The irony of ireland`s homelessness crisis

realitykeeper

Had the government let the banks fail, and facilitated the easy repossession of properties in default, it would have led to property prices plummeting to the point where people could afford to buy them outright or to get a mortgage for them or to rent them cheaply.

Furthermore it would have enabled new developers (who had not over borrowed) to start building new housing in a normal functioning housing market.

What we are seeing now is just the beginning of the pain the country postponed by bailing out the banks. The people who over borrowed in the naughties got to keep the properties they borrowed for and the bailout bill was handed to the students and young people had not borrowed for a mortgage before 2007.

The rent increases also helped those who borrowed in the naughties to keep their second and third homes to the detriment to the young people who were completely blameless.

Had the banks not been bailed out, some of those homeless people in Apollo House could be property owners now.

Kristopherus

How could anyone borrow if the banks were gone ?????

realitykeeper

Kristopherus wrote: »

How could anyone borrow if the banks were gone ?????

There were credit unions, the post office, foreign banks, new banks would have been licenced to fill the void quite quickly.

Bailing out the banks was prone to corporate moral hazard, it was unprincipled and will ultimately cost the country dearly.

Timberrrrrrrr

realitykeeper wrote: »

Had the government let the banks fail, and facilitated the easy repossession of properties in default, it would have led to property prices plummeting to the point where people could afford to buy them outright or to get a mortgage for them or to rent them cheaply.

Furthermore it would have enabled new developers (who had not over borrowed) to start building new housing in a normal functioning housing market.

What we are seeing now is just the beginning of the pain the country postponed by bailing out the banks. The people who over borrowed in the naughties got to keep the properties they borrowed for and the bailout bill was handed to the students and young people had not borrowed for a mortgage before 2007.

The rent increases also helped those who borrowed in the naughties to keep their second and third homes to the detriment to the young people who were completely blameless.

Had the banks not been bailed out, some of those homeless people in Apollo House could be property owners now.

Are the people in Apollo house not homeless because they have lost their jobs and can't afford rent/mortgages?

Are you saying the credit unions and "new banks" would have given unemployed people mortgages?

Rightwing

realitykeeper wrote: »

Had the government let the banks fail, and facilitated the easy repossession of properties in default, it would have led to property prices plummeting to the point where people could afford to buy them outright or to get a mortgage for them or to rent them cheaply.

Furthermore it would have enabled new developers (who had not over borrowed) to start building new housing in a normal functioning housing market.

What we are seeing now is just the beginning of the pain the country postponed by bailing out the banks. The people who over borrowed in the naughties got to keep the properties they borrowed for and the bailout bill was handed to the students and young people had not borrowed for a mortgage before 2007.

The rent increases also helped those who borrowed in the naughties to keep their second and third homes to the detriment to the young people who were completely blameless.

Had the banks not been bailed out, some of those homeless people in Apollo House could be property owners now.

It wouldn't.

Builders are finding it difficult to make a return on investment as it is. Government needs to greatly reduce levies so that builders can build affordable homes and still make a profit. The cost of a build remains the problem.
There is truth in some of your other points. But who are these homeless Apollo house residents, have they jobs? Are they alcoholics/drug addicts? I find it hard to see how someone can become homeless unless they are more or less a complete loser with no prospects, and then such individuals wouldn't be in a position to get a house if it was selling for €10K.

pilly

realitykeeper wrote: »

Had the government let the banks fail, and facilitated the easy repossession of properties in default, it would have led to property prices plummeting to the point where people could afford to buy them outright or to get a mortgage for them or to rent them cheaply.

Furthermore it would have enabled new developers (who had not over borrowed) to start building new housing in a normal functioning housing market.

What we are seeing now is just the beginning of the pain the country postponed by bailing out the banks. The people who over borrowed in the naughties got to keep the properties they borrowed for and the bailout bill was handed to the students and young people had not borrowed for a mortgage before 2007.

The rent increases also helped those who borrowed in the naughties to keep their second and third homes to the detriment to the young people who were completely blameless.

