Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Is it time for mass protest at the housing crisis?

135

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,639 ✭✭✭andekwarhola


    cantdecide wrote: »
    You're either having me on or absolutely deluded if you believe there isn't rafts of people out there on unreasonably low wages. House prices have risen drastically higher than inflation and mortgage terms have doubled since my parents generation.

    Bloody right things have changed since the 80s.

    I'm sure you're well aware that I didn't mean low wages don't exist.

    The wages of people most likely to be buying houses in places like Dublin (professionals, civil servants, tradespeople etc) are relatively higher now and indeed the so called middle class is bigger (if indeed the categorisation is becoming obsolete).

    And many of them are all trying to buy houses in the same areas (at low interest rates).

    So these misty eyed reminisces about when two teachers could buy a red brick house in a nice part of Dublin are just that.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The lowest price new house on myhome is 285k https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/elder-heath-elder-heath-kiltipper-road-dublin-24/2963029

    That is a 3bed A rated house in Dublin the most expensive area to by property. A two income couple on 30k each with a deposit of 28k could buy one of those house. It would cost 1,075 a month at 3% over 30 year. That does not seem expensive to me. The rental market does seem to be where the problem is.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,024 ✭✭✭previous user


    I want to see the flames rise high over the city.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,275 ✭✭✭Your Face


    mariaalice wrote: »
    The lowest price new house on myhome is 285k https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/elder-heath-elder-heath-kiltipper-road-dublin-24/2963029

    That is a 3bed A rated house in Dublin the most expensive area to by property. A two income couple on 30k each with a deposit of 28k could buy one of those house. It would cost 1,075 a month at 3% over 30 year. That does not seem expensive to me. The rental market does seem to be where the problem is.

    It will more than likely sell for a lot more than that.

    The listed prices are the starting prices nowadays.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,825 ✭✭✭LirW


    mariaalice wrote: »
    The lowest price new house on myhome is 285k https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/elder-heath-elder-heath-kiltipper-road-dublin-24/2963029

    That is a 3bed A rated house in Dublin the most expensive area to by property. A two income couple on 30k each with a deposit of 28k could buy one of those house. It would cost 1,075 a month at 3% over 30 year. That does not seem expensive to me. The rental market does seem to be where the problem is.

    I'm not 100% sure but I recall that the development borders another one that's rough.

    There's Heathfield in Finglas that's even cheaper and the houses are supposed to be great but you'd be right next to a halting site and have nothing around in Walking distance. Passed it many times, it's a nice development in a very grim part of the city (and the outside walls facing the street have some obscene graffiti on it :pac: )


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 273 ✭✭Vronsky


    Did I claim this "poor mouth"? :rolleyes:

    Rather I pointed out that many landlords are not making these huge profits that many here seem to believe happening, nor is renting as profitable as many believe. (Not going to bother checking your calculations/guesstimations since such is based on thin air).
    You won't address the post because I made the obvious point that you cannot discount leverage and rising property values when looking at the profitability of renting

    It is still profitable to be a landlord and have to top up the mortgage by 50% as illustrated by my example. The ideas that unless rent is able to cover all the costs of a landlord for it to be profitable is wrong.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,744 ✭✭✭diomed


    It must be too cold this week to sit on O'Connell Bridge.
    And the Doyle is in recess (not the place in Galway).
    Perhaps the working class heros are on a sun holiday (fact finding mission)?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,465 ✭✭✭✭cantdecide


    mariaalice wrote: »
    That is a 3bed A rated house in Dublin the most expensive area to by property. A two income couple on 30k each with a deposit of 28k could buy one of those house. It would cost 1,075 a month at 3% over 30 year. That does not seem expensive to me. The rental market does seem to be where the problem is.

    3.5 times 60k is 210k + 28k is 238k. They'd need to be on 36.5k each or have the difference in cash, by my maths.

    From what I understand, a couple living and working in Dublin earning 30-35k is fairly unlikely to have 28k without outside help. Consider then if they have kids or are thinking about having any soon.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 269 ✭✭99 Bortles of Beer


    There are lots of valid arguments on how to fix the "housing crisis", and I've seen nearly all of them shot down here by equaly valid counter-arguments.

