General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

PeadarCo

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You can say this can be explained by the fact that Ireland is a small open economy, with a small fiscal multiplier (although the size of the multiplier is disputed in some ESRI research), but this is assertion not supported when we look at the recent examples of Portugal and Greece; of Denmark in the early 1980s, which initially seemed to recover, and then rapidly turned into a recession.

The Irish experience of 'expansionary fiscal contraction' is certainly an outlier, despite there being many examples of small open economies with which we might compare ourselves.

It is a uniquely Irish experience, and when something is described as 'uniquely Irish' in economics, I don't know about you, but for me, alarm bells start to go off.

Have you looked at how different Irelands economy is from Portugal and Greece. Ireland is an outlier when it comes to how open the economy is. Ireland is ranked 6 Portugal 72 and Greece 115.


https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

Could Irelands economy take a knock in the short term yes with Brexit being the biggest danger and that would obviously impact the fiscal situation.

PeadarCo

PeadarCo wrote: »

Have you looked at how different Irelands economy is from Portugal and Greece. Ireland is an outlier when it comes to how open the economy is. Ireland is ranked 6 Portugal 72 and Greece 115.

And Denmark is ranked 12. Sweden, another example from the economic history on growth and fiscal consolidation, is 15.

The economic freedom index isn't a good predictor of recovery from fiscal contraction.

PeadarCo

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

And Denmark is ranked 12. Sweden, another example from the economic history on growth and fiscal consolidation, is 15.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

The economic freedom index isn't a good predictor of recovery from fiscal contraction.

I'm not saying it is. I was just showing that Greece and Portugals are very different to Irelands. So it's hard to a comparison. I'm not fimiliar with Denmark or Sweden economies during the period you mention so I can't comment.

As I've said overall given the current underlying strategy for Irelands economy I don't consider the fiscal strategy to be the primary driver of Irelands economics performance. As a result its think its especially important to take account of what's going on in Irelands trading partners. We rely heavily on FDI and its one of the big reasons the most sensitive/protected part of our fiscal policy is the corporation tax regime. When comparing Ireland to other countries you have to factor that in. It also impacts statistics for example is GDP an appropriate measure of economic performance. When comparing Ireland to other countries any differences in FDI have to be factored in.

However the clear Irelands fiscal policy is very pro cyclical which makes recessions worse and booms better. The current demands for tax cuts and the opposition to property taxes and water charges are perfect examples.

PeadarCo

PeadarCo wrote: »

I'm not saying it is. I was just showing that Greece and Portugals are very different to Irelands. So it's hard to a comparison. I'm not fimiliar with Denmark or Sweden economies during the period you mention so I can't comment.

Well, I think it suffices to say that there are plenty of examples of attempts at 'expansionary contractions' in the European union, among small open economies, going back to the 1980s, and so far they've all failed. Ireland is the notable exception.

In case anyone thinks i'm some kind of conspiracy theorist, suggesting that the Irish macroeconomic indicators are invented, that's not what I'm saying either, although there still remain difficult problems with how our GNP is calculated.

Rather, it may be the case that Governments faced with a need for rapid fiscal consolidation prefer to 'bury' the ramifications of rapid corrections into parts of the economy that do not show up in the economic headlines, or that cannot easily be measured, and perhaps this feeds into Ricardian behaviour whereby citizens are tricked into believing the economy is doing better than it is, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That's just one notion, I don't know if it has any merit. All I know is that if Ireland is the only country that we know of which seems to consistently make a success of fiscal contractions, there's probably more going on than meets the eye.

However the clear Irelands fiscal policy is very pro cyclical which makes recessions worse and booms better

Ireland executed a counter-cyclical economic policy pretty consistently during the Celtic Tiger, right up until the most recent recession, and we're on track to do so again. The countercyclical capital buffer in our financial system is among the best in the Euro Area, but these things are not miracle workers.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I asked directly which was the better deal;
Building and renting our own, even taking into account arrears.
Or Buying off the market and using as social housing anyway? On the fourth time I gave up asking.

This has been answered multiple times, you just don't like the answer because you're not dealing in reality.

Buying off the market is the immediate solution.

blanch152

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That's far too vague an explanation to address what I'm talking about.

If we look back to the fiscal cuts of 1987-91, we see that the cuts were mainly on fiscal transfers (welfare) and on public investment. Similar cuts were undertaken from 2009, especially relating to public investment. On both occasions, there were large reductions in public-sector employment, largely due to early retirements and hiring freezes.

None of this (with the exception of a fall in unit labour costs), made the country more competitive to export markets; one would have expected the dramatic fall in public investment to have actually damaged competitiveness. but in fact private investment exploded on both occasions, and domestic demand rapidly recovered.

You can say this can be explained by the fact that Ireland is a small open economy, with a small fiscal multiplier (although the size of the multiplier is disputed in some ESRI research), but this is assertion not supported when we look at the recent examples of Portugal and Greece; of Denmark in the early 1980s, which initially seemed to recover, and then rapidly turned into a recession.

The Irish experience of 'expansionary fiscal contraction' is certainly an outlier, despite there being many examples of small open economies with which we might compare ourselves.

It is a uniquely Irish experience, and when something is described as 'uniquely Irish' in economics, I don't know about you, but for me, alarm bells start to go off.

You are looking too highly at the macro level.

Two countries imposing the same level of cuts, but who apply them in different ways can have different results, both because of the differing nature of the details of the cuts and the detailed differences in their economy.

Ireland has been lucky, but it has been lucky a few times. When that starts to happen, the question is how are they making their own luck.

When the recession hit, Ireland could have done what the likes of PBP and Sinn Fein wanted us to do and doubled corporation tax. If he had doubled corporation tax in 2010, instead of the cuts we did make, then we would be worse off than Greece.

James Brown

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

I’m doing some general maths here.

Government builds house for 300,000.

Rents it for let’s say 400 a month.

Would take approx 60 years just to break even by the the house would be nearly done to be knocked.

This whole asset talk doesn’t make any sense.

Building 100,000 social houses would bankrupt the country.

Where are you getting these figures? They seem made up.

Government builds a house charges rent based on income, (what's the average wage?).
Or
Government buys house off the market and charges rent based on income.

So the government is paying back either the price of the build or the market value at the time.

Currently we are paying rent to private landlords, hotels and B&B's. This is more expensive than recouping the cost of the build, an asset the state would own.

James Brown

PeadarCo wrote: »

Why are you surprised the economy is going very well. The housing crisis while an issue will take a few years to solve regardless of who's in charge. It also only impacts those who are renting and or looking to buy. If you own a home it has a positive impact as it increases your wealth on paper.

And who else do you vote for at the moment all political parties are trying to imitate FF in 02/03 spend spend and to hell about the future. Its crazy that there's any talk of tax cuts on a broad scale. The time to cut taxes is in a recession not a boom. Now is the time to increase taxes if anything.

The housing crisis could be tackled if policy was changed. Reliance on the private market does not work. We've seen that. The high prices and profits to be made help the economy because people, many reliant on state assistance, have no option but to play ball.
There are more and more people coming up unable to buy and finding rents too tough. A smart political party would be looking ahead, but as in policy, it seems most parties are only interested in the now. I really wish FG did look after people who like to get up early of a morning, currently they are working against the tax payers interests IMO.
FF are merely hanging on the FG coat tails. FG used them and they used FG. FF not being in the spotlight is their trouble. If they were clever they'd be talking up the crises more. Not that I believe they actually give a toss for one minute.

Godot.

Surely Sinn Fein is the answer to the housing crisis famishing Ireland at the moment.

The left wing will always try to help renters/people on low incomes. Fine Gael will continue to help the landlords.

James Brown

Godot. wrote: »

Surely Sinn Fein is the answer to the housing crisis famishing Ireland at the moment.

The left wing will always try to help renters/people on low incomes. Fine Gael will continue to help the landlords.

Not a hope of them getting in IMO. Ironically the most conservative policy would be social housing builds and affordable housing. It would save the tax payer money which is what these FG types are generally pretending to be about.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Where are you getting these figures? They seem made up.

Government builds a house charges rent based on income, (what's the average wage?).
Or
Government buys house off the market and charges rent based on income.

So the government is paying back either the price of the build or the market value at the time.

Currently we are paying rent to private landlords, hotels and B&B's. This is more expensive than recouping the cost of the build, an asset the state would own.

Yes, they are wrong.


The average rent paid by local authority tenants is only €280 a month, which nearly doubles the time it would take to repay the capital investment, well over a hundred years.

Good loser

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, they are wrong.


The average rent paid by local authority tenants is only €280 a month, which nearly doubles the time it would take to repay the capital investment, well over a hundred years.

Some while back I read on boards the average Council house in Dublin brings in a gross rent of €3,000 per annum and maintenance outgoings come to €2,000 per annum. Net income thus is €1,000 p. a.

So a capital cost of €300,000 would take 300 years to recoup (without counting interest). A 3% interest rate on that cost would come to €9,000 p. a.
Effectively such a house would be seriously loss making from day 1.

Sobering.

McMurphy

Good loser wrote: »

Some while back I read on boards the average Council house in Dublin brings in a gross rent of €3,000 per annum and maintenance outgoings come to €2,000 per annum. Net income thus is €1,000 p. a.

So a capital cost of €300,000 would take 300 years to recoup (without counting interest). A 3% interest rate on that cost would come to €9,000 p. a.
Effectively such a house would be seriously loss making from day 1.

Sobering.

Few questions..

How did you reach a figure of 300k for the initial cost of the house?

Is the initial tenant expected to remain in place for 300 years, or might themselves or a future tenant get finance and buy outright?

Presumably the houses can be sold by the state at as well as just available to let? (mortgaged by tenants/ie bought outright)?

Is throwing 1k or more at private landlords or hotel owners serious loss making or profitable?

Do you believe everything you read on boards?

Thanks.

Edward M

http://www.publicpolicy.ie/local-authority-rent-arrears-in-dublin/

From a few years ago, but arrears are high.
Seems it supports the around €280 per month average rents from DCC.
Counting build cost, and land cost, land cost has to be factored in as it is a cost, I would think the €300k cost per house would be justifiable.
However if you go with high rise then that wouldn't be the case.
Then again if you look at previous experience re high rise, I can't see how it could be better now than in past experience with it.

McMurphy

Aren't the govt committing state owned land to be developed?

300 would build you some lump of a house if the site cost was taken out either completely or at a sizeable discount.

On a bulk build basis (an estate) costs reduce further. No?

Red_Wake

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Aren't the govt committing state owned land to be developed?

300 would build you some lump of a house if the site cost was taken out either completely or at a sizeable discount.

On a bulk build basis (an estate) costs reduce further. No?

You'd include the cost of the already owned land in the cost of the house for accounting purposes - you are still using the asset and it's value needs to be included to give a picture of the notional cost of the social housing.

Edward M

What do you do with Tennant's in arrears, evict them?
Be jaypers you'd be getting in to some social bother there too!

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Few questions..

How did you reach a figure of 300k for the initial cost of the house?

Is the initial tenant expected to remain in place for 300 years, or might themselves or a future tenant get finance and buy outright?

Presumably the houses can be sold by the state at as well as just available to let? (mortgaged by tenants/ie bought outright)?

Is throwing 1k or more at private landlords or hotel owners serious loss making or profitable?

Do you believe everything you read on boards?

Thanks.

Nobody believes everything they read on boards because it is full of people making points that they don't fully understand. In relation to the average €280 a month figure paid by local authority tenants, that came from this report put up by Geuze.

Geuze wrote: »

https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/2018/07/19.-current-and-capital-expenditure-on-social-housing-delivery.pdf


.

€280 a month, translates into €3,360 a year. Given that the figure referred to by Good Loser - €3,000 - was from a few years ago, then this more recent figure, taking account of inflation, supports his position.

This audit report also backs this information up:

http://noac.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/NOAC-Management-and-Maintenance.pdf

"Nationally, the average maintenance and improvement expenditure per unit in 2014 was €1,679 and the average rent received per unit was €2,665 or 159% of the amount spent maintaining and improving the dwellings"

"Dublin City and Leitrim most closely matched rental income to expenditure at 116% and 117% respectively. "

Taking those average figures, the net return per unit is €986 per annum.

If borrowing costs are 2%, the building cost would have to €50,000 in order to ensure that the local authority breaks even, but has no chance to repay the capital investment. At a building cost per unit of €200,000, (and there is no evidence to suggest this could be achieved), the local authority would be losing €200,000 up front, and an annual loss of €3,000 on top of that.

The only was these figures can be improved is by local authorities getting their act together and doing the following:

(1) Impose realistic rents
(2) Collect the rents
(3) Reduce maintenance costs either through better outsourcing, or addressing internal productivity issues.

Finally, I am fed up of seeing "rebuttals" by those defending local authorities or suggesting it is easy to build houses, but cannot produce a single piece of empirical evidence to back up what they are saying.

In this case, the facts are there in black and white. Local authorities collect very little rent and have high maintenance costs, making the cost of building social housing prohibitive.

James Brown

Good loser wrote: »

Some while back I read on boards the average Council house in Dublin brings in a gross rent of €3,000 per annum and maintenance outgoings come to €2,000 per annum. Net income thus is €1,000 p. a.

So a capital cost of €300,000 would take 300 years to recoup (without counting interest). A 3% interest rate on that cost would come to €9,000 p. a.
Effectively such a house would be seriously loss making from day 1.

Sobering.

Paying back for the price of a build is cheaper than paying rent to a private concern and you increase housing stock..
Arrears are a problem but so is putting families up in hotels.

The average council house would be over 30 years old, so to play your game should you not be calculating the build cost from over 30 years ago? That's an average, using your logic, of 90,000 recouped from a house that cost say 40,000?
So the average council house was paid for a long time ago and any rent is profit, with maintenance deducted. Even with those in arrears we are saving money by not using hotels or private rentals. By your own logic we are housing people, making a grand a year and not wasting money on private concerns. Sounds pretty good to this tax payer.

2,000 a year on maintenance? Link to that?

For any current builds rents are charged at rate of income. You give a social house to the average working tax payer and you'll get a decent reasonable rent.
Also, most importantly, Eoghan is buying housing off the market...and wait for it...using them as social housing anyway. How is that a better way to go?

To be honest this all smacks of cutting your nose to spite your face economics.

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

What do you do with Tennant's in arrears, evict them?
Be jaypers you'd be getting in to some social bother there too!

They have a process for evictions. They need be stricter on arrears. Takes nothing away from the hotel option being a big waste.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Paying back for the price of a build is cheaper than paying rent to a private concern and you increase housing stock..
Arrears are a problem but so is putting families up in hotels.

The average council house would be over 30 years old, so to play your game should you not be calculating the build cost from over 30 years ago? That's an average, using your logic, of 90,000 recouped from a house that cost say 40,000?
So the average council house was paid for a long time ago and any rent is profit, with maintenance deducted. Even with those in arrears we are saving money by not using hotels or private rentals. By your own logic we are housing people, making a grand a year and not wasting money on private concerns. Sounds pretty good to this tax payer.

2,000 a year on maintenance? Link to that?

For any current builds rents are charged at rate of income. You give a social house to the average working tax payer and you'll get a decent reasonable rent.
Also, most importantly, Eoghan is buying housing off the market...and wait for it...using them as social housing anyway. How is that a better way to go?

To be honest this all smacks of cutting your nose to spite your face economics.

Already done, you must have missed my post.

blanch152 wrote: »

Nobody believes everything they read on boards because it is full of people making points that they don't fully understand. In relation to the average €280 a month figure paid by local authority tenants, that came from this report put up by Geuze.





€280 a month, translates into €3,360 a year. Given that the figure referred to by Good Loser - €3,000 - was from a few years ago, then this more recent figure, taking account of inflation, supports his position.

This audit report also backs this information up:

http://noac.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/NOAC-Management-and-Maintenance.pdf

"Nationally, the average maintenance and improvement expenditure per unit in 2014 was €1,679 and the average rent received per unit was €2,665 or 159% of the amount spent maintaining and improving the dwellings"

"Dublin City and Leitrim most closely matched rental income to expenditure at 116% and 117% respectively. "

Taking those average figures, the net return per unit is €986 per annum.

If borrowing costs are 2%, the building cost would have to €50,000 in order to ensure that the local authority breaks even, but has no chance to repay the capital investment. At a building cost per unit of €200,000, (and there is no evidence to suggest this could be achieved), the local authority would be losing €200,000 up front, and an annual loss of €3,000 on top of that.

The only was these figures can be improved is by local authorities getting their act together and doing the following:

(1) Impose realistic rents
(2) Collect the rents
(3) Reduce maintenance costs either through better outsourcing, or addressing internal productivity issues.

Finally, I am fed up of seeing "rebuttals" by those defending local authorities or suggesting it is easy to build houses, but cannot produce a single piece of empirical evidence to back up what they are saying.

In this case, the facts are there in black and white. Local authorities collect very little rent and have high maintenance costs, making the cost of building social housing prohibitive.

The average net income from a unit of social housing is less than €1,000 per annum.

As I said, the facts are there in black and white for everyone to see.

If you disagree with me, please feel free to link to the relevant studies that back up your statements.

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

Already done, you must have missed my post.





The average net income from a unit of social housing is less than €1,000 per annum.

As I said, the facts are there in black and white for everyone to see.

If you disagree with me, please feel free to link to the relevant studies that back up your statements.

I call horse****. I own and rent out two properties, ok not in the city but those figures are up the left.

Red_Wake

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Edward M wrote: »

What do you do with Tennant's in arrears, evict them?
Be jaypers you'd be getting in to some social bother there too!

They have a process for evictions. They need be stricter on arrears. Takes nothing away from the hotel option being a big waste.

Where would you put those evicted from social housing?

blanch152

Havockk wrote: »

I call horse****. I own and rent out two properties, ok not in the city but those figures are up the left.

Are you a local authority?

The figures I presented, if you had bothered to actually read them, come from the Local Authority audit service, and relate to the actual rent received by local authorities from their own tenants and the cost to local authorities of maintaining said units.

Nothing to do with wealthy private landlords like yourself.

James Brown

Red_Wake wrote: »

Where would you put those evicted from social housing?

I don't know. What do you suggest? Where did they go previously?
Maybe Leo and Eoghan will put them up in the Gresham?

Personally I'd make moves to garnish any income from source, if welfare. If working I'd sue them or evict them.

So, do you think building social housing to rent is cheaper than buying social housing to rent?
Do you think renting out state owned social housing, even considering some arrears, is cheaper for the tax payer than spending on hotels to house the same people?

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

Are you a local authority?

The figures I presented, if you had bothered to actually read them, come from the Local Authority audit service, and relate to the actual rent received by local authorities from their own tenants and the cost to local authorities of maintaining said units.

Nothing to do with wealthy private landlords like yourself.

If the LA is claiming only 1000 pa profit p/unit. Someone is getting scammed.

blanch152

Havockk wrote: »

If the LA is claiming only 1000 pa profit p/unit. Someone is getting scammed.

It is there, audited in black and white.

There are several reasons:

- low rent charged by local authorities
- poor collection rate by local authorities
- long changeover periods between tenants
- high maintenance costs for local authorities

Local authorities in Ireland are highly inefficient at managing social housing (I would argue that they are highly inefficient full stop) and even in a booming market are making a mess of renting out local authority housing.

James Brown

Havockk wrote: »

If the LA is claiming only 1000 pa profit p/unit. Someone is getting scammed.

Even if accurate, that's 1,000 profit for the tax payer and no hotel bill. So the worst case is a win for the tax payer.

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

It is there, audited in black and white.

There are several reasons:

- low rent charged by local authorities
- poor collection rate by local authorities
- long changeover periods between tenants
- high maintenance costs for local authorities

Local authorities in Ireland are highly inefficient at managing social housing (I would argue that they are highly inefficient full stop) and even in a booming market are making a mess of renting out local authority housing.

Well see, I know how the scam works. It's why you're not questioning it is what has me pondering.

James Brown

Havockk wrote: »

Well see, I know how the scam works. It's why you're not questioning it is what has me pondering.

If only we had a minister in charge of all local authorities to whip them into shape.

blanch152

Havockk wrote: »

Well see, I know how the scam works. It's why you're not questioning it is what has me pondering.

What scam? Those are the real-life figures audited by the Local Authority Auditing Service.

Throwing your arms up in the air, calling it a scam, saying that you get more from your own work as a wealthy private landlord, none of that changes anything or will change anything.

What the figures tells us is that building more social housing isn't the straight-forward answer that some posters on here keep telling us in every second post that it is.

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

What scam? Those are the real-life figures audited by the Local Authority Auditing Service.

Throwing your arms up in the air, calling it a scam, saying that you get more from your own work as a wealthy private landlord, none of that changes anything or will change anything.

What the figures tells us is that building more social housing isn't the straight-forward answer that some posters on here keep telling us in every second post that it is.

What it does is give me a big window where I can see the system for what it is.

And this is why I know that it's politically damaging for you to admit just what the problem is.

Chips Lovell

Posted this last year on another thread

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I don't think social housing was ever intended to be a money spinner for the state, nor should it be really.

If you want to do the maths on social housing, the Dublin City Council budget provides plenty of numbers.

This year Dublin City Council's entire housing and building expenditure will amount to €323 million, while its housing and building income comes to €261 million.

The average council rent is €60.89 per week, based on approximately 24,000 tenancies. That's an average rent of €3,166 a year.

Maintenance costs for those 24,000 units runs to €50.2 million a year, or €2,092 per unit.

That means, the council is making €1,074 per year "profit" on each unit.

Going by this, if they were to build 100 new units at a cost of €165,000 each and rent them out at the average rent, it would be approximately 153 years before they recoup the building costs and starting making money on them.

That's not to say we shouldn't build a lot more social housing, just that we shouldn't expect it to be an earner.

The whole point of social housing is that it's subsidised.

blanch152

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Posted this last year on another thread



The whole point of social housing is that it's subsidised.

Agreed, but despite the figures you have posted, and the links I have provided, the argument is continually made here that the State would have a nice little earner from building social housing. That is simply not true, as your figures explicitly confirm.

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

Agreed, but despite the figures you have posted, and the links I have provided, the argument is continually made here that the State would have a nice little earner from building social housing. That is simply not true, as your figures explicitly confirm.

What are you on about? Like the other poster pointed out, they are already profitable 'even' at 1k pa.

blanch152

Havockk wrote: »

What are you on about? Like the other poster pointed out, they are already profitable 'even' at 1k pa.

There is an operational profit, but that is profit before administration, interest and capital repayments.

Once you factor in any level of interest payable on the money borrowed to build the housing units plus capital repayments, it is clear that the units will never pay for themselves.

As I pointed out many posts ago now, an operational profit of €1,000 with an interest rate of 2% requires building costs to be below €50,000. Now we all know they are close to €200,000 per unit.

Furthermore, the audit figures only included maintenance costs, not the cost of administration etc. Even the operational profit probably wouldn't exist if you factored those in.

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

There is an operational profit, but that is profit before administration, interest and capital repayments.

Once you factor in any level of interest payable on the money borrowed to build the housing units plus capital repayments, it is clear that the units will never pay for themselves.

As I pointed out many posts ago now, an operational profit of €1,000 with an interest rate of 2% requires building costs to be below €50,000. Now we all know they are close to €200,000 per unit.

Furthermore, the audit figures only included maintenance costs, not the cost of administration etc. Even the operational profit probably wouldn't exist if you factored those in.

No offence. But you're talking bollox.

Banned.

blanch152

Havockk wrote: »

No offence. But you're talking bollox.

Well, sorry, I have backed up my posts with links to the relevant audit reports. My posts are factually based.

I haven't seen a single piece of empirical evidence from anyone else that backs up what they are saying.

I know that there are a number of posters here ideologically committed to the idea of social housing being built by local authorities. Unfortunately, the figures don't back them up, mainly because of inefficiency and incompetence at local authority level, something those same posters refuse to condemn.

You asked about "politically damaging" to admit something in an earlier post. As I don't have an ideological or political commitment to any party or cause, and just assess things on their merits, I won't be unhappy to be wrong, if someone can actually present hard figures that show that I am wrong.

Then again, I do have some sympathy for the local authorities when I see some of the entitlement culture becoming clear in the report:

"The principal challenges relating to tenant behaviour and attitudes that were identified by local authorities included:
 Increased tenant expectations and demands in relation to the quality and location of their accommodation preferences
 Tenants refusing housing offered
 Achieving tenant responsibility and compliance with tenancy agreements
 Level of aggression of tenants to local authority staff
 Anti-social behaviour
 Changing demographic – impact of older people’s disability needs on budgets and housing stock
 Tenants with identified medical and community support service needs that are not available to the local authority."

Chips Lovell

blanch152 wrote: »

I know that there are a number of posters here ideologically committed to the idea of social housing being built by local authorities. Unfortunately, the figures don't back them up, mainly because of inefficiency and incompetence at local authority level, something those same posters refuse to condemn.

Hold the phone there a second, all the figures do is demonstrate the costs. They don't prove (or disprove for that matter) inefficiency and incompetence.

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, sorry, I have backed up my posts with links to the relevant audit reports. My posts are factually based.

I haven't seen a single piece of empirical evidence from anyone else that backs up what they are saying.