Had the banks not been bailed out, some of those homeless people in Apollo House could be property owners now.

Little bit of a naïve view imo, the people in Apollo house in the main need social housing, they would not be in a position to buy houses.

pilly

Rightwing wrote: »

It wouldn't.

Builders are finding it difficult to make a return on investment as it is. Government needs to greatly reduce levies so that builders can build affordable homes and still make a profit. The cost of a build remains the problem.
There is truth in some of your other points. But who are these homeless Apollo house residents, have they jobs? Are they alcoholics/drug addicts? I find it hard to see how someone can become homeless unless they are more or less a complete loser with no prospects, and then such individuals wouldn't be in a position to get a house if it was selling for €10K.

<snip> obviously not at all educated about the various different reasons behind homelessness. Definitely not a case that all homeless people are complete losers without prospects. :mad:

oscarBravo

Rightwing wrote: »

I find it hard to see how someone can become homeless unless they are more or less a complete loser with no prospects...

I'm guessing that's because you haven't bothered to look into the issue.

If you're in a low-paid job where you're barely covering your rent as it is, your landlord increases your rent by 50%, and you can't find anything else to rent in a market where demand vastly outstrips supply, what do you do?

Because this situation, apparently, makes you a complete loser with no prospects.

Rightwing

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm guessing that's because you haven't bothered to look into the issue.

If you're in a low-paid job where you're barely covering your rent as it is, your landlord increases your rent by 50%, and you can't find anything else to rent in a market where demand vastly outstrips supply, what do you do?

Because this situation, apparently, makes you a complete loser with no prospects.

You go to the State cap in hand. Isn't that what all these family income support schemes are about? I'm not in favour of them, but I would say very few countries are as generous as this one in that regard. Now, if you are offered accomodation in a 3 bed semi, but want a 4 bed detached, then there's not much even our Government can do.

Cordell

Had the government let the banks fail, and facilitated the easy repossession of properties in default, it would have led to property prices plummeting to the point where people could afford to buy them outright or to get a mortgage for them or to rent them cheaply.

Plummeting prices mean negative equity for the owners that are keeping up with the repayments, what did they do to deserve to be sacrificed as well?

The people who over borrowed in the naughties got to keep the properties they borrowed for and the bailout bill was handed to the students and young people had not borrowed for a mortgage before 2007.

The bailout bill was handed to everyone. Some lost their jobs, others payed more taxes, but everyone chipped in. No one was spared.

oscarBravo

Rightwing wrote: »

Now, if you are offered accomodation in a 3 bed semi, but want a 4 bed detached, then there's not much even our Government can do.

Just so we're clear, are you arguing that people are sleeping on the streets because the government is only offering them a 3 bed semi instead of a 4 bed detached?

Because, if you are, I have more productive things to do - like maybe yelling into a hole in the ground - than try to have an intelligent discussion with you.

Rightwing

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just so we're clear, are you arguing that people are sleeping on the streets because the government is only offering them a 3 bed semi instead of a 4 bed detached?

Because, if you are, I have more productive things to do - like maybe yelling into a hole in the ground - than try to have an intelligent discussion with you.

The old adage, 'beggars can't be choosers' is appropriate if one is homeless.

A quick google:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/homeless-campaigner-erica-refused-two-house-offers-34981951.html
Homeless campaigner Erica Fleming, who lives in a hotel with her daughter, turned down two offers of accommodation, according to an internal Dublin City Council report seen by the Sunday Independent. The briefing document states Ms Fleming was offered a two-bedroom apartment in the upmarket Dublin suburb of Mount Prospect Avenue in Clontarf.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/homeless-family-get-order-quashing-refusal-to-accommodate-them-1.2898095

South Dublin County Council had found the family ineligible for emergency accommodation in October on foot of its view their homelessness since late September arose from “choices” made by the woman.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/over-2-000-social-housing-offers-turned-down-last-year-1.2414025

Reasons for refusals include barking dogs, the applicant being on holidays and no Mass

Mrs OBumble

And if the banks had failed how many more unemployed people would there be because of the American multi-nationals leaving ?

realitykeeper

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Are the people in Apollo house not homeless because they have lost their jobs and can't afford rent/mortgages?

Are you saying the credit unions and "new banks" would have given unemployed people mortgages?

The houses were there and they would have been sold to the highest bidder. If the highest bidder could afford very little, then that would have been the selling price.

realitykeeper

Rightwing wrote: »

It wouldn't.

Builders are finding it difficult to make a return on investment as it is. Government needs to greatly reduce levies so that builders can build affordable homes and still make a profit. The cost of a build remains the problem.

"As it is" is different to how it would have been had the banks been allowed to fail. Iceland has no problem building houses, if fact they have had a building boom for years now (see link). That is the power of capitalism, even in a bankrupt country, market forces will quickly save the day if only the politicians would stop trying to "help".

When a crisis presents itself, it is far better to let the crisis play out. By preventing the crisis, the politicians have made a normal functioning housing market impossible. This is what stagnation looks like and it is going to spead to the rest of the economy.

The bank part of the national debt should be defaulted on. The economy must be allowed to crash properly before it can start to grow.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/realestate/commercial/iceland-recovers-and-reykjavik-becomes-a-hive-of-development.html?_r=0

amcalester

realitykeeper wrote: »

"As it is" is different to how it would have been had the banks been allowed to fail. Iceland has no problem building houses, if fact they have had a building boom for years now. That is the power of capitalism, even in a bankrupt country, market forces will quickly save the day if only the politicians would stop trying to "help".

When a crisis presents itself, it is far better to let the crisis play out. By preventing the crisis, the politicians have made a normal functioning housing market impossible. This is what stagnation looks like and it is going to spead to the rest of the economy.

The bank part of the national debt should be defaulted on. The economy must be allowed to crash properly before it can start to grow.

How would the banks going bust reduce the cost of building?

Owryan

Why would new banks move into a market where all the previous banks had gone bust?

Also, if all the houses in arrears were repossessed and sold on, where do the people who lost those houses go? If they couldnt pay a mortgage how can the buy another gaff?

Get Real

realitykeeper wrote: »

The houses were there and they would have been sold to the highest bidder. If the highest bidder could afford very little, then that would have been the selling price.

Yeah so you've kind of just defeated your own thread.

The highest bidder would have been a wealthy person with large cash reserves, so a rich person would have got a house on the cheap, how this benefits "ordinary" people I don't know.

Anyway another flaw is these houses that would be sold off, where would the people occupying move to?

It's much more to do with the lack of supply for housing. More people bidding for the one house, price gets pushed up. Simultaneously, people compete to rent property, and the rent increases with demand, the highest bidder gets it.

This makes rents and home ownership unaffordable for many and gives rise to the situation of today. Not too sure about this hypothetical scenario you have of something which began to unravel almost a decade ago at this stage.

realitykeeper

Get Real wrote: »

Yeah so you've kind of just defeated your own thread.

The highest bidder would have been a wealthy person with large cash reserves, so a rich person would have got a house on the cheap, how this benefits "ordinary" people I don't know.

Anyway another flaw is these houses that would be sold off, where would the people occupying move to?

It's much more to do with the lack of supply for housing. More people bidding for the one house, price gets pushed up. Simultaneously, people compete to rent property, and the rent increases with demand, the highest bidder gets it.

This makes rents and home ownership unaffordable for many and gives rise to the situation of today. Not too sure about this hypothetical scenario you have of something which began to unravel almost a decade ago at this stage.

Rich people getting the houses cheaply is not a "flaw." If that bothers people, they should practice meditation to come to terms with their jealousy issues.

Ireland has a homelessness crisis. It would be better if the homeless people were those who over borrowed during the boom and not the people who are expected to pay for the people who over borrowed during the boom.

There would be a building boom here, like in Iceland if capitalism had prevailed and the banks were allowed to fail. With a housing boom, rents would be affordable to the evicted (who over borrowed and defaulted).

realitykeeper

amcalester wrote: »

How would the banks going bust reduce the cost of building?

