census/Vol13.htm

Hobbes

Your link suggests the average household spends 400-500 euros a month (probably more as the stats for 2000). So as I said 200 a week with a child is feck all.

ISAW

gurramok wrote:

The OP's estimate seems to be an under-estimate now.
According to RTE, its now €440m!!! http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0523/rent.html?rss

What happened to the proposed massive building in subsidised housing that was suppose to help these people instead of throwing away huge rents at private landlords?

seamus Brennan was on the Newstalk lunchtime show with someone from Treshold

69,000 people on rent allowance
43,000 on waiting list
80,000 builds a year . 7500 local authority/social housing.

360 million spent on rent allowance a year.
Quotations [texted in]: "Speculators forced up the house prices and landlords get the rent supplament"

gurramok

ISAW wrote:

As regards housing this is twhat the Department say:

http://www.environ.ie/DOEI/DOEIPol.nsf/0/b90ddfd0a73dbfdc80256f0f003bc7eb/$FILE/Housing Leaflet.pdf

4,000,000,000 will be spent in the nest three years on housing. thats ten times the rent allowance budget.

500,000 houses have been built in the last ten years.

What do you suggest the government do? Should they build quicker? How? The construction industry is flat out in a boom! How will they pay for extra houses? More tax? Or what other areas should we cut back?

It also mentions 23,000 social housing units (6000 in 2006)
http://www.environ.ie/DOEI/doeipub.nsf/0/daac160e1d73c27d80256f0f003dbc05/$FILE/Housing Statistics for Dept web site_ travellers to Anne 22 May'06.XLS

In 2004/05 local authorities built 7748 houses, plus 2957 voluntary non- profit built
plus 147,206 private. thats about 158,000 houses in 2004/05
In 2006 first quarter it is another 21,894. what more do you expect?

Hold on a minute, those stats say 4.9% of dwellings were built in 04/05 period for LA\Social housing which is pathetic. It used to be I believe 10-15% before the boom.
4.9% do not reflect the massive demand due to unaffordability for the masses, if the govt bothered to build more housing like before, there will be less need to fork out huge sums to private landlords as they are now.
A €4bn figure was quoted, thats words but how much has actually been spent building the housing needed?

ISAW wrote:

seamus Brennan was on the Newstalk lunchtime show with someone from Treshold

69,000 people on rent allowance
43,000 on waiting list
80,000 builds a year . 7500 local authority/social housing.

360 million spent on rent allowance a year.
Quotations [texted in]: "Speculators forced up the house prices and landlords get the rent supplament"

Landlords get richer due to lazy\ignorant govt policies

Thats actually 43,000 families rather than 43,000 single people?

Its obvious those 69,000 have nowhere else to go than into private rented sector due to scarcity and unaffordability of housing

For '06, if they bother to reach 7,500 of 80,000 built(<10%), it'll be miraculous!

ronbyrne2005

400million a year on rent allowance = 12billion over thirty years(length of mortgage for example) ,if you spent 12 billion on integrated houses that could be provide on temporary/medium term basis you'd clear housing list and save on rent allowance every year so after roughly 30 years the housing will have paid for its self. obviously in current boom houses are being built as fast as possible so you'd have to wait untill boom slowed down here untill you built but then again many td's would want the easy money for landlords to disappear.

ISAW

gurramok wrote:

Hold on a minute, those stats say 4.9% of dwellings were built in 04/05 period for LA\Social housing which is pathetic. It used to be I believe 10-15% before the boom.

I do not see your point. 4.9 per cent of ewhat total? 10-15 per cent of what total?

A €4bn figure was quoted, thats words but how much has actually been spent building the housing needed?

There were bout 80 thousand built and about 8000 of these were social/affordable/council.

Thats actually 43,000 families rather than 43,000 single people?

yes. so? At current rates it will take five to seven years to build houses for them. that means 2010 to 2012 before the list is cleared.

Its obvious those 69,000 have nowhere else to go than into private rented sector due to scarcity and unaffordability of housing

Many but not all of them. And isnt it better they rent than live in a hostel of B&B? what alternative do you suggest.

For '06, if they bother to reach 7,500 of 80,000 built(<10%), it'll be miraculous!

[/quote]

Why? they met it last year.

rkeane

I wonder does this figure include the cost of housing bogus asylum seekers - I seriously doubt it! If this is the cost of housing Irish familes - I don't mind paying my taxes for it...though I would prefer if the County Councils built homes for them.

ISAW

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

400million a year on rent allowance = 12billion over thirty years(length of mortgage for example) ,if you spent 12 billion on integrated houses that could be provide on temporary/medium term basis you'd clear housing list and save on rent allowance every year so after roughly 30 years the housing will have paid for its self. obviously in current boom houses are being built as fast as possible so you'd have to wait untill boom slowed down here untill you built but then again many td's would want the easy money for landlords to disappear.

But this is stating exactly what the issue is. Maybe it is better for everyone to have their own house but we can only build them so fast. go and see how many houses are built a year in the UK with a population nearly twenty times ours and a lower house ownership rate (though still one of the highest - second I think- in the EU).

I think if you borrowed 12 billion and stated you were building 250 000 social houses the beaurocrats and builders would soak up your money. there is a corner down the road from me. Private contractors are digging up thirty yewrds of the road for four weeks to cobble it. When I lived in Amsterdam they would have 200 yards dug up and filled in in four days!
Projects should have penalties for being over budget. Give the contractor a lump sum to complete on time and it does not matter if he does it in two days or two years as long as it is safe. Then after the time expires he pays penalties.

ISAW

rkeane wrote:

I wonder does this figure include the cost of housing bogus asylum seekers - I seriously doubt it!

What is a "bogus" asylum seeker? Either they are one or they are not!

If this is the cost of housing Irish familes - I don't mind paying my taxes for it...though I would prefer if the County Councils built homes for them.

I would prefer they bought their own! Council housing are an ongoing expense. People should be encouraged to buy the council property and look after it themselves.

rkeane

There are thousands of Asylum seekers living in private rented accomodation in Dublin alone. Until recently, all asylum seekers were housed in private Apartments / houses - at huge expense. Since the dispersal policy came in, new applicants are given hostel accomodation - proper order! For example Nigerian nations have an acceptance rate of 0.6% - they are still living in private accomodation despite being refused asylum in this country. :mad:

I'd like to know what the cost of housing them is.

Victor

Wow, this thread is really full of people wanting to have a rant against "undesireables" and are wrapping it up in economic terms they don't even understand

ISAW wrote:

I think if you borrowed 12 billion and stated you were building 250 000 social houses the beaurocrats and builders would soak up your money.

I think he just doesn't understand the economics and practicalities of it. Where would those houses be built? Do we repeat the ghettoisation of Ballymun and West Tallaght? Who is going to build them?

Projects should have penalties for being over budget. Give the contractor a lump sum to complete on time and it does not matter if he does it in two days or two years as long as it is safe. Then after the time expires he pays penalties.

But realise that if you get into a punative scheme, that overall you will pay more for those houses.

ISAW wrote:

People are not homeless by the way. there are maybe 150 to 200 on the streets of a 1.2 million population area.

Whatever the validity of that figure, it grossly under-represents the number of people who have no home of their own.

ISAW

Victor wrote:

Wow, this thread is really full of people wanting to have a rant against "undesireables" and are wrapping it up in economic terms they don't even understand

I think he just doesn't understand the economics and practicalities of it. Where would those houses be built? Do we repeat the ghettoisation of Ballymun and West Tallaght? Who is going to build them?

Read my earlier posts. They are being built at a rate of 8000 a year. The builders are flat out at that rate. The fantasy point was that 400 million is being spent a year and 250,000 houses are needed. The poster asked why we couldnt spend ten or twenty years rent supplament and just build the houses. Effectively this IS what we are doing. Two billion has been put into house building and 7,500 a year are being built. At that rate (and it may well slow down) the current list would be met in about five to six years time.

But realise that if you get into a punative scheme, that overall you will pay more for those houses.

why? If there is a large available supply of labour then it can go to the lower bidders. We are beginning to see this now in private house building. Poles Russians and Romanians are working for lower pay and cutting the costs. The developer can then cut his price (or leave it the same and make more profit).

Whatever the validity of that figure, it grossly under-represents the number of people who have no home of their own.

The point I was making was that indigent people,people living on the streets are DOWN in spite of the population of Dublin decreasing. The "relative poverty" argument has now become "we have 40,000 people on rent supplament" when it used to be "we have hundreds of people sleeping rough every night". Furthermore not everyone wants or needs a home of their own. Ireland has the highest home ownership in the world as far as I know. In the US or France or Germany many people rent, much much more then the percentage who do here.

Victor

Cantab. wrote:

As a short-term, emergency measure, I don't see major problems with using hostels, B&Bs and private accomodation, but it should have a time limit of 6 months on it.

Article yesterday. Keeping someone in B&B costs €30,000 per year compared to €12,000 in private accomodation.

Cantab.

Victor wrote:

Article yesterday. Keeping someone in B&B costs €30,000 per year compared to €12,000 in private accomodation.

Well obviously it's going to cost a lot more to keep someone in a B&B for a year. I never even suggested that we should do this.

I would think policy should revolve around the following:

hostel: up to 2 nights
B&B: up to 2 weeks
private rented accomodation: up to 6 months
social welfare housing: over 6 months

The system as it stands is totally weighted towards the private rented sector and is one of many examples of this government wasting taxpayers' money.

Injection of this huge amount of money in to the rental sector also has the added social problem of contributing to even higher rents for young people and those in low-paid jobs.

There's a vested interest in keeping rents high and this policy certainly helps the interest of the private landlord with a direct line to government.

bonkey

Cantab. wrote:

I would think policy should revolve around the following:

hostel: up to 2 nights
B&B: up to 2 weeks
private rented accomodation: up to 6 months
social welfare housing: over 6 months

Take this system, and assume there are too many "over 6 month" people for the amount of social housing available. Where do they end up? Private rented accomodation, agreed?

The system as it stands is totally weighted towards the private rented sector

So is yours, if - like the current system - there is not enough social welfare housing.

and is one of many examples of this government wasting taxpayers' money.

So is your preferred system if - again - the demand for the social welfare housing outstrips the supply.

Lets not forget we haven't always been as affluent as we are now, nor that while paying for any new housing to replace rent the rent must still be paid....and you get to a situation where it is quite understandable that the amount of social welfare housing is too low, and that the least worst available option (by your own admission) is chosen instead.

But still you go on that its a terrible waste, and that instead of what they're currently doing they should....wait for it....do what they're currently doing - invest heavily in building new social housing.

Bravo. You've proposed a solution virtually identical to the system you're saying the solution will fix.

ISAW

rkeane wrote:

There are thousands of Asylum seekers living in private rented accomodation in Dublin alone.

I suppose you can support this assertion? Otherwise withdraw it until you do.

Until recently, all asylum seekers were housed in private Apartments / houses - at huge expense.

Ditto. How many and how much did it cost?

Since the dispersal policy came in, new applicants are given hostel accomodation - proper order! For example Nigerian nations have an acceptance rate of 0.6% - they are still living in private accomodation despite being refused asylum in this country. :mad:

I dont see any problem in putting them into camps and upskilling them for jobs. The problem of the expense is simple. They are not allowed to work so how can they pay their rent?

I'd like to know what the cost of housing them is.

Oh so you do not know? How can you claim it is a "huge expense" then when you admoit you dont knw how much it costs?