    And while I've seen some of the more minute details debated, the only thing I've seen most people agree on is that we need to stop cramming everything into Dublin.

    Brexit presented us with an opportuntiy to attract so many financial institutions over here, but I didn't see (or hear of) any strategy to promote anywhere other than Dublin to these companies.

    Bank of America, Lloyds, Barclays, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan...... all have opened new locations or expanded existing ones. And all in Dublin. Smaller companies like XL, JB, Fragomen, Ogden Berndtson.... again, all chose to establish/expand in Dublin. Are there any incentives in place to attract companies to locate further inland than Dublin?

    I work in Finance, and there's a hell of a lot of people I've spoken to who would love to move out of Dublin but the jobs just aren't anywhere else bar a handful in Cork, Limerick and Galway. I'm one of them. I like Dublin, but I'd love to be able to move somewhere further down the country if the work was there and pay a fraction of the price for a new build than I would here.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    LirW wrote: »
    I'm not 100% sure but I recall that the development borders another one that's rough.

    There's Heathfield in Finglas that's even cheaper and the houses are supposed to be great but you'd be right next to a halting site and have nothing around in Walking distance. Passed it many times, it's a nice development in a very grim part of the city (and the outside walls facing the street have some obscene graffiti on it :pac: )

    3 bed mid terraced house c. 102 sq m/c.1,098 sq ft (Type D) from €285,000
    Its does say from.

    While asking someone to live in a war zone would not be reasonable rejecting some where because it is beside some where rough is not reasonable if they need housing and its all they can afford. There is a certain element of its not fair that they cant afford in Terenure or Glasnevin going on with some people.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    cantdecide wrote: »
    3.5 times 60k is 210k + 28k is 238k. They'd need to be on 36.5k each or have the difference in cash, by my maths.

    From what I understand, a couple living and working in Dublin earning 30-35k is fairly unlikely to have 28k without outside help. Consider then if they have kids or are thinking about having any soon.

    It take sacrifice and years of saving to do it I am not saying its simple but it is doable and the real issue is the rental market.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,825 ✭✭✭LirW


    Don't get me wrong, I don't know the area of said development in Kiltipper but I've briefly read up about it a few months ago.
    The one in Finglas I know pretty well because when we started househunting we looked at a lot of houses there and while we're in no way snobs it is really really rough once you step outside of the development. Eventually we gave Finglas up because we were outpriced. The cheap houses there, while nice inside, are in no-go areas (the area just above Tolka Valley park).

    You're making the biggest financial commitment of your life and if you get that wrong you might be f'd. New developments have the downside of not being established when all the people move in and one or two bad apples can have a massive inpact on an area. From that point of view I understand why people would be hesitant to buy somewhere that has a certain factor attached to it.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Vronsky wrote: »
    You won't address the post because I made the obvious point that you cannot discount leverage and rising property values when looking at the profitability of renting

    It is still profitable to be a landlord and have to top up the mortgage by 50% as illustrated by my example. The ideas that unless rent is able to cover all the costs of a landlord for it to be profitable is wrong.

    Which I didn't object to. I objected to the belief that we are all making huge profits from renting or possibly by selling. We're not.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,873 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    There are lots of valid arguments on how to fix the "housing crisis", and I've seen nearly all of them shot down here by equaly valid counter-arguments.
    come up with a counter arguament to this, which costs the government nothing, indeed would deliver more lpt and development levies, stamp duty etc!

    Simply allow higher density, allow cheaper to construct units, permabear has already says the development cost per sq m is double that of Germany, laughable as you can be damn sure the standards are higher in Germany! David Ehrlich head of IRES Reit also known as the godfather of REIT in Canada, has repeatedly commented on how outrageous construction costs are here and how inefficient it is to build due aspect apartments, have massive lift requirements etc...

    Whats the point in having these bull**** standards if no one can afford them, builders wont build with them and the vast majority of people dont want / cant afford them!

    We have the docklands with pathetic heights, the Irish Glass bottle site, which cost the exchequer nearly E450,000,000 in a bailout, littered with 4/5 floor buildings in the proposed new development plan for the area!

    As soon as it makes sense to start building en masse, what will happen all of a sudden? by extention, large amount of social and affordable units will be delivered as a result.