Thats what happen in Iceland.

yosser hughes

realitykeeper wrote: »

Had the government let the banks fail, and facilitated the easy repossession of properties in default, it would have led to property prices plummeting to the point where people could afford to buy them outright or to get a mortgage for them or to rent them cheaply.

Furthermore it would have enabled new developers (who had not over borrowed) to start building new housing in a normal functioning housing market.

What we are seeing now is just the beginning of the pain the country postponed by bailing out the banks. The people who over borrowed in the naughties got to keep the properties they borrowed for and the bailout bill was handed to the students and young people had not borrowed for a mortgage before 2007.

The rent increases also helped those who borrowed in the naughties to keep their second and third homes to the detriment to the young people who were completely blameless.

Had the banks not been bailed out, some of those homeless people in Apollo House could be property owners now.

You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately most people are too stupid or self-interested to see what has happened and is happening.

realitykeeper

Owryan wrote: »

Why would new banks move into a market where all the previous banks had gone bust?

Also, if all the houses in arrears were repossessed and sold on, where do the people who lost those houses go? If they couldnt pay a mortgage how can the buy another gaff?

Why would they not? No competition is a rare luxury for businesses. A new bank would not be exposed to bad debts like the old banks. All the new banks would have to do is not be stupid like the old banks in order to thrive.

If people made mistakes they should pay for their own mistakes. Other people should not have to be homeless so that the people who over borrowed can go on living in houses.

kippy

realitykeeper wrote: »

Why would they not? No competition is a rare luxury for businesses. A new bank would not be exposed to bad debts like the old banks. All the new banks would have to do is not be stupid like the old banks in order to thrive.

If people made mistakes they should pay for their own mistakes. Other people should not have to be homeless so that the people who over borrowed can go on living in houses.

And what would happen all of those tens of thousands of people that worked in banks, financial institutions that suddenly went bust. Wouldn't they be homeless now?
What would happen the pensioners whose pension funds were invested in those banks either in direct share schemes or as lenders to the banks in the first instance?

(I am keeping the logic and reasoning here extremely simple for good reason)

amcalester

realitykeeper wrote: »

Thats what happen in Iceland.

That's not an answer. Iceland and Ireland may only differ by 1 letter but what happened in one will not necessarily happen in the other.

How, specifically in relation to Ireland, would letting the banks go bust lower the cost of building?

realitykeeper

kippy wrote: »

And what would happen all of those tens of thousands of people that worked in banks, financial institutions that suddenly went bust. Wouldn't they be homeless now?
What would happen the pensioners whose pension funds were invested in those banks either in direct share schemes or as lenders to the banks in the first instance?

(I am keeping the logic and reasoning here extremely simple for good reason)

And I will keep my answers simple for a good reason

Those who make bad investments loose all their money.

Those who loose their jobs suffer hardships.

kippy

realitykeeper wrote: »

And I will keep my answers simple for a good reason

Those who make bad investments loose all their money.

Those who loose their jobs suffer hardships.

You are the one who titled the thread "The Irony of Irelands Homelessness Crisis"
Do you really believe the homeless crisis as we we see it now would have been avoided IF all of those institutions were let fail?

Suggesting that those who make bad investments lose their money or those who lose their jobs suffer hardships can surely be applied to those who are homeless currently??

realitykeeper

amcalester wrote: »

That's not an answer. Iceland and Ireland may only differ by 1 letter but what happened in one will not necessarily happen in the other.

How, specifically in relation to Ireland, would letting the banks go bust lower the cost of building?

If the government were telling the truth when they said they could not borrow if they let the banks fail, then there would have been mass redundancies in the public sector/civil service. The social welfare supports would then be slashed. That would take a lot of money out of the economy. Naturally, that would cause prices to drop and the minimum wage would fall also. So, with the cost of goods, services and labour lower, the cost of building would be lower.

kippy

realitykeeper wrote: »

If the government were telling the truth when they said they could not borrow if they let the banks fail, then there would have been mass redundancies in the public sector/civil service. The social welfare supports would then be slashed. That would take a lot of money out of the economy. Naturally, that would cause prices to drop and the minimum wage would fall also. So, with the cost of goods, services and labour lower, the cost of building would be lower.

