Homelessness: The disgrace that is Varadkar and the Government

blanch152 wrote: »

Very funny, would you criticise someone who raised the Apple tax issue in a debate about how water charges could pay for social housing?

It is interesting government was spending hundreds millions introducing said water tax,while simultaneously spending millions so as they wouldn't have to collect tax they were due??

Its apples problem...why are the government paying so as they don't have to pay tax???

(Rather curiously...I did support water charge

..and unlike most here,people's right to protest)

tomwaterford wrote: »

Tbh I struggle to think of any sane reason why a state running a deficit deosnt bother it's arse collecting while preaching austerity for poor people??

To perhaps make it easier....if you were to sit down and explain to your children....yous pay at higher rate 40+% tax on earnings while rich companies pay 0.05% and the people your paying your tax to are spending millions (of your tax) to keep it so? ?

How is that anything approaching fair/equitable

If I had to explain I'd say that these companies are extremely mobile. So we are better off getting a small percentage of something rather than 40 per cent of nothing. And by the way a lot of the profit on which .05 per cent was paid was generated outside Ireland, so I don't see us having a moral right to it.

In an ideal world, every company would be paying more. But the only way to do this would be through tax harmonisation which will probably never happen. And ironically enough Ireland would probably loose out under this plan. So there would be more austerity for the poor people, as worldwide profits would no longer be flowing Ireland

blanch152

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Serious question here, but who or how do you think water has been funded before Irish water seen the light of day, further to that, when it was set up, who was paying for it, or how do you think water service was being funded when it wasn't bringing in enough cash to exist, never mind water provisions?

Doesn't really matter how it was funded in the past.

The point is now it is sucking up €350m in State money that if we had water charges to that level, it would mean that we would have €350m for social housing.

When you think that homeless people don't pay water charges, it is a more than suitable way of taxing home-owners so that the homeless benefit. The same with LPT.

christy c wrote: »

If I had to explain I'd say that these companies are extremely mobile. So we are better off getting a small percentage of something rather than 40 per cent of nothing. And by the way a lot of the profit on which .05 per cent was paid was generated outside Ireland, so I don't see us having a moral right to it.

Ireland was eu hq...money funnelled through here...tax due here

But ya...your honestly going to tell your kids that it's ok yous paying through the nose and those richer can pay less.....logic i can't ever fathom tbh??
In a republic country of equals....rich companies only have to pay a token amount of tax???...in no world is that right

Where are apple going to go in the eu and get away with paying 0.05% tax??. ...this is same logic has rte paying it's "stars" outrageous money.....

Spanish Eyes

Why are councils not just purchasing second hand houses that come on the market? Bit by bit they will solve the issue by doing that. They seem to have plenty of loot for HAP and Hotels... So qui bono? I am sure you have figured it out yourselves. Disgraceful waste of money IMO but anyway.

It might not be palatable to those who have had to make the usual sacrifices to purchase their own home, but with the 10/20% requirement for social housing in new builds, I think it should also be distributed around established areas now.

It is happening I know that here and there, but not quickly enough. One house = one less ongoing hotel cost for a few years.

Tell me I am deluded here.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Why are councils not just purchasing second hand houses that come on the market? Bit by bit they will solve the issue by doing that. They seem to have plenty of loot for HAP and Hotels... So qui bono? I am sure you have figured it out yourselves. Disgraceful waste of money IMO but anyway.

It might not be palatable to those who have had to make the usual sacrifices to purchase their own home, but with the 10/20% requirement for social housing in new builds, I think it should also be distributed around established areas now.

It is happening I know that here and there, but not quickly enough. One house = one less ongoing hotel cost for a few years.

Tell me I am deluded here.

This is a very valid point....but maybe it's cost of repairing second hand houses etc??

But if they brought in laws to make sure it was value for money etc...(maybe get some consultants to precheck?)...can't see anyone againest this??

>>and use property price register so those selling are getting the market value?

tomwaterford wrote: »

Ireland was eu hq...money funnelled through here...tax due here

But ya...your honestly going to tell your kids that it's ok yous paying through the nose and those richer can pay less.....logic i can't ever fathom tbh??
In a republic country of equals....rich companies only have to pay a token amount of tax???...in no world is that right

Where are apple going to go in the eu and get away with paying 0.05% tax??. ...this is same logic has rte paying it's "stars" outrageous money.....

I might let you explain to my kids so how it was morally right that profits were funnelled away from the country in which they were generated and should be taxable in Ireland, because I don't understand that one myself.

And while you're at it you might explain the intricacies of international tax law that led to .05 being paid.

And I never said it was ok that they pay so little, but it's the way the world works and can't be solved without worldwide tax harmonisation

christy c wrote: »

I might let you explain to my kids so how it was morally right that profits were funnelled away from the country in which they were generated and should be taxable in Ireland, because I don't understand that one myself.

And while you're at it you might explain the intricacies of international tax law that led to .05 being paid.

And I never said it was ok that they pay so little, but it's the way the world works and can't be solved without worldwide tax harmonisation

You don't think taxes of the eu should be paid in the country where it's eu headquarters are??

Should an Irish company exporting to another eu country not pay tax on the items it exported,if there not sold here??

The intracities are simply put,cute hoorism and walking a thin line on fraud which the government us spending millions to assist apple in doing??

I've a farm,pay taxes on net profits,getting workshops measured next Jan with look to finding out rates etc for opening a business.....

if I don't pay tax/the rates,VAT etc.....the government can send in bailiffs to close me down and take away goods/machinery to value of the rates owed (plus fines I think)......

The government here finds out they are owed massive money and spend millions fighting it in court so they don't have to collect it???....only in ireland would people not see any issues with this

tomwaterford wrote: »

You don't think taxes of the eu should be paid in the country where it's eu headquarters are??

Should an Irish company exporting to another eu country not pay tax on the items it exported,if there not sold here??

The intracities are simply put,cute hoorism and walking a thin line on fraud which the government us spending millions to assist apple in doing??

I've a farm,pay taxes on net profits,getting workshops measured next Jan with look to finding out rates etc for opening a business.....

if I don't pay tax/the rates,VAT etc.....the government can send in bailiffs to close me down and take away goods/machinery to value of the rates owed (plus fines I think)......

The government here finds out they are owed massive money and spend millions fighting it in court so they don't have to collect it???....only in ireland would people not see any issues with this

Should an Irish company pay tax here? Yes. An American company having sales in Australia (not sure why you mention EU only) pays taxes in Ireland is morally right? My poor kids heads would be spinning if I had any.

And the intricacies are cute hoorism? Yet you criticise Varadkar for soundbites.

Anyway as I said earlier the Apple tax has already been done to death so over and out. Good luck with your new business if you decide to go ahead

christy c wrote: »

Should an Irish company pay tax here? Yes. An American company having sales in Australia (not sure why you mention EU only) pays taxes in Ireland is morally right? My poor kids heads would be spinning if I had any.

And the intricacies are cute hoorism? Yet you criticise Varadkar for soundbites.

Pretty sure the eu only requested payment on taxes due from eu sales??

What oz has to do wit it...Idk? ?

It is what they are...fraudentry playing the system to benefit yourself Is close to cute hoorism definotion yous are likely to get

Cheers for best wishes though

tomwaterford wrote: »

Pretty sure the eu only requested payment on taxes due from eu sales??

What oz has to do wit it...Idk? ?

It is what they are...fraudentry playing the system to benefit yourself Is close to cute hoorism definotion yous are likely to get

Cheers for best wishes though

Final reply and them I'm out

Apple sales international had sales from many countries including Oz. The EU's thinking was that this was not taxed correctly in Ireland (which I disagree with) and this amounted to state aid. They therefore did not make a distinction between EU/non EU countries.

Anyway we'll probably both agree that we should have something better to do than argue about tax on a Saturday night!

Good loser

tomwaterford wrote: »

Ireland was eu hq...money funnelled through here...tax due here

But ya...your honestly going to tell your kids that it's ok yous paying through the nose and those richer can pay less.....logic i can't ever fathom tbh??
In a republic country of equals....rich companies only have to pay a token amount of tax???...in no world is that right

Where are apple going to go in the eu and get away with paying 0.05% tax??. ...this is same logic has rte paying it's "stars" outrageous money.....

You have a very simplistic (and mistaken) understanding of the nuances of the Apple tax situation.

For starters do you know that Apple are the biggest taxpayers in the State as things stand? - they pay about €400 m per annum. As well as employing 6,000 workers in Cork and paying millions in rates to the City Council - my guess is that they are probably the biggest ratepayers in the City.
If you mess around too much with them are you prepared to put these payments (and jobs) at risk? Are you up for that?

See what happened with Apple in Athenry - a €850 million investment was postponed or cancelled because they were mucked about at planning? Was that a good or a bad thing? Varadker went to America to get Cook to commit to the building - and got nowhere! Yet you consider they are in cahoots.

That 0.005% is a rubbish statistic anyway broadcast far and wide by SF and the ignorant. Because taxes are not computed ever on turnover but on profits.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The problem with "we can surely find money" is that it's nothing more than hand-wringing, especially in the same thread where property taxes and water charges are denounced as immoral.

There's something depressingly predictable about the whole "it's a disgrace that the government isn't raising someone else's taxes to pay for this problem that I feel strongly about" line of argument.

That's simply Fine Gael protectionism, intended or not.

Frankly, arguing the state hasn't the money for Social housing and lambasting the tax paying public for not supporting Mr. O'Brien's last state sponsored waste of money and time, due to protesters saying there's no money in their pockets, is laughable.
It seems the zero hour contract minimum wage worker has bottomless pockets for scams that make Fine Gael and friends money, but the state is too strapped to do it's job...

Somebody complains about something, they are asked for a solution. They provide a solution, they are asked for costing etc. Meanwhile we spend other money we seemingly don't have on a poor band-aid that fills the pockets of hoteliers/B&B's/landlords, (the real homeless industry).

I am saying we certainly can find the money. We find the money to feed the problem and waste money on a service we shouldn't need except in an emergency, it's even in the name. Emergency accommodation has become so par for the course they've decided to rename it to hide their shame.

You have not answered my question, but responded with Varadkar level spin/bites. It's diversion and deflection. The current state of the housing/homeless crises are being downplayed as they worsen. That's a fact.

Do you believe what the state is currently doing is the best road to follow?

Wringing your hands and saying 'no, but sure what can you do?' as it's made worse and costs spiral, simply isn't good enough. Although it might see Fine Gael through for a while longer and that's the goal after all.

At least if Varadkar had some integrity he'd acknowledge it as a crisis and tackle it accordingly. I expect he's off somewhere giving a speech about eating your vegetables or some other PR jaunt.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Frankly, arguing the state hasn't the money for Social housing and lambasting the tax paying public for not supporting Mr. O'Brien's last state sponsored waste of money and time, due to protesters saying there's no money in their pockets, is laughable.
It seems the zero hour contract minimum wage worker has bottomless pockets for scams that make Fine Gael and friends money, but the state is too strapped to do it's job...

I don't follow the logic here.

What does the State not having money for social housing have to do with "Mr. O'Brien" or zero hour contracts?

I am saying we certainly can find the money. We find the money to feed the problem and waste money on a service we shouldn't need except in an emergency, it's even in the name. Emergency accommodation has become so par for the course they've decided to rename it to hide their shame.

Ok... where do we find the money?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't follow the logic here.

What does the State not having money for social housing have to do with "Mr. O'Brien" or zero hour contracts?

Ok... where do we find the money?

From the hundreds of thousands of low paid contributing a pittance in direct taxes. The world class welfare rates? Hiking the pathetic low rate of lpt? Reintroduce water charges? Hiking motor tax rates on new diesels. Getting rid of the lower vat rate for hospitality would raise 3 odd billion I think I read!! There are some suggestions....

Or did you mean politically palatable for the government suggestions?

In which case short of them striking gold under government buildings etc. Forget it, do the absolute minimum you can get away with is actually how government here operates. Don't expect much to change.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't follow the logic here.

What does the State not having money for social housing have to do with "Mr. O'Brien" or zero hour contracts?

You should read back for context.
The public were criticised for not supporting/being able to afford the double charge for water, which included a fat contract to a non-resident, who doesn't pay for his water at either the front or back end. Yet we are to take on board that the state which also spent millions on consultants for IW and Fine Gael crony appointments, 'we look after our own', in short we are to accept that the government 'can't pay, won't pay' for Social Housing and leave it at that.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ok... where do we find the money?

The same place we fund emergency accommodation, where we got the money for Irish Water consultants? It can be found. They find it every day.

Just because there's less profit for private concerns in social housing than there is in the governments current practice, doesn't mean it's the best deal for the tax payer. With social Housing, we would build housing stock and not be so reliant on the private market, a market which is kept in profit by the tax payer.

As my question has gone unanswered and I've answered yours;
Let's not be distracted, what is so great about the current government, and previous government, overseeing a worsening record breaking homeless crisis that leads you to believe they are on the right track to tackling it?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's simply Fine Gael protectionism, intended or not.

Frankly, arguing the state hasn't the money for Social housing and lambasting the tax paying public for not supporting Mr. O'Brien's last state sponsored waste of money and time, due to protesters saying there's no money in their pockets, is laughable.
It seems the zero hour contract minimum wage worker has bottomless pockets for scams that make Fine Gael and friends money, but the state is too strapped to do it's job...

Somebody complains about something, they are asked for a solution. They provide a solution, they are asked for costing etc. Meanwhile we spend other money we seemingly don't have on a poor band-aid that fills the pockets of hoteliers/B&B's/landlords, (the real homeless industry).

I am saying we certainly can find the money. We find the money to feed the problem and waste money on a service we shouldn't need except in an emergency, it's even in the name. Emergency accommodation has become so par for the course they've decided to rename it to hide their shame.

You have not answered my question, but responded with Varadkar level spin/bites. It's diversion and deflection. The current state of the housing/homeless crises are being downplayed as they worsen. That's a fact.

Do you believe what the state is currently doing is the best road to follow?

Wringing your hands and saying 'no, but sure what can you do?' as it's made worse and costs spiral, simply isn't good enough. Although it might see Fine Gael through for a while longer and that's the goal after all.

At least if Varadkar had some integrity he'd acknowledge it as a crisis and tackle it accordingly. I expect he's off somewhere giving a speech about eating your vegetables or some other PR jaunt.

This is one of the strangest posts I have read on this forum.

The state doesn't have money or can't make up money. It relies on what it gets in and therefore the state only has the money it can raise from the public.

Therefore, if we increase LPT, a tax on those who own homes, we can raise money for the homeless. Similarly, if we bring in water charges, a charge paid by those who own homes, then we can spend €350m used to prop up Irish Water on social housing.

Otherwise you can't spend money you don't have.

blanch152 wrote: »

This is one of the strangest posts I have read on this forum.

The state doesn't have money or can't make up money. It relies on what it gets in and therefore the state only has the money it can raise from the public.

Therefore, if we increase LPT, a tax on those who own homes, we can raise money for the homeless. Similarly, if we bring in water charges, a charge paid by those who own homes, then we can spend €350m used to prop up Irish Water on social housing.

Otherwise you can't spend money you don't have.

I agree! who in gods name comes up with the budget every year, our useless government! Its based on decades of banana republic electioneering! They have declared emergency budgets not long ago, I suggest they do the same soon!

We wait one year for them to barely tinker around the edges when drastic intervention is required and we wonder why things are getting worse!

blanch152 wrote: »

This is one of the strangest posts I have read on this forum.

The state doesn't have money or can't make up money. It relies on what it gets in and therefore the state only has the money it can raise from the public.

Therefore, if we increase LPT, a tax on those who own homes, we can raise money for the homeless. Similarly, if we bring in water charges, a charge paid by those who own homes, then we can spend €350m used to prop up Irish Water on social housing.

Otherwise you can't spend money you don't have.

But we do. Emergency accommodation costs on a daily basis, 55k per year for some families, and soon after the last crash we found around 86m for consultants on IW.
So the state can find it if it wants to.
This is all an aside to the main question;
Do you believe paying out for emergency accommodation and rent subsidies is better value to the tax payer than funding social housing? Do you feel the current ongoing 'tactics' of the state are the way to go, given the crisis, (Varadkar's spin aside) gets worse and worse?

" we dont have the money" note how they pull at least a billion out of their ass every year come election time, more in an election year... That isnt a one off billions, that billion is an extra billion every year going forward :mad::rolleyes:

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

But we do. Emergency accommodation costs on a daily basis, 55k per year for some families, and soon after the last crash we found around 86m for consultants on IW.
So the state can find it if it wants to.

There isn't a sofa in Government buildings with money stuffed down it.

You have to cut one item of expenditure in order to spend the money on something else. Your suggestion seems to be stop spending money on emergency accommodation and let families sleep in the streets while they wait for housing to be built - madness!!

You other idea - 86m on consultants just shows a lack of understanding of public budgeting. That money is spent and was reallocated to something else the next year - it isn't there anymore.

The only fair way to pay for housing the homeless is to tax those who already have homes through LPT and water charges. It is an absolute disgrace that the Dublin councils have cut LPT when they need the money.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

This is all an aside to the main question;
Do you believe paying out for emergency accommodation and rent subsidies is better value to the tax payer than funding social housing? Do you feel the current ongoing 'tactics' of the state are the way to go, given the crisis, (Varadkar's spin aside) gets worse and worse?

No, as I point out above, it is absolute madness that the Dublin councils have cut LPT when they need so much money for housing. Each and every one of the councillors who voted for that should be thrown out on their ear come local election time.

Where FG are letting the country down is in postponing a revaluation for LPT. Rather than putting it off for a few more years, they should backdate an increase to 1 January 2016 and collect the money and use it for housing.

FrancieBrady

Leo presiding over the continuing disgraceful incompetent handling of the McCabe issue and the Gardai.

His Tainiste facing another grilling tonight over it.

blanch152 wrote: »

There isn't a sofa in Government buildings with money stuffed down it.

Is that were it gets the money for emergency accommodation? Must be a big sofa be god.

blanch152 wrote: »

You have to cut one item of expenditure in order to spend the money on something else. Your suggestion seems to be stop spending money on emergency accommodation and let families sleep in the streets while they wait for housing to be built - madness!!

What did we cut for IW consultants? Did we do without water until we had metering in place?
No. It is that Social Housing would be a better plan than emergency accommodation and rent subsidies.

blanch152 wrote: »

You other idea - 86m on consultants just shows a lack of understanding of public budgeting. That money is spent and was reallocated to something else the next year - it isn't there anymore.

You are fudging to suit. Did I say we could re-use money spent?
My point was we found money for consultants at a time when, if Fine Gael are to be believed at all, the economy was way worse than it is now.

blanch152 wrote: »

The only fair way to pay for housing the homeless is to tax those who already have homes through LPT and water charges. It is an absolute disgrace that the Dublin councils have cut LPT when they need the money.

We all want to concentrate on Sinn Fein led LA's, (the blaggards).... However, my point, all along, was Varadkar downplayed the housing crisis and has not made any move to tackle it other than more of the same tack that has seen it get worse.

blanch152 wrote: »

No, as I point out above, it is absolute madness that the Dublin councils have cut LPT when they need so much money for housing. Each and every one of the councillors who voted for that should be thrown out on their ear come local election time.

Where FG are letting the country down is in postponing a revaluation for LPT. Rather than putting it off for a few more years, they should backdate an increase to 1 January 2016 and collect the money and use it for housing.

You want to discuss LPT. That's fine.
Seems we are in agreement. Social housing is the way to go and why aren't Fine Gael addressing it? We are debating how to fund it. That's progress. For a minute there I thought people were jumping on me for criticising Fine Gael.

I see Varadkar is now suggesting he misheard the question:

She had asked the Taoiseach about Ireland having one of the highest homelessness figures “to date”.

"The question as I understood it was, and I think… if I’m quoting correctly, was that homelessness in Ireland was one of the highest, and I understood that to mean one of the highest in an international context.
Perhaps that wasn’t the question. But it’s not for me to explain what someone’s question was, I can only explain the answer and defend the answers that I give."

http://www.thejournal.ie/taoiseach-homelessness-international-figures-3706599-Nov2017/

He's some chancer

oscarBravo

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Do you believe paying out for emergency accommodation and rent subsidies is better value to the tax payer than funding social housing?

There's something shockingly dishonest about the way you keep presenting this as a dichotomy. You first tried to present it as one when asked how you would fund social housing, and you said you would do so by not paying for emergency accommodation.

Now you're doing it again: you're demanding that people answer the disingenuous question - and that's being kind - as to whether it's better to pay for emergency accommodation or social housing.

So, make up your mind: do you want the government to stop paying for emergency accommodation in order to pay for social housing? Because, if that's not what you want, then stop asking other people to make a decision in your false dichotomy.

It's a bit like the poster who was determined to believe that the government couldn't be bothered collecting tax, and that this made more sense than the suggestion that the government didn't think it was owed the tax: you're trying to argue that the government is paying for emergency accommodation because they think it's good value for money, as opposed to the much saner explanation that the government is paying for emergency accommodation because a short term solution is needed while longer-term solutions are put in place.

But hey: in a thread about what a disgrace the government is, I guess bitching about the government is more important than actually bothering to make any sense.

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's something shockingly dishonest about the way you keep presenting this as a dichotomy. You first tried to present it as one when asked how you would fund social housing, and you said you would do so by not paying for emergency accommodation.

Incorrect.
Money spent on Emergency accommodation would be better spent on social housing. You inferred I meant stopping one to fund the other. Ideally over time, little to no emergency accommodation would be the goal.

Now you're doing it again: you're demanding that people answer the disingenuous question - and that's being kind - as to whether it's better to pay for emergency accommodation or social housing.

The question being, why aren't we building social housing? Rather than continuing to pay for emergency accommodation.

So, make up your mind: do you want the government to stop paying for emergency accommodation in order to pay for social housing? Because, if that's not what you want, then stop asking other people to make a decision in your false dichotomy.

You've not been paying attention. We seemingly don't have/can't get the money. I was suggesting if we can finance Emergency accommodation, which is dead money, although for a 'service' it's dead money considering we could be spending on building housing stock, with houses to show for it. I can't help but feel you are being pedantic to further some crusade, what ever that may be.
If you go back to the question I put to you earlier;

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Do you believe what the state is currently doing is the best road to follow?

All I've been suggesting all along is that social housing is a better deal for the tax payer than what Fine Gael have been implementing, as we watch the crisis get worse and worse. It was a response to 'what would I do?' which was followed by 'where would the money come from?' There is nothing nefarious in it.

It's a bit like the poster who was determined to believe that the government couldn't be bothered collecting tax, and that this made more sense than the suggestion that the government didn't think it was owed the tax: you're trying to argue that the government is paying for emergency accommodation because they think it's good value for money, as opposed to the much saner explanation that the government is paying for emergency accommodation because a short term solution is needed while longer-term solutions are put in place.

Incorrect. I am stating it's not value for money. I am stating the crisis is feeding it and the tax payer treated like a bottomless pocket. I am inferring that Fine Gael are happy with things as is. Never did I state they thought it was value for money. In fact the whole discussion relied upon the waste of the 'service' over social housing.

But hey: in a thread about what a disgrace the government is, I guess bitching about the government is more important than actually bothering to make any sense.

Sorry, that's based on your incorrect assumptions and musing.
The thread is based upon Varadkar giving a false incorrect answer to a question he wasn't asked. It's about downplaying a national crisis and my being decent enough to answer questions as best I can based on my opinion as laid out. Your criticisms have added nothing.

McMurphy

So, make up your mind: do you want the government to stop paying for emergency accommodation in order to pay for social housing? Because, if that's not what you want, then stop asking other people to make a decision in your false dichotomy.

Yes.

Though I don't believe anyone anywhere was insisting the govt did both things, completely - and at the same time.

A gradual transition.

I find it hard to believe that anyone in this thread misconstrued his post (or any one else that suggested it) that they suggested a complete cessation to emergency accommodation funding.

oscarBravo

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Yes.

Though I don't believe anyone anywhere was insisting the govt did both things, completely - and at the same time.

A gradual transition.

Fine. When you find evidence that the government plans not to gradually transition from paying for emergency accommodation to paying for social housing, I'll no longer consider it a stupid question.

McMurphy

oscarBravo wrote: »

Fine. When you find evidence that the government plans not to gradually transition from paying for emergency accommodation to paying for social housing, I'll no longer consider it a stupid question.

Did you just assume that the poster was advocating the immediate transition from one to the other, because that's how I read your post.

Or where you deliberately misconstruing the question?

oscarBravo

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Did you just assume that the poster was advocating the immediate transition from one to the other, because that's how I read your post.

Or where you deliberately misconstruing the question?

It's a stupid question. Nobody thinks paying for emergency accommodation is better value for money than investing is social housing. The government isn't paying for emergency accommodation because it's good value for money; it's paying for emergency accommodation because that's what's needed right now.

The false dichotomy is informed by the ridiculous idea that the government would rather pay for emergency accommodation than social housing, which is an idea informed by nothing other than the premise of this thread: that the government is a disgrace, therefore rabble rabble.