nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Key city workers, such as Gardai and nurses, to get 30% of their rent paid by State

BigJackC

The Government is to introduce an affordable rental scheme for young workers seeking homes in built-up areas where rents continue to rise due to the lack of housing.

The scheme will not be open to those on social housing waiting lists, but is designed for key workers including newly-qualified gardaí, nurses and other workers who would struggle to rent a home.

Some €10m has been set aside for 2016 to fund a pilot project. The measure was agreed at the last Cabinet meeting before the election, and will only apply to developments where at least five units are made available.

Qualifying criteria including income levels will be decided by the Housing Agency.

According to the Private Residential Tenancies Board, the average cost of renting a two-bedroom apartment is €1,240 in Dublin, €901 in Cork and €855 in Galway.

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/city-workers-to-get-30pc-of-their-rent-paid-by-state-34419382.html

Great subsidy for landlords. Any initiative like this should be by way of tax credits rather than providing cash to buyers. This will just increase demand for an already scarce resource and drive rent prices even higher in urban areas. They need to come up with ways to encourage developers to build more housing in the cities, not just subsidise some lads rent.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ScumLord

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That sounds fair enough, up until the landlord finds out the state is involved and jacks the price up. Which is what happens whenever people find out the state is going to be paying the bills. The state even does it to itself internally.

As long as there's monitoring to ensure it's not abused, I can think of a number of ways it could be already.

Junkyard Tom

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It may not end up in the LL's/Lender's pockets immediately but unless the housing supply increases dramatically in short space of time then in a LL's/Lender's pockets is precisely where that extra income will end up.

BattleCorp

Why is there such negativity and resentment towards landlords?

They are the same as any other business. They are out to make money. It's a matter of supply and demand. If there are less houses to rent, then they will get higher rents.

It's not the landlords fault that there is a shortage of houses. They are just "making hay while the sun shines".

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

maudgonner

BattleCorp wrote: »

Why is there such negativity and resentment towards landlords?

They are the same as any other business. They are out to make money. It's a matter of supply and demand. If there are less houses to rent, then they will get higher rents.

It's not the landlords fault that there is a shortage of houses. They are just "making hay while the sun shines".

Yup, and if you read some of the threads over on the Accommodation forum about tenants who refuse to pay rent, do serious damage and are impossible to evict, it would make you wonder why anyone would want to be a landlord.

I'm sure there are some landlords who take the píss, but there are just as many dodgy tenants.

Deep Six

BattleCorp wrote: »

Why is there such negativity and resentment towards landlords?

They are the same as any other business. They are out to make money. It's a matter of supply and demand. If there are less houses to rent, then they will get higher rents.

It's not the landlords fault that there is a shortage of houses. They are just "making hay while the sun shines".

There's making hay while the sun shines, and then there's taking the piss. To give you an example of one in particular, a house to rent near where I live was advertised on daft in July last year at 850 per month.

Our own lease was expiring in October so I began searching daft again. Low and behold there was the same house from July, back for rent again only this time at 1450 per month. Out of curiosity we went to view it and I've never set foot in a bigger dump in all my life. Exposes wires hanging from where plug sockets should be, house in general disrepair all over and furniture from the 70's. I wouldn't even pay 400 a month to live there, nevermind 1450.

How exactly does a house' rental value increase by nearly 100% in the space of 3 months, with the house itself looking like 100 people had rented it previously unless the landlord is a thieving ****ing scumbag? That's not capitalising on demand, that's pure and utter greed.

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It is precisely a subsidy to landlords - public money going to landlord hands, that's a subsidy... - and as I cited earlier, prominent newspapers as well as prominent property market analysts, cite similar policies like rent supplement as a subsidy. Others here seem to agree with this too.

You're trying to put a spin on the topic, to distract attention away from the primary beneficiaries of this: Landlords and others who have significant interests in property (much of the wealthy and parts of the financial industry).

This is precisely the kind of non-solution to the housing supply crisis, that would be expected of a government heavily lobbied and pliant to beneficiaries like the above - and there is even proof provided earlier in the thread, of such lobbying bodies, looking for similar subsidies from government.

KomradeBishop

BattleCorp wrote: »

Why is there such negativity and resentment towards landlords?

They are the same as any other business. They are out to make money. It's a matter of supply and demand. If there are less houses to rent, then they will get higher rents.

It's not the landlords fault that there is a shortage of houses. They are just "making hay while the sun shines".

Ah yes, I see we've moved on from the "them damn unions/public-sector workers!" distraction, to the "them poor innocent landlords, why does everyone hate them so much, leave them alone!" distraction.

The real victims in all of this? People renting and looking to buy property to live in. All getting screwed in a property market run in the interests of landlords and other wealthy/financial interests - who will do everything they can to keep prices/rents high (including seeking out subsidies from government in order to do this - like this current policy being proposed - and 'pretending' it solves any issues in the market), so they can soak up as much of the average workers income as possible.

It's easy money - and they're going to keep it this way as long as can be gotten away with.

ScumLord

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It is precisely a subsidy to landlords

I would have thought it's a subsidy for the guard. The landlord doesn't have to take the deal, all they want is what they think the apartment is worth/what they can get out of it. So if the guard can't afford it the landlord can just rent to the next guy, it's makes no difference to the landlord. It's not like with farming subsidies where the farmer makes what he can, then get's another lump sum on top of that. The farmer can't just find another buyer that will pay what he want's.

the_syco

BigJackC wrote: »

This will just increase demand for an already scarce resource and drive rent prices even higher in urban areas.

Gardai and nurses; the two "key workers" that are often relocated to meet demand.

Also, because the Gardai may be forced to move before the lease is finished.

Junkyard Tom

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I didn't give a sum or amount. I'm talking about in general terms. More money chasing low supply of accommodation, exacerbated by an increasing population, and increasing numbers of employed, will undoubtedly drive up the cost of accommodation because it's not something you can forgo.

Anyhoo, consider this.

Half the people living in that oft cited marvel of the 'Free Market' Hong Kong live in forms of social housing. 80% of residents of another 'Free Market' marvel Singapore live in publicly developed housing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Randy Riverbeast

It would have potential to cause a rise in rent if enough people were getting it. No idea how many that will be yet. The person receiving it might not have any extra money themselves. They would just be able to live in a more expensive place closer to where they work. Instead of paying 700/month in the outskirts the rent a place that costs 1000/month but still only pay 700.

andekwarhola

Tigger wrote: »

a garda married to a teacher here in castlebar is a typical customer unit of mine
they build 2000sqft homes to a decent standard are respected by their community and generally have a good quality of life
in dublin they are poor and its always surprised me that this is the case

A two income family consisting of a teacher and a gard (presumably far enough into their careers to have settled down etc) are hardly well off and certainly worse off in Dublin than in mayo, but poor? I think not.

ScumLord

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Probably not, what I'm thinking might happen, and I suppose it's more of a possibility than something I think would actually happen. But guard has friend who's a landlord, they agree to a price then submit a higher price to the state on the agreement they split the extra money.

I suppose it's a big risk for both of them to take for little reward, I can't imagine they'd be able to scam more than €300 between them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ted1

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That 360 is worth about 500 extra per month in pay. Which works out at 6,000 per year or a 26% pay rise.
Damn right the Garda benefits

Victor

Business Cat wrote: »

No issue with it for the likes of new guards, they are doing a very tough job and getting paid not much.

On attestation, a new guard is on €30,146 + add shift, overtime, weekend and other allowances.

Salary 25,745
Rent 4,024.85
Boot 152.36
Uniform Maintenance 225.28

Then add shift, overtime, weekend and other allowances.

http://www.gra.cc/salary_scales.shtml
http://www.gra.cc/payscales.shtml
http://www.gra.cc/allowances.shtml

Tigger wrote: »

a garda married to a teacher here in castlebar is a typical customer unit of mine
they build 2000sqft homes to a decent standard are respected by their community and generally have a good quality of life
in dublin they are poor and its always surprised me that this is the case

After ten years, a garda is on €44,744 basic (plus the above allowances and a teacher on €44,996.

Household income €94,000. Not poor.

Rothmans

Victor wrote: »

On attestation, a new guard is on €30,146 + add shift, overtime, weekend and other allowances.

Salary 25,745
Rent 4,024.85
Boot 152.36
Uniform Maintenance 225.28

Then add shift, overtime, weekend and other allowances.

http://www.gra.cc/salary_scales.shtml
http://www.gra.cc/payscales.shtml
http://www.gra.cc/allowances.shtml

After ten years, a garda is on €44,744 basic (plus the above allowances and a teacher on €44,996.

Household income €94,000. Not poor.

Already been addressed. The pay scale was revised down again to 23k on attestation rising incrementally to 44k after 19 years. No rent allowance for these young gardai either, which may be part of the reason for this proposal.

jimgoose

I am in no doubt now, these gowls need to be ran out of Leinster House, at rifle-point if necessary.

Cookie_Monster

Business Cat wrote: »

However why do teachers and other young professionals need to be closer to work?
There is accommodation available that isn't city centre.
Dublin bus offers services for everywhere in Dublin and the outlying towns, there is also the luas and the dart too.
Are they not able to commute?

Why should they have to commute? The concept of and requirement to commute in the modern world is one of the worst aspects of modern life. Gigantic waste of time, resources and energy for everyone involved.

The vast majority of the population could easily live within walking / cycling distance of their place of work if proper density and quality of housing were provided and it would also help to curb the constant outward migration of city boundaries.

Eugene Norman

It's amazing how stupid this is. This idea. They might get the votes of the few people who might benefit but should lose out to the rest of the rental sector.

Hat tip to governments. If you think in a country like Ireland which has plenty of land for housing and has just come out of a recession that left it with tonnes of ghost estates (some of which you pulled down) that rents are too high by 30%, you could – if you weren't controlled by shyster landlords – try and bring rents down by 30% universally by building more housing or using carrot (tax exemptions) and stick (land taxes) to force the private sector to build more housing.

Moronic populist crap.

KomradeBishop

Here is why the 'pay boost' angle, and portraying workers - not landlords - as the primary beneficiaries is bullshít:
These workers are being destroyed income-wise with rents, and the 30% they supposed 'gain' in wages, has already been taken from them in increased rent over the years:
http://www.herald.ie/news/soaring-dublin-rents-laid-bare-as-costs-rise-30pc-in-just-5-years-31298824.html

This is why workers and unions are demanding the issue be properly dealt with, so rents can be reduced.

So you can see how the spin on a topic like this, always tries to divert attention away from landlords:
1: A reduction in spending power by workers due to rent increasing 30%, is never portrayed as an effective decrease in income, but:
2: A subsidy for paying 30% of a workers rent - subsidizing rent/landlords, not workers... - is magically portrayed as an income 'increase'.

stevedublin

lcwill wrote: »

Why not just pay them better?

That would also cause rents to go up

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

shane7218

Instead of this sort of policy that will only drive prices up by 30% for everyone, build new houses. I also can't understand why we don't build up in the city centre Instead of building houses 40 minutes commute away.

BattleCorp

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Why should they have to commute? The concept of and requirement to commute in the modern world is one of the worst aspects of modern life. Gigantic waste of time, resources and energy for everyone involved.

The vast majority of the population could easily live within walking / cycling distance of their place of work if proper density and quality of housing were provided and it would also help to curb the constant outward migration of city boundaries.

What choice do I have to commute? I live in the area where I was born, unfortunately it's over an hour to work and nearly an hour and a half back home.

There are no jobs where I live. My choice is commute or live in Dublin or get a job down where I live. Problem is that there are no jobs where I live and I can't afford to (nor want to) live in Dublin.

If we were playing Sim City and got to do things from scratch, then maybe your idea would work. Not so sure now.

jimgoose

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Why should they have to commute? The concept of and requirement to commute in the modern world is one of the worst aspects of modern life. Gigantic waste of time, resources and energy for everyone involved.

The vast majority of the population could easily live within walking / cycling distance of their place of work if proper density and quality of housing were provided and it would also help to curb the constant outward migration of city boundaries.

It would be rather difficult to live within walking, or even cycling, distance of my office without moving out into the back-arse of Ballinhassig. :pac: