Forcing old people to be landlords

brightspark

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

There are genuine people? Ah, you aren't tarring everyone with the same brush. One can be forgiven for the mistake, considering your comments.

As I said, unfortunately some people need social housing, for years.

For years? Perhaps, But many are for life, and their children expect the same.

KERSPLAT!

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Unfortunately, that does seem to be the case. And when a person persistently makes less than wise decisions while expecting everyone else to fix their problem, it is a case of them being happy enough to accept no responsibility for themselves, their situation or their life choices.

brightspark wrote: »

For years? Perhaps, But many are for life, and their children expect the same.

You can't tar everyone with the same brush. There are various reasons why some one may need social housing for years, or even life, through no fault of their own.

I'm not naive, I know there are plenty of lifetime welfare claimers, families having kids to keep children's benefit, etc. My point is, there are genuine cases.

One case I know in particular where the lady is on illness benefit and is physically not fit to work. She is in social housing for 30 odd years. Anecdotal evidence but again, my point is, there are genuine cases.

I think we're getting off topic, as I said, I'm against the idea of forced rental or CPO. If you own a house you should be free to give it to your kids, leave it empty, etc, etc.

LexieOnRale

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Unfortunately, that does seem to be the case. And when a person persistently makes less than wise decisions while expecting everyone else to fix their problem, it is a case of them being happy enough to accept no responsibility for themselves, their situation or their life choices.

There are many people who will need support in every part of their lives through no fault of their own. Not all in need of such support are useless wasters. There will always be people in need of social welfare. It's nothing to do with making unwise decisions. It's their inability to make decisions that makes them vulnerable.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

As I state in nearly every single discussion re:welfare I take part in, I 100% support anyone needing genuine assistance from the state.
That single man who might need to get out of an abysive situation or a single childless woman, but who are pushed aside by someone with a litter of kids. A disabled person who might have some resemblance of an independent life with a little help, but people who are consistently making poor decisions, shouting the loudest and very vocal as to what they're "entitled" to are the people who'll push everyone else out of the way.

People who are long term unemployed are actually better off staying that way than if they were to take up work. How could you expect someone on welfare for a long time to have any desire to get full time work on min wage when they've less time to themselves and little to no extra money? Yet if you're trying to get illness payment or caters payment you're made jump through hoops.

The same families are in the same predicament generation after generation, their rights, their entitlements and now we're here, in the middle of a housing crisis, women still having children and nowhere to bring them once they leave the hospital but that's not their problem apparently, it's societies. The duty of care is on the government. Absolutely no sense of any personal responsibility. If anything, people like that are pushing vulnerable people even further down the ladder

jamesthepeach

I bet the housing crisis would be solved overnight if the rules were changed such that you get one offer of a house, say withing a radius of 75km of where you want to live and if you refuse you go to the bottom of the list and await the next offer.
There should be absolutely no benefit to being too fussy.
As it is you can just be as choosy as you like and have no consequences.

222233

This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a long time, no one should be forced to part with anything they own. Should elderly people also be forced to rent out their cars to carless people just because we might be able to make them do that..

Bubbaclaus

222233 wrote: »

This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a long time, no one should be forced to part with anything they own. Should elderly people also be forced to rent out their cars to carless people just because we might be able to make them do that..

Can you explain how anyone is being forced to do anything here? I keep seeing the word "forced" throughout this thread but cannot see anything backing that up.

Who's being forced and what are they being forced to do?

222233

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Can you explain how anyone is being forced to do anything here? I keep seeing the word "forced" throughout this thread but cannot see anything backing that up.

Who's being forced and what are they being forced to do?

I would call it "encouraged" but they are one of societies most vulnerable groups and should be protected from being swayed into such schemes.

The homeless crisis, isn't really a crisis given that the majority of people "homeless" and waiting on houses aren't actually the people sleeping rough, the majority of these people shouldn't be waiting on anything, they should be using their rent free time to save the money to rent privately.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

222233 wrote: »

This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a long time, no one should be forced to part with anything they own. Should elderly people also be forced to rent out their cars to carless people just because we might be able to make them do that..

