Should the working man be able to afford a house?

Victor

This thread has been split from another thread, as the responses to D3PO's post were taking it off-topic.

Please don't hi-jack threads on people.

Moderator

D3PO

yoloc wrote: »

houses where people are living in dream land looking still ridiculous.

I have seen quite a few lovely turn key houses sell for 40-70k in the west and even some sell for under the 40k needing some work. To me, this is what houses should be selling at so the working man can afford them .

Who says the working man should be able to afford a house ? Not trying to start an argument but houses should not be affordable to everybody, that is a fundamental social dynamic in every country.

Its the mentality that everybody took during the boom thinking they had to and should be able to buy that has been a key reason were in the crap as bad as we are. Some people earn enough to buy others don't and shouldn't be able to afford to.

That's basic economics unfortunately and why every developed country has a functioning rental market.

StillWaters

D3PO wrote: »

Who says the working man should be able to afford a house ? Not trying to start an argument but houses should not be affordable to everybody, that is a fundamental social dynamic in every country.

Its the mentality that everybody took during the boom thinking they had to and should be able to buy that has been a key reason were in the crap as bad as we are. Some people earn enough to buy others don't and shouldn't be able to afford to.

I think the shift happened when Thatcher launched the mass sell off of social housing. Telling the nation home ownership is a right and destroying the nation's social housing stock.

Prior to that in the UK and here, the State had a responsibility towards those who could not buy. Look at Dublins housing stock and see how much social housing stock we used to have, and then see how little of it was built in the bubble when we moved to the Rent Allowance model instead where we shifted the responsibility towards private landlords.

yoloc

D3PO wrote: »

Who says the working man should be able to afford a house ? Not trying to start an argument but houses should not be affordable to everybody, that is a fundamental social dynamic in every country.

Its the mentality that everybody took during the boom thinking they had to and should be able to buy that has been a key reason were in the crap as bad as we are. Some people earn enough to buy others don't and shouldn't be able to afford to.

That's basic economics unfortunately and why every developed country has a functioning rental market.

Your not serious are you. IMO every working person in this country deserves to own a house. I would even go as far as to say that the government should provide everyone with a roof over their head for free just like colonel gaddafi did in lybia just before it fell but thats a whole different thread all together

Snakeblood

yoloc wrote: »

Your not serious are you. IMO every working person in this country deserves to own a house. I would even go as far as to say that the government should provide everyone with a roof over their head for free just like colonel gaddafi did in lybia just before it fell but thats a whole different thread all together

Worked out great for Gaddafi, it has to be said.

yoloc

Snakeblood wrote: »

Worked out great for Gaddafi, it has to be said.

Gaddafi would still be in power if it werent for him wanting to get away from the petro dollar and go back to their own gold standard, and the fact he was sitting on all that oil. Its a crying shame what happened to that fella

Pawwed Rig

yoloc wrote: »

I would even go as far as to say that the government should provide everyone with a roof over their head for free just like colonel gaddafi did in lybia just before it fell but thats a whole different thread all together

Should everyone get the same size/type of house?

yoloc

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Should everyone get the same size/type of house?

No, you can then buy what you want if you can afford it but a basic house should be awarded to everyone once they hit a certin age or even when they get married

Pawwed Rig

To be honest I think that would deincentivise people from bothering with an education or finding work. As is, the social housing 'entitlement' causes alot of bad feeling. Why study for an extra 4 years and work your arse off for a few extra square feet?
The government has no place in a marketplace. Everytime they dabble in the propertyn market something goes disasterously wrong.

cookie1977

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

To be honest I think that would deincentivise people from bothering with an education or finding work. As is, the social housing 'entitlement' causes alot of bad feeling. Why study for an extra 4 years and work your arse off for a few extra square feet?
The government has no place in a marketplace. Everytime they dabble in the propertyn market something goes disasterously wrong.

And the private sector is does everything so much better?

Pawwed Rig

I would say generally? Yes. Always? No but that is not the point I was making. The point was about whether everyone should be entitled to a free house or home ownership. I don't think we can hope to resolve the pros and cons of the market economy on this thread.

cookie1977

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I would say generally? Yes. Always? No but that is not the point I was making. The point was about whether everyone should be entitled to a free house or home ownership. I don't think we can hope to resolve the pros and cons of the market economy on this thread.

You said the state shouldn't get involved in property. But I'd utterly disagree as the private sector could not be trusted to effectively supply social housing which will always be necessary to some extent.

the_syco

yoloc wrote: »

I would even go as far as to say that the government should provide everyone with a roof over their head for free just like colonel gaddafi did in lybia just before it fell but thats a whole different thread all together

You'll find that most oil-rich countries have policies to house certain groups of people.

When someone says "working people" how much do they mean? Should someone on the lower end be given a free house, but someone on the higher end expected to buy the house next door for full cost?

StillWaters

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

To be honest I think that would deincentivise people from bothering with an education or finding work. As is, the social housing 'entitlement' causes alot of bad feeling. Why study for an extra 4 years and work your arse off for a few extra square feet?
The government has no place in a marketplace. Everytime they dabble in the propertyn market something goes disasterously wrong.

I don't think that's true. From the foundation of the State to the 70s, huge parts of our cities and towns were developed by the Government for social housing. Crumlin and Tallaght for example. People who could not afford to buy and had a housing need were housed. Mostly working families. It was the middle class and aspiring middle class that bought.
This wasn't a loss maker for the Government.

This changed here during the bubble, where responsibility for social housing was passed to the private sector, both by compelling developers to build social and affordable housing, and through the shift to rent allowance where recipients were caught in a poverty trap with no incentive to work.

The provision of social housing does not provide a disincentive to work, rent allowance does. I know there is a shift away from this now, with long term rentals such as RAS where the tenant can work, but still the State is enriching the LL, rather than being LL themselves.

EricPraline

yoloc wrote: »

No, you can then buy what you want if you can afford it but a basic house should be awarded to everyone once they hit a certin age or even when they get married

Putting aside all the financial impracticalities of your idea and the massive disincentives described by posters above, I'd be curious to know what your definition of a "basic house" is? Would a 1 bed apartment be too "basic", or would it have to be a 3 bed? Would a house in a ghost estate in a remote rural location be acceptable or would it have to be beside jobs, amenities and one's family? Would everybody entitled to a 3 bed semi-d in Dundrum? And if the majority of people want to live in the same areas, leading to insufficient housing stock, who would decide who gets to live where? Should the taxpayer pick up the tab for extra housing in those areas? I'm sure some bankrupt developers would love to help out with such a scheme :rolleyes:

El_Dangeroso

I was thinking about this today, doesn't the rent allowance system create less 'ghettos' that the social housing? We all know estates that were built as social housing that quickly descended into ghettos in the late 80's and early 90's.

I think in that way rent allowance is a better system, allowing better (albeit far from perfect) integration of various income levels and avoiding the stigma of an address of a social housing estate.

Pawwed Rig

cookie1977 wrote: »

But I'd utterly disagree as the private sector could not be trusted to effectively supply social housing which will always be necessary to some extent.

The private sector does not provide social housing. They provide housing. The dept of welfare can then decide who is of greatest need and provide rent relief etc.

StillWaters wrote: »

I don't think that's true. From the foundation of the State to the 70s, huge parts of our cities and towns were developed by the Government for social housing. Crumlin and Tallaght for example. People who could not afford to buy and had a housing need were housed. Mostly working families. It was the middle class and aspiring middle class that bought.

And where the government built these estates see the majority of the social problems in Dublin today. They also have lower than average representation at Universities.

StillWaters wrote: »

This changed here during the bubble, where responsibility for social housing was passed to the private sector, both by compelling developers to build social and affordable housing, and through the shift to rent allowance where recipients were caught in a poverty trap with no incentive to work.

