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

State is buying half of all new homes - this has to stop!

  • 22-02-2022 11:02am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 940 ✭✭✭


    Recent figures show the State is hoovering up around half of all the new homes built last year, either directly or through housing bodies.

    No wonder it's so difficult for private buyers and renters! Banning the State from buying or leasing would instantly double the number of houmes available to buyers and renters.

    It's the State which is crowding out hard working first time buyers, not funds. The narrative in the media is completely wrong...the funds are financing the development of new homes which otherwise would not be built, while the State is taking them off the market!

    We need to get our piroirites straight here....is our top prioirty to give a new A rated house to a welfare dependent single mother, or is our priority to have that house available for hard working taxpayers to buy? There is no-one standing up for the private buyer in the face of huge govenrment intervention in the market.



«134

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,071 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    First paragraph had me worried but 2nd paragraph mentioned welfare so business as usual. Phew.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,102 ✭✭✭manonboard


    While i fully agree its a huge problem, with some terrible outcomes. What are you suggesting happens to the welfare dependents?

    What is the goal exactly? I, as a fellow tax paying hard working person understand that its great for me to buy a house with my own earned income. Though if it comes at the expense that people on welfare dont get housed.. whats the gain? I benefit but society as a whole still only houses the same number of people (2 buyers rather than 1 buyer and 1 welfare dependent). So really its just a boon to the economy and tax collector. It makes my life a bit easier in the short term, but in the long term it would erode a huge safety net in the society i have to live in.

    There is obviously not enough supply, and i think what you are proposing is to simply place more limitations on that existing supply towards people that have more money.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,750 ✭✭✭LillySV


    foreign investors coming in and buying huge estates to rent back out , pay no tax on … all win for them… makes no sense … reit should be stopped as it’s benefitting no one in Ireland



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,765 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    more state involvement in the property market is the only game in town, we ve done the fire sector approach, and it has clearly failed, spectacularly, as the main source of money in the fire sector approach is credit, and credit is hardwired to maximise returns, which in turn just leads to speculation in markets.... government debt just needs to be serviced, i.e. its less likely to lead to speculation, thus inflated prices....



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,048 ✭✭✭Brian201888


    The state should never be in a position where it's outbidding people on houses and that's what we have at the moment. The current situation where the state either directly or through funding housing agencies buy houses to give away has a far greater impact on middle income earners being able to afford a home than the media bogeyman of REITS buying them



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,979 Mod ✭✭✭✭Necro


    Another week, another Fred welfare bashing thread, quelle surprise



  • Registered Users Posts: 940 ✭✭✭Fred Cryton



    You talk as though being "on welfare" was a permanent life affliction they can do nothing about. They can of course get themselves a job and look to buy /rent in cheaper parts of the country.

    I accept some need for goverment backed housing, but it should be built on cheap greenfield sites outside the M50 and the estates should be 100% social. If the people living there want better, they can work for it.

    I also think there should be segregation by age for social housing. People over 60 want to be living with other over 60's.



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,765 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    funnily enough, we actually dont live in this magical world, whereby is relatively easy to move up social classes, and in an environment if rising inequality, social mobility becomes even harder!



  • Registered Users Posts: 940 ✭✭✭Fred Cryton


    More state involvement just means less supply for private buyers and renters so how is that a good thing?



  • Registered Users Posts: 940 ✭✭✭Fred Cryton


    Not asking anyone to move up the social classes, just asking them to work and contribute. Like they do in every other functioning country except Ireland.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 28,765 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    funnily enough, more state involvement generally means a far more stable property market, as it limits speculation in those markets, as what has occurred here and in many other countries, by primarily prompting the fire sectors to dictate and dominate the markets, Singapore is a perfect example of having very strong state involvement, and a far more stable market

    ...so theres no lower/welfare classes in other countries???



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I'm well into my sixties, and your final sentence certainly doesn't apply to me. I want to live in a mixed community, with a cross section of ages and so on. It's another example of you trying to establish what are tantamount to ghettoes.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,570 ✭✭✭vriesmays


    Fiachra and Sorcha get a 35-yr mortgage and pay ½ a mill € for their semi in Meath and end up living next door to Anto and Tracy and their five kids all on welfare and a free gaff all thanks to our gov.



  • Posts: 864 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,230 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Yeah it's a ridiculous and infuriating situation when private buyers are being squeezed out of private estates.

    All because the government who has the ability to build houses themselves won't.

    And this is all from so-called centrist parties.

    I understand the need for social housing but the priority they're been given in private estates is completely disproportionate.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,911 ✭✭✭✭rob316


    Apparently we can't solve the housing crisis without these funds. Yet we built 10,000's homes for decades without them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,099 ✭✭✭paul71


    The consistantant uninformed Blurb.