They'll probably want me to let others use my lawnmower next. 😁

KERSPLAT!

Rogelio Many Underbelly wrote: »

They'll probably want me to let others use my lawnmower next. ðŸ˜

Never! They never clean underneath!

Wanderer78

222233 wrote:

The homeless crisis, isn't really a crisis given that the majority of people "homeless" and waiting on houses aren't actually the people sleeping rough, the majority of these people shouldn't be waiting on anything, they should be using their rent free time to save the money to rent privately.

It's time for us to ditch 'the construct' of 'the market', it's done!

wexandproud

steddyeddy wrote: »

My point is Lexie that Sharon would have probably killed for parents that worked as hard as yours. She would have killed to be left a house like you were. A large part of Sharon's expectations in life likely come from how hard her parents worked for her. If not for your parents Lexie you could be Sharon. You could be in social housing.

It's extremely easy to be born into a situation where a house will be gifted to you and complain about people who's parents probably didn't give a feck about them or their career opportunities.

the problem is , that for every sharon who is given the example of hard work to try and get on in life there is probably 2 or 3 more sharons who are given the example of '' f'ck it why should i bother shur its up to the government to provide for me . I have no facts or figures but i can tell you that anybody who is not in denial will see that in a lot of cases its sharon's cousins who for generation after generation are living off the state , i have no issue whatsoever with a family getting social housing but when you see generation after generation living off the system questions need to be asked

fyfe79

gctest50 wrote: »

If you end up in a nursing home ( on a one-way ticket ) why should anyone else have to pay for your care while you have an asset you can't ever use again ?

It's not like you go to bed one night 38 and wake up 93

A homeowner requiring a nursing home has likely paid taxes all their life. What is the person living in a council house being asked to give up when they require the nursing home? They wouldn't have contributed in any way towards their care.

People strive to earn enough to afford their own home partly because they want to give their kids the best start in life (ie. ensuring the success of your future generations). Why bother owning your own home, and paying heavily for the privilege, if the government are planning ways to sneakily undermine that when you're at your most vulnerable?

Kivaro

wexandproud wrote: »

the problem is , that for every sharon who is given the example of hard work to try and get on in life there is probably 2 or 3 more sharons who are given the example of '' f'ck it why should i bother shur its up to the government to provide for me .

We are led to believe by some posting on here that it is only a tiny minority that are abusing the system.
From my own experience of my local town, it is the opposite. We all know the people who really need help, and they should get it, but there is a sizeable amount in the town who are abusers of the system. We had one notable gentleman recently "celebrating" 40 years on the dole with a big party in a local pub. Those of us contributing to society in the town knew that all that he was doing was giving us the middle finger. Of course his 3 grown (work capable) children are on the dole too with each of them living in social housing. There is not much hope for his grandchildren .......... unless a genuine attempt is made by the government to stop this abuse.

But I digress. We are told that we should not be freaking out about Minister Murphy's initiative because we don't know the details yet. This is exactly the time to start freaking out about it i.e. before it gets traction and gets fast-tracked with the support of Labour, SF, and the other left parties who are dependent on the votes of those who are not net contributors.

nice_guy80

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I paid 33% tax on my inheritance so IMO what Sharon would "kill for" is nothing got to do with me, Sharon and the likes of her have benefited from the death of my parents. Anything I have now is funded through my actual earnings, I cover my own lifestyle. It's no secret that having a job should in theory leave you better off than being unemployed with dependants. If Sharon wants to stay at the bottom and blame her parents and blame my parents for the situation I find myself in, that's Sharon's biggest problem.
I could find myself in social housing if I felt that I was the responsibility of everyone else, but I don't. I want to be responsible for myself.

I'm still amazed that you all know this Sharon 'wan.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Kivaro wrote: »

But I digress. We are told that we should not be freaking out about Minister Murphy's initiative because we don't know the details yet. This is exactly the time to start freaking out about it i.e. before it gets traction and gets fast-tracked with the support of Labour, SF, and the other left parties who are dependent on the votes of those who are not net contributors.

