Would you like to attend a housing protest?

weldoninhio

Ray Palmer wrote: »

There are number of reasons. The main one being Ireland didn't get bombed and have the power to seize the lands left. Other European countries rebuilt their cities with massive amount of cash after the war. That gave them the ability to build and set up structures that could be sustained.

People discovered in Ireland that they could refuse social housing in flats/apartments. They would then get a house instead. Exactly what happened to Ballymun where they were refused and the lowest on the list took them as they would never get anywhere else. Lots of people with addiction ended up there as a result. The whole place got worse after that.

Ownership of the property remained in private hands so they couldn't just take property demolish it and build.

So to have the European model you would need to go back in time and kill more of the population and destroy the city. Get money from the people who destroyed the place and then build. Just need a time machine

Or change the above.

Ray Palmer

weldoninhio wrote: »

Or change the above.

They did already. The point is that is a huge factor in high rise social housing that has the effect they won't build high rise buildings for social housing.
Due to building regs at the time Ballymun towers didn't even save space as they had to have so much outside space for them.
Don't forget they were award winning design including having underfloor heating.
Building regs in Ireland won't allow European apartment design either.Each place has to have separate heating and clothes washing facilities.

weldoninhio

Ray Palmer wrote: »

They did already. The point is that is a huge factor in high rise social housing that has the effect they won't build high rise buildings for social housing.
Due to building regs at the time Ballymun towers didn't even save space as they had to have so much outside space for them.
Don't forget they were award winning design including having underfloor heating.
Building regs in Ireland won't allow European apartment design either.Each place has to have separate heating and clothes washing facilities.

So change the regs.

PlaneSpeeking

weldoninhio wrote: »

So change the regs.

Isn't one of the local Dublin councils Sinn Fein run ?

They'll change nothing them crowd. Ruin their agenda.

Berserker

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Isn't one of the local Dublin councils Sinn Fein run ?

They'll change nothing them crowd. Ruin their agenda.

Yep, the hard left and SF in particular rule the roost on the council and they'll do so for the foreseeable future. If you are looking for action on social housing, try somewhere else.

klaaaz

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Like most so called socialists here and in the UK - two faced f**king scrotes to a man.

Those pesky socialist Scandinavians having their fairer societies, not fair at all :rolleyes:

klaaaz

klaaaz wrote: »

Those pesky socialist Scandinavians having their fairer societies, not fair at all :rolleyes:

Irish socialists are generally in favour of increased spending and decreased taxation. Square that circle!

(Ref: Eoin & SF on water charges/LPT and RBB on inheritance tax)

They also steer well clear of going into government and actually taking decisions and having responsibility.

A gang of blowhard bluffers.

Naos

Berserker wrote: »

A few reasons. Irish people have a fixation with houses, for starters. We were discussing apartments at a family meal a few years back and my sister's MIL summed the attitude up wonderfully when said "You have nothing if you don't have a front door of your own", on hearing that my sister and her husband were thinking about buying an apartment as a starter home.

Tough luck. It's social housing, you're getting an apartment. If you want a garden, then work for it.

Secondly, Irish builders seem to have real problems building quality apartments.

Find out what the issues are, fix them. Hold builders/developers responsible. If quality can be built elsewhere, it can be built here.

Thirdly, people don't want to build up here for some reason.

Again, tough. It's for social housing. Explain to 'people' the benefits of it:

Buyers - More houses on the market, less competition buying.
Landlords - Less issues with renters paying out of their own pocket.
Homeowners - The people buying or renting the house beside you are less likely to be problematic or cause issues.
Sellers - You won't get as much for your home, but you won't have to pay as much for your new home.[/quote]

Fourthly, apartments by design here tend to be shoe boxes with no gardens, unlike the apartments you find on mainland Europe.

Shoeboxes agreed, change up the design to be equal to our European counterparts. I'd disagree on the European apartments having gardens though, not sure where you get that from. Either way, don't give the option.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

There are number of reasons. The main one being Ireland didn't get bombed and have the power to seize the lands left. Other European countries rebuilt their cities with massive amount of cash after the war. That gave them the ability to build and set up structures that could be sustained.

People discovered in Ireland that they could refuse social housing in flats/apartments. They would then get a house instead. Exactly what happened to Ballymun where they were refused and the lowest on the list took them as they would never get anywhere else. Lots of people with addiction ended up there as a result. The whole place got worse after that.

Ownership of the property remained in private hands so they couldn't just take property demolish it and build.

So to have the European model you would need to go back in time and kill more of the population and destroy the city. Get money from the people who destroyed the place and then build. Just need a time machine

Or you can just allocation process. You are allocated a home and that's it. You do not get a choice if you want something for free. It would very quickly free up the issue.

klaaaz

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Irish socialists are generally in favour of increased spending and decreased taxation. Square that circle!

Middle and high income earners need to pay more tax, the return would be subsidised childcare, lower health costs, lower housing costs with no long commutes for everyone. But keep the system as it is now of low taxes and you'll keep paying for the high cost of housing, healthcare, childcare etc. You can blame and show your hatred of the poor for all you like, it won't change a thing as you'll still pay through the roof for the basic necessities as listed.

PlaneSpeeking

klaaaz wrote: »

Middle and high income earners need to pay more tax, the return would be subsidised childcare, lower health costs, lower housing costs with no long commutes for everyone. But keep the system as it is now of low taxes and you'll keep paying for the high cost of housing, healthcare, childcare etc. You can blame and show your hatred of the poor for all you like, it won't change a thing as you'll still pay through the roof for the basic necessities as listed.

Now I know you're on the wind up.

Ignore list for you.

klaaaz

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Now I know you're on the wind up.

Ignore list for you.

That's running away from the issue with your hands on your ears. The system outlined int the post is the system that's practised in Scandinavia. Perhaps you and the other's who support the present greedy system need to visit Scandinavia to see the high quality of life they have there under socialism.

Berserker

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

They also steer well clear of going into government and actually taking decisions and having responsibility.

A gang of blowhard bluffers.

Now, don't be bullying poor SF. People are always picking on them! SF were more than happy to talk to any party about going into government before the last general election. However, after the last election, when an approach from a major party became a real possibility, they decided that they'd only ever go into government as a major party. Sitting in opposition, collecting huge salaries and expenses from the Irish tax payer, is their plan for the future. Baffled as to why any working person would ever vote for them.

Naos wrote: »

Tough luck. It's social housing, you're getting an apartment. If you want a garden, then work for it.

Agree with you 100% w.r.t. social housing.

Naos wrote: »

Find out what the issues are, fix them. Hold builders/developers responsible. If quality can be built elsewhere, it can be built here.

Agree but I don't think they give enough of a damn and I'd question the ability of most Irish builders to meet the standards set by their European counterparts. Fines would be the best solution but they'll pass them on to the buyer.

klaaaz

klaaaz wrote: »

That's running away from the issue with your hands on your ears. The system outlined int the post is the system that's practised in Scandinavia. Perhaps you and the other's who support the present greedy system need to visit Scandinavia to see the high quality of life they have there under socialism.

What tax rates would you set here then?

klaaaz

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

What tax rates would you set here then?

The same as Scandinavia. Finland for example has a 51% rate.

Danjamin1

klaaaz wrote: »

The same as Scandinavia. Finland for example has a 51% rate.

We're not a million miles away from that rate here when you take Income tax, PRSI & USC in to account. The effective deductions for any earnings over €34k is not far off 50%. And we can't make our current system work at that level so what makes you think a socialist model would work any better?

PlaneSpeeking

Danjamin1 wrote: »

We're not a million miles away from that rate here when you take Income tax, PRSI & USC in to account. The effective deductions for any earnings over €34k is not far off 50%. And we can't make our current system work at that level so what makes you think a socialist model would work any better?

Coz "feelz". It wouldn't btw - look at the UK where Labour's bat **** crazy re-nationalisation plans would cost roughly 100bn quid.

Their Shadow Chancellor thinks it would cost "no money really".

Not all socialists are thick but by God many are.

klaaaz

Danjamin1 wrote: »

We're not a million miles away from that rate here when you take Income tax, PRSI & USC in to account. The effective deductions for any earnings over €34k is not far off 50%. And we can't make our current system work at that level so what makes you think a socialist model would work any better?

The tax rate is still lower than that hence the tax rate has to go up plus we need to remove some of the generous tax credits/allowances as well. Finland was just one example. Sweden has a tax rate of 56% while Denmark has 60%, these are countries that have successful socialism, their populations are much happier for it.

klaaaz

klaaaz wrote: »

The same as Scandinavia. Finland for example has a 51% rate.

50% on everything for everybody?

Or just the wealthy elites.

The devil is in the details.

Danjamin1

klaaaz wrote: »

The tax rate is still lower than that hence the tax rate has to go up plus we need to remove some of the generous tax credits/allowances as well. Finland was just one example. Sweden has a tax rate of 56% while Denmark has 60%, these are countries that have successful socialism, their populations are much happier for it.

Have you teased this out vs the current tax structure? I'd like to see the impact this has on people's earnings with figures included. Genuinely curious to see how this would work under what you're suggesting, a simple excel table with current earnings & tax at different levels of income would suffice. You could show how the changes you're suggesting would impact on each of these income levels.

Old diesel

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Now I know you're on the wind up.

Ignore list for you.

Imagine you paid 100 quid more tax but you saved 500 quid on childcare and rent.

So even though you paid more tax - you are actually better off by 400 euros financially.

That's the kind of thing Klaas means I think.

Danjamin1

Old diesel wrote: »

Imagine you paid 100 quid more tax but you saved 500 quid on childcare and rent.

So even though you paid more tax - you are actually better off by 400 euros financially.

That's the kind of thing Klaas means I think.

Where does the additional €400 come from there? Who is subsidising the childcare costs and how exactly is it being paid for?

Ray Palmer

weldoninhio wrote: »

So change the regs.

They did. I am pointing out out high rises got a bad name and how that effects current building views in Ireland.

bnt

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

50% on everything for everybody?

Or just the wealthy elites.

The devil is in the details.

That would be a marginal tax, on income over certain amounts - as is the case already in Ireland and most countries in the world. There's no suggestion anywhere of taking 60% from someone making €20,000 p.a.

Remember that income tax is specifically a tax on income, as income is defined by law. The same is true of capital gains, which is a tax on capital gains (profit), not the capital itself. Neither are a tax on wealth, nor do they do much to address extreme wealth inequality.

Seth Brundle

Danjamin1 wrote: »

Where does the additional €400 come from there? Who is subsidising the childcare costs and how exactly is it being paid for?

Doncha know, there's a magic money tree that never stops giving?

Ray Palmer

klaaaz wrote: »

That's running away from the issue with your hands on your ears. The system outlined int the post is the system that's practised in Scandinavia. Perhaps you and the other's who support the present greedy system need to visit Scandinavia to see the high quality of life they have there under socialism.

The state own several high income businesses in order to afford that. They don't have EU regulations that we have to adhere to. They also have very low immigration and freedom of movements.

So we just can't do what they do. Middle income earner pay for most of the services in Ireland . You want to increase taxes on them will mean less jobs as they have less to spend so they will have to pay more again.

You have no understanding of economics or history. By the way have a read of his where the public laughed at the possibility rents would rise. The public didn't want things to be built.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=79006148

klaaaz

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The state own several high income businesses in order to afford that.

Elaborate?

Ray Palmer wrote: »

They don't have EU regulations that we have to adhere to. They also have very low immigration and freedom of movements.

The countries listed are in the EU and have freedom of movement.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

So we just can't do what they do. Middle income earner pay for most of the services in Ireland . You want to increase taxes on them will mean less jobs as they have less to spend so they will have to pay more again.

That's your crazy theory. They will actually have more to spend considering they won't be paying around 1,300 a month per child on childcare and minimum 1,500 a month on rent. And less spent too on exorbitant healthcare also among the many cost savings in the pocket.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You have no understanding of economics or history. By the way have a read of his where the public laughed at the possibility rents would rise. The public didn't want things to be built.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=79006148

You'd want to look in the mirror, you sound like a vested interested landlord who wants the gravy train to continue for the wealthy while exploiting the majority. History is already there with a fine socialist model, in Scandinavian countries.

Danjamin1

klaaaz wrote: »

Elaborate?



The countries listed are in the EU and have freedom of movement.



That's your crazy theory. They will actually have more to spend considering they won't be paying around 1,300 a month per child on childcare and minimum 1,500 a month on rent. And less spent too on exorbitant healthcare also among the many cost savings in the pocket.



You'd want to look in the mirror, you sound like a vested interested landlord who wants the gravy train to continue for the wealthy while exploiting the majority. History is already there with a fine socialist model, in Scandinavian countries.

Yeah they're not purely socialist though are they. They have generous welfare systems but they are not outright socialist countries.

You need to look at the balance of payments when you look at a structure like that, take the model we have, look at the revenue the state receives & how it is spent in the budget. It's not as simple as just saying we'll replicate the Nordic model because there are different economic factors that make that system work. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, I just think it's a bit more complex than saying let's be like them and assuming it's an easy transition.

Cuba, now that's real socialism.

bnt

klaaaz wrote: »

History is already there with a fine socialist model, in Scandinavian countries.

As long as it's clear we're specifically talking about semi-socialised housing only, not Socialism with a capital S as the UK tried to implement after WW2. By "semi" I mean there will must be a private housing market for those who can afford it, and that where the state provides housing, the renter will still pay a fair rent.

I think some of the commenters in this thread are thinking more people will get housing for free: that would be a very bad idea. The conversation is not just about the homeless vs. the wealthy: don't forget the majority of people, the ones with average jobs and moderate incomes who would have no problem paying a sensible percentage of income as rent. "Socialised" housing is not free in Scandinavia or Germany either.

Ray Palmer

klaaaz wrote: »

You'd want to look in the mirror, you sound like a vested interested landlord who wants the gravy train to continue for the wealthy while exploiting the majority. History is already there with a fine socialist model, in Scandinavian countries.

I take it you didn't read the thread. I am a landlords and never claimed otherwise but it doesn't mean my interested are vested. Pointing out facts doesn't change them because of my interests.

Not all middle incomers have children so you are talking about reducing income and spending power.

Providing a service is not exploitation and I have tenants for over 20 years. The property is a higher BER than my own.

klaaaz

Danjamin1 wrote: »

Yeah they're not purely socialist though are they. They have generous welfare systems but they are not outright socialist countries.

You need to look at the balance of payments when you look at a structure like that, take the model we have, look at the revenue the state receives & how it is spent in the budget. It's not as simple as just saying we'll replicate the Nordic model because there are different economic factors that make that system work. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, I just think it's a bit more complex than saying let's be like them and assuming it's an easy transition.

Cuba, now that's real socialism.

Cuba is communist, unlike Scandinavia. What different economic factors are there to the Nordic model that won't work here?

bnt wrote: »

As long as it's clear we're specifically talking about semi-socialised housing only, not Socialism with a capital S as the UK tried to implement after WW2. By "semi" I mean there will must be a private housing market for those who can afford it, and that where the state provides housing, the renter will still pay a fair rent.

I think some of the commenters in this thread are thinking more people will get housing for free: that would be a very bad idea. The conversation is not just about the homeless vs. the wealthy: don't forget the majority of people, the ones with average jobs and moderate incomes who would have no problem paying a sensible percentage of income as rent. "Socialised" housing is not free in Scandinavia or Germany either.

Of course they don't get housing for free, everyone who wants to can pay a percentage of their income as rent. They have far more disposable income in return. There is a private housing market too but not as widespread as here as the rent in the socalised housing is fair, no need to take out jumbo mortgages to afford a roof over their heads like they do here. The socialised housing contains alot of middle income workers, it's a beautiful social mix with a great quality of life.

Some of the commentators here are neo-capitalists American GOP style of economics with a hatred of poor people and an "i'm alright jack attitude". They fail to see the stupidity of paying lower taxes while every basic need around them goes sky high so they actually lose out financially, only the wealthy benefit in this system. The happiest societies in Europe with the highest standard of living are in Scandinavia with their brand of socialism.