    So poster, please come back and tell me why these two beyond obvious things to change, that will also deliver a fortune to government coffers, arent being done? please counter argue this!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,873 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Housing crisis must be solved to avoid another crash
    State’s passivity in addressing housing issues is economically and socially dangerous

    https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/housing-crisis-must-be-solved-to-avoid-another-crash-1.3343163

    an article from the Irish times, like I said in the OP, what they are doing or not doing i.e. the government is a moral disgrace! How much is enough for these bast*rds? their few rental properties, outrageous pay and pension for the appalling job they do at running the country! they are parasites!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/housing-crisis-must-be-solved-to-avoid-another-crash-1.3343163

    an article from the Irish times, like I said in the OP, what they are doing or not doing i.e. the government is a moral disgrace! How much is enough for these bast*rds? their few rental properties, outrageous pay and pension for the appalling job they do at running the country! they are parasites!

    But yet they are expected to solve the housing crisis!


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Ipso wrote: »
    But yet they are expected to solve the housing crisis!

    Good point :D


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    FTA69 wrote: »
    Nah they would just have flogged the water system off to a private company and you'd be paying through the bollix so some vulture fund can make a massive profit. That's what's happened pretty much everywhere else.

    Something wrong with private companies is there?

    How is the supply of your food and fuel, provided by private companies, working out for you? Any shortages of either recently?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,873 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Ipso wrote: »
    But yet they are expected to solve the housing crisis!

    yeah its so complex :rolleyes: make descisions and act! theyve had years to do it at this stage! You think it should be news to these morons that apartment buildings costs are massively prohibitive, that allowing small town densities on prime land, isnt exactly the best idea?! the dilemma for them is, they are caught between a rock and a hard place, in their own heads, it must suit them, but they cant be seen to be doing nothing either!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,789 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Vronsky wrote: »
    You won't address the post because I made the obvious point that you cannot discount leverage and rising property values when looking at the profitability of renting

    It is still profitable to be a landlord and have to top up the mortgage by 50% as illustrated by my example. The ideas that unless rent is able to cover all the costs of a landlord for it to be profitable is wrong.

    You are not in the real world at all.

    Do you seriously expect landlords to keep rents very low and not attempt to try cover their costs because the value of their building is slowly rising?

    Sure why don't Tesco sell below cost too. Sure their building is increasing in value eh.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 273 ✭✭Vronsky


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    You are not in the real world at all.

    Do you seriously expect landlords to keep rents very low and not attempt to try cover their costs because the value of their building is slowly rising?

    Sure why don't Tesco sell below cost too. Sure their building is increasing in value eh.

    That's not the point I was making at all, I fully expect landlords to charge market rent. What I am saying is that just because market rent is below a mortgage payment does not automatically mean the landlord is making a loss. Despite the whinging of landlords, most will make a decent return once they sell up

    In fact, as long as the annual percentage rate of property prices rises is greater than mortgage interest rates, then property will be a profitable business even if it is left vacant.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    salonfire wrote: »
    Something wrong with private companies is there?

    How is the supply of your food and fuel, provided by private companies, working out for you? Any shortages of either recently?

    Nah it's the private companies that are charging me the highest transport and energy bills in Europe who are p*ssing me off, likewise the ones who are ruining my health system and gutting my public services while treating their workers like sh*t. They're the ones I've a problem with at present.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,321 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    What private company is ruining your health service and public services?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,321 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    This man (who after all should know considering the post he is leaving) has the balls to say what many are afraid to say publicly, that many are playing the system

    https://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/housing-minister-claims-theres-no-evidence-of-people-gaming-the-housing-system-36457404.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,639 ✭✭✭andekwarhola


    LirW wrote: »
    Don't get me wrong, I don't know the area of said development in Kiltipper but I've briefly read up about it a few months ago

    Know the area myself and a few people that live there and it's fine. Some of the estates like Ellensborough are nice.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,789 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    That's not the point I was making at all, I fully expect landlords to charge market rent. What I am saying is that just because market rent is below a mortgage payment does not automatically mean the landlord is making a loss. Despite the whinging of landlords, most will make a decent return once they sell up

    Actually, yes it does mean that they are making a loss. That's the definition of making a loss. Not taking in enough money to cover outgoings means you are making a loss.

    Possibly making a profit upon selling up doesn't change the fact that some landlords (myself included) are making a loss on their property at the moment.
    In fact, as long as the annual percentage rate of property prices rises is greater than mortgage interest rates, then property will be a profitable business even if it is left vacant.

    It's only profitable if the property owner can afford to subsidise the mortgage from other funds.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 273 ✭✭Vronsky


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Actually, yes it does mean that they are making a loss. That's the definition of making a loss. Not taking in enough money to cover outgoings means you are making a loss.

    Possibly making a profit upon selling up doesn't change the fact that some landlords (myself included) are making a loss on their property at the moment.



    It's only profitable if the property owner can afford to subsidise the mortgage from other funds.
    I'm sorry but it's not loss making when the total return is greater than the investment.
    Not taking in enough earnings to cover your outgoings can mean a loss but not if you have illiquid assets that are appreciating in value. You are describing a cash flow issue, not a profitability one.

    Yes it's possible to lose money on property, but it is hard to do so in a rising market and having someone pay a decent contribution to the mortgage.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    come up with a counter arguament to this, which costs the government nothing, indeed would deliver more lpt and development levies, stamp duty etc!

    Simply allow higher density, allow cheaper to construct units, permabear has already says the development cost per sq m is double that of Germany, laughable as you can be damn sure the standards are higher in Germany! David Ehrlich head of IRES Reit also known as the godfather of REIT in Canada, has repeatedly commented on how outrageous construction costs are here and how inefficient it is to build due aspect apartments, have massive lift requirements etc...

    Whats the point in having these bull**** standards if no one can afford them, builders wont build with them and the vast majority of people dont want / cant afford them!

    We have the docklands with pathetic heights, the Irish Glass bottle site, which cost the exchequer nearly E450,000,000 in a bailout, littered with 4/5 floor buildings in the proposed new development plan for the area!

    As soon as it makes sense to start building en masse, what will happen all of a sudden? by extention, large amount of social and affordable units will be delivered as a result.

    So poster, please come back and tell me why these two beyond obvious things to change, that will also deliver a fortune to government coffers, arent being done? please counter argue this!
    Germany and Canada?

    Germany with their 250,000 homeless people and Canada with their 200,000 homeless people have the solutions yeah??

    Love the way people quote other countries methods as the solution, totally oblivious to the fact Ireland has one of the lowest homeless rates in the world.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭NinetyTwoTeam


    A large portion of ours politicians are landlords, they are making big money off of the lack of supply, so will do very little to ease it.

    They know as well that many of their core voters don't care and probably consider the homeless are deserving of their predicament, due to alcohol/drug abuse, etc.

    To the eejit who said 'we'd have money for housing if ye paid your water charges', where did the money come from for John Tierney's 500k lump sum + pension, the pay rise TD's gave themselves? Where will the money come from for the new EU army? They have plenty to go round when it is going to them and their buddies, which is just where the water charge would have went, too.

    And if Apple paid even a third of what they owe in back tax we could sort this crisis out easily.

    I guess if we all paid water charges, we wouldn't have a trolley crisis in hospitals, either yeah? The government are letting this all happen, because it is profitable for some, and the people who are made miserable by it are powerless to do anything.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,844 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    NIMAN wrote: »
    This man (who after all should know considering the post he is leaving) has the balls to say what many are afraid to say publicly, that many are playing the system

    https://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/housing-minister-claims-theres-no-evidence-of-people-gaming-the-housing-system-36457404.html

    The article which says 'there is no evidence to prove people are gaming the system'.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭10000maniacs


    Land prices in Dublin are at scales now unaffordable to revenue so any solution will involve private builders and buyers.
    Building council properties is a relic of the sixties and seventies.
    Water charge protests were an easier win because the protests were bolstered by the "never pay for anything" leftie brigade.
    Current property owners and council house dwellers won't be bothered to participate in any protest on this.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    A large portion of ours politicians are landlords, they are making big money off of the lack of supply, so will do very little to ease it.

    They know as well that many of their core voters don't care and probably consider the homeless are deserving of their predicament, due to alcohol/drug abuse, etc.

    To the eejit who said 'we'd have money for housing if ye paid your water charges', where did the money come from for John Tierney's 500k lump sum + pension, the pay rise TD's gave themselves? Where will the money come from for the new EU army? They have plenty to go round when it is going to them and their buddies, which is just where the water charge would have went, too.

    And if Apple paid even a third of what they owe in back tax we could sort this crisis out easily.

    I guess if we all paid water charges, we wouldn't have a trolley crisis in hospitals, either yeah? The government are letting this all happen, because it is profitable for some, and the people who are made miserable by it are powerless to do anything.

    What a load of absolutel horse ****.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,220 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Land prices in Dublin are at scales now unaffordable to revenue so any solution will involve private builders and buyers. Building council properties is a relic of the sixties and seventies. Water charge protests were an easier win because the protests were bolstered by the "never pay for anything" leftie brigade. Current property owners and council house dwellers won't be bothered to participate in any protest on this.


    'The market' has failed, and we 're not the only country showing this problem, we have no choice but to return building public housing, unfortunately we could be years away from accepting that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    'The market' has failed, and we 're not the only country showing this problem, we have no choice but to return building public housing, unfortunately we could be years away from accepting that.

    With what money?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,220 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    With what money?


    Great question, we need to re think how we create money, since the current process is rather 'magical' as it is, we should probably look at it to see if it could be used better, so it truly benefits society. A public banking system would be a good start, that surely could be used to create some of the 'money' required. I also particularly like the idea of a 'sovereign wealth fund', and partly accepting corporate taxation in stock options for this fund. I'm sure there's plenty of other interesting ideas out there, but first we must accept the failure of 'the market', sadly that may never happen.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,505 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Maybe if the state collected a reasonable amount of direct taxes from the lower paid (those seeking social housing for life) then the exchequer might be in a position to afford such largesse. Instead we get bleeding heart politicians hollowing out the tax base and then crying into their cornflakes about every crisis under the sun that the state can't afford to fix.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    Is it time for mass protest at the housing crisis? The only time the scum bags we elect to the dail are interested in us, is come election time. I have voted fg previously, I'm done with them. If they think a few euro a week decrease in USC is enough to keep people onside.

    These same people who will be paying e700 plus for an average bedroom in an average house in an average part of Dublin IF they can even secure a viewing!

    People protested about water, this scandal is off the wall in comparison. This situation is ruining lives and costing people a fortune, unlike water!

    The only time they ever budge here, i.e. Politicians is when pressure is put on them and they collapse like a house of cards, as their populist nature compels them to.

    Whatever ideological reason they have against solving the issues show a disgusting lack of empathy. I don't see what their issue is, their mates in the banks, the estate agents will be creaming it in with more building. More jobs, more lpt...

    It's taken them 3 years minimum into the crisis to acknowledge the fact that apartment building is prohibitively expensive and wait more years for action. 3 years! 3 years of misery for tens of thousand of people of not more. What's the problem? They are overpaid, do nothing but talk it seems to me.

    So there you go coppinger etc. Someone ill probably never agree with on economic policy etc, but organise a protest for this issue and I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with you!

    After the previous water crisis and protest and where that lead to. The government will do a pretty quick about turn this time! Particularly as an election could be held any time!

    If those who want to organise a protest against homelessness were genuinely interested in actually solving the issue and not in a protest of resist neo liberalisation, If it was genuine desire to do something with out any ideology it would be a different issue.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,321 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    Fann Linn wrote: »
    The article which says 'there is no evidence to prove people are gaming the system'.

    No, thats the housing minister who said that.

    He is currently in Gov, there is no way he is going to say anything else, for fear of being dragged over the coals. I'm sure he privately knows his public statement is wrong though.

    Same way you won't find the Health Minister coming out and publicly saying that half the people in A&E's shouldn't be there, they should be waiting on their GP to open and book an appointment.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    There is an issue with housing, and it is partly cause by local authorities not building enough social housing with is a follow on from the crash but it is much more than that.

    The issue is most definitively being used by those with an ideological bent to further their own agenda there is also a lot of spin around the issue.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,018 ✭✭✭knipex


    FTA69 wrote: »
    Rent is through the roof in Cork and Dublin , we are being perpetually gouged by a class of landlords and we also spend a fortune every year paying rent allowance to private landlords as opposed to building sustainable social housing. In Ireland tenants have very little rights compared to Europe, paying through the nose for crap accommodation with short term leases.

    We're constantly told "we need the private sector to build" when in reality it's not in their interest to do so as high rents and high land value suits them down to the ground. Housing people should be a key priority for any government and it's far too important to be left to a cabal of developers to dictate (we all know what happened last time.)

    That is absolutely, 100% something worth campaigning for and the OP is spot on.

    So the "Landlord Class" (what ever they are) are actually the people who build houses ??

    Or do they run a shadowy cabal that prevents house building in Ireland ??


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,018 ✭✭✭knipex


    baldbear wrote: »
    Vat & motor tax cover water charges. fianna Fail made sure of that

    Not that old chestnut again !!!!!!

    It has been shown over and over and over again to be nonsense but its still trotted out at absolute, quantifiable and certain fact..

    http://economic-incentives.blogspot.ie/2015/03/paying-twice-for-water-not-really.html


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,636 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    With what money?

    What did the State build houses with in the 1920's, 30's etc. when the country was in a far, far worse situation than now?

    We can't do it now in a (supposedly) wealthy, developed country.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    What did the State build houses with in the 1920's, 30's etc. when the country was in a far, far worse situation than now?

    We can't do it now in a (supposedly) wealthy, developed country.

    No we can't unfortunately.

    There is a limited budget, where do we take the money from?

    Health?
    Welfare?
    Education?

    You tell me seems you know the answers.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,321 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    Didn't the Gov say recently they plan to put €1.5bn into a rainy day fund next year?

    That would build plenty of houses if the will was there.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,220 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    NIMAN wrote: »
    Didn't the Gov say recently they plan to put €1.5bn into a rainy day fund next year?

    That would build plenty of houses if the will was there.

    and maybe a pubic banking system could be used to put this rainy day fund into;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    NIMAN wrote: »
    Didn't the Gov say recently they plan to put €1.5bn into a rainy day fund next year?

    That would build plenty of houses if the will was there.

    They have already put 5 billion forward for social housing.

    As a hard working mortgage paying tax payer I think thats enough for now thanks.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    If planning was handled properly then there would be no crisis.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,636 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    No we can't unfortunately.

    There is a limited budget, where do we take the money from?

    Health?
    Welfare?
    Education?

    You tell me seems you know the answers.

    I don't know, they just made it happen. You can say what you like about the old rebels in early govts, and it wasn't a paradise by any stretch, but at least they weren't a self-serving bunch voting in pay rises for themselves.
    Even the much maligned oul Dev REFUSED several pay raises.

    As well as that, people that got these houses were fcuking glad of them, even if they were located in a place that they had to cycle miles to work, not cherry picking like now. And most of these developments are still standing and lived in today.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    I don't know, they just made it happen. You can say what you like about the old rebels in early govts, and it wasn't a paradise by any stretch, but at least they weren't a self-serving bunch voting in pay rises for themselves.
    Even the much maligned oul Dev REFUSED several pay raises.

    As well as that, people that got these houses were fcuking glad of them, even if they were located in a place that they had to cycle miles to work, not cherry picking like now.

    I definitely agree with your last point.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Society is divided into two camps

    First: Those who already own a home and/or property.

    Second: those who do not.

    It is in the economic interest of the first group that the second group continue to be landless.

    This increases the value of the first groups' assets and allows them to charge higher rents to the second group.

    Whatever a government does to alleviate the suffering of the second group, it's seen as punishing the hard work of the first group.

    The haves and the have nots. That's capitalism baby.

    My wife and I are in the second group. We dont want free anything. We've worked all all our lives and paid our taxes. We claim no social benefits.

    We are a necessary cog in the economy and we make the first group feel more wealthy.

    Remaining landless would not necessarily be a problem if we had guaranteed security of tenure in terms of our rental lease.

    Through various loopholes we can lose our home through no fault of our own. That's a stressful way to live and benefits the economy and the society in no way.


Advertisement