€700 million a year given to private landlords.

antoinolachtnai

What heavily populated area did this happen in?

amcalester

Magnatu wrote: »

If the market rate for an area is€700 a month and the govt comes along and tells landlords they will give them €1300 a month then supply is taken out of the market and the new market rate becomes €1300 a month. Pour in hundreds of millions and you change the market.

What councils have HAP limits above the average rent for the area?

Name them.

beauf

Magnatu wrote: »

The "market rate" is being set by the €700 million being pumped into the private rental market by the taxpayer every year.

HAP or Rent Supplement was introduced back in the 70's to fill the gap causes by stopping building social housing. it has always trailed the market rate and indeed the Govt has reduced payments to try and control the market and failed miserably. The fall back back was to make it illegal to refuse HAP tenants. It still trails the market rate so hence the top ups required.

https://www.focusireland.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Focus-Ireland-2012-Out-of-Reach_The-Impact-of-Changes-in-Rent-Supplement-EXEC-SUMMARY.pdf

Shortage and demand drives up the market rate. Successive Govts (FF & FG) have actively driven up both demand and increased the shortage.

Magnatu

amcalester wrote: »

What councils have HAP limits above the average rent for the area?
.

HAP sets the minimum rate so it cannot be above the average rent. No landlord has to accept any less than the HAP level.

overkill602

At the end of Quarter 3 2018, there were more than 40,800 households having their housing needs met via HAP and some 25,500 separate landlords and agents in receipt of monthly HAP payments. Data in respect of Quarter 4 2018, will be available shortly.

The outturn in relation to HAP for 2018 was €276.6 million dont know where the 700m came from.
works our at just under €6,800 each, thats good value considering the other option building, maintaining and then selling off cheaply.

amcalester

Magnatu wrote: »

If the market rate for an area is€700 a month and the govt comes along and tells landlords they will give them €1300 a month then supply is taken out of the market and the new market rate becomes €1300 a month. Pour in hundreds of millions and you change the market.

Magnatu wrote: »

HAP sets the minimum rate so it cannot be above the average rent. No landlord has to accept any less than the HAP level.

You claimed the govt were offering landlords more than the market rent (in the form of HAP), and now you're saying HAP cannot be above the average (for average read market) rent.

Which is it, you're contradicting yourself here.

Is this Schrodinger's HAP in that it is both above and below average rents?

Magnatu

amcalester wrote: »

You claimed the govt were offering landlords more than the market rent (in the form of HAP), and now you're saying HAP cannot be above the average (for average read market) rent.

Which is it, you're contradicting yourself here.

Is this Schrodinger's HAP in that it is both above and below average rents?

No contradiction. If the average was €700 and the govt set HAP at €1300 this would become the new minimum. Some higher quality properties would be able to get more than this so the average would be above the minimum set by HAP.

amcalester

Magnatu wrote: »

HAP sets the minimum rate so it cannot be above the average rent. No landlord has to accept any less than the HAP level.

Magnatu wrote: »

No contradiction. If the average was €700 and the govt set HAP at €1300 this would become the new minimum. Some higher quality properties would be able to get more than this so the average would be above the minimum set by HAP.

Going by your own words, HAP can't be set to €1300 because the average is €700 and HAP cannot be above the average rent.

Magnatu

overkill602 wrote: »

The outturn in relation to HAP for 2018 was €276.6 million dont know where the 700m came from.
.

There are other landlord support schemes.
€695,346,564 in taxpayer money was transferred to private landlords in 2018.

blackbox

If it's so great being a landlord, why aren't we all doing it?

Any landlords I know are trying to get out of the business.

Graham

Magnatu wrote: »

If the average was €700 and the govt set HAP at €1300 this would become the new minimum.

It's never happened though.

HAP has never been set above average.

beauf

Magnatu wrote: »

There are other landlord support schemes.
€695,346,564 in taxpayer money was transferred to private landlords in 2018.

About half it will be transferred back in tax.

HAP is forced on LL. No one wants it.

Magnatu

Graham wrote: »

It's never happened though.

HAP has never been set above average.

If average was €700 and HAP was set at €700 this would become the minimum. So any landlord with a poor quality property that might previously have been only able to get €500 would now be guaranteed €700. As a result average rent would rise.

The_Conductor

Magnatu wrote: »

If average was €700 and HAP was set at €700 this would become the minimum. So any landlord with a poor quality property that might previously have been only able to get €500 would now be guaranteed €700. As a result average rent would rise.

Give it a break. Your reasoning is completely and utterly illogical.

Graham

Magnatu wrote: »

If average was €700 and HAP was set at €700 this would become the minimum. So any landlord with a poor quality property that might previously have been only able to get €500 would now be guaranteed €700. As a result average rent would rise.

There are many HAP tenancies set below HAP maximums so that theory doesn't hold water either.

beauf

They all ready tried this and it didn't.

At this point I don't think you are interested in facts or any realism. You want to believe your own fiction.
You're not alone, many didn't listen and made a bunch of changes which have all made the problem far worse.
I expect this will continue. Which is why the problem just keeps getting worse.

Once supply gets stronger, the pressure will ease. All of these fantasists will then claim its was the measures rather than supply which is having an effect.

GGTrek

The_Conductor wrote: »

Give it a break. Your reasoning is completely and utterly illogical.

It does not matter, the OP is a full supporter of SF, PBP, Trozkysts, loony left ideology. They spread propaganda and see if it sticks. Until now their propaganda has received no serious pushback from the sold out media of Ireland.

Magnatu

Those in need of social housing should not be entitled to pick and choose the nicest and most prestigious areas to live in. And they should not be entitled to the best houses. But they should be entitled to somewhere they can call home. Somewhere that conforms to acceptable building standards and somewhere they can put down roots and be part of a community. If there circumstances change they should be charged an increased rent based on their income should they choose to remain in their home. That is the model that worked for generations until an ideological decision was made to change it.
Those in need of housing do not want to live in a four or five star hotel in the city centre and should not be entitled to take accommodation from those that need to pay for it themselves from their low wages. The current system designed to support landlords has been a complete disaster.
If accidental landlords would struggle without the hundreds of millions subvention from HAP or the lower rents that would be caused by the state decreasing payments then let the state support them in other ways by tax breaks or a landlords dole or let them leave the market and be replaced by institutional landlords.
The accidental landlord that needs vast handouts from the state is very much an Irish phenomenon but the cost of supporting them is becoming too great. In financial terms but also the human cost of the "housing crisis" that is necessary to keep this broken dysfunctional system going.
Its time to change.

The_Conductor

The current system was not designed to support landlords.
Landlords hate it- and legislation had to be brought in to force them to accept it.

I agree with you- those in need of social housing should not be entitled to pick and choose where they are going to live- no-one else can, we cut our cloth to fit our means. I'd love to live close by family who might offer my family support when we need it (and we do need it)- but my means are not conducive to living anywhere nearby. Similarly- if someone is offered a social house- providing it meets all building regulations- the fact that its not 5 minutes away from Grandma- should not be an acceptable reason to turn it down.

The current social housing experiment failed- because it afforded tenants the opportunity to purchase 'their' homes at vast discounts to open market rates- without putting a reciprochal obligation on local authorities to replace stock sold with commensurate numbers of new stock. In fact in one infamous case- Galway Co. Co. estimated they'd have to sell 8 pre-existing units (at the discount allowed to tenants) to be able to afford one new unit with a similar number of bedrooms.........

We critically need supply of social housing units- but we also critically need to stop the haemorhage of units from the public sector- they should remain as social housing units indefinitely. I would also argue that social housing should be viewed as a safety net- and not an aim for people. As such it should not be viewed as a house for life- and it beggars belief that tenants aren't circulated in and out of units as their circumstances change- or as more needful tenants (for example a family with more children) come forward for housing.

If accidental landlords would struggle without the hundreds of millions subvention from HAP or the lower rents that would be caused by the state decreasing payments then let the state support them in other ways by tax breaks or a landlords dole or let them leave the market and be replaced by institutional landlords.
The accidental landlord that needs vast handouts from the state is very much an Irish phenomenon but the cost of supporting them is becoming too great. Its time to change.

You just don't get it. Accidental landlords wouldn't struggle without government subvention (through HAP or any other scheme). The vast majority of them would throw a party if they weren't forced to accept HAP- and could simply operate in the private sector.

You're banging a drum- that HAP is some form of a sop to landlords- well, its not. Its an excuse of a scheme dreamt up to excuse the government of its obligations to house its citizens. This obligation should never be outsourced to the private sector- and should be ended as quickly and as cleanly as possible.

Stop trying to pretend its a subsidy to landlords though- HAP is significantly more troublesome for most landlords- than any other tenancy type- and indeed, a HAP inspection insists on standards that are significantly higher than apply to a typical tenancy (or indeed, to the standards in place in the home of any owner occupier).

amcalester

You keep trying to push that narrative but HAP isn’t a subvention to landlords, accidental or professional.

