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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

IMF: social welfare benefits 'too high'

1…34689…28

Comments

  • #152
    Boskowski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭Boskowski


    But how can you argue we only spend 20% ish on welfare when the welfare bill is 20 billion and the tax take is 35%?


  • #153
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    AlekSmart wrote:
    As Stark has pointed out in a follow-up post,the relief KyussBishop refers to is Mortgage Interest Subsidy Payment,which is indeed an emergency measure funded by the State.

    I am referring to the generally available PAYE Mortgage Interest Relief allowances,which are now at capped at the lowest tax rate and substantially reduced.

    The reality,historically,was of hundreds of thousands of us (me included) availing of a direct Government subsidy to purchase our own wee plot of the Emerald Isle.
    Ok yes, that makes sense; that's a subsidy indeed, and thankfully looks to be phased out in 5 years.
    AlekSmart wrote:
    It is my belief that the actual costs of resedential property ownership have been kept artifically low in order to keep a cabal of Politicians,Developers,Lawyers and associated property ownership related "Proffesionals" in clover.
    How do you come to this conclusion after we just experienced the biggest property bubble in state history? (where most serious economists still think the price of houses has not bottomed out to realistic prices yet either)


    As regards to the rest of your post: Much of the property speculators built the houses, not buying them at low cost. I still don't understand the logic of why you think houses should have cost even more?

    The material and labour cost of houses, as I said earlier, puts a floor on the real value of houses that should make them affordable to just about everyone.
    Why should property developers sell houses at an even higher price than before, making enormous profits relative to the cost of building, when that locks a significant number of people out of the market? (further locking them into having to rent, which will cost them even more in the long run)

    It's perfectly possible to have a housing market where everyone can afford a house, so long as there are proper checks on credit, and other reforms to keep the prices from becoming ridiculously high.
    AlekSmart wrote:
    As to why I believe this...well Ireland as a productive entity,simply does not generate enough wealth to allow for ongoing universal resedential property ownership.
    You'll need to provide some figures to back this up; preferably the cost of building a house vs average income. I am quite certain it is reasonable for everyone.


    I mean, you see that the prices were massively inflated, and that people were given cheap credit (loans) far too easily, yet your answer is to make houses even more inflated in value, forcing people to spend even more in their lifetime renting, when the logical answer is to provide proper checks on credit and keep houses close to their base cost.


  • #154
    Heads the ball
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    sarumite wrote: »
    How so? I also believe that what is moral and fair isn't always economically viable. It is not practical, however much desirable, to balance the books overnight.

    May I remind you then when I said "it is immoral to have future generations pay for it" your response was



    yet now you are stating it doesn't hold any weight :confused:

    I said that in the context of my previous posts which were discussing the open guarantees to the banks. Adn that is immoral to ask future generations to pay that.

    But you have a blanket statement of it being immoral to pay social welfare (and for that matter, all non capital expenditure) as we are in a deficit. And thats a daft position to have.


  • #155
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Going beyond the obvious necessity to balance our budget: Why is there not talk of restructuring our debt in addition to that? If we get a writedown on much of our national debt, and pass that on to writing down some private debt, we can achieve a faster recovery and won't need to cut the budget so much.


  • #156
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    I have friends in London who pay what I consider crazy rents; you are talking 60% of their income on rent.
    Well, that’s just ridiculous – there is something very wrong with someone’s financial affairs if they’re paying almost two thirds of their income on rent.
    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    BUT - When you compare like for like:
    Person in Dublin pays 40% of their income on rent and 20% on car tax/ownership/maintenance to live in a series of glorified villages called Dublin.
    vs.
    Person in London pays 60% of their income on rent and 0% on cars to live in 1 of the world's three global cities.
    How is that comparing like-for-like? You’re just comparing arbitrary figures? And you’ve conveniently omitted the massive cost of public transport in London.