I know that there are a number of posters here ideologically committed to the idea of social housing being built by local authorities. Unfortunately, the figures don't back them up, mainly because of inefficiency and incompetence at local authority level, something those same posters refuse to condemn.

You asked about "politically damaging" to admit something in an earlier post. As I don't have an ideological or political commitment to any party or cause, and just assess things on their merits, I won't be unhappy to be wrong, if someone can actually present hard figures that show that I am wrong.

Then again, I do have some sympathy for the local authorities when I see some of the entitlement culture becoming clear in the report:

"The principal challenges relating to tenant behaviour and attitudes that were identified by local authorities included:
 Increased tenant expectations and demands in relation to the quality and location of their accommodation preferences
 Tenants refusing housing offered
 Achieving tenant responsibility and compliance with tenancy agreements
 Level of aggression of tenants to local authority staff
 Anti-social behaviour
 Changing demographic – impact of older people’s disability needs on budgets and housing stock
 Tenants with identified medical and community support service needs that are not available to the local authority."

Aye of course. It's the poor people's fault. Should have known that would get peddled out eventually.

James Brown

We are losing money as the problem gets worse.
I don't believe any LA or Eoghan's department, (which oversees LA's by the way) should be looking to profit from a housing crisis.
The idea is to house people who are in need at a reasonable rate rather than at a massive loss, (see buying houses off market, private landlords and hotels).
Nobody on the pro putting dem that want something for nothing up in the Gresham side of the argument has come up with any solution. In fact I've asked a number of posters directly which they think is the better deal for the tax payer and the question is ignored, (as I've put two of them on ignore).

The government, local and national should be looking at housing people in the cheapest manner possible. It just so happens that social and affordable builds are a cheaper option than private landlords, hotels and buying off the market is all.
This upsets the 'rather see them in a hotel than a free house' brigade. I'd rather see struggling tax payers paying reasonable rent to an LA than being gouged by a private landlord who is paid partially or in full by the tax payer. Pretty straight forward really.

IMO, Leo and Eoghan want to keep the housing industry, (Noonan's Cerberus and their like too) sweet as it makes big money for one and all, helps the fabulous economy and all that is far more important to them than a few hundred thousand peons whinging about high rents.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We are losing money as the problem gets worse.
I don't believe any LA or Eoghan's department, (which oversees LA's by the way) should be looking to profit from a housing crisis.
The idea is to house people who are in need at a reasonable rate rather than at a massive loss, (see buying houses off market, private landlords and hotels).
Nobody on the pro putting dem that want something for nothing up in the Gresham side of the argument has come up with any solution. In fact I've asked a number of posters directly which they think is the better deal for the tax payer and the question is ignored, (as I've put two of them on ignore).

The government, local and national should be looking at housing people in the cheapest manner possible. It just so happens that social and affordable builds are a cheaper option than private landlords, hotels and buying off the market is all.
This upsets the 'rather see them in a hotel than a free house' brigade. I'd rather see struggling tax payers paying reasonable rent to an LA than being gouged by a private landlord who is paid partially or in full by the tax payer. Pretty straight forward really.

IMO, Leo and Eoghan want to keep the housing industry, (Noonan's Cerberus and their like too) sweet as it makes big money for one and all, helps the fabulous economy and all that is far more important to them than a few hundred thousand peons whinging about high rents.

You complained about the State losing money in relation to renting off private landlords, without presenting any empirical evidence to back up your position.

I pointed out that the State is losing a lot of money whenever it builds social housing, but suddenly this isn't a problem.

If you want to persuade me that building social housing is a good idea, you would want to explain, using actual real figures from local authority audits, how you will be able to turn it into something that isn't flushing money down the drain.

Did you ever look into why local authorities sold off so much housing stock in the 1970s and 1980s? The answer is because they were losing money on them.

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

I pointed out that the State is losing a lot of money whenever it builds social housing, but suddenly this isn't a problem.

That's not what those numbers said.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We are losing money as the problem gets worse.
I don't believe any LA or Eoghan's department, (which oversees LA's by the way) should be looking to profit from a housing crisis.
The idea is to house people who are in need at a reasonable rate rather than at a massive loss, (see buying houses off market, private landlords and hotels).
Nobody on the pro putting dem that want something for nothing up in the Gresham side of the argument has come up with any solution. In fact I've asked a number of posters directly which they think is the better deal for the tax payer and the question is ignored, (as I've put two of them on ignore).

The government, local and national should be looking at housing people in the cheapest manner possible. It just so happens that social and affordable builds are a cheaper option than private landlords, hotels and buying off the market is all.
This upsets the 'rather see them in a hotel than a free house' brigade. I'd rather see struggling tax payers paying reasonable rent to an LA than being gouged by a private landlord who is paid partially or in full by the tax payer. Pretty straight forward really.

IMO, Leo and Eoghan want to keep the housing industry, (Noonan's Cerberus and their like too) sweet as it makes big money for one and all, helps the fabulous economy and all that is far more important to them than a few hundred thousand peons whinging about high rents.

Where does the money for all this social house build come from though?

Good loser

Edward M wrote: »

Where does the money for all this social house build come from though?

Edward he (Matt) hasn't a clue. Extremely tenuous grasp of both logic and arithmetic. As for maths it's a foreign country.

He hasn't yet suggested giving winning lottery tickets (in lieu of houses) to about 1,000 families in Dublin per month. Sounds as reasonable to me as any other of his suggestions.

Good loser

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Few questions..

How did you reach a figure of 300k for the initial cost of the house?

Is the initial tenant expected to remain in place for 300 years, or might themselves or a future tenant get finance and buy outright?

Presumably the houses can be sold by the state at as well as just available to let? (mortgaged by tenants/ie bought outright)?

Is throwing 1k or more at private landlords or hotel owners serious loss making or profitable?

Do you believe everything you read on boards?

Thanks.

All taken care of.

Thanks to Edward, Blanch and the Baron.
Incidentally why didn't you thank them for answering your questions?

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

Where does the money for all this social house build come from though?

At the risk of going back down this rabbit hole again. The same place NAMA finds funds for loaning to developers. The same place the state finds 1.2b to 'invest' in mostly private builds. The same place the state finds the money to buy property off entities NAMA sold it to, the same place Eoghan finds money to buy housing off the market to pass off as social housing. The same place the state finds the money for the ever increasing private landlord rents and hotels costs.
In short they can find it when it suits their agenda.

Good loser wrote: »

Edward he (Matt) hasn't a clue. Extremely tenuous grasp of both logic and arithmetic. As for maths it's a foreign country.

He hasn't yet suggested giving winning lottery tickets (in lieu of houses) to about 1,000 families in Dublin per month. Sounds as reasonable to me as any other of his suggestions.

You never respond directly to posts that call you out on your 'facts'.
I've posted on the problem and given my ideas on solutions. All you seem to do is try throw in personal digs.
I'm all ears, what's your idea? Instead of getting personal how about an adult discussion?

Or do you think buying houses off the market to use as social housing is better than the state building it's own to use as social housing?

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

At the risk of going back down this rabbit hole again. The same place NAMA finds funds for loaning to developers.

You don't want to go down it because it's rubbish - there are no public funds currently going into NAMA.

The same place the state finds 1.2b to 'invest' in mostly private builds.

The markets - ISIF and private capital.

"The LDA will be given access to land that is already in wider State ownership or control for development, and it will have access to capital from the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund and other private finance, which it will raise itself commercially."

https://merrionstreet.ie/MerrionStreet/en/News-Room/Releases/Government_Launches_€1_25bn_Land_Development_Agency_to_build_150_000_New_Homes.html

Edward M

Fianna fail taking an approach that seems to support Matt's theories, only in certain areas though.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/willie-odea-criticised-for-blocking-social-housing-in-limerick-870147.html

I read somewhere that they want a social housing package included in the budget, whereby LAs would buy off the market and subsidise purchases with these houses for 30k to 90k earners and a package of LA house builds also.
It seems that they, or some of them anyway, think these social builds should only be in certain areas though.

McMurphy

Good loser wrote: »

All taken care of.

Thanks to Edward, Blanch and the Baron.
Incidentally why didn't you thank them for answering your questions?

I don't know if you realise it, but the post Baron made would somewhat tally with what we have been saying.

The post may end with stating that any social housing initiative would result in marginal profits for the govt, not some nice money spinner.

However, a slight marginal profit - with added state owned assets (houses) should be a more sensible outcome than perpetual payments to hotel's and private landlords - with no returns - zilch - nada - zero at the end of the tenancy agreement all day any day.

This is really basic economics here one would have thought.