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

Fr McVerry supporting lessons in how to occupy properties

Options
1…89101214

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Wheeliebin30 wrote: »
    How many houses do we need and at what cost and where is the money gonna come from?

    I have asked you this already and received nothing.

    I won’t hold my breathe...

    I always answer you messer. You're asking the same questions I always answer and you know it.

    Enough houses that working people can afford to put a roof over their head. That being enough to help cool the market. Only available to people who need it.
    The money will come from the same place NAMA gets money to give cheap loans to private developers. The same place LEO got 2.5bn for his latest housing gimmick. The same place Eoghan gets his money to buy houses off the market and use them as social housing anyway.

    You're little digs are a nonsense. You've a problem with the state building to rent because of the caliber of tenant but you're okay with the state buying to house the same people or put them up in hotels. You're talking nonsense.


    What's your solution? Off you go and disappear until you can roll out the same shineola again....


  • Options
    #333
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I dont agree with occupying properties whatsoever because its important to remain credible in the battle to end homelessness but i do believe in the whole protest movement.


  • Options
    #334
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 20,731 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Here is a suggestion for a solution, which does not involve students having to be taught how to invade vacant properties.

    The 2017 LPT data base shows 176,000 people paying for more than one property. 121,000 of them have two properties, the rest have three or more. The 2016 census identifies 203,000 vacant properties.

    It is probably not possible to cross reference LPT and census. But as a start it should be possible for a government agency to write to the 121,000, asking them to express an interest in making their non principal residence available if it is one of the 203,000 vacant. Under the same terms which McVerry's operation obtains homes. The owner would have the right to refuse those with a history of anti social activities, or a history of recidivism.

    The properties would be offered to the homeless, ideally more than one choice. If the homeless person felt that it was no improvement on the accommodation which they occupy at present, they would have the right to stay where they are.

    When all the new houses are built, they could then move into one of those.


  • Options
    #335
    vladmydad
    Registered Users Posts: 786 ✭✭✭vladmydad


    TheCitizen wrote: »
    LOL at the right wingers on here that don't like the occupy stunt. I'm not totally in agreement with all of the tactics of the Take Back the City campaign myself but they're succeeding in highlighting the issue and the lack of action relating to it.
    Ironically they’re actually hurting the housing issues. This is the sort of crap that pushes landlords and potential landlords out of the market.


  • Options
    #336
    Wheeliebin30
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    I always answer you messer. You're asking the same questions I always answer and you know it.

    Enough houses that working people can afford to put a roof over their head. That being enough to help cool the market. Only available to people who need it.
    The money will come from the same place NAMA gets money to give cheap loans to private developers. The same place LEO got 2.5bn for his latest housing gimmick. The same place Eoghan gets his money to buy houses off the market and use them as social housing anyway.

    You're little digs are a nonsense. You've a problem with the state building to rent because of the caliber of tenant but you're okay with the state buying to house the same people or put them up in hotels. You're talking nonsense.


    What's your solution? Off you go and disappear until you can roll out the same shineola again....

    So basically you haven’t really answered any of my questions?????

    No costing, no number of houses that you think we need and some rabble about Leo and nama.

    How predictable, just like the left and Sinn Féin, no credible solutions just bluster.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    Subcomandante Marcos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,683 ✭✭✭Subcomandante Marcos


    enricoh wrote: »
    The country is spending more than it takes in.

    No it's not. And it hasn't been for a few years now. We have debt but that's a legacy debt that's being paid off not being increased.


  • Options
    #338
    TheCitizen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,313 ✭✭✭TheCitizen


    Wheeliebin30 wrote: »
    So basically you haven’t really answered any of my questions?????

    No costing, no number of houses that you think we need and some rabble about Leo and nama.

    How predictable, just like the left and Sinn Féin, no credible solutions just bluster.

    Leo and The Blueshirts are centre-Left now apparently, did you not hear that one?


  • Options
    #339
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 20,731 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    TheCitizen wrote: »
    Leo and The Blueshirts are centre-Left now apparently, did you not hear that one?

    I heard it was left of centre.


  • Options
    #340
    Subcomandante Marcos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,683 ✭✭✭Subcomandante Marcos


    tayto lover wrote: »
    I agree but there's only so much tax a worker can take.
    .
    You don't need to increase tax to build public housing. The EIB will give low interest loans attached to the life of cost rental developments that are paid back by the rent paid by those living in them. It also doesn't contribute to official government debt figures do doesn't risk falling foul of EU rules on spending.

    It the CUI had also offered a similar deal several years ago for almost 10billion they were sitting on and couldn't use. They offered a near interest free loan to build public housing with the loan being paid back by rents over the following few decades.


  • Options
    #341
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Wheeliebin30 wrote:
    So basically you haven’t really answered any of my questions?????


    I've seen many people answer your questions, almost like you don't see the replies.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    Always amuses when I see the free houses crap being thrown out. Not a day goes by on boards than someone doesn't say it. It's an expectation now tradition if you will.

    its free.

    when you dont work for something and you get it from money you have handed to you for doing nothing, its free.

    this is true for a great deal of people on the housing list.

    we will disagree about this, but the above is a fact.

    NB i worked years in social housing. wheres your expertise coming from?


  • Options
    #343
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Deleted User wrote:
    its free.

    It's not. There is a cost.
    Deleted User wrote:
    when you dont work for something and you get it from money you have handed to you for doing nothing, its free.
    Not everyone on in social housing/ housing list are on Social welfare
    Deleted User wrote:
    this is true for a great deal of people on the housing list.

    See above
    Deleted User wrote:
    we will disagree about this, but the above is a fact.
    It's not
    Deleted User wrote:
    NB i worked years in social housing. wheres your expertise coming from?
    I don't care what you do. You can claim to be Frodo Baggins for all I care and strangle pigeons as your job.


  • Options
    #344
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    yeah, see

    breaking the statement up and evading the truth of the entirety doesnt work ('see above' indeed, how cute)

    it also doesnt fool anyone

    so when you (and others) try to pull people up on the statement, you neednt act as if there is confusion.

    there isnt.

    there's a fundamental disagreement as to what ppl mean by 'free'

    which is fine, but why pretend to be correcting someone?

    so much of these discussions parade as attempts to converse or persuade but its really just directly-opposing views that wont ever shift each other an inch (obv im as guilty as anyone tbf)

    btw, if you have no expertise to fall back on when discussing social housing issues, thats ok! but by all means have the courtesy/courage to call me a liar outright when i give mine and you cant match it.

    x


  • Options
    #345
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Deleted User wrote:
    btw, if you have no expertise to fall back on when discussing social housing issues, thats ok! but by all means have the courtesy/courage to call me a liar outright when i give mine and you cant match it.

    Do you expect me or anyone else to believe what you claim on an anonymous internet forum without evidence to back your claims up. How naïve do you believe others are. Have some cop on. You seem to think your opinion carries more weight than any one who happens to disagree with.


  • Options
    #346
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Deleted User wrote:
    it also doesnt fool anyone


    It's not meant fool. But if you going to post generalized crap all one can do is break it up and address each string of nonsense.


  • Options
    #347
    marieholmfan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,744 ✭✭✭marieholmfan


    you have no credibility , wheRE did you work , what section , what can you tell me that I can't just google.
    you haven't demonstrated expertise ffs. you have claimed to be an expert.
    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    yeah, see

    breaking the statement up and evading the truth of the entirety doesnt work ('see above' indeed, how cute)

    it also doesnt fool anyone

    so when you (and others) try to pull people up on the statement, you neednt act as if there is confusion.

    there isnt.

    there's a fundamental disagreement as to what ppl mean by 'free'

    which is fine, but why pretend to be correcting someone?

    so much of these discussions parade as attempts to converse or persuade but its really just directly-opposing views that wont ever shift each other an inch (obv im as guilty as anyone tbf)

    btw, if you have no expertise to fall back on when discussing social housing issues, thats ok! but by all means have the courtesy/courage to call me a liar outright when i give mine and you cant match it.

    x


  • Options
    #348
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    help, help

    my character is being assassinated late at night on boards.ie

    the humanity


  • Options
    #349
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    Where's the money going to come to still pay the private landlords, the hotels and the bed and breakfast owners that are currently receiving state euro to house these people?

    Maybe they'll all simultaneously be turned out on to the streets on their bare asses, turning the place into a post apocalypse wasteland overnight......
    An post will be kept in business delivering eviction notices.
    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    Always amuses when I see the free houses crap being thrown out.
    As someone who works to pay for their rent, it amuses me when people don't see that;
    Rent paid by the government
    plus
    Money (social welfare) paid the government
    equals
    total rent comes from money from the government.

    Thus, it's free in the sense that the tenant doesn't have to work for it. Whilst some do pay some of the money themselves, it's nowhere near the full amount, and quite often single digit percent of the total rent, if any.
    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Enough houses that working people can afford to put a roof over their head.
    Thus far, the government is only helping the non-working people. Seems they should get houses near the family, while those who work should pay full whack 2 hours away from their job.
    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    The properties would be offered to the homeless, ideally more than one choice. If the homeless person felt that it was no improvement on the accommodation which they occupy at present, they would have the right to stay where they are.
    Are we talking about deposit and payment up front, direct into their account, with the government guaranteeing the property? Or the usual craic of the landlord taking all the risk for very little reward, and less rights?
    TheCitizen wrote: »
    LOL at the right wingers on here that don't like the occupy stunt. I'm not totally in agreement with all of the tactics of the Take Back the City campaign myself but they're succeeding in highlighting the issue and the lack of action relating to it.
    They're highlighting the fact that it takes a high court injunction to get out trespassers.


  • Options
    #350
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 20,731 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    the_syco wrote: »

    Are we talking about deposit and payment up front, direct into their account, with the government guaranteeing the property? Or the usual craic of the landlord taking all the risk for very little reward, and less rights?

    I would hand over the operation to McVerry or one the other homeless charities funded by the government. The homeless people would have more trust in them.

    But they would have to use that government money to fully look after the home owner financially. They would not be put in the position of being a landlord.


  • Options
    #351
    CruelCoin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭CruelCoin


    Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »
    No it's not. And it hasn't been for a few years now. We have debt but that's a legacy debt that's being paid off not being increased.

    Bollox.

    When are you loony lefties going to abandon the magic money tree?

    Exchequr reports up to 2016.
    If you can read, you'll note a deficit for every year on the report leading to 2016.
    http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/annualreports/2016/report/en/Chapter1.pdf
    CSO up to 2017
    https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/giea/governmentincomeandexpenditurejuly2018/


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,929 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    CruelCoin wrote:
    Bollox. Since you're so liberal with flinging out "rightist" "right wingers", i'll join in. When are you loony lefties going to abandon the magic money tree?


    I'd class our current bank creation of our money supply as being rather magical


  • Options
    #353
    Subcomandante Marcos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,683 ✭✭✭Subcomandante Marcos


    CruelCoin wrote: »
    Bollox.

    When are you loony lefties going to abandon the magic money tree?

    When did the European investment bank become a "magic money tree"?

    When are you reactionary ideologues going to abandon the dogmatic idiocy of "ThE MaRkET WiLl SoLvE aLl OuR pRoBlEmS".


  • Options
    #354
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    Quick question.

    If this apparent world wide recession strikes, and these EU taxation trump war thingymajig yokes all strike Ireland at the same time, and the arse falls out of things here with the auld cash....

    Where's the money going to come to still pay the private landlords, the hotels and the bed and breakfast owners that are currently receiving state euro to house these people?

    Maybe they'll all simultaneously be turned out on to the streets on their bare asses, turning the place into a post apocalypse wasteland overnight......
    the_syco wrote: »
    An post will be kept in business delivering eviction notices.

    No chance of answering the question seriously no?

    Those people will still be needing housed - come recession/trade war on any other maybe scenarios.

    Surely investing in assets - be they state built social housing or state purchased from the private market makes much more sense than throwing cash away placing them in hotels, or funding private landlords assets - ie their mortgages with state cash?

    If you can't see how one is more logical than the other, just say so.

    An post being kept afloat by way of eviction notices is scutter.


  • Options
    #355
    CruelCoin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭CruelCoin


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    I'd class our current bank creation of our money supply as being rather magical

    Oh dear god, don't bring your neo-whatever ****e into this thread. For one goddam thread, please i implore you man!


  • Options
    #356
    CruelCoin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭CruelCoin


    Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »
    When did the European investment bank become a "magic money tree"?

    When are you reactionary ideologues going to abandon the dogmatic idiocy of "ThE MaRkET WiLl SoLvE aLl OuR pRoBlEmS".

    Stop moving the goalposts.

    You said that Ireland is not in deficit for some time, and I provided hard proof that it is.
    You were wrong, deal with it.


  • Options
    #357
    CruelCoin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭CruelCoin


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    Surely investing in assets - be they state built social housing or state purchased from the private market makes much more sense than throwing cash away placing them in hotels, or funding private landlords assets - ie their mortgages with state cash?

    It's only investing if it delivers a return.

    Spending 250k for example on a home and charging €80p/w (fairly common rate) would take 3125 weeks to be paid off, or 60 years.
    Pity the house would be knocked down as being unfit for purpose well before then.
    The houses need to be built in affordable areas, and charged a reasonable rent, otherwise it's not investing, but rather pissing money up the wall.


  • Options
    #358
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,929 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    CruelCoin wrote: »
    Oh dear god, don't bring your neo-whatever ****e into this thread. For one goddam thread, please i implore you man!

    good, my annoyance of others is working regarding such issues then!


  • Options
    #359
    CruelCoin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭CruelCoin


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    good, my annoyance of others is working regarding such issues then!

    But you never highlight anything!? Ever!
    You only parrot "Neoblahblah" "money system yadda yadda" and you never ever give any details on WHY, or when you propose that there be a new system, you never ever give the HOW or WHY.

    You're like a tabloid paper reporting on Boards. All font size 100 headlines and no content.


  • Options
    #360
    Hyzepher
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 4,659 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hyzepher


    Rents are high because the supply is much lower than demand. landlords are leaving the market as it's becoming less viable due to risk and high tax implications - a lot of those leaving are the "accidental" landlords where ordinary people bough 2nd properties in the boom and are suffering negative equity. These houses are being sold into private ownership and are lost to the rental market.

    Compare this to the government scheme where rooms rented from a PPR can earn tax free income up to €14000. This is a growing market - especially for the foreign students etc. It's having no real impact on the housing crisis.

    A quick fix might be to allow landlords avail of this tax break for non-PPR properties - or at least for the first one where landlords own more than 1. I'd suspect that a high number of rental properties are sole rentals from landlords so this would be a benefit to everyone.

    Allow the €14000 tax free income on 1 property BUT only when the monthly rent charges is below or equal to an agreed affordable amount. For example, threshold of €1200 a month. Charge more and you cant get the tax releif


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,929 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    CruelCoin wrote: »
    But you never highlight anything!? Ever!
    You only parrot "Neoblahblah" "money system yadda yadda" and you never ever give any details on WHY, or when you propose that there be a new system, you never ever give the HOW or WHY.

    You're like a tabloid paper reporting on Boards. All font size 100 headlines and no content.

    ive posted my sources of my research regarding such issues, would you like me to do it again? you ll actually find many of them are well respected academics and commentators, some actually realised the crash was going to occur prior to it, they tend not to write for tabloids, but more so for well respected outlets.


Advertisement