Election called for Saturday 8 February

Loafing Oaf

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's going to be close. FF are losing their luster. True to form if FG come out on top FF will want in and FG will have them.

To a full coalition? They didn't want in the last time, despite Enda's full-on love-bombing.

James Brown

Mortelaro wrote: »

You do realise business on low taxes create jobs which takes people off the dole and stops emigration leading to increased expenditure in the economy and even more jobs, yeah?

How many jobs are vulture funds and Russian oil financial companies making, not many right?
There's a housing crisis not a Facebook crisis.

Mortelaro

Matt Barrett wrote: »

How many jobs are vulture funds and Russian oil financial companies making, not many right?
There's a housing crisis not a Facebook crisis.

Vulture funds own about 1 to 2% of Irish homes
Ireland actually has a higher home ownership percentage than Europes 3 biggest Economies of what 180 million people
Are you still seeking perfect?

James Brown

Mortelaro wrote: »

Vulture funds own about 1 to 2% of Irish homes
Ireland actually has a higher home ownership percentage than Europes 3 biggest Economies of what 180 million people
Are you still seeking perfect?

Vulture funds operate mostly within cities. You are citing a national average. Not many vulture funds in Borris-in-Ossory I'd imagine.
They are taxed lightly and do not create the jobs to warrant that, as was your point.

blanch152

Mortelaro wrote: »

Vulture funds own about 1 to 2% of Irish homes
Ireland actually has a higher home ownership percentage than Europes 3 biggest Economies of what 180 million people
Are you still seeking perfect?

Don't confuse the discussion with facts.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's going to be close. FF are losing their luster. True to form if FG come out on top FF will want in and FG will have them. The rivalry is family rivalry and both don't want SF in.
This is why the country will never achieve it's full potential. Transport and green initiatives should be a doddle in such a small country and as for housing, we have the sites, the workers and the money, (25 year leases, hotels, private rentals) but not the will, because big business is more important and affluent than the working tax payer.



Time we invested in the country for the people not business on low taxes.

Thanks for that link, it is quite worrying (though not in the way you imagine it).

We are currently building around 20,000 housing units a year and are increasing that every year. If there are only around 20,000 sites ready to go and lying idle, we could hit a supply bottleneck very quickly.

The primary aim of this law was to get sites ready to go and into building. If there are only sites for 20,000 houses ready to go, this is a problem.

It is further evidence that any party looking to rapidly increase building social housing is either lying through their teeth, making it up as they go along or doesn't have a clue about economics.

Once again, thanks for the link, it has been helpful in further showing up the poverty of Sinn Fein's policy on housing.

James Brown

Mortelaro wrote: »

Irrelevant answer

Vulture funds do what they do. I've issue with that. If they aren't active in Tubbercurry they aren't relevant there.
You skipped the part were they don't likely employ enough people to warrant low taxation as was your defense of the practice.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Don't confuse the discussion with facts.

You not reading the responses?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Thanks for that link, it is quite worrying (though not in the way you imagine it).

We are currently building around 20,000 housing units a year and are increasing that every year. If there are only around 20,000 sites ready to go and lying idle, we could hit a supply bottleneck very quickly.

The primary aim of this law was to get sites ready to go and into building. If there are only sites for 20,000 houses ready to go, this is a problem.

It is further evidence that any party looking to rapidly increase building social housing is either lying through their teeth, making it up as they go along or doesn't have a clue about economics.

Once again, thanks for the link, it has been helpful in further showing up the poverty of Sinn Fein's policy on housing.

Who's we? The mouse vulture fund in your pocket?
Some were on here blustering about not enough skilled workers, not enough money, not enough vacant sites to build any significant amount of social housing, (you take your SF gripes up with SF). All lies designed to defend policy that favour private enterprise and not the public IMO.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Vulture funds do what they do. I've issue with that. If they aren't active in Tubbercurry they aren't relevant there.
You skipped the part were they don't likely employ enough people to warrant low taxation as was your defense of the practice.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You not reading the responses?

Half of the population live in the Greater Dublin area.

Even if every single vulture fund property was in the Greater Dublin area, that would only mean that the percentage of property owned by vulture funds would go from 1-2% up to 2-4%. Simple maths.

Hardly a problem of greater significance.

Mortelaro

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Vulture funds do what they do. I've issue with that. If they aren't active in Tubbercurry they aren't relevant there.
You skipped the part were they don't likely employ enough people to warrant low taxation as was your defense of the practice.