    The average income in Ireland at present is about €36k, which will leave about €28,400 after deductions. If you’re spending 40% of your income on rent, that equates to about €950 per month, which would permit anyone to rent a very nice one bed property within walking distance of wherever it is they work – no need for a car in those circumstances, assuming that they work relatively centrally in Dublin (as a lot of people do).

    If someone earning the equivalent sum in London (£28k at current exchange rates) is spending about 40% of their income on rent, they’ll have about £720 per month to play with – there’s absolutely no way you’ll get a one bed flat in London for that. Even if you were to up that to 60% of net income (just under £1,100), you’re still not going to be able to get anything remotely central, leaving you with significant expense on public transport.

    Granted, I’m taking a simple example here of a single person with no dependents, but it’s merely to illustrate the point: Dublin is not a particularly expensive place to live and rents, in particular, seem pretty reasonable.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    sarumite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    Heads the ball wrote: »
    I said that in the context of my previous posts which were discussing the open guarantees to the banks. Adn that is immoral to ask future generations to pay that.

    But you have a blanket statement of it being immoral to pay social welfare (and for that matter, all non capital expenditure) as we are in a deficit. And thats a daft position to have.

    As a general principle imo it is immoral to rack up debts that you know you won't be the one paying off. As a practical application, it is wrong (and ultimately unsustainable) imo to remain in deficit and continue to rack up debts that you won't be paying off without making an effort to close that deficit. There is nothing immoral or unfair about cutting social welfare as part of a broader effort to close the deficit. By doing so within a broader scheme you are not singling out or making scapegoats of people on SW.


  • #158
    Heads the ball
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    sarumite wrote: »
    There is nothing immoral or unfair about cutting social welfare as part of a broader effort to close the deficit. By doing so within a broader scheme you are not singling out or making scapegoats of people on SW.

    This statement by itself is not something I would have issue with however the context of the bank guarantee must be considered.

    For example: we wrote a blank cheque for banks. We drew no dictinction between "billions" let alone "millions." Whatever you need, we'll pay!

    Now compare that to say a €10 decrease in SW. Lets say there are 500,000-1million people on welfare. That €10 saves a meager €260million-500million per year.

    It seems nauseating to me to propose those cutbacks against the billions upon billions that were paid to banks without a question!!!!!!

    And, those cuts are on the most vulnerable section of society.

    I think we have a real disgusting instinct to attack and bully and sacapegoat people in this country. Thats not directed at any person here its moreso directed generally at the horrible right-wing sentiment that I perceive exists on these threads and advocates these courses of action.


  • #159
    sarumite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    Heads the ball wrote: »
    This statement by itself is not something I would have issue with however the context of the bank guarantee must be considered.

    For example: we wrote a blank cheque for banks. We drew no dictinction between "billions" let alone "millions." Whatever you need, we'll pay!

    Now compare that to say a €10 decrease in SW. Lets say there are 500,000-1million people on welfare. That €10 saves a meager €260million-500million per year.

    The bank guarantee was an expenditure that impacted our debt quite a lot. However, the impact of our continuing fiscal deficit is not a result of the bank guarantee. Even without the failed banks, we are running a primary deficit (i.e. before we pay back any debt). Therefore we must look to reduce our primary expenditure. The money we are paying back to the troika currently has nothing to do with bank expenditure. Blaming the banks, while it certainly gives me a warm fuzzy feeling, doesn't actually deal with the problem at hand.

    The reality is that the SW budget will probably need to be reduced by more than 2%.


  • #160
    Heads the ball
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    sarumite wrote: »
    The bank guarantee was an expenditure that impacted our debt quite a lot. However, the impact of our continuing fiscal deficit is not a result of the bank guarantee. Even without the failed banks, we are running a primary deficit (i.e. before we pay back any debt). Therefore we must look to reduce our primary expenditure. The money we are paying back to the troika currently has nothing to do with bank expenditure. Blaming the banks, while it certainly gives me a warm fuzzy feeling, doesn't actually deal with the problem at hand.

    The reality is that the SW budget will probably need to be reduced by more than 2%.

    €10 would be a 5%


  • #161
    mitosis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,996 ✭✭✭mitosis


    EchoO wrote: »
    But our spending on welfare is not exorbitant compared to other EU countries. In fact as a percentage of national income it's one of the lowest.


    That's not to say that we can get to a budget deficit of 3.5% by 2015 without cutting the social protection budget, clearly we can't. But the argument that social benefits have to be cut on the grounds of affordability in the context of the bailout program is much more valid than saying they have to be cut just because they are "exorbitant".

    Health is the one area area where we outspend our EU neighbours. Unfortunately our Health service doesn't reflect this

    .

    Housing is the big offender - not health.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    General Atomic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37 ✭General Atomic


    sarumite wrote: »
    As a general principle imo it is immoral to rack up debts that you know you won't be the one paying off. As a practical application, it is wrong (and ultimately unsustainable) imo to remain in deficit and continue to rack up debts that you won't be paying off without making an effort to close that deficit. There is nothing immoral or unfair about cutting social welfare as part of a broader effort to close the deficit. By doing so within a broader scheme you are not singling out or making scapegoats of people on SW.

    The problem with your approach is that it's backwards. Instead of cutting the deficit with an aim to reducing our debt, we need to take more measures to stimulate our economy so that our deficit shrinks through increased tax income.

    It's been shown time and again that economies suffer when the government makes major cuts to public services. Right now our economy cannot take any additional strain; our unemployment rate is still rising, we've not begun to truly recover yet. The social cost of high unemployment will be felt by the next generation too, not to mention the poorer public services and infrastructure they'll have because of the cuts you advocate. If we don't tackle our economic problems then the next generation will be mostly unemployed anyway!


  • #163
    Welease
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    Heads the ball wrote: »
    €10 would be a 5%

    Not of SW..

    SW consists of various different schemes incl. housing/rent allowances, child benefits, medical cards etc.

    A €10 cut for an unemployed family with 3 kids in social housing is far from a 5% cut to them...
    A €10 cut across JSB/JSA is far from a 5% cut on the SW costs to the country.


  • #164
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,002 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Ok yes, that makes sense; that's a subsidy indeed, and thankfully looks to be phased out in 5 years......

    .......The material and labour cost of houses, as I said earlier, puts a floor on the real value of houses that should make them affordable to just about everyone.

    Why should property developers sell houses at an even higher price than before, making enormous profits relative to the cost of building, when that locks a significant number of people out of the market? (further locking them into having to rent, which will cost them even more in the long run)

    It's perfectly possible to have a housing market where everyone can afford a house, so long as there are proper checks on credit, and other reforms to keep the prices from becoming ridiculously high.

    You'll need to provide some figures to back this up; preferably the cost of building a house vs average income. I am quite certain it is reasonable for everyone.

    I mean, you see that the prices were massively inflated, and that people were given cheap credit (loans) far too easily, yet your answer is to make houses even more inflated in value, forcing people to spend even more in their lifetime renting, when the logical answer is to provide proper checks on credit and keep houses close to their base cost.

    I'm afraid,KyussBishop,our perception of logic appears to differ.

    I do not actually believe that Ireland has a base economy capable of allowing "everyone"
     to own their own residence.

    Furthermore I contend that that may even be less desireable in many ways,given the vast potential for human nature to rush off in all directions in the rush for "The Good Life".

    Idyllic country retreats in Leitrim with poor Public Transport links to schools,employments and associated services...poor access to internet,sewage and whatever other services are easier and cheaper to provide in Urban environments.

    One could go on....but reality as ever,intrudes.

    Am I to take it that Ireland with an adult population of C.3,000,000 has the capability,or even the need,to allow each of these adults to purchase their own small plot of the country ?

    What then ?

    How,in the absence of a functional economy do the newly enriched property owners then set about the funding of their own little mini-countries for the remainder of their lives,whilst also funding all of the other elements which go to make up our social existance....?

    It cannot simply ALL be about owning your own home....for many this recession has opened up a vista which allows them to see an alternative...one which sees them and their families being able to afford other elements of life.....

    What is required from Government is a commitment to replace universal private residential ownership with a guaranteed and regulated universal private resedential usership,which also carries with it the capability to have a far more sustainable approach to land useage and development than endless ribbon developments of "Luxury" detached and semi-detached residences.

    Maintaining the need to own ones own home as a life goal,is not a good thing IMO,and will only ensure an endless rerunning of the current mess.


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • #165
    Heads the ball
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    Welease wrote: »
    Heads the ball wrote: »
    €10 would be a 5%

    Not of SW..

    SW consists of various different schemes incl. housing/rent allowances, child benefits, medical cards etc.

    A €10 cut for an unemployed family with 3 kids in social housing is far from a 5% cut to them...
    A €10 cut across JSB/JSA is far from a 5% cut on the SW costs to the country.

    There is nothing particularly insightful in this post other than to tell me my example doesnt cover the entire sw budget


  • #166
    Count Dooku
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭Count Dooku


    General Atomic wrote: »

    The problem with your approach is that it's backwards. Instead of cutting the deficit with an aim to reducing our debt, we need to take more measures to stimulate our economy so that our deficit shrinks through increased tax income.
    Do you mean continue to resell imported goods on borrowed money and pretend that economy is growing as we did before under FF rule?


  • #167
    Welease
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    Heads the ball wrote: »
    There is nothing particularly insightful in this post other than to tell me my example doesnt cover the entire sw budget

    Which one would assume the previous poster was referring to, when they said "The reality is that the SW budget will probably need to be reduced by more than 2%"... So your 5% example was off the mark considerably..


  • #168
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    AlekSmart wrote:
    ...
    Again, you have failed to explain or justify various things:
    1: How do you justify wanting houses to cost more than before, inflating them in value far beyond their base cost?
    2: You seem to think houses in the past were undervalued, despite us just having gone through the biggest property bubble in the states history, and despite most credible economists believing our housing market has still not bottomed out. This makes no sense.
    3: Renting costs more through a persons lifetime than buying a house, so how is it affordable to rent and not to buy?
    4: The current crisis was caused by inflated house prices and cheap credit, i.e. loans being given out too easily; you seem to think that if those issues are resolved, that people will still run away with themselves into debt again, despite the fact that proper credit restrictions would stop this.

    You just keep reasserting "not everyone can afford it", and you completely fail to explain why, you just give spurious unsupported reasons and straw men arguments as to why it would be bad, failing to address the above.

    Also, one strawman in particular which I have not posited, is that people buy luxury detached/semi-detached houses; people could just as easily buy apartments, which are of course far lower in price. No reason at all why they should not be affordable.


  • #169
    General Atomic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37 ✭General Atomic


    Count Dooku wrote: »
    Do you mean continue to resell imported goods on borrowed money and pretend that economy is growing as we did before under FF rule?

    I mean stimulate the economy through infrastructure improvements and incentives for company creation through organizations like Enterprise Ireland. To be honest though, defaulting on our debt and dropping out of the Euro would ultimately be a great move for us despite the short-term problems it would cause. It's difficult for us to compete with other countries in the eurozone like Germany when we don't have control over our own currency and it's difficult for us to have any credibility in the bond markets for the same reason. Thus we can't borrow money to fuel these projects and we have to instead rely on money that has ludicrous austerity strings attached.


  • #170
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    General Atomic wrote: »
    ...our unemployment rate is still rising, we've not begun to truly recover yet.
    There are going to be substantial numbers of people unemployed in Ireland for the foreseeable future, recovery or no recovery, because the construction sector isn’t going to return to anything approaching the scale we saw during the boom.
    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Also, one strawman in particular which I have not posited, is that people buy luxury detached/semi-detached houses; people could just as easily buy apartments, which are of course far lower in price.
    But, in an Irish context, that’s completely unrealistic. Most people will want to buy a detached/semi-detached property rather than a flat.


  • #171
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    General Atomic wrote: »
    ...defaulting on our debt and dropping out of the Euro would ultimately be a great move for us despite the short-term problems it would cause.
    1. Default
    2. Leave Euro
    3. ?
    4. Profit


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    General Atomic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37 ✭General Atomic


    djpbarry wrote: »
    1. Default
    2. Leave Euro
    3. ?
    4. Profit

    Being in the eurozone is more of a noble ideal of the european project than a practical advantage. Granted, not having to deal with money switching when travelling is useful, but the disadvantages are massive on a national scale.

    Take a look at Britain, they have control over their own currency and as a result they did not need a bailout; they could use their own central bank to directly inject capital funds into the ailing bank instead of taking loans with economy-damaging strings attached. We saw this occur again recently ahead of the Spanish bailout talks, when the Bank of England basically conjured up money for banks to rely on should the Spanish deal result in losses for domestic institutions. You might make the argument that this measure results in inflation, but given that the money is basically going into bank capital reserves and not into general circulation, this does not end up being the case.

    At the same time, Britain's bond yields are at an all-time low because they're viewed as a safe port in the eurozone storm; they never have to default because they can just create more pounds out of nothing if they need to, thus they represent a very safe bet. Granted, they're not borrowing and stimulating their economy, but that's more down to the delusions of the conservatives regarding big government than any practical concern. If we had our own currency, we'd be a lot better off right now.


  • #173
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    djpbarry wrote:
    But, in an Irish context, that’s completely unrealistic. Most people will want to buy a detached/semi-detached property rather than a flat.
    It's not unrealistic really, if there are flats available and they are a cheap starting point, people will buy them.


  • #174
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,045 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    General Atomic wrote: »
    Take a look at Britain, they have control over their own currency and as a result they did not need a bailout
    Specious reasoning. Britain also had control over its currency in 1976 when it asked for a strings attached IMF loan.
    In 1976 Britain faced financial crisis. The Labour government was forced to apply to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a loan of nearly $4 billion. IMF negotiators insisted on deep cuts in public expenditure, greatly affecting economic and social policy.

    Ireland is a country, if ever there was one, that can benefit from politicians not being able to fiddle around with the currency like a play thing that they can use to hide their economic mismanagement. Being in the Euro means our government cannot give us all a sly paycut by devaluing the Punt and making us all poorer. They are (slowly) being forced to address the structural issues with our economy and IMO this is a great thing for the country. No "get rich quick schemes" etc. just hard work and yes, real austerity will get us out of the mess we have created for ourselves (not foisted upon us-self inflicted!)

    We have major issues with competitiveness because we, generally, pay ourselves too much compared to our nearest neighbours. Devaluing the Punt would make us all poorer, even companies and individuals who are competitive, instead of tackling the real innefficiencies (mostly state run).


  • #175
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,045 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    It's not unrealistic really, if there are flats available and they are a cheap starting point, people will buy them.
    See, you're already talkning about a "property ladder" again. Buy a "starter home and trade up" etc. When (if) a German makes a decision to buy a home, it'll almost certainly be the one he dies in. There is no property ladder here.

    Ireland doesn't have to slavishly follow an anglo-saxon model in everything it does. Sometimes the continental ways are better in the long run.


  • #176
    NIMAN
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,811 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    We all know that there are wealthy people in Ireland who are getting benefits they don't really need.

    Its partly down to the systems not being easily put in place to means test people, plus an element of politicians not wanting to annoy potential voters too much.

    I personally know an incredibly wealthy retired couple who have a property worth maybe around €750k, own a lot of assets, very good private pensions but still are given free telephone calls and electricity, free travel, and generous old age pensions. They don't need them, and I am sure the country is coming down with others in their same situation.


  • #177
    Farmer Pudsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,326 ✭✭✭Farmer Pudsey


    murphaph wrote: »
    We have major issues with competitiveness because we, generally, pay ourselves too much compared to our nearest neighbours. Devaluing the Punt would make us all poorer, even companies and individuals who are competitive, instead of tackling the real innefficiencies (mostly state run).
    Yes we do and the biggest offender is the public service devaluing to a punt would not make us poorer yes we would get a short sharpe shock but after that people that are involved ib the export economy would start to make money multinationsls in ireland, farming,fishing and tourism and as long as we did not allow pay rises in the public service the country would rock again.
    NIMAN wrote: »
    We all know that there are wealthy people in Ireland who are getting benefits they don't really need.

    Its partly down to the systems not being easily put in place to means test people, plus an element of politicians not wanting to annoy potential voters too much.

    I personally know an incredibly wealthy retired couple who have a property worth maybe around €750k, own a lot of assets, very good private pensions but still are given free telephone calls and electricity, free travel, and generous old age pensions. They don't need them, and I am sure the country is coming down with others in their same situation.

    There is a big move to means test everything while agree that free telephone, travel and electricity are perks why should we punish someone that has beem prudent and saved and provided for there old age. What might be a very good private pension at 65 after 20 years of inflation will be meagre at 85 but you will find that these people will still not be aburden on the state.

    The one advantage of people having wealth is that there family are more likly to look after them and not plonk them in a nursing home if they have nothing letting the state pick up the bill at the cost of 35-40K ayear

    General Atomic wrote: »
    I mean stimulate the economy through infrastructure improvements and incentives for company creation through organizations like Enterprise Ireland. To be honest though, defaulting on our debt and dropping out of the Euro would ultimately be a great move for us despite the short-term problems it would cause. It's difficult for us to compete with other countries in the eurozone like Germany when we don't have control over our own currency and it's difficult for us to have any credibility in the bond markets for the same reason. Thus we can't borrow money to fuel these projects and we have to instead rely on money that has ludicrous austerity strings attached.

    We tried stimulating our economy in the late seventies it did not work to stimulate your economy you need money and what would you spend it on the Western rail, also big construction projects are no longer labour intensive so will give very little boost to the economy but will rather make CRH more valuable
    The reason we cannot complete is that they use there strenghts to compete such as engineering and production a devaluation would allow our tourism industry to take off.
    AlekSmart wrote: »
    I do not actually believe that Ireland has a base economy capable of allowing "everyone"
    to own their own residence.

    It cannot simply ALL be about owning your own home....for many this recession has opened up a vista which allows them to see an alternative...one which sees them and their families being able to afford other elements of life.....

    What is required from Government is a commitment to replace universal private residential ownership with a guaranteed and regulated universal private resedential usership,which also carries with it the capability to have a far more sustainable approach to land useage and development than endless ribbon developments of "Luxury" detached and semi-detached residences.

    Maintaining the need to own ones own home as a life goal,is not a good thing IMO,and will only ensure an endless rerunning of the current mess.
    Home owner ship is getting a dirty name in this country in certain part of europe this is not an issue as you will not freeze to death in the open.

    Also I would not want to be dependant on an Irish Landlord. The reality is that for the last ten years people have been building far too large houses in the country in the seventies and eighties the average was about 1300 sq foot now they are nearer 3000 sq foot and in urban area's builders started building dolls houses. Most apartments build in this country are totally unsuitable for long term living and there qualiy of construction is highly questionable and I would advise against anyone paying money for a piece of fresh air.

    However I believe that home ownership is desirableand has many benfits but should not be a live goal. In old age it gives security and stability it is only when you go to some countries and see older people living in caravan parks you relise the benfits of it and it is the least well of that suffer when they do not have a permanment home


  • #178
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    murphaph wrote: »
    See, you're already talkning about a "property ladder" again. Buy a "starter home and trade up" etc. When (if) a German makes a decision to buy a home, it'll almost certainly be the one he dies in. There is no property ladder here.

    Ireland doesn't have to slavishly follow an anglo-saxon model in everything it does. Sometimes the continental ways are better in the long run.
    If there is a market for it, it will happen whether or not it is the ideal setup; the point would be preventing them from being overpriced.


  • #179
    Farmer Pudsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,326 ✭✭✭Farmer Pudsey


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    If there is a market for it, it will happen whether or not it is the ideal setup; the point would be preventing them from being overpriced.

    No the point is that we should not have a overly free supply of credit. twenty years ago you had to save for 2-3 years before you got a loan, you had to save about 20% of the price of the house. When you bought/build the house you then painted it and furnished it in stage not with borrowed money you knew the scarfices you had to make before you started

    However before we continue we should remember this is a post about welfare and not another post about the propety bubble if we continue on that we should go here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056668266


  • #180
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,002 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Again, you have failed to explain or justify various things:
    1: How do you justify wanting houses to cost more than before, inflating them in value far beyond their base cost?
    2: You seem to think houses in the past were undervalued, despite us just having gone through the biggest property bubble in the states history, and despite most credible economists believing our housing market has still not bottomed out. This makes no sense.
    3: Renting costs more through a persons lifetime than buying a house, so how is it affordable to rent and not to buy?
    4: The current crisis was caused by inflated house prices and cheap credit, i.e. loans being given out too easily; you seem to think that if those issues are resolved, that people will still run away with themselves into debt again, despite the fact that proper credit restrictions would stop this.

    You just keep reasserting "not everyone can afford it", and you completely fail to explain why, you just give spurious unsupported reasons and straw men arguments as to why it would be bad, failing to address the above.

    Also, one strawman in particular which I have not posited, is that people buy luxury detached/semi-detached houses; people could just as easily buy apartments, which are of course far lower in price. No reason at all why they should not be affordable.

    I'm afraid that having to "explain" the reality of our current "situation" indicates that our respective positions are poles apart.

    The Irish realities are all around us,both in Bricks n Mortar and Human terms,and no amount of positing will alter that.

    I don't "Want" houses to cost more.

    I don't believe "all" houses were undervalued.

    Renting only cost's more in a persons lifetime because our socially retarded State Thinking was/is based upon an unsustainable premise,universal property ownership.

    I do believe that,with no hard evidence to the contrary,Irish Government policy remains committed to kick-starting the old Property Machine once more.

    And,yes KyussBishop,you are absolutely correct,I do believe that if some astute Politician can magic Ireland out of this morass,then a new generation of the plain Irish people will enthusiastically grasp the Golden Opportunity to "get on the property ladder".

    I don't feel any requirement to support my contention with rafts of statistics,particularly as the fall-out from the failed property-ownership experiment is being more than adequately documented each day in the various Courts dealing with repossessions and commercial judgements.

    It's there,in hi-definition detail for all who wish to see.

    The final "Straw-Man" accusation regarding Apartment Vs house comparisons is,to me,unsupportable,as coincidental with the Irish State aligining itself with unsustainable property practices,it also removed itself from taking any form of interest in what should have been the affordable,sustainable alternative to "Buying a House"..ie: Renting a well designed,competently constructed,safe and sustainable apartment capable of use by generations of Families.

    It's noteworthy that amongst all of the guff recently written and spoken about Mick Wallace TD,few have noted that his Dublin City Centre apartments were almost alone in incorporating small design features to allow for children and their inevitability in structured family development.

    Strangely enough,the only concern of succesive central and local administrations was/is maximising the return available to the developers...thus we allowed the Zoe standard to become the norm.....:rolleyes:

    And,I almost forgot....I do contend that significant numbers of Irish workers cannot afford the total ongoing costs of owning their own homes,with many of these workers never being able to do so.


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Advertisement
  • #181
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,002 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    Farmer Pudsey wrote: »
    However before we continue we should remember this is a post about welfare and not another post about the propety bubble if we continue on that we should go here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056668266

    I agree,BUT I suggest that KyussBishops vision will,if taken to it's limits see the Irish State having to continue with various Private Property Ownership rescue packages,and almost certainly having to increase the scope of these to maintain the illusion ?


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



Advertisement