Magnatu

The_Conductor wrote: »

The current social housing experiment failed- because it afforded tenants the opportunity to purchase 'their' homes at vast discounts to open market rates- without putting a reciprochal obligation on local authorities to replace stock sold with commensurate numbers of new stock. In fact in one infamous case- Galway Co. Co. estimated they'd have to sell 8 pre-existing units (at the discount allowed to tenants) to be able to afford one new unit with a similar number of bedrooms.........

We critically need supply of social housing units- but we also critically need to stop the haemorhage of units from the public sector- they should remain as social housing units indefinitely. I would also argue that social housing should be viewed as a safety net- and not an aim for people. As such it should not be viewed as a house for life- and it beggars belief that tenants aren't circulated in and out of units as their circumstances change- or as more needful tenants (for example a family with more children) come forward for housing.

Would disagree with you strongly on that point because it doesn't take account of the way people and communities function. It is also a recipe for disaster if you insist that only the unemployed and very poor exclusively live in certain areas. It also creates a poverty trap. If someone who is a single mother or unemployed or a family with very low income and several children is offered a social house in an area they put down roots, become comfortable make connections, start contributing to the community. But if their circumstances change and their income increases what then? Do you throw them out of their community? Much better to give them the option to stay. Charge them a rent commisurate with their income but allow them to stay and yes if someone has been living in and paying rent on a house the was originally social housing for 20 or 30 years give them the opportunity to buy it. This is much better for the community and for the people themselves and will turn potential ghettos into mixed mature developments

The_Conductor

Magnatu wrote: »

Would disagree with you strongly on that point because it doesn't take account of the way people and communities function.

Your argument about people and communities only makes any sort of sense- if someone accepts that getting one of these magical social houses- is the be all and the end all- and you're set for life once you get one. I fundamentally disagree with this.

Magnatu wrote: »

It is also a recipe for disaster if you insist that only the unemployed and very poor exclusively live in certain areas.

You're the only one who seems to have this idea. I think anyone should have the right to rent local authority property- not just those who can't afford to house themselves. I'd love to see local authority housing offered to nurses, teachers, Gardaí, civil servants- and other public sector employees- who will never earn the big bucks that they'd get in the private sector. However- I would charge them the going rate- not some super subsidised rate- and I'd insist on time limiting tenancies (I think 10 years is a nice round number)- after which they have to vacate the property (but they are of course eligible to rent another unit).

Magnatu wrote: »

It also creates a poverty trap. If someone who is a single mother or unemployed or a family with very low income and several children is offered a social house in an area they put down roots, become comfortable make connections, start contributing to the community. But if their circumstances change and their income increases what then? Do you throw them out of their community?

If their circumstances change- they do what any other person does- and pay their way? You have this idea that once people live in an area for a certain length of time that they have some god given right to live there forever. I'm sorry- no-one else has this right- why should someone who can't even pay their own way- have rights superior to the people who are doing so?

Magnatu wrote: »

Much better to give them the option to stay. Charge them a rent commisurate with their income but allow them to stay and yes if someone has been living in and paying rent on a house the was originally social housing for 20 or 30 years give them the opportunity to buy it.

This socialist ideal- where people were given houses for peanuts- is what got us in the mess we're currently in- in the first place. Local authority houses- should remain local authority/social housing stock- forever. Anyone should be able to rent it- not just you're aforementioned single mom with kids in tow. You're the one who is creating poverty traps with your schemes- we've been down that road- we've tried it- it doesn't work.

For the record- we've also gone down the road of massive local authority housing estates for the unemployed- and that sure as hell doesn't work either- which is why I think anyone should be allowed rent them- and indeed- productive members of our society should be actively encouraged to live there- to ensure ghettos do not develop. I remember Tallaght in the 1980s- and Neilstown in the 90s. It was a complete disaster (and indeed, it still isn't right- but its a damn sight better than it used be).

Magnatu wrote: »

This is much better for the community and for the people themselves and will turn potential ghettos into mixed mature developments

Sounds like a socialist ideal- once again- we've gone down that road and it was a sodding disaster- but not to worry- we're having a go at it again- look at the Clonburris SDZ for example- its plain as day is light that its going to be a disaster- yet, they're going at it for all its worth.

You and I are never going to agree- we just have completely opposing viewpoints- however, I am willing to listen to any ideas and acknowledge when they make sense. Yours don't.

We need a massive hike in the supply of social housing units. We need to integrate all of society in these units. We need to ensure these units are never sold. We need to stop this house for life lark.

We also need to quit this drive to have the private sector provide residential accommodation- full stop. I'd love to see all the local authority and other schemes wound up- though it would probably take at least 10 years to do so.

Supply is the issue in all of this- or rather lack thereof- not the level of rent, subsidies for landlords or indeed any other esoteric arguments that you come up with. We need supply. The end.

marieholmfan

The_Conductor wrote: »

This socialist ideal- where people were given houses for peanuts- is what got us in the mess we're currently in- in the first place. Local authority houses- should remain local authority/social housing stock- forever.

The right to buy is not Socialism. Ideologically it is based on the idea that the widespread ownership of private property is an end in itself and in Irish context it was simple vote buying.

More broadly you are correct in that what is needed is a massive expansion in social housing made available to whoever wants it.

The_Conductor wrote: »

You have this idea that once people live in an area for a certain length of time that they have some god given right to live there forever. I'm sorry- no-one else has this right- why should someone who can't even pay their own way- have rights superior to the people who are doing so?

Further the community of which the homeless person is a part has failed them. The community will tend to be a community of dysfunction. The best thing for the homeless person is almost certainly a fresh start.

sk8board

We’ve probably gone way off topic into ideology (again), but I think the broader point is simple (for me anyway, as a full-time residential LL) -

Yes, there is €700m paid via HAP to private landlords in return for supplementing the social housing shortage, however there are two big savings to this:
1. Landlords are taxed on rent at paye rates, so anything up to 35-50% of that 700m goes back to gov coffers
2. The gov save tens/hundreds of millions in wages and costs in not having to repair, maintain, insure, collect rent, or generally upkeep any of the thousands of homes in HAP. The private Landlord pays that for them.

In reality, the whole 700m may only be costing a small fraction of that at the bottom line.
The notion that the Gov are wasting 700m is simply untrue in the strongest terms.

hmmm

hmmm wrote: »

Social housing is free housing for life, where you ring the council if a lightbuib goes.

No it's not


No you don't

The_Conductor

sk8board wrote: »

We’ve probably gone way off topic into ideology (again), but I think the broader point is simple (for me anyway, as a full-time residential LL) -

Yes, there is €700m paid via HAP to private landlords in return for supplementing the social housing shortage, however there are two big savings to this:

For HAP its €410m in 2018 and budgeted at €429m in 2019
The other €290m goes to hotels and assorted other expenditure- but not HAP.

sk8board wrote: »

1. Landlords are taxed on rent at paye rates, so anything up to 35-50% of that 700m goes back to gov coffers
2. The gov save tens/hundreds of millions in wages and costs in not having to repair, maintain, insure, collect rent, or generally upkeep any of the thousands of homes in HAP. The private Landlord pays that for them.

Arguably you're entirely correct. Good luck trying to source the accommodation by any other method at the prices the government get to pay.

sk8board wrote: »

In reality, the whole 700m may only be costing a small fraction of that at the bottom line.
The notion that the Gov are wasting 700m is simply untrue in the strongest terms.

You're entirely correct. However, its politically incorrect to acknowledge this- esp. around those with socialist ideals, who on the one hand imagine there is a magic money tree- so no-one has to pay for anything- on the other hand- they consider anyone doing business in the private sector as evil- venomous evil creatures.

Anyway- the HAP figure for 2018 is €410m- not €700m.

DubCount

There is an element out there that just does not accept a persons right to own property as an investment. Its just about OK to own a home to live in. Landlords are automatically evil beings who exploit the state and its citizens.

Unfortunately, property costs money and we cant afford to directly provide homes to all our citizens. So landlords need to be part of the solution - like them or not. Besides, how much of State money paid out comes straight back in taxes.

The "housing is a right" mob that seems to be popular at the moment, never wants to discuss those that are capable of contributing more towards their own housing but don't/wont do so, or consider what counts as sufficient housing provision. If I live in a council house with a room unoccupied, should I be forced to move to a smaller unit or take in a social lodger. What are legitimate grounds for refusing an offer of housing. How is damage to property to be dealt with.

overkill602

sk8board wrote: »

We’ve probably gone way off topic into ideology (again), but I think the broader point is simple (for me anyway, as a full-time residential LL) -

Yes, there is €700m paid via HAP to private landlords in return for supplementing the social housing shortage, however there are two big savings to this:
1. Landlords are taxed on rent at paye rates, so anything up to 35-50% of that 700m goes back to gov coffers
2. The gov save tens/hundreds of millions in wages and costs in not having to repair, maintain, insure, collect rent, or generally upkeep any of the thousands of homes in HAP. The private Landlord pays that for them.

In reality, the whole 700m may only be costing a small fraction of that at the bottom line.
The notion that the Gov are wasting 700m is simply untrue in the strongest terms.

+1
but if you put this up on neon lights lefty anti LL remember what happened in the famine cannot get there head around these simple facts not ideal but its the best solution we can afford unless you are a career welfare entitled warrior