    The REITS unlike one-off landlords are generally good landlords and don't mess around with illegal evictions because of a fictitious cousin moving into the house, take six months to do repairs, retain deposits because they are 12 months in arrears on the mortgage.

    REITS must be registered in an EU stock exchange, the shares are therefore freely available to you to buy and are generally owned by European and Irish Pension funds.

    So the Prison officers pension fund, the Irish Construction Workers Pension Fund and lots of other Irish pensions are the REITS.

    75% of earnings MUST be distributed in Dividend. Dividend with-holding tax is paid on the Dividend, the shareholder must then declare the dividend as income.


    But ignore me and don't let simple facts get in the way of flawed angry rant.



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,765 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    .....different times, property price inflation has been astronomical in those decades, and modern political and economic ideologies have significantly curtailed states in building, but we must push back on these beliefs now, in order to get the job done



  • Registered Users Posts: 182 ✭✭Ahherelads2022


    Get divorced, make your wife and kids Sleep on the parent's/friends couch (officially or unofficially). Say you are homeless, take a pic of a few bags of clothes. Get a nice house. Meanwhile MR can sell his house and move back in with a load of cash.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,128 ✭✭✭Fattybojangles


    Except of course it's not free Anto and Tracy pay rent.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,128 ✭✭✭Fattybojangles


    Ah sure God love them they're saints really they're only charging 2k a month plus to rent shoebox apartments out of the goodness of their hearts really.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,099 ✭✭✭paul71


    So what they are part of the solution if they were not there those apartments would not have been built at all, because developers cannot afford to build enough. The REITS are the only ones providing the capital to build.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,750 ✭✭✭LillySV


    And the usual reply from someone who probably pays into a fund so must know it all… foreign investors pay frig all nothing on their returns, buy up full estates in many instances, resulting in less available houses for the ordinary folk who then have to rent and pay these same Assholes over the odds figures in rent … rents are kept high as no competition… afew landlords control most of the housing

    but don’t just take my word

    https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2021/0513/1221319-ireland-housing-property-reits-tax-investment-funds/



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭Lillyfae


    With all due respect, you should have less of a choice if you're being housed by the taxpayer for a fraction of the market value.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,668 ✭✭✭whippet


    This post shows that you actually haven't a clue about what you are talking about.

    But if it lets you let of steam ....



  • Registered Users Posts: 182 ✭✭Ahherelads2022


    Depends if they are on welfare and not working the rent they pay comes from jobseekers Which the state pay. Ie the tax payer.



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,765 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    we re currently experiencing a catastrophic failure of the market based approach to property, otherwise known as the financialisation of markets....



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,128 ✭✭✭Fattybojangles


    Yes that's true but those are a minority the vast majority of people in social housing work and pay rent as a % of their income. Also what do you suggest we do with those people let their children starve because their parents are lazy cnuts?



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,635 ✭✭✭dotsman


    Yes, this has been a big issue for a while and only getting worse. Until there is a sufficient supply of desirable property, everyone loses. All the tweaks and policies and stupid ideas are simply about making some people suffer more than others.

    There should be a massive reform of "social" housing, and an immediate cessation of purchasing/renting more houses. At the moment, we have councils out-bidding working people looking to buy/rent a home (or where they do end up buying/renting, it is at a massively inflated price because of the council's activities). Thus, we end up with A) more working people becoming dependant on housing subsidies and B) a higher cost to the taxpayer per person on housing subsidies.

    The only solution is to build large numbers of well designed properties in well-serviced urban areas and drive down the ridiculous prices. After that, there will be less people needing housing subsidies, and it will be much cheaper to provide those who still need help. Meanwhile, working people won't have to beg, borrow or steal just to get a $hitty shoebox.

    Unfortunately, the big mantra at the moment is "we need more social housing" and "we should waste huge sums of taxpayers money to build more houses in the back and beyond where nobody wants to live". God help us if sf get into power. Not only will they do nothing to resolve the 30-year old crisis, but will make things even worse.

    As someone in their late 30's,i don't think we will resolve the crisis in my lifetime. Politicians keep making things worse (with sf being the worst offenders) and even if they started doing the right thing tomorrow, it would be probably a decade before you would realise the benefits and several decades before it is completely resolved (hence why politicians won't do the right thing).



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 182 ✭✭Ahherelads2022


    I know but whats the incentive to get a job if it sacrifices your chance of getting a house off the Social Welfare. The fact that the Gov need's to buy every second house says as much for the failed policy on housing and to another extent Social Welfare. Free for all if you want it. It can't be like that. No other country is as generous as Ireland with tax payers money.



Advertisement