Whatever happened to the housing crisis ?

robinbird

efanton wrote: »

THe problem with what you are saying is you are assuming that landlords will stay in the rental business. Many will simply sell up which will mean a dramatic reduction in rental properties available. You can be certain that the vulture and cuckoo funds would sell up as well.

That will help those that are trying to get on the property ladder but be of no use to those who cant qualify for a mortgage or are on social welfare that are dependent of rental properties for a home.

I agree that that money would be better spent building more social housing and affordable housing, but you would still have a serious shortage until they were completed. Even then what they build in one year probably would not be enough.

No. i am not assuming that. For some it would not be profitable enough for them without the govt subsidy so they will sell up. But those properties won't disappear. Many will be bought by people that are already renting thereby freeing up more rental properties. My point is that the 900,000,000 a year that the govt is currently paying out has no effect on overall supply of houses which will remain more or less the same. It only purpose is to enrich landlords.

So the main effect of removing the massive subsidy is less profit for landlords.

alias no.9

The single redeeming feature of HAP is that once a persons circumstance improves, sthe tates resources are no longer used to house them. Once a new build council house is allocated, it's never coming back to the social housing pool in the recipients lifetime unless they are upgraded to a bigger house, regardless of the means of the occupants.

The evidence has been posted here already that the people with the highest means have the highest arrears, can't do that with HAP.

In every other way, HAP is disfunctional.

If allocation of social housing was based on need at a given time and people with imprived means were given incentives to move on to private housing, we could do so much more with our existing social housing stock.

In fact, if we actively planned retirement developments within communities, colocated with medical and social care services, older people could trade down within their community and we could use our entire housing stock more efficiently. It could even be structured such that people could avail of the older persons housing from the age of 55 and use the funds released from their house to fund an early retirement as an incentive.

efanton

alias no.9 wrote: »

The single redeeming feature of HAP is that once a persons circumstance improves, sthe tates resources are no longer used to house them. Once a new build council house is allocated, it's never coming back to the social housing pool in the recipients lifetime unless they are upgraded to a bigger house, regardless of the means of the occupants.

The evidence has been posted here already that the people with the highest means have the highest arrears, can't do that with HAP.

In every other way, HAP is disfunctional.

If allocation of social housing was based on need at a given time and people with imprived means were given incentives to move on to private housing, we could do so much more with our existing social housing stock.

In fact, if we actively planned retirement developments within communities, colocated with medical and social care services, older people could trade down within their community and we could use our entire housing stock more efficiently. It could even be structured such that people could avail of the older persons housing from the age of 55 and use the funds released from their house to fund an early retirement as an incentive.

That idea has merit. As long as it was voluntary on the part of the tenant.

When you say " use the funds released from their house" you are talking about council tenancies and not private homes?

Blaze420

efanton wrote: »

That idea has merit. As long as it was voluntary on the part of the tenant.

When you say " use the funds released from their house" you are talking about council tenancies and not private homes?

No he’s asking them to give up their houses so that a waster with a family of 4 or 5 kids can have a foreva home. Disgusting idea from the start and a non runner.

efanton

Blaze420 wrote: »

No he’s asking them to give up their houses so that a waster with a family of 4 or 5 kids can have a foreva home. Disgusting idea from the start and a non runner.

In that case it is a truly terrible idea. I thought what he meant was an elderly person downsizing from a 3 bedroom council home to something smaller, with facilities onsite that would be a benefit to the elderly.

But you should bear in mind that the majority of people in council homes are not wasters nor expecting a life of free handout either.

alias no.9

efanton wrote: »

That idea has merit. As long as it was voluntary on the part of the tenant.

Voluntary to move to a retirement community but not for downsizing from a three or four bedroom house when there are only one or two occupants. Keep people in their community by all means but why have families in hotel rooms when 4 bedroom local authority housing is occupied by one or two persons.

efanton wrote: »

When you say " use the funds released from their house" you are talking about council tenancies and not private homes?

