Housing Madness

If wages cause price inflation equal or greater than the rise in wages, then its a defacto supply problem. And as I said earlier, we need to increase supply also.

In my view that's her principle private residence. And actually doesn't come under what I'm talking about. As you know because you elaborated on my actual point later in your post.

I don't obsolve councils either. They too should be forced to **** or get off the pot.

Both councils and many many private individuals either domicile or not are asset sitting and running property down into the ground.

National strategy. Its needs addressing. And the stick approach has to be used because it makes action take hold faster.

Your view doesn't matter unless it is in the law. It isn't her principle private resident by law. My point is it does come under the laws and rules you are talking about. You also said it should be taken off her already.

Are you changing your mind or not? Are you going to say the law should make exceptions and target the actual real issue?

Have you any proof that the stick approach makes things faster? I pointed out that the councils are slower to do things why do you think they will be quicker. In the 80s they encourage investment and that worked but there is no proof what you are saying works as far as I am aware. Are you in possession of information that proves the stick works better? I don't think it does but you are sure it does,

Again do you want quick and cheap or punishment? Would it bother you if incentives worked better and these people made profits but we have housing and less derelict property?

I really don't like dereliction and I believe what was allowed happen by the 5 lamps in Dublin is a disgrace. I watched as the building were let fall down and we lost some beautiful buildings and a focal point of the city. Then you have something like Iveagh Market which was in control of the council which they completely failed to manage. I wouldn't put the council in charge of any derelict buildings as they have a track record on failure.

I'm just waiting to see if there will be an uptick of rental properties coming on-market in the second quarter. In other words all the ones that were vacated by people getting out of Dublin shortly after Covid-19 showed up and having now been unoccupied for 24 months are no longer subject to RPZ limits.

Incentives haven't worked. We've incentivesed the arse out of the property market worldwide. And look what we have worldwide. Lack of property. A disfunction build to rent system.

We give too much of tax payers money to profit businesses now. We should start giving it back to the city's and towns people live in. That means facilitating home ownership through dereliction upgrades or social housing.

Your plan takes money out of the real economy as people pay you rent for something they'll never have the opportunity to own ever. That's toppsy turvy and it's neoliberalism which started back in the 80s. Turned out great everywhere around the world right...

No that woman shouldnt lose her house. Its her house. Its not nor never has been what you represented an asset investment.

So keep to the topic at hand. Dereliction not homes of little oul wans. Your trying to obfuscate the core issue here.

I've also stated councils need a good stick too because theyve been allowed to be sub par for decades. Neo liberalism in action.

Won't be anywhere near enough to make a difference on the grand scale of things but still be interesting/depressing (delete as appropriate) to see if that is what some landlords decided to do.

I've come across mixed signals but there are certainly companies that have had to offer permanent remote working in order to stop losing significant portions of tech staff. I pretty much walked out because I decided I was not going to put up with Dublin's accommodation situation.

What incentives haven't worked? We are talking Ireland. Section 23 worked very well in Dublin, not sure you are old enough to have seen it working.

My "plan" creates accommodation quickly and who said the property would then just be rented and not sold? You assume way too much because you are not open minded. I think you are better off not using terms like "neoliberalism" because you obviously don't understand it or even the word "bias".

Go back and read. You will see it is you who decided it was an asset that should be taken and also mentioned it made no difference she was old. So you are changing what you said now.

So are we clear you don't want any incentives because you are morally opposed to giving more money as private companies/individuals would profit, this is irregardless of it being the quickest solution you just don't want them getting money.

Meanwhile you are going to somehow create a stick to beat the councils with until they do what you think they should while giving them more property. To fund this the country should borrow the money and then all is OK. You see no flaw in your plan?

Again do you want it done quickly and cheaply or punish people? Why you won't answer this is apparent because what you are saying is you want the punishment angle and beat organisation around so they will do what you think is best. I asked for proof of this working and you have none.

There really isn't anything left to discuss because you aren't engaging when asked questions or proof that your idea is in anyway practical in the real world. Just to let you know a 28 apartment block near me was bought by the council over a year ago. It is still vacant and all they did was remove all the appliances, fixtures and fittings from a building less than 10 years old. You want to trust them to do more, no matter what penalties you heap on them they aren't going to suddenly be more efficient. I worked with the civil service so maybe I am more aware of how they operate or more to the point not operate. You live in angry hope of retribution and magical councils but reality isn't changing

The underlying problem is quite simple. Money is extremely cheap at present and this is inflating asset prices. This is a worldwide phenomenon. The ordinary individual, however, is subject to borrowing restrictions by central banks that don't apply to larger corporate entities and is therefore forced into the rental market.

Governments, seeking votes, then place restrictions on how much property corporate property funds can buy however this causes supply issues and rising rents for the increased numbers of people stuck in the rental market.

The problem goes back to aftermath of the financial crisis when money was printed to try to revive economies and at the same time mortgate lending criteria was tightened for ordinary people.

It is an example of why you can't print your way out of economic problems and why also, you can't legislate your way out of problems caused by printing money.

It did happen before. That is what happened to the social housing of the past it was sold to the resident for precisely that reason. Some squandered it other built on it so they had property to rent. Now the extremist think it is good to punish those who did well and seize their assets. Seems unfair to me but if you are a "have not" making somebody who is a "have" pay must be very appealing.

Do you not see the double standard of preaching to people that it's OK that they'll never own a house while you have at least three?

I also have to laugh at the comments "what happens in another country isn't relevant here", "this could never be done" or it's not constitutional. Why don't you just be honest and state your feelings on the subject, i.e. that you're against rent caps and controls and not make up such claims that it can't be done. So house owning is fantasy but fixing the renting crisis is also a fantasy.

Finally Ray you say this:

So to conclude only you who was lucky enough to own houses when it was easier to do so should own a house, young people should give up the idea, renting is a nightmare in Ireland and furthermore there's no where for them go to because every country is the same.

Well I say that this is b*llox. I live outside of Berlin and pay 570 per month warm rent in a nice apartment. I have lived in the US, England and Germany and nowhere did I pay such a high proportion of my wage in rent as in Ireland. In every country I have lived people have remarked that Ireland is unaffordable. I work in the biotech field and I am quite lucky that the wages are quite high. People working in the field with me have stated that they have lived in Ireland and the amount of money you spent of rent makes it completely unfeasible. Colleagues in the pharmaceutical industry state the same. People turn down jobs to work in Dublin or even other parts of Ireland because of unaffordable, overinflated housing and rents based on pure greed. Also the landlords I have encountered in Ireland were by far the least professional.

In short Ray it's very easy for a man who bought houses when it was far easier to buy houses to tell people to suck it up when it comes to renting and owning a house.

52% tax.. that old chestnut?

Rent is taxed just like other income, depends on your tax bracket.

The housing crisis is mainly driven by huge immigration trends.

Consider this analogy...

If you start feeding pigeons on Sackville Street, the birds will flock from all over.

He's hardly "stalking" you, in fairness, you've over 6.5k posts here, I recognise you from reading previous threads. Yourself and about five other posters in the accomodation thread make up about 90% of the comments on housing on this platform.

The general theme of your posts is indeed one of "Housing for me but not for thee". A landlord who owns multiple properties telling aspiring buyers they should be okay with never owning but also that the renting situation can't be fixed. Sure.

You are correct that it has never happened before. The problem is that for many stuck in rental accommodation the chances of getting out of it are worse now and conditions while renting have worsened.

Why not? It is a business and treated differently to other businesses. It is treated differently to investment. You said it was like any other income it isn't and has further restrictions than other income. You can just acknowledge the facts