I agree, knock it on the head early.

jamesthepeach

The government want to force all the people who own second homesmto be landlords, not just the old folks.
All of the people leaving properties vacant or doing short term letting are now targets for the government to basically sieze the property they bought and paid for.
Anyone with a second property in Ireland should just get rid of it before some overnight legislation comes in to fcuk them.
The pensioners are just the easy targets who may not have the fight in them.

jamesthepeach

jamesthepeach wrote: »

The government want to force all the people who own second homesmto be landlords, not just the old folks.
All of the people leaving properties vacant or doing short term letting are now targets for the government to basically sieze the property they bought and paid for.
Anyone with a second property in Ireland should just get rid of it before some overnight legislation comes in to fcuk them.
The pensioners are just the easy targets who may not have the fight in them.

At least if they were willing to "get rid" of their second property, it'd mean fewer people homeless. That seems to be the Governments thinking.

jamesthepeach

[Deleted User] wrote: »

At least if they were willing to "get rid" of their second property, it'd mean fewer people homeless. That seems to be the Governments thinking.

Not unless the homeless people are going to buy those properties. Otherwise they need someone to buy them to rent them to them.

MOH

jamesthepeach wrote: »

The government want to force all the people who own second homesmto be landlords, not just the old folks.
All of the people leaving properties vacant or doing short term letting are now targets for the government to basically sieze the property they bought and paid for.
Anyone with a second property in Ireland should just get rid of it before some overnight legislation comes in to fcuk them.
The pensioners are just the easy targets who may not have the fight in them.

Theoretically*, that could actually work. On a purely opt-in basis. If the government took on the role of a leasing agent, made it straightforward for people to rent out vacant homes, takes care of a lot of the hassle for people who aren't in a position to do so for various reasons (e.g in long term care, etc). Government body charges a minimal fee for their service, so there's revenue from that, house owner gets rent from an otherwise vacant property, property is made available.
Again, purely opt-in, remove roadblocks from renting out a house and give an incentive to do it.

In practice, in Ireland, we'd spend two years setting it all up, end up with a corporate entity that charges twice as much as any estate agent, run by one of the usual suspects like D__, is disastrously inefficient yet somehow makes large profits for certain people, and the whole project is abandoned two years later.

(* this is off the top of my head and probably totally impossible)

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

MOH wrote: »

Theoretically*, that could actually work. On a purely opt-in basis. If the government took on the role of a leasing agent, made it straightforward for people to rent out vacant homes, takes care of a lot of the hassle for people who aren't in a position to do so for various reasons (e.g in long term care, etc). Government body charges a minimal fee for their service, so there's revenue from that, house owner gets rent from an otherwise vacant property, property is made available.
Again, purely opt-in, remove roadblocks from renting out a house and give an incentive to do it.

In practice, in Ireland, we'd spend two years setting it all up, end up with a corporate entity that charges twice as much as any estate agent, run by one of the usual suspects like D__, is disastrously inefficient yet somehow makes large profits for certain people, and the whole project is abandoned two years later.

(* this is off the top of my head and probably totally impossible)

The property may be vacant but is still full of personal and family property. I think many families would find it difficult to empty a home of all the trappings and memorabilia of their still living parents, in preparation for tenants moving in.

jamesthepeach

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Not unless the homeless people are going to buy those properties. Otherwise they need someone to buy them to rent them to them.

Say a family in social housing save carefully and but the house. That frees up one social house. Considering how awful the poor landlords are treating here in Ireland, it's doubtful that anyone will buy them for the rental market.

jamesthepeach

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Say a family in social housing save carefully and but the house. That frees up one social house. Considering how awful the poor landlords are treating here in Ireland, it's doubtful that anyone will buy them for the rental market.

I guess that could happen.
How big is that market though?

jamesthepeach

jamesthepeach wrote: »

I guess that could happen.
How big is that market though?