Again, I will keep this simple.
Your suggestion would have been to put more people homeless initially in the hope that prices and accessibility to housing would decrease also and these unemployed folks would be able to afford a home - so they'd be unemployed but own a home?
Look, I don't agree with all the decisions made in 2008/2009 but to force this brand of logic now is just silly.

realitykeeper

kippy wrote: »

You are the one who titled the thread "The Irony of Irelands Homelessness Crisis"
Do you really believe the homeless crisis as we we see it now would have been avoided IF all of those institutions were let fail?

Suggesting that those who make bad investments lose their money or those who lose their jobs suffer hardships can surely be applied to those who are homeless currently??

The homeless crisis would have happened and it would be history by now. Instead, a far more protracted and insurmountable homeless crisis is just getting started.

Your second point is valid but those people would be about ten years into resolving their difficulties by now if the banks had been allowed to fail and if the economy had been allowed to crash.

kippy

realitykeeper wrote: »

The homeless crisis would have happened and it would be history by now. Instead, a far more protracted and insurmountable homeless crisis is just getting started.

Your second point is valid but those people would be about ten years into resolving their difficulties by now if the banks had been allowed to fail and if the economy had been allowed to crash.

You have no appreciation for the wider impacts of following your path.

realitykeeper

kippy wrote: »

Your suggestion would have been to put more people homeless initially in the hope that prices and accessibility to housing would decrease also and these unemployed folks would be able to afford a home - so they'd be unemployed but own a home?
Look, I don't agree with all the decisions made in 2008/2009 but to force this brand of logic now is just silly.

The houses would have gone cheaply to the highest bidders. In 2007/8 there were enough houses to satisfy demand so everyone would have had a roof over their head either as an owner or renter. The prices of houses (and rent) would have been low.

I don`t have to force this "brand of logic." If the market forces are not allowed to fix the problem, the problem will not get fixed.

kippy

realitykeeper wrote: »

The houses would have gone cheaply to the highest bidders. In 2007/8 there were enough houses to satisfy demand so everyone would have had a roof over their head either as an owner or renter. The prices of houses (and rent) would have been low.

I don`t have to force this "brand of logic." If the market forces are not allowed to fix the problem, the problem will not get fixed.

And what if all this cheap housing were bought up by pension funds, and external investment vehicles?

Atlantic Dawn

There's so much control by the powers that be, thou ordinary folk shalt not be able to buy a reasonably priced gaff ever.

realitykeeper

kippy wrote: »

And what if all this cheap housing were bought up by pension funds, and external investment vehicles?

The bond holders would have been burnt. The tax payers would still have their 60 billion. The cost of renting would have been cheaper. Building houses could have resumed as viable business activity. The Irish would be wiser.

kippy

realitykeeper wrote: »

The bond holders would have been burnt. The tax payers would still have their 60 billion. The cost of renting would have been cheaper. Building houses could have resumed as viable business activity. The Irish would be wiser.

Hilarious.
Good night and good luck.

amcalester

realitykeeper wrote: »

If the government were telling the truth when they said they could not borrow if they let the banks fail, then there would have been mass redundancies in the public sector/civil service. The social welfare supports would then be slashed. That would take a lot of money out of the economy. Naturally, that would cause prices to drop and the minimum wage would fall also. So, with the cost of goods, services and labour lower, the cost of building would be lower.

So your suggestion to reduce building costs is mass redundancies in the civil service, slashing social welfare and dropping the minimum wage?

Quite the ironic username you have.

76544567

Ive had to give my tenants notice to leave because I am selling the properties now after the new rules came in.
I was charging far below market rate, which I was fine with.
The problem now is that should I have a big expense, such as a new oil heating boiler like just happened to a friend of mine there before Christmas costing thousands to replace, i wont be able to increase the rent to offset such expenses. I also cant even put the rent up to market rate for the next person when someone moves out.
And the risk is now very real that the law is changed again and I cant even sell the properties with vacant possession, which effects the property value too.
So after weighing it all up, Ive just decided to sell up.
I am really sorry for the tenants who now have to move and will face at least a 40% increase in their rents when they move now, because that is what the market rate is now above what I am allowed by law to charge. If they moved into an identical apartment in the same block they would be paying that more than they are now. But I am left with no choice. Either I stay in with all the risks or I just get out.

Rightwing

76544567 wrote: »

Ive had to give my tenants notice to leave because I am selling the properties now after the new rules came in.
I was charging far below market rate, which I was fine with.
The problem now is that should I have a big expense, such as a new oil heating boiler like just happened to a friend of mine there before Christmas costing thousands to replace, i wont be able to increase the rent to offset such expenses. I also cant even put the rent up to market rate for the next person when someone moves out.
And the risk is now very real that the law is changed again and I cant even sell the properties with vacant possession, which effects the property value too.
So after weighing it all up, Ive just decided to sell up.
I am really sorry for the tenants who now have to move and will face at least a 40% increase in their rents when they move now, because that is what the market rate is now above what I am allowed by law to charge. If they moved into an identical apartment in the same block they would be paying that more than they are now. But I am left with no choice. Either I stay in with all the risks or I just get out.

I have 2 properties in this country that I leave vacant. They will be beneficial for the kids when in university. You were over-leveraged, or not managing your affairs properly. My advice is to buy property with cash, as I expect interest rates to rise. Never be dependent on rent or stuff like boilers etc.

76544567

Rightwing wrote: »

I have 2 properties in this country that I leave vacant. They will be beneficial for the kids when in university. You were over-leveraged, or not managing your affairs properly. My advice is to buy property with cash, as I expect interest rates to rise. Never be dependent on rent or stuff like boilers etc.

They weren't mortgaged.
That's why I wasn't worried about charging below market rate before. The landscape has changed too much mow though.
Give the tax rate and the fact that I may be stuck on a low rent even if I have a bad year it just isn't worth the risk for the return anymore.
It's more the fact that I was letting so far below market rate previously that has done me in.
Those properties are now locked to a low rent no matter what my costs are.
So rather than take the risk I must sell.
I would be quiete happy at this point to keep one and leave it empty but under the new rules I can't empty them out either unless I sell them. So I must sell.

the_syco

realitykeeper wrote: »

There were credit unions, the post office, foreign banks, new banks would have been licenced to fill the void quite quickly.

No. If the Irish banks had gone to the wall, no other bank would see it as profitable to lend to Ireland, and any that did could charge high interest rates, as Ireland wouldn't have a choice about it.

jimmycrackcorm

realitykeeper wrote:

Had the government let the banks fail, and facilitated the easy repossession of properties in default, it would have led to property prices plummeting to the point where people could afford to buy them outright or to get a mortgage for them or to rent them cheaply.

It's simply astonishing that people suggest that the government should have let the banks go bust.

So every single business suddenly cannot buy from their suppliers or pay their staff wages.

No ATMs and no credit cards, no imports of oil, medical supplies or practically everything we depend on apart from potatoes because foreign suppliers wouldn't get paid.

How do people suggest this over and over without even spending ten seconds thinking of the consequences.

This country has it's problems not because of the government bailing out the banks but because of what happened before it had to.

We all partied, the hangover has been massive.

realitykeeper

the_syco wrote: »

No. If the Irish banks had gone to the wall, no other bank would see it as profitable to lend to Ireland, and any that did could charge high interest rates, as Ireland wouldn't have a choice about it.

If the banks had failed, (which the government should have allowed) the government should not have borrowed any more but concentrated on cutting spending. As for domestic customer banking, an opportunity would present itself to either a foreign bank or any wealthy individual or company to establish new banks here.