Open to everyone, its about freeing up larger houses for families and enabling independent living for as long as possible for older persons by having services, that they will be increasingly depend on, close by.
People tradeing down from private housing would be paying their own way, local authority tenants would be means tested in the same way as all other local authority tenants.

robinbird

robinbird wrote: »

Ironic but totally unsurprising the the focus of attack in on council tenants that are in arrears.

What about the €900,000,000 a year the the government is giving to private landlords. Ever consider how much less tax you would have to pay if they were not making this massive wealth transfer.
And ever consider how much lower your rent would be if the massive government payments to landlords were not distorting the market.
Of course not. Much easier to attack and blame the poor.

I've no issue with the tax system in Ireland & I don't pay rent.

Blaze420

efanton wrote: »

In that case it is a truly terrible idea. I thought what he meant was an elderly person downsizing from a 3 bedroom council home to something smaller, with facilities onsite that would be a benefit to the elderly.

But you should bear in mind that the majority of people in council homes are not wasters nor expecting a life of free handout either.

Nope this has been a common line among the comrades, sorry, homeless supporters for a while. Why do you need that 4 bed house you’ve owned for 30 years when there’s “homeliss” families in need of houses like that? You’re old, you’re going to die soon so downsize to a 2 bed flat and let one of the “homeliss” families have your house.

Disgusting commie nonsense.

alias no.9

Blaze420 wrote: »

No he’s asking them to give up their houses so that a waster with a family of 4 or 5 kids can have a foreva home. Disgusting idea from the start and a non runner.

No foreva home for anyone who doesn't buy it for themselves. No lifelong tenure in a local authority house. Keep people in communities but not necessarily specific houses.

Blaze420

alias no.9 wrote: »

No foreva home for anyone who doesn't buy it for themselves. No lifelong tenure in a local authority house. Keep people in communities but not necessarily specific houses.

You have logic that is sorely missing at government and societal level - these people are the victims dont ya know

efanton

alias no.9 wrote: »

Voluntary to move to a retirement community but not for downsizing from a three or four bedroom house when there are only one or two occupants. Keep people in their community by all means but why have families in hotel rooms when 4 bedroom local authority housing is occupied by one or two persons.



Open to everyone, its about freeing up larger houses for families and enabling independent living for as long as possible for older persons by having services, that they will be increasingly depend on, close by.
People tradeing down from private housing would be paying their own way, local authority tenants would be means tested in the same way as all other local authority tenants.

Are you completely out of your mind?

I support SF and their housing policies but that is going way too far.
I will give you two good reasons

Those elderly people might have children who will inherit that home. Some of these are likely to be renting. When the old person dies their children will move in and free up the home they were previously renting.

Why should a person work all their live to to pay for a home and just as they reach retirement and have time to sit back, relax, and do all the things they promised to do but were unable to because they were working suddenly have everything they own taken away from them?

If there are not enough homes then the government needs to build them.
Not everyone will be able to afford to buy their own home, especially those who work on or near minimum wage.

What we dont need to do is rob old people, because what you are suggesting is exactly that. Its not only mad but totally obscene.
Jesus, I cant believe you have the gall to suggest such a thing. Next you will be suggesting euthanasia.

robinbird

alias no.9 wrote: »

No foreva home for anyone who doesn't buy it for themselves. No lifelong tenure in a local authority house. Keep people in communities but not necessarily specific houses.

Blaze420 wrote: »

You have logic that is sorely missing at government and societal level - these people are the victims dont ya know

Good to see you have gone back to where you are most comfortable.
Attacking the poor.

Let someone live in a house for 30 years paying rent, build ties and connections in the community, then throw them out when they get old.

All so you can justify giving €900,000,000 a year to vulture funds, property speculators and institutional investors.

alias no.9

efanton wrote: »

Are you completely out of your mind?

I support SF and their housing policies but that is going way too far.
I will give you two good reasons

Those elderly people might have children who will inherit that home. Some of these are likely to be renting. When the old person dies their children will move in and free up the home they were previously renting.

Why should a person work all their live to to pay for a home and just as they reach retirement and have time to sit back, relax, and do all the things they promised to do but were unable to because they were working suddenly have everything they own taken away from them?

If there are not enough homes then the government needs to build them.
Not everyone will be able to afford to buy their own home, especially those who work on or near minimum wage.

What we dont need to do is rob old people, because what you are suggesting is exactly that. Its not only mad but totally obscene.
Jesus, I cant believe you have the gall to suggest such a thing. Next you will be suggesting euthanasia.

Maybe you try to create a proper retirement community that people will actually see the benefits of moving to, carrot, not stick.

Maybe the next generation moves into the privately owned family house before the parents die.

Start from the point of view of catering to peoples changing needs, give them options.

Like I suggested, make it an avenue for early retirement, for independent living to a later age

robinbird

alias no.9 wrote: »

Voluntary to move to a retirement community but not for downsizing from a three or four bedroom house when there are only one or two occupants. Keep people in their community by all means but why have families in hotel rooms when 4 bedroom local authority housing is occupied by one or two persons.

ts about freeing up larger houses for families and enabling independent living for as long as possible for older persons by having services, that they will be increasingly depend on, close by.

local authority tenants would be means tested in the same way as all other local authority tenants.

alias no.9 wrote: »

No foreva home for anyone who doesn't buy it for themselves. No lifelong tenure in a local authority house.

alias no.9 wrote: »

Maybe the next generation moves into the privately owned family house before the parents die.

Start from the point of view of catering to peoples changing needs, give them options.

Like I suggested, make it an avenue for early retirement, for independent living to a later age

So what you are proposing is a two tier system. The wealthy in their privately owned homes would be given the "option" on whether or not to move.

However the elderly scum in local authority homes they have lived in all their lives will be forcibly evicted.

The contempt you show for those you consider beneath you says a lot about your character.

efanton

alias no.9 wrote: »

Maybe you try to create a proper retirement community that people will actually see the benefits of moving to, carrot, not stick.

Maybe the next generation moves into the privately owned family house before the parents die.

Start from the point of view of catering to peoples changing needs, give them options.

Like I suggested, make it an avenue for early retirement, for independent living to a later age

So why not have the government encourage the developers to build these communities?
The elderly could then chose to sell their homes and purchase a smaller home in one of these communities. That would be fair and honest.

What you were suggesting is daylight robbery.

mariaalice

https://mcauleyplace.ie/

Mad_maxx

robinbird wrote: »

Ironic but totally unsurprising the the focus of attack in on council tenants that are in arrears.

What about the €900,000,000 a year the the government is giving to private landlords. Ever consider how much less tax you would have to pay if they were not making this massive wealth transfer.
And ever consider how much lower your rent would be if the massive government payments to landlords were not distorting the market.
Of course not. Much easier to attack and blame the poor.

two things in particular would happen

1. revenue would drop as half of what is paid out in HAP comes back in taxes

2. the tax payer would be on the hook for the significant percentage of deadbeat tenants who just plum decide not to bother paying , a big government splurge on building social housing is not a sound economic plan , whatever about anything else

the HAP option is the cheaper option ,local authorities have little interest in expanding their role in providing housing , much better to leave private capital covering maintenance and deal with rogue tenants

Eric Cartman

http://budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2020/Documents/Budget/Housing%20Assistance%20Payment%20(2014%20-%202019).pdf

interesting stats on HAP

less than 50% of social housing in Fingal is HAP, but over 80% in louth is. 72% of HAP payments covered the full rent

62% of HAP tenancies are single people or single people with 1 or 2 children.

There were 48,261 active HAP tenancies at the end of Q2 2019

62% are unemployed completely and a further 20% are receiving partial social welfare payments. Only 18% of HAP tenants receive no other payment.

efanton

Mad_maxx wrote: »

two things in particular would happen

1. revenue would drop as half of what is paid out in HAP comes back in taxes

2. the tax payer would be on the hook for the significant percentage of deadbeat tenants who just plum decide not to bother paying , a big government splurge on building social housing is not a sound economic plan , whatever about anything else

the HAP option is the cheaper option ,local authorities have little interest in expanding their role in providing housing , much better to leave private capital covering maintenance and deal with rogue tenants

how is that the case?
There is not VAT paid on rent.

Eric Cartman

efanton wrote: »

how is that the case?
There is not VAT paid on rent.

most non institutional landlords would be paying 40% incomes tax plus USC (bringing it over 50%) to revenue on their rental income.

robinbird

Eric Cartman wrote: »

most non institutional landlords would be paying 40% incomes tax plus USC (bringing it over 50%) to revenue on their rental income.

Very very few landlords would pay that if any. All sort of ways to offset rental income to avoid paying tax.

robinbird

Eric Cartman wrote: »

http://budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2020/Documents/Budget/Housing%20Assistance%20Payment%20(2014%20-%202019).pdf

interesting stats on HAP

l

Here's another. 100% of HAP payments go directly into landlords pockets.

Topgear on Dave

robinbird wrote: »

All sort of ways to offset rental income to avoid paying tax.

Well, Id be interested in knowing the ins and outs then. Can you give the details?

Dublingirl80

robinbird wrote: »

Very very few landlords would pay that if any. All sort of ways to offset rental income to avoid paying tax.

Landlords all pay 40 percent tax on the rent they receive. The government could probably be fair and reduce tax on landlords that give lower rents which would benefit ordinary working people but they receive 40 percent of rent back in tax so it suits them for there to be high rents.

Jinglejangle69

Eric Cartman wrote: »

http://budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2020/Documents/Budget/Housing%20Assistance%20Payment%20(2014%20-%202019).pdf

interesting stats on HAP

less than 50% of social housing in Fingal is HAP, but over 80% in louth is. 72% of HAP payments covered the full rent

62% of HAP tenancies are single people or single people with 1 or 2 children.

There were 48,261 active HAP tenancies at the end of Q2 2019

62% are unemployed completely and a further 20% are receiving partial social welfare payments. Only 18% of HAP tenants receive no other payment.

Sponging Wasters.

Bullied people in school, dropped out but now come looking for a digout.

Hate them and what they represent.

efanton

Dublingirl80 wrote: »

Landlords all pay 40 percent tax on the rent they receive. The government could probably be fair and reduce tax on landlords that give lower rents which would benefit ordinary working people but they receive 40 percent of rent back in tax so it suits them for there to be high rents.

Which tax is that then. CGT ?

robinbird

Eric Cartman wrote: »

most non institutional landlords would be paying 40% incomes tax plus USC (bringing it over 50%) to revenue on their rental income.

robinbird wrote: »

Very very few landlords would pay that if any. All sort of ways to offset rental income to avoid paying tax.

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Well, Id be interested in knowing the ins and outs then. Can you give the details?

Dublingirl80 wrote: »

Landlords all pay 40 percent tax on the rent they receive. The government could probably be fair and reduce tax on landlords that give lower rents which would benefit ordinary working people but they receive 40 percent of rent back in tax so it suits them for there to be high rents.

There is a long list of allowances that landlords can use to avoid paying tax on rental income including ones like maintenance costs and repairs that can be easily inflated. In addition all HAP landlords can claim 100% relief on their mortgage interest, as an expense against rental income.

robinbird

robinbird wrote: »

Here's another. 100% of HAP payments go directly into landlords pockets.

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Sponging Wasters.

Bullied people in school, dropped out but now come looking for a digout.

Hate them and what they represent.

I fully agree,. HAP landlords are a scourge on society and I deeply resent the billions we as taxpayers are giving to them.

Topgear on Dave

robinbird wrote: »

I fully agree,. HAP landlords are a scourge on society and I deeply resent the billions we as taxpayers are giving to them.

The law was changed to force LLs to take HAP because lots of them didn't want to.

robinbird

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

The law was changed to force LLs to take HAP because lots of them didn't want to.

Yeah. Right. They really really really don't want that 900,000,000 a year. They have to be forced to take it.