Yes and before the ink was even dry on that law the govt made a deal with a developer that he needn't provide social housing in D4 but could give a parcel of land in a less desireable area as a substitute thereby invalidating the whole reason for the law

StillWaters wrote: »

The provision of social housing does not provide a disincentive to work, rent allowance does. I know there is a shift away from this now, with long term rentals such as RAS where the tenant can work, but still the State is enriching the LL, rather than being LL themselves.

I never actually said it did. I was responding to the poster who claimed that everyone should get a free house.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I was thinking about this today, doesn't the rent allowance system create less 'ghettos' that the social housing?

It does to an extent but the levels of rent allowance have been reduced so much that people are being coralled into the less desireable areas.

cookie1977

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The private sector does not provide social housing. They provide housing. The dept of welfare can then decide who is of greatest need and provide rent relief etc.

You're contradicting yourself here. Basically you're stating the state pays the private sector money to house people. Re you comment about social housing and university. How can you be sure the two are linked? Could it not be that there's still too much cost for those in these areas trying to attend college? Why has it to do with social housing?

Pawwed Rig

cookie1977 wrote: »

You're contradicting yourself here.

How so?

cookie1977 wrote: »

Basically you're stating the state pays the private sector money to house people.

Yes. Through rent allowance and RAS.

cookie1977

There is nothing wrong with the state owning property to supply to those in need of it and receiving rent (where appropriate) from the tenants. I don't believe the RAS system is very good as the state is (in some way) more at the mercy of the market and while it can set caps on the RAS scheme it can be difficult for tenants to find suitable property and a landlord to accept RAS.

Victor

Thread split.

Please don't hi-jack threads on people.

Moderator

---

I think a balance needs to be struck. Everyone should have a roof over their head and food on the table. But anyone who can work, should work towards putting that roof over their head. The more you contribute, the more housing you can have.

Lack of university education for people in social housing areas is linked to poverty and familial lack of motivation to get a higher education. They are primarily symptoms of that poverty, not causes.

Much of the problem with housing in the 1970s-1980s was that exceptionally large housing estates were built far from employment and service, solving a housing problem, but creating other problems. There was mass displacement of under-educated, under-skilled and under-employed people that created social dysfunction as existing social structures were destroyed. Encouraging the more successful people out of those estates with housing grants removed positive role models and potential community leaders, letting those areas deteriorate rapidly.

gurramok

The problem with the Rent Supplement system is that it is being abused by some which is not fair on those who work.

For Dublin...What happened in the bubble was that an apartment\house could only be afforded by a couple, single buyers were locked out. This happened in all urban areas rich and poor. Some couples too were locked out in alot of cases and settled in commuter towns.

Now that prices have tumbled, it seems only apartments are affordable to single buyers in areas where workers reside. In the old days, a single buyer could afford a house as well as an apartment on his\her own with a big deposit saved up. Also the size of the accommodation on offer has shrunk post bubble as new houses were built smaller than houses from the 80s for example.

On income, a working class worker should be able to afford a house in a working class area. Likewise for a middle class worker in a middle class area. We can argue what defines working class and middle class incomes till the cows come home but your income should reflect your ability to afford a "home" in a particular area. I think most of the homes that are now generally affordable to single buyers in Dublin are apartments. And the more you earn as a single person, you can afford some houses thanks to price drops, not many though.

hfallada

Ireland has an unhealthy need of having to own a property. Anywhere else in Europe if you can't afford a home you rent. The government doesn't give mortgage interest relief(although the USA does) or a first time buyers grant.

Social housing is something you should live in temporarily as you are recently unemployed and cant afford rent. It should not be something that is passed down from generation to generation like it is at the moment. The bigger problem is that state benefits are too generous. Your better off on welfare and in a council house than in a job on minimum wage paying rent

cookie1977

hfallada wrote: »

Ireland has an unhealthy need of having to own a property. Anywhere else in Europe if you can't afford a home you rent. The government doesn't give mortgage interest relief(although the USA does) or a first time buyers grant.

Social housing is something you should live in temporarily as you are recently unemployed and cant afford rent. It should not be something that is passed down from generation to generation like it is at the moment. The bigger problem is that state benefits are too generous. Your better off on welfare and in a council house than in a job on minimum wage paying rent

Except in much of Europe they build high quality complexes with associated amenities. Something our country seriously lacks. But I take you point that "if" we had these then Irish people should reassess their absolute need for a semi-d with front and back garden.

OMD

I get a bit annoyed at people saying "in the old days people could afford properties, now they can't" and other similar statements about how Europe is so different.
Ireland's home ownership is about 76%. Our highest ever was 81% in 1991. Our ownership is also pretty average on a European basis. (Germany is the different one with low ownership rates). 50 years ago, in the good old days, when everyone could afford a house, ownership was about 60%.

StillWaters

hfallada wrote: »

Ireland has an unhealthy need of having to own a property. Anywhere else in Europe if you can't afford a home you rent. The government doesn't give mortgage interest relief(although the USA does) or a first time buyers grant.

Either does the Irish Government any more.

Duggys Housemate

D3PO wrote: »

Who says the working man should be able to afford a house ? Not trying to start an argument but houses should not be affordable to everybody, that is a fundamental social dynamic in every country.

Its the mentality that everybody took during the boom thinking they had to and should be able to buy that has been a key reason were in the crap as bad as we are. Some people earn enough to buy others don't and shouldn't be able to afford to.

That's basic economics unfortunately and why every developed country has a functioning rental market.

historically ireland had about 80% home ownership.Long before the boom.

Duggys Housemate

OMD wrote: »

I get a bit annoyed at people saying "in the old days people could afford properties, now they can't" and other similar statements about how Europe is so different.
Ireland's home ownership is about 76%. Our highest ever was 81% in 1991. Our ownership is also pretty average on a European basis. (Germany is the different one with low ownership rates). 50 years ago, in the good old days, when everyone could afford a house, ownership was about 60%.

It depends on what you mean by "olden" days, since 1991 was about a generation ago. Also the ownership rates were pretty high even 50 years ago when we were dirt poor. Back then though there was plenty of long term social housing which people with families prefer to private rent. Private rent was always temporary.

Also the measure of 60% is at any one time, over time people move from the rental sector to house owning to the number of people who never own a house is smaller than 40% over their lifetime ( in 1991 it was close to 0%)

hfallada

StillWaters wrote: »

Either does the Irish Government any more.

But they did. In ten years there will be probably be lobbying for it again.

OMD

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

It depends on what you mean by "olden" days, since 1991 was about a generation ago. Also the ownership rates were pretty high even 50 years ago when we were dirt poor. Back then though there was plenty of long term social housing which people with families prefer to private rent. Private rent was always temporary.

Also the measure of 60% is at any one time, over time people move from the rental sector to house owning to the number of people who never own a house is smaller than 40% over their lifetime ( in 1991 it was close to 0%)

But our ownership is now 76%. Our highest ever was 81%. That is a very small change. So we are essentially still at our highest ever home ownership which has persistent for a period of about 30 years. There was no glory time when everyone was buying houses irrespective of income and if there was, then we are still living through it.

gaius c

Should the working man be able to afford a house?

Strictly speaking, yes.
In mature, stable markets, renting is actually more expensive than buying (it has to be, otherwise landlords can't make a profit) so if a working man can afford to keep a roof over his head, he should in theory be able to buy that roof rather than just rent it.

Re Ireland, I look at places like Ballyfermot and you'd be really hard-pressed to find a house for under 900-950. BallyF is a solid working class and should be affordable by a working class family. Does 900-950 post-tax euros per month strike anybody as a slightly insane amount of money for a working household to be forking out just to put a roof over their heads?

Eric Cartman

this thread is turning into a marxist lovein.

should the working man be able to afford a house - yes, if they work hard and make enough money.

should the government intervene to 'help' the working man / regulate prices etc.. - no

should house prices continue to be the freeforall that they are - yes

should Ireland build more 'social' housing - no , how about cutting rent allowance to remove the artificial floor for rent...

The best thing Ireland could do for 'affordable' housing is to remove half the planning restrictions and zoning laws in place. This would certainly encourage more people to build houses and ease demand. It would also mean not being limited to terrible looking dormer bungalows in kildare.

cookie1977

Eric Cartman wrote: »

this thread is turning into a marxist lovein.

should the working man be able to afford a house - yes, if they work hard and make enough money.

should the government intervene to 'help' the working man / regulate prices etc.. - no

should house prices continue to be the freeforall that they are - yes

should Ireland build more 'social' housing - no , how about cutting rent allowance to remove the artificial floor for rent...

The best thing Ireland could do for 'affordable' housing is to remove half the planning restrictions and zoning laws in place. This would certainly encourage more people to build houses and ease demand. It would also mean not being limited to terrible looking dormer bungalows in kildare.

What about the person that was prudent when they bought their house but due to the bail out and cuts to wages to support bank bailouts/job losses, increased taxes and new taxes is now struggling to keep going with their mortgage despite the fact that they had in excess of what they needed initially to buy their property. It is dishonesty/disrespectful to think that all those struggling now were solely responsibly for the hole they are now in.

Eric Cartman

cookie1977 wrote: »

What about the person that was prudent when they bought their house but due to the bail out and cuts to wages to support bank bailouts/job losses, increased taxes and new taxes is now struggling to keep going with their mortgage despite the fact that they had in excess of what they needed initially to buy their property. It is dishonesty/disrespectful to think that all those struggling now were solely responsibly for the hole they are now in.

a very loaded question there . While I do not agree with the increases in taxes and unfortunate situation with paycuts (we should have cut the social welfare budget and all foreign aid to get out of debt) , when taking out any mortgage these things should have been factored in. With a paycut and tax increases I would say a lot of working people are down maybe 20% overall in their takehome pay. Nobody should ever have taken out a mortgage with repayments that could not survive that kind of hit.

House pricing is all about supply and demand. If the government were not supplying houses , people would find a way to sell houses to accommodate the demand within most peoples financial constraints. The people I feel sorry for the least though are those who took out 100+% mortgages on overinflated house prices, the banks didn't force them to sign anything , nobody held a gun to them, and now they whinge because they could barely afford the mortgage at the time and now their house is worth practically nothing, they only had themselves to blame for that. Basic logic could have told anyone that 2006 house prices were ridiculous and impossible to maintain.

cookie1977

Eric Cartman wrote: »

a very loaded question there . While I do not agree with the increases in taxes and unfortunate situation with paycuts (we should have cut the social welfare budget and all foreign aid to get out of debt) , when taking out any mortgage these things should have been factored in. With a paycut and tax increases I would say a lot of working people are down maybe 20% overall in their takehome pay. Nobody should ever have taken out a mortgage with repayments that could not survive that kind of hit.

House pricing is all about supply and demand. If the government were not supplying houses , people would find a way to sell houses to accommodate the demand within most peoples financial constraints. The people I feel sorry for the least though are those who took out 100+% mortgages on overinflated house prices, the banks didn't force them to sign anything , nobody held a gun to them, and now they whinge because they could barely afford the mortgage at the time and now their house is worth practically nothing, they only had themselves to blame for that. Basic logic could have told anyone that 2006 house prices were ridiculous and impossible to maintain.

For example, civil service pay cuts have been approximately between 7-10% to date, that's excluding USC not to mention LPT and Household charges and the up and coming water charges. On top of that you have increasing variable rates on mortgages despite the continued reduction of ECB rates. Never mind the job losses in the private sector that are as a result of decreased domestic economic activity. The highest variable rate being approximately 5.5% which is 5% above the ECB rate solely because Irish banks decided to gamble on trackers to theirs and the countries detriment. You dont need to have taken out a 100% mortgage (which would have been crazy) to be in trouble now, in fact an 80% mortgage and acquiring a child or 2 since then should see you at the very least having to make dramatic changes to your lifestyle just to maintain payments.

There are lots of people in trouble for a variety of reasons and to shove them all in to a single "it's your own fault" tag is unfair and unjust.

Re social welfare. It is too high but as that "wage" of (I think) 190 per week, is essentially the bottom of the earnings in the country then everything is priced to this rate and it would be unfair and unworkable to suddenly just arbitrarily cut the social welfare to something more realistic now(say 50 euro per week). We never should have seen the sudden and dramatic rises in social welfare during the boom to begin with as any reorganisation of social welfare payments would be extremely painful and potentially be unworkable for those on it. Remembering we've already seen cuts to job seekers and job benefits allowances time periods.


There is no way in hell most people could have factored all of these possibilities in during the boom when taking out a mortgage.

the_syco

cookie1977 wrote: »

It is dishonesty/disrespectful to think that all those struggling now were solely responsibly for the hole they are now in.

That they are not responsible for lying about how much they could really afford?

cookie1977

the_syco wrote: »

That they are not responsible for lying about how much they could really afford?

Not everyone lied. Do you believe that they did?

Snakeblood

the_syco wrote: »

That they are not responsible for lying about how much they could really afford?

The unemployment rate did leap hugely. They may well not have been lying at the time. Someone in construction was simultaneously fuelling and profiting from the bubble, until the bubble popped.

Victor

Can we stick to the topic at hand?

Moderator

Victor

gurramok wrote: »

For Dublin...What happened in the bubble was that an apartment\house could only be afforded by a couple, single buyers were locked out.

Why does a single person need to be able to afford a 3-bed semi?

In the old days, a single buyer could afford a house as well as an apartment on his\her own with a big deposit saved up.

Two properties?

Also the size of the accommodation on offer has shrunk post bubble as new houses were built smaller than houses from the 80s for example.

I think that is a fairly nebulous idea. Are you comparing a 1980s 3/4-bed to a 2000s 2-bed? Importantly, household sizes have fallen, with half the population now in households having 1-3 people. http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=CNA29.asp&TableName=Private+Households+by+size&StatisticalProduct=DB_CN

On income, a working class worker should be able to afford a house in a working class area. Likewise for a middle class worker in a middle class area. We can argue what defines working class and middle class incomes till the cows come home but your income should reflect your ability to afford a "home" in a particular area.

I disagree. The population has grown by 50% since 1971, combined with a smaller household size means that there are twice as many homes now as then. Gentrification aside and assuming a "middle class area" is somewhat static, where are all the extra households to go?

hfallada wrote: »

Social housing is something you should live in temporarily as you are recently unemployed and cant afford rent. It should not be something that is passed down from generation to generation like it is at the moment.

Read my previous post. Taking all the unemployed people and sticking them in one place doesn't work, it never works. Displacing people from their surroundings and socio-economic supports doesn't work. What may work is more novel approaches to housing associations where people own shares and can 'downsize' their property and move down the street / corridor if they have financial difficulties.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

should the government intervene to 'help' the working man / regulate prices etc.. - no

Certain protections are needed, certainly on public health / safety (building regulations and the like) and consumer grounds (they should ban mortgages over about 95% and tax below-cost mortgages).

should house prices continue to be the freeforall that they are - yes

I disagree. The tax system should be re-framed to be counter-cyclical. The current boom-bust cycle promotes short-termism and is incredibly destructive, with vast number of people unemployed.

The best thing Ireland could do for 'affordable' housing is to remove half the planning restrictions and zoning laws in place.

So we can have more housing estates in the middle of nowhere? Which would cost the state vast amounts of money to service?

StillWaters

Victor wrote: »

What may work is more novel approaches to housing associations where people own shares and can 'downsize' their property and move down the street / corridor if they have financial difficulties.

Or they have life changes such as a growing family / separation / retirement. I really like this idea, are you aware of any such models in existence?

Glenbhoy

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The government has no place in a marketplace.

If only, unfortunately the artificial restriction of supply resulting from the implementation of planning legislation over the past 50/60 yrs will pretty hard to row back on.

Not saying that planning legislation isn't required, but pointing out that as long as such exists and given that it is the single most important factor in pricing, how can a govt not be interfering?

gaius c

The best thing Ireland could do for 'affordable' housing is to remove half the planning restrictions and zoning laws in place.

Victor wrote: »

So we can have more housing estates in the middle of nowhere? Which would cost the state vast amounts of money to service?

I think he's referring to planning restrictions in Dublin city centre rather than outside.

Someday people in positions of authority might cop onto the fact that having two storey houses a stones throw from O'Connell st is part of the reason why their children have to live in Newbridge.

As to your other points, yes the population has increased but we still have the lowest population density in western Europe (and by quite some distance too). We also have the smallest and most expensive houses in a country that has the IMF at the door. Something is not adding up here...

D3PO

Mods I have an issue with you creating a thread in my name with a thread title when I replied to a post in a different thread.

the thread title is inflammatory and I don't appreciate it.

murphaph

cookie1977 wrote: »

You said the state shouldn't get involved in property. But I'd utterly disagree as the private sector could not be trusted to effectively supply social housing which will always be necessary to some extent.

Hmmm, there's essentially zero social housing in state hands in Germany (excluding some stock still left over from the GDR days that hasn't been sold off to private housing companies). Germany has about 60% renting to 40% home ownership and I dare say a smaller homelessness problem than Ireland (per capita).

In countries where the state actually builds social housing on a large scale, you quite often end up with ghettos. We have them, the UK has them, France has them. Italy has some terrible ones in the south.

I think it's a bitter pill to swallow sometimes but in order to break the cycle of living off benefits you need to expose kids to "better".

cookie1977

murphaph wrote: »

Hmmm, there's essentially zero social housing in state hands in Germany (excluding some stock still left over from the GDR days that hasn't been sold off to private housing companies). Germany has about 60% renting to 40% home ownership and I dare say a smaller homelessness problem than Ireland (per capita).

In countries where the state actually builds social housing on a large scale, you quite often end up with ghettos. We have them, the UK has them, France has them. Italy has some terrible ones in the south.

I think it's a bitter pill to swallow sometimes but in order to break the cycle of living off benefits you need to expose kids to "better".

In Germany approximately 5% of all housing stock is Social Housing:
http://www.housingeurope.eu/publication/social-housing-country-profiles/social-housing-in/de

while Ireland has 8.7%
http://www.housingeurope.eu/publication/social-housing-country-profiles/social-housing-in/ireland

cookie1977

Re homelessness in both countries:
http://www.feantsaresearch.org/IMG/pdf/feantsa_2009statsreview_en.pdf
There's a lot of stats but taking roofless in 2009
Germany had: 18,000 (% of pop= 0.00022)
Ireland had: 110 (% of pop= 0.0002)

Ray Palmer

I don't see why having any job will mean you should be able to afford to be able to buy a home. If that were the case a minimum wage job should mean you could afford to buy a property. That just doesn't make sense. I doubt you will find any countries where a minimum wage job alone means you can afford property.

Using central Europe as a claim of something better is also missing major historical differences. WWII destroyed so much housing stock their property ownership model was reset. Vast properties were built with foreign aid and property companies with long term investment models were used. It was basically a socialist model used. They didn't do so by choice it was pretty much the only option they had.

Dyr

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The government has no place in a marketplace. Everytime they dabble in the propertyn market something goes disasterously wrong.

All the same, It's funny how it all only went disastrously wrong after the government knocked social housing on the head and gave the field to developers

Pawwed Rig

Bambi wrote: »

It's funny how it all only went disastrously wrong after the government knocked social housing on the head and gave the field to developers

What went disastrously wrong?

cookie1977

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

What went disastrously wrong?

Things like the affordable housing scheme designed to have cheap housing located beside private housing that resulted in developers buying crap land miles away from the private housing at which to build the cheap housing so they didn't put off private buyers on their "good location" land