Even if they did not avail of the opportunity, credit would have been limited which would have forced prices (everything from property to labour) even lower thereby increasing Ireland`s competitiveness even more.

What has actually happened in this country has made sustainable economic recovery impossible. Yes the bubble has been re-blown at extraordinary expense but the nonviable construction sector is a lead indicator of where the economy is going.

Mongfinder General

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It's simply astonishing that people suggest that the government should have let the banks go bust.

So every single business suddenly cannot buy from their suppliers or pay their staff wages.

No ATMs and no credit cards, no imports of oil, medical supplies or practically everything we depend on apart from potatoes because foreign suppliers wouldn't get paid.

How do people suggest this over and over without even spending ten seconds thinking of the consequences.

This country has it's problems not because of the government bailing out the banks but because of what happened before it had to.

We all partied, the hangover has been massive.

I agree with most of what you've written but Anglo should have been allowed to fail or dumped on Trichet's door step with a note saying deal with this in a way that helps us all.

realitykeeper

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

This country has it's problems not because of the government bailing out the banks but because of what happened before it had to.

We all partied, the hangover has been massive.

With respect, I did not party and neither did a lot of other responsible people. What happened before the crash was obviously going to lead to a crash. When the crash happened Ireland should have taken the punishment but instead it did the cowardly thing by deferring the pain of impact. That pain will be pending shortly when true interest rates replace ECB rates.

Mongfinder General

realitykeeper wrote: »

With respect, I did not party and neither did a lot of other responsible people. What happened before the crash was obviously going to lead to a crash. When the crash happened Ireland should have taken the punishment but instead it did the cowardly thing by deferring the pain of impact. That pain will be pending shortly when true interest rates replace ECB rates.

True interest rates?

realitykeeper

amcalester wrote: »

So your suggestion to reduce building costs is mass redundancies in the civil service, slashing social welfare and dropping the minimum wage?

That is all just common sense. Unfortunately, austerity postponed leads to far more austerity in the longer run and the final postponement is nearly at an end.

Wheeliebin30

realitykeeper wrote: »

That is all just common sense. Unfortunately, austerity postponed leads to far more austerity in the longer run and the final postponement is nearly at an end.

Do you even know what austerity stands for?

It means living within your means.

Something a lot of people didn't do and we are paying for it now.

Yes the banks we know about them but some of the people have to share the blame too.

Noone forced them into taking massive mortgages they can't pay back.

Rightwing

76544567 wrote: »

They weren't mortgaged.
That's why I wasn't worried about charging below market rate before. The landscape has changed too much mow though.
Give the tax rate and the fact that I may be stuck on a low rent even if I have a bad year it just isn't worth the risk for the return anymore.
It's more the fact that I was letting so far below market rate previously that has done me in.
Those properties are now locked to a low rent no matter what my costs are.
So rather than take the risk I must sell.
I would be quiete happy at this point to keep one and leave it empty but under the new rules I can't empty them out either unless I sell them. So I must sell.

Ridiculous situation. I find Germany is a very orderly market. You could do worse than purchase there.

76544567

Rightwing wrote: »

Ridiculous situation. I find Germany is a very orderly market. You could do worse than purchase there.

I'm out of property altogether now.
On current form even if you invested in another country the government here would probably tax you double on the income if they woke up in the morning and wondered whos pocket they could put their hands in next. The uncertainty is just not worth it.

realitykeeper

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Do you even know what austerity stands for?

It means living within your means.

Something a lot of people didn't do and we are paying for it now.

Yes the banks we know about them but some of the people have to share the blame too.

Noone forced them into taking massive mortgages they can't pay back.

This is not austerity. How could it be when the government is still borrowing, the ECB are setting interest rates artificially low and pumping 80 billion euro a month into the eurozone economy. Austerity is what will come when the policies of stimulus fail and I expect that to happen later this year.

Seth Brundle

realitykeeper wrote: »

Austerity is what will come when the policies of stimulus fail and I expect that to happen later this year.

You've been predicting doom and gloom for a good while now.
I do admire your perseverance!