Your comment on low business taxation to which I replied did not mention vulture funds so its disingenuous of you to tag my point on its importance in the way you have
There are 1000's of businesses ,I'm not sure its possible in a small open economy to start differentiating
It's very easy to exaggerate a problem or the effect of a solution though
That seems rife in certain quarters

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Half of the population live in the Greater Dublin area.

Even if every single vulture fund property was in the Greater Dublin area, that would only mean that the percentage of property owned by vulture funds would go from 1-2% up to 2-4%. Simple maths.

Hardly a problem of greater significance.

We covered this before. Vulture funds price people out of the market were they operate, not where they don't. That's as logical as can be.
Any road, my issue was also the low taxation applied to them.
They are only helping Ireland in so much as FG and some LA's like to use them for leasing and buying off instead of building.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We covered this before. Vulture funds price people out of the market were they operate, not where they don't. That's as logical as can be.
Any road, my issue was also the low taxation applied to them.
They are only helping Ireland in so much as FG and some LA's like to use them for leasing and buying off instead of building.

You can only price people out of a market you dominate. Simple basic economics.

There is no hard factual evidence that vulture funds are dominating the property market in Dublin.

In fact, according to another thread that you are commenting on, property investors are pulling their money out of Ireland.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

You can only price people out of a market you dominate. Simple basic economics.

There is no hard factual evidence that vulture funds are dominating the property market in Dublin.

In fact, according to another thread that you are commenting on, property investors are pulling their money out of Ireland.

We've tackled this. I see you put in 'hard evidence' so no matter what I put you can disagree on it's level of hardness as you've done before. No point in posting the links, they are over in politics anyway. You've seen them.
We know most new developments are being built to rent/lease. We've covered this. How is an individual buying one of these new builds you earlier said 'we' are building?
FG have made Ireland attractive to these companies by being a customer and charging low taxes.

Great. Hopefully they are. I'm sure FG will find some other private concern to give our money to maybe a Landlord TD co-op of some description.

JohnnyFlash

blanch152 wrote: »

You can only price people out of a market you dominate. Simple basic economics.

There is no hard factual evidence that vulture funds are dominating the property market in Dublin.

In fact, according to another thread that you are commenting on, property investors are pulling their money out of Ireland.

Less that 2% of housing stock is controlled by vulture funds, many of the funds invested on behalf of Irish private pension funds, and returns have been poor.

Idbatterim

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Less that 2% of housing stock is controlled by vulture funds, many of the funds invested on behalf of Irish private pension funds, and returns have been poor.

how much of the housing stock is state owned and "rented" out for nothing?

James Brown

Idbatterim wrote: »

how much of the housing stock is state owned and "rented" out for nothing?

They aren't buying too much, mostly leasing and in some cases for 25 years.
The 2% is a national average. There aren't vulture funds in every back pocket of the country.

Idbatterim

Matt Barrett wrote: »

They aren't buying too much, mostly leasing and in some cases for 25 years.
The 2% is a national average. There aren't vulture funds in every back pocket of the country.

the housing situation here is a disgrace matt, we agree on that. What I dont agree with, is the two extremes for people of "limited means" one gets as good as free accommodation and the other is screwed. The rents should be increased to reasonable levels and this should provide for far more state house building...

When we ask "who should pay for it"? well who are by far the biggest benefactors of this free state housing? the existing tenants and what are they paying? as good as nothing and this is leaving others on the housing list etc in screwed positions! Its an immoral disgrace and a situation like this, couldnt be dreamt of outside this banana republic! that many workers if not getting free housing, have lower living standards than many on welfare...

James Brown

Idbatterim wrote: »

the housing situation here is a disgrace matt, we agree on that. What I dont agree with, is the two extremes for people of "limited means" one gets as good as free accommodation and the other is screwed. The rents should be increased to reasonable levels and this should provide for far more state house building...

When we ask "who should pay for it"? well who are by far the biggest benefactors of this free state housing? the existing tenants and what are they paying? as good as nothing and this is leaving others on the housing list etc in screwed positions! Its an immoral disgrace and a situation like this, couldnt be dreamt of outside this banana republic! that many workers if not getting free housing, have lower living standards than many on welfare...

I agree. But rent arrears will happen in built or leased social housing. It's another issue. I would take it from source, be it welfare or salary.

smurgen

The latest David McWilliams podcast made for interesting listening. He talked of the housing situation in Singapore where nearly 80% of the countries housing is social. And before anyone screams socialism. Singapore is one of the most capitalist in the world and regularly tops the global competitiveness polls.

Phoebas

smurgen wrote: »

The latest David McWilliams podcast made for interesting listening. He talked of the housing situation in Singapore where nearly 80% of the countries housing is social. And before anyone screams socialism. Singapore is one of the most capitalist in the world and regularly tops the global competitiveness polls.

Singapore is not capitalist when it comes to land ownership as practically all land is owned by the state.

Idbatterim

smurgen wrote: »

The latest David McWilliams podcast made for interesting listening. He talked of the housing situation in Singapore where nearly 80% of the countries housing is social. And before anyone screams socialism. Singapore is one of the most capitalist in the world and regularly tops the global competitiveness polls.

yeah , this situation here is totally unacceptable. you either provide a smaller amount with near free housing or adjust the rents and provide the masses with affordable housing and rents. I would have nowhere near the issue with the as good as free housing, if everyone was benefiting from it...

James Brown

Phoebas wrote: »

Singapore is not capitalist when it comes to land ownership as practically all land is owned by the state.

That would explain the 80% being social housing I'd imagine.

Phoebas

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That would explain the 80% being social housing I'd imagine.

It would.
A very different attitude to ownership of land than we do. When Singapore was founded they took private land into public ownership. It's the kind of idea you might see espoused by the likes of PBP, but few others.

I'm afraid we need to start from where we are.

smurgen

Phoebas wrote: »

It would.
A very different attitude to ownership of land than we do. When Singapore was founded they took private land into public ownership. It's the kind of idea you might see espoused by the likes of PBP, but few others.

I'm afraid we need to start from where we are.

Not really.switzerland has a similar system to us.however they build alot.
The problem here are Williams explained is that our government has tied personal wealth the the value of property.as a result now we have to keep the prices of houses inflated to make everyone feel rich.

Phoebas

smurgen wrote: »

Not really.switzerland has a similar system to us.however they build alot.
The problem here are Williams explained is that our government has tied personal wealth the the value of property.as a result now we have to keep the prices of houses inflated to make everyone feel rich.

Yeah. I listened to the podcast and there's not a lot I'd disagree with although I think it would take generations to wean us off our obsession with home ownership.

I think the German model is something we should move towards. A large proportion of renters - people who choose to rent - with strong protections for tenants, and where the landlords are institutions backed by money from pension funds looking for modest returns over long investment terms. (Here, no doubt, they'd be described as vulture funds).

WoollyRedHat

Mortelaro wrote: »

You do realise business on low taxes create jobs which takes people off the dole and stops emigration leading to increased expenditure in the economy and even more jobs, yeah?

All very well and good but how sustainable are the jobs these industries create in the medium to long term i.e. if they are at risk of being automated due to developments in AI; machine learning down the line, then we will be exposed and vulnerable.

Ireland needs to not be so reliant on FDI and instead be a leader in new technologies e.g energy and renewable sectors, using this to propel economic prosperity and be masters of our own destiny , therefore lessening the risk of a recession caused by external factors by doing so.

smurgen

Phoebas wrote: »

Yeah. I listened to the podcast and there's not a lot I'd disagree with although I think it would take generations to wean us off our obsession with home ownership.

I think the German model is something we should move towards. A large proportion of renters - people who choose to rent - with strong protections for tenants, and where the landlords are institutions backed by money from pension funds looking for modest returns over long investment terms. (Here, no doubt, they'd be described as vulture funds).

If we diversified investment/wealth away from property we'd weather global downturns alot better I think.
I lived in Switzerland by the way and had an apartment in Geneva.it was a long term rent with just the shell of the apartment.i had to rent the furniture. The thing is it was comfortable and centralised yet affordable.if the equivalent was in Dublin I think it would have been alot less affordable.

Phoebas

I think we're stuck in crisis mode regarding housing and no party is really addressing this long term.

The model where landlords are in the main individuals who own one or two properties only works where renters are renting short term, until they can afford to buy.
It breaks down when renting becomes something you do forever. It especially breaks down when you have pensioners renting from small time landlords who can decide to sell at the drop of a hat.

NovemberWren

Phoebas wrote: »

Singapore is not capitalist when it comes to land ownership as practically all land is owned by the state.

that sounds nice, but; the Title Deeds to any house - are not these the most important?

the cost of the land, here, may be dependent on the best areas that the building is to take place.
[maybe even in Singapore?].

[if] FF are elected, they will want to inflate house prices, as this will be a boost to their FG, investor, pals also.

the problems for ordinary people is when the market is high; the investor wants to sell at the very least one of his houses; and this, "the good times" is when the notices to quit may be apparent.
When house prices are down in a recession, it may not matter all that much to Investors, they keep the Title Deeds; whether prices are low or high.

And, are Title Deeds as property, valuable to attaining more further properties later?