General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

I appreciate the input re: AIB, but one could be forgiven for thinking there was a concerted effort to move away from discussing the housing crisis, social housing funding by picking an element within the broader comment and nailing it to the floor ad nausem as happens pretty much every time the issue is raised.

Red_Wake wrote: »

Correct, Matt seems to think that AIB have been given a blanket exemption from Corporation Tax for the next 30 years by their fairy godmother[another FG for him to keep an eye on].

No I don't, I believe I mentioned the word 'profit'. You insist on paraphrasing and inferring at Beano comic levels, but what ever gets you excited.

Any thoughts on funding for social housing beside taking money from tax payers the state gives aid to? Dogs for the blind? Surely there's an app can replace the dags?

Red_Wake wrote: »

Matt, you're the very person who kept bringing up AIB, but when the details and nuances of it are explained to you it's people trying to divert the discussion. 

I've outlined why I think social housing - the local government had a vested interest in not running the system correctly. I would be reluctant to fund a project which I view a ready made poverty trap. I would require a massive overhaul of social housing[particularly how payments are collected and arrears are dealt with] before I'd put a cent into it.

I read, accepted and thanked the comments then you come in with 'fairy godmother' and the like. I put the AIB no tax on profits forward as an area to be looked at before looking to cut state aid to the most vulnerable. I've been accused of lying and received your brand of derision for my troubles.

You explained why you don't like social housing and mentioned rent arrears. That's not a possible solution or idea for were we should be looking for any funding.
A good idea badly policed, shouldn't be scrapped IMO.
Again, even including any arrears do you think paying private landlords, selling properties at a loss to vulture funds for them to rent back to us, giving cheap loans to developers, buying homes at market rate for use as social housing and using hotels and B&B's as an 'emergency' is the better way to go for the tax payer?

Idbatterim wrote: »

I dont buy that they are the most vulnerable. The f*cking stress I see from low paid workers in Dublin, paying E60 to go to a gp, stress of work, commuting, housing situation. They are the bloody vulnerable!

with regards to social housing and funding it, the first stop would be massively increasing what is paid for it by tenants and reduce the welfare they receive directly, if you think they will pay the money after they have been given the cash LOL! Make the houses very energy efficient, bills will be very little then.

People like to tell tales about dutch gold and lifers. The crisis involves a hell of a lot of good hard working people who can't make ends meet and rely on state aid. Going after these people to fund social housing is a nonsense. If the state is mismanaging our money by giving it to those who don't need it, that's on the state to learn how to manage it's job.

They found an est. 32m for the Pope's gig all the same. Magic money tree? Optics are terribly important I suppose.

blanch152 wrote: »

How does the state deem people in need of taxpayer funded state aid?

Is this a transparent process? Is it fair? We can't just take it as a given.

All state aid programmes from social welfare to social housing to education to medical cards should be reviewed every few years and changes made.

This comes up as a derailment any time something uncomfortable for government is raised. In short, it's been covered.

Agreed they should all be vetted and policed. Another failure for Leo. He's top man now, so what evs.

Even with current arrears, do you think social housing is a better alternative to selling off homes cheaply to have them rented back to us, renting off private landlords, giving cheap loans of tax payer money to developers and buying homes at market rate to use as social housing?

Idbatterim wrote: »

Matt a mate of mine is moving into a garage next week. Was paying E800 a month rent including bills. Barely spent any time there, the odd few nights a week. Other friends of mine are putting up log cabins in their parents garden, an option that short of being given a "free house" is actually streets ahead of any other option. I hear these idiots saying "work harder" living in Dublin "isnt realistic" well it is for many people who have never worked as hard or were handed everything to them or bought when prices were a pittance during the recession or in the eighties, nineties etc... or have inherited!

The situation is a total disgrace and there are are simple solutions... I think there are now big problems, where workers are living in sheds, garages etc and the likes of Ca$h can be given a lifestyle, with no stress when she has been permanently housed, guaranteed income that would probably equate to a working couple having to earn what? 100k a year?!

I think they are two separate issues. Because the state/LA's mismanage, either purposefully or by incompetence, the running of the country regarding housing, looking to those deemed in need of state aid to pick up the slack might make some folk feel good but it won't solve the problem. We'll simply have those reliant on state aid and those deemed the most vulnerable in a worse position and the crisis will continue as is.
Sticking Cash in a privately rented apartment is wrong in my opinion. We can argue we have to put her somewhere and that's the only option. That's on the state/LA's. There are numerous policies can be brought in or adjusted to tackle such people, (cut off child benefit after one child IMO) if we had social housing we could be saving the tax payer money on private set rent.
Working tax payers needing state aid, living in a garage, moving back in with parents is one thing. The state/LA's not policing welfare as much as we might like is another. For every wan reported on in the media there's millions going to private landlords and on cheap loans to private developers for private profits. You can dislike all of these things. It's a false argument to put forward if you don't like current housing policy you support welfare being sky high for anyone who wants it.

blanch152 wrote: »

Policed and vetted isn't enough.

If there are rules that say Denis O'Brien is entitled to a medical card, child benefit for any children and free water for his swimming pool, shouldn't we be entitled to suggest that the rules should be changed because the benefits are going to the rich?

There is a certain preciousness about the suggestion that the only things wrong with social benefits in Ireland is that they aren't high enough and that there is only a small level of fraud. The reality is that the social benefit structure in Ireland is in need of massive reform so that those who should benefit the most do actually benefit the most and those that don't need it but who get it because of lazy rules should be excluded. That means it isn't just about policing and vetting, it is about changing the rules, and restructuring and reforming the whole system.

By policed and vetted I mean rooting out fraud and checking to ensure people need and get what they are due no more no less. I think that about covers it for me.
Yes rules should be amended as needed. I agree. As I said, I'd cap child allowance after one kid. Have as many as you like but the state won't be paying.
There is no such thing as free water. Some people get state aid to function, some of them and those who don't pay taxes.

I agree, who is saying the only thing wrong is it's not high enough? I've seen folk argue it be raised in certain areas in comparison to the cost of living. I've not seen any one FG or FF raise anything just 'cause.

How do you envisage changing the system? I think the idea of giving state aid to people that need it based on the level of need is an excellent idea and one I'm happy to help fund. What reforms of the whole system are you thinking?
I think when people look at how tough they may have it they should look to those who set up and run the marvelous economy, not the minority who avail of welfare. Not saying changes mightn't be needed but looking to the worse off to what? If economic policies remain the same and we cut the pension, it will not make any difference to anyone, bar the pensioners.

You've succeeded