Assetbacked wrote: » Some long and detailed reading on the so-called vulture funds, the Irish commercial property sector and s110 vehicles;https://thepropertypin.com/t/dublin-office-bubble-fg-landlord-nirvana-iref-qiaifs-reits/48705https://thepropertypin.com/t/irish-section-110-spv-vultures-tax-haven-orphaning-scam/48520 Very well put together - will rile landlords and tenants both!
optogirl wrote: » I can't even click. I am so dejected by the whole bloody thing. Goalposts just keep shifting and rent keeps going up.:(
terrydel wrote: » Start by not voting fg. Thats step one to resolving the problem.
MayoSalmon wrote: » Politicians FG or otherwise haven't a clue how to solve this honestly
Bob24 wrote: » I’m certainly not delighted with FG’s housing policies, but quite frankly I don’t see good policies form any other party. So I don’t think voting for FG or not makes the slightest difference in terms of solving the housing crises.
Mickiemcfist wrote: » Yea I agree, I really want to vote for someone else, but I don't want to vote for any of the other options. FF are basically the same thing & anyone outside of that are a rabble with half thought out ideals with no notion of actually gaining power.
terrydel wrote: » What utterly staggering logic. You want things to change but will continue to vote for the same way and pray for a different outcome. Wow.
Mickiemcfist wrote: » Utterly staggering conclusion jumping there batman. I haven't made up my mind as to who I'll be voting for & I never indicated above who I would be voting for? I said I don't want either which if anything would imply I won't be voting.
terrydel wrote: » You really want to vote for someone else, so do it.
Mickiemcfist wrote: » Thanks for your advice mate, never thought of that :rolleyes:
voluntary wrote: » Change for the sake of a change? Even if all other available options would be worse?
terrydel wrote: » If you are not happy with the current situation and want it changed, how will doing the same thing make that happen? FG/FF have held power since the formation of the state, whatever way the state is is of their making. How do you KNOW other options are worse when they are never given a chance to prove that one way or the other? Its purely theoretical if the idea is never tested. We know what fg/ff give us, the former have given us this current housing situation by design, its in their power to fix it or at least improve it and they choose not to. Its change in order to give someone who actually wants the current status quo to change, a chance, because the current incumbents do not want it to change.
beauf wrote: » The only way to solve this is slow down the economy, for sustainable growth. No politician wants to take that on.
voluntary wrote: » Looking at what's been going on in the global markets in the last week or so I can only guess a massive slowdown is approaching right when we speak. Be careful what you wish for.
terrydel wrote: » But fg are knowingly and deliberately engineering the current situation.
IAmTheReign wrote: » I'm genuinely curious, which FG policies do you think are deliberately aimed at knowingly and deliberately restricting housing supply? And to what end exactly?
Jaster Rogue wrote: » The alternative parties to FF/FG have even more wacky housing policies imo, such as everyone deserving a free house any location/size they want without contributing a cent, working/paying for the same house is optional.
Sheeps wrote: » Every expert under the sun is telling them to build social houses instead of buying and renting from the private market, and they're insisting on leaving the market to do what it wants. There's no other explaination for that other than that they want it to be this way. I don't believe they are incompetent to this extent.
Sheeps wrote: » This is not the way it works and you know it. The only difference between private and public housing is that with public hosing the state is your landlord, and they don't rip you off.
Bluefoam wrote: » The state is your landlord... they subsidise you... which means the tax payer pays for you... which means the person who is paying for their own home is also paying for yours... is that what you mean by not getting ripped off?
Amirani wrote: » Much of the electorate don't want to pay the taxation necessary to fund a large scale expansion of social housing provision. And of the proportion of the electorate that do, many of them wouldn't vote for Fine Gael anyway.
Sheeps wrote: » They're already paying the taxation necessary the only difference is they're getting terrible value for money because it's going to private landlords who are ripping the state off through the HAP scheme. If you invest in social housing, the money doesn't disappear. The state owns the house and has a valuable asset. It's literally an investment for the state.