Probably not huge.

the_syco

jamesthepeach wrote: »

I bet the housing crisis would be solved overnight if the rules were changed such that you get one offer of a house, say withing a radius of 75km of where you want to live and if you refuse you go to the bottom of the list and await the next offer.
There should be absolutely no benefit to being too fussy.
As it is you can just be as choosy as you like and have no consequences.

What? The current system is;
Pick three areas.
Get given a choice of a house in any of those three areas.
If you don't like any of them, you goto the bottom of the list.

So your solution isn't much of a solution.

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Who's being forced and what are they being forced to do?

From the OP "Fine Gael are also threatening other vacant home owners that there will be financial penalties imposed on them if they do not rent out their properties" - so basically the old people could be threatened into allowing people into their homes, or else get 'financial penalties".

Deleted User wrote: »

At least if they were willing to "get rid" of their second property, it'd mean fewer people homeless. That seems to be the Governments thinking.

No. The people who are homeless won't be buying a house anytime soon. The homeless will still be homeless. Heck, more people will be homeless, as all of these things the government does makes it less and less profitable to be a landlord, and thus there'll be less houses that those on the breadline can afford.

MOH wrote: »

Theoretically*, that could actually work. On a purely opt-in basis. If the government RTB took on the role of a leasing agent, made it straightforward illegal for people to not to rent out vacant homes, takes care of a lot of the hassle for people who aren't in a position to do so for various reasons (e.g in long term care, etc). Government body charges a minimal fee 50% of the rent for their service, so there's revenue from that, house owner gets rent from an otherwise vacant property, property is made available until the tenant stops paying the rent, then it's the landlords job to get rid of the social tenants that the government has wiped its hands of.
Again, purely opt-in, remove roadblocks from renting out a house and give an incentive to do it.

My edits are in bold :pac:

brightspark

It appears that councils aren't renting out all their properties, will they be "incentivised"?

http://www.nationalist.ie/news/home/265762/tipperary-county-council-told-speed-up-renting-vacant-homes-in-carrick.html

Are Am Eye

Once you break the sanctity of personal property rights you set a precedent, you tear open a portal that eh genie out of a bottle and all that. It was usually African tin pot dictatorships and coup ridden regions where the 'state' seized property for the good of the people - why no one invested in those regions. For a western democracy to knock over personal property pillar is a very novel and excitingly dangerous development. You see you can always justify it. The justifications might be less each time as you move on. But once you set the precedent. The state can seize property if it's for a good enough reason. Or they claim it's for a good enough reason. You can throw up reasons for anything. Today it's houses. When the regime or the people need land, buildings, money, deposits, gold.....well it's for the greater good.

Either we are some kind of centralised, collective, quasi communist system or we are a free capitalist society. Make up your mind. It's one or the other. As a free society we can build apartment blocks and housing for the marginalised as we did in the past. You can have capitalism and humanity. This short cut is a bad idea. Short term benefit, long term penalty we can't afford.

wexandproud

Rogelio Many Underbelly wrote: »

The property may be vacant but is still full of personal and family property. I think many families would find it difficult to empty a home of all the trappings and memorabilia of their still living parents, in preparation for tenants moving in.

some people just see a house as bricks and cement , but for an awful lot of people its seen as '' a home '' and like you say its full of the trappings of a life which cant easily be parted with and if people want to hang on to those memories that's their right

MOH

the_syco wrote: »

My edits are in bold :pac:

Yeah, I'd be against the edited version.

the_syco

brightspark wrote: »

It appears that councils aren't renting out all their properties, will they be "incentivised"?

http://www.nationalist.ie/news/home/265762/tipperary-county-council-told-speed-up-renting-vacant-homes-in-carrick.html

From the article;

And there was a council house in another part of the town that was vacant five months ago and required very little renovation to be ready to offer to new tenants. "The house was immaculate when the keys were handed back but we are still waiting...", he complained

Sounds like the council didn't have the funds to renovate it. The laughable bit is that if it were immaculate, it wouldn't need any renovation :pac: