Good loser wrote: » Funny in all your confused and confusing posts you rarely resort to numbers. Why is this? Could you tell us rationalists how much money the Govt should spend directly on social housing in 2018/2019/2020? In millions or billions? Do you know that in Dublin the average LA house generates €3,000 per year in rent and maintenance on average costs €2,000 per annum. So the net rent to the Council is €1,000 per annum. So every property built by the State in Dublin at a minimum cost of €300,000 a pop is effectively given away to the recipients for free. And you, who won't pay water charges or LPT, want them to build more and more. That's either waffling or hypocrisy or both.
Do you know that in Dublin the average LA house generates €3,000 per year in rent and maintenance on average costs €2,000 per annum. So the net rent to the Council is €1,000 per annum. So every property built by the State in Dublin at a minimum cost of €300,000 a pop is effectively given away to the recipients for free.
Obvious Otter wrote: » The government can’t just build all these social houses. We just couldn’t pay for it. The government isn’t going to increase income tax or corporation tax so how exactly can the government afford to subsidise housing for so many people on a massive scale?
Matt Barrett wrote: » Good. Emergency accommodation figures continue to break records. The states reliance on the private market to attempt to quell the rise grows. I think this is an unfortunate state of affairs. I do not believe reliance on the private market is the way to go. We've been at that for years and the crises simply worsen. The only reason I can see for this is, at this stage, they have no problem or real concern past lip service, for the crises. The fact that this takes money from the tax payer and puts it in the pocket of those profiting from the crises is deplorable. FG measures to continue in this vein are foolish. Varadkar downplaying the homeless crisis by answering a question he wasn't asked, is spin and despicable.
Idbatterim wrote: » Also notice how I point out very easy routes to raise more revenue and the other posters here simply ignore them!
The repeated codology is that the state just has money lying around waiting to be spent. Do you think they can just print new Euro notes?
I do not believe reliance on the private market is the way to go. We've been at that for years and the crises simply worsen. The only reason I can see for this is, at this stage, they have no problem or real concern past lip service, for the crises.
oscarBravo wrote: » I have no problem with criticising the government. I just think that criticism should rise above the level of what's muttered into your eighth pint, and "the government likes the homelessness crisis" falls short of even that level of coherence.
Matt Barrett wrote: » It is my right to complain if I believe the government are doing a piss poor job at governing. I know FG don't take criticism well, but that's the job they chose. Trying to silence criticism from behind a keyboard is pitiful.
It is not believable that the government is trying it's best. I do not believe they are that stupid. I do however believe private profit is more of a driving force for them. Hence their willing reliance on the private market.
If you truly believe they might be trying their best, (difficult to pin you to a position) you must be very disappointed with them. Have you an idea as to how we might proceed, or is that me being all Machiavellian by posing a direct question?
I'll give you 'bizarre'; criticising without taking a stand of your own or adding any input. Neither supporting nor criticising the government. Fancy footwork.
oscarBravo wrote: » I don't think you know what "spin" means. Well, we'll allow for incompetence as a real possibility. But it's awfully easy to sit behind a keyboard and bitch about what a terrible job other people are doing when there's no pressure on you to solve the same problems. But the two explanations you've offered are not the only possibilities. I suppose I should be grateful that you've opened your mind to a possibility other than the single ridiculous one you started off with, but why not keep going? Is it possible that the government is trying its best to address an extremely complicated problem with limited resources? Or does that veer too far from your narrative? It could be worse. I could have said something ridiculous about how the government enjoys having a homelessness crisis.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Your belief people pretended to be outraged is risible. They generated money for a project. They can do so when it suits. Emergency accommodation, like homelessness will always be with us. Fine Gael are not effectively working towards making society less reliant on it. That's what I am saying. You keep inferring I think money is etc. etc. I don't know where Noonan found the money to cut O'Brien a good deal on Siteserv, (sorry Noonan's department, Noonan said he knew nothing). I don't know where the money came from to 'look after our own' by appointing a car driver to the board of IW. Again, they can put the money together if they want to. They don't seem to want to. Money is not the problem, will is. They would rather play down the crisis than lose profits for the homeless industry, (Hotels/B&B's/grants etc.).
Matt Barrett wrote: » No, same sentiment as before. What's bizzare is you adding your own spin.
The record breaking emergency accommodation / homeless crisis and Varadkar ramping up on the same policies of Kenny's time. Either they like things as is or they are incompetent.
Great input.
blanch152 wrote: » I don't want to go over and over this again. However, the simple fact of the matter is that the relevant budget set aside money for the setting up of Irish Water. That included the cost of the consultants. It was voted through by the Dail.The faux outrage came later. So the same applies here, you either have to cut some other expenditure or raise some other tax, the budget has been agreed out to end-2018. There is a certain amount of fiscal space uncommitted for 2019. I don't get what you are saying here. Emergency accommodation will always be needed because we don't have (and we will never have) a supply of empty houses sitting waiting for the next person that becomes homeless. Fine, you are a right-wing conservative, opposing taxes on property. I can accept that. I happen to be a traditional European left-of-centre social democrat with a green tinge who favours taxes on property and usage charges over income tax and would like more done on climate change. The repeated codology is that the state just has money lying around waiting to be spent. Do you think they can just print new Euro notes?
Matt Barrett wrote: » I was attempting not to use the term 'they can find' again, lest we have more magic money tree, sofa analogies. Seems 'seems' won't cut it either. They can appropriate? get? have access to? funds at will when it's of interest. You are quite mistaken. I think Fine Gael/Labour would disagree that 86m for consultants was planned. If it were, they certainly kept that quiet. The inference that IW couldn't support itself financially even with 100% compliance aside.
Matt Barrett wrote: » The premise being put forward by some is that relying on the private market with emergency accommodation, tax payer subsidies and grants is a stop gap emergency footing. It certainly does not look that way.
Matt Barrett wrote: » As regards LPT, I've already said I'm against it. On second homes or investment properties I believe in this crisis, people should be hammered with tax. Property speculators should be discouraged until the crisis lessens.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Can you quit this repeated codology? The state has money we don't have to feed the growing crises. We can put some of that financial MacGyverism towards Social Housing. The point is, the government like things as is, IMO. If I were to suggest to you, put all the homeless families up in B&B's and Hotels, you might ask, 'where would we find the money?' A fair question. It seems when benefiting private concerns we have all the money in the world, but when looking to assist the public, because there's little private profit in it, some talk of sofa's and magic money trees. Let's not forget, Fine Gael aren't even talking or seemingly planning Social housing builds on any meaningful effective level, let alone taking the homeless crisis seriously.
oscarBravo wrote: » That's a bizarre charge. What evidence do you have that the government likes having a homelessness crisis?
Or is this one of those "I don't need evidence, I have an opinion" posts?
Baron de Charlus wrote: » It's probably worth looking at the numbers to get some perspective. There's now 91,600 people on waiting lists for local authority housing. That's up 1,728 (around 2 percent form three years ago). But the big issue is that there's now around 7,000 people officially classed as homeless, with around 4,500 of them in emergency accommodation. We're housing people at a rate of around 5,000 per annum but that means people are being made homeless faster than we can house them by around 2,000 per annum. So the main priority is getting that number down to more acceptable levels. According to the National Housing Agency we need a minimum of 81,118 homes to be built annually between 2016 – 2020.The government's latest promise is that 25,000 houses would be built in both the public and private sector next year, 4,000 of which would be directly built by local authorities. That's kind of in the ballpark, assuming the government is right in it's projections and the NHA is right in its estimates. All of this stems from house building, both private and public, pretty much grinding to a halt after the property crash. Before the crash we were building around 5,000 local authority houses a year. Last year we built 638. It's a case of not only getting back up to speed but also making up years of non-activity.
Matt Barrett wrote: » The point is, the government like things as is, IMO.
blanch152 wrote: » "They seem to have access" That is a load of rubbish. All of that money was budgeted for in the annual budget, taxes were designated to fund it, allocations were made to government departments to spend it, all part of the normal annual budgeting process. If you want to spend money on building public housing (which I haven't opposed), then you need to raise that money from taxes or cut something else. You appear to think money can be conjured out of nowhere - the fabled magic money tree, while I prefer to focus on LPT and other measures.
You appear to think money can be conjured out of nowhere - the fabled magic money tree, while I prefer to focus on LPT and other measures.
It's probably worth looking at the numbers to get some perspective. There's now 91,600 people on waiting lists for local authority housing. That's up 1,728 (around 2 percent form three years ago).
Matt Barrett wrote: » Your post relies on your assumption. It can't be any more plain. We were in the throws of a financial crisis and the government had the money for consultants etc. and a dubious metering contract. The point is they seem to have access to money for projects that interest them. 'Can't pay, won't pay' doesn't cut it. ************** The goal posts are spinning here. When the current policy of using 'emergency' accommodation, renaming it 'family hubs' in a PR effort to normalise it, six or seven years of the same policies towards the crisis, the crisis breaking records ongoing, Varadkar downplaying it with the answer to a question he wasn't asked to put a spin on it; it is quite obvious Fine Gael are not planning on changing direction anytime soon. Suggesting Social housing is the way to go, is just that. I believe it is the best option for the tax payer. I know on the surface it upsets some and looks like freebies etc. but we would have housing stock to show. Currently we are spending money to try stem an ever growing tide not to mention cost. It is not genuine to suggest Fine Gael are obviously, any minute now, going to move away from dependence on emergency accommodation. Ramping up policies they've already been following, looking to the private market, will continue to allow them preside over a worsening crisis, but the right people will continue to make money until we see another crash. I say that because it's the only logic I can see in continuing as they seem set to do.
Good loser wrote: » Excellent post. Anybody who supports the abolition of water charges has no moral authority to criticise the spend on housing by the Govt. As J Ganesh said in today's IT 'When easy sounding ideas (in politics) do not happen, it is because they are not easy'. Paraphrasing him 'Varadkar's critics are not knaves, they are just wafflers'.
Your post relies on your assumption. It can't be any more plain. We were in the throws of a financial crisis and the government had the money for consultants etc. and a dubious metering contract. The point is they seem to have access to money for projects that interest them. 'Can't pay, won't pay' doesn't cut it.
blanch152 wrote: » More absolute nonsense. You seem to believe that because the government found some money one time for one thing, that means they can just magic up some money anytime for your favourite project. ....
TheDoc wrote: » I tend to just look after me and my own, and roll my eyes or just tut at the general state of our politics and politicians.
Matt Barrett wrote: » 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?
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?
FreudianSlippers wrote: » Ok... where do we find the money?
blanch152 wrote: » More absolute nonsense. You seem to believe that because the government found some money one time for one thing, that means they can just magic up some money anytime for your favourite project. As for the Council reference, it isn't just Sinn Fein, it is a whole bunch of so-called left-wing councillors who are doing everything in their power from cutting LPT to bringing in development plans that don't allow for high-density housing in order to ensure that the homeless are left on the street. Absolutely disgusting hypocrisy from them.
Idbatterim wrote: » Laughable. You can't raise the the pathetic lpt. The minuscule joke that hundreds of thousands of low paid workers pay in direct taxes (which is far less than other countries). Have you noticed the hospitality industry are creaming it back in? I think adjusting it back to the old rate would raise 3 billlion odd. and if you fancy a dick measuring contest you can come back to me when your efforts contribute 50,000k a year or thereabouts to revenue! Is that enough for me to have an opinion ? I know exactly who is getting done here and who isn't. The highish and high earners here are bent over backwards to the benefit of everyone else! That's politics. Not about fairness, they just make up probably a single digit percentage of the electorate. They should be working on reducing the cost of living particularly on housing. Taking more out of the tax net is madness. It also makes very little difference to people's income, they pay in virtually nothing anyway... Also you'll probably find it hard to believe that someone running a business doesn't support fg. Or no longer does. They are a disgrace. I cannot believe how bad the housing crisis in Dublin is , a recent staff member who moved here recently , living on a couch for the last two months said he would never have moved here if he knew how bad it would be. I've mates on 45 k or thereabouts living at home as it's better than the alternatives. Ie paying e1500 ex bills a month to live on your own in an average area in an average apartment. They don't give a **** local and national government, because they themselves their family and cronies aren't dealing with the effects of it. Third world transport system. Appalling planning practices. You could write a book on it. We are twenty years behind Europe minimum in certain areas.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f054c80ff399c4eba8d719c617220a57.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/23af546224513cf852af4d456d68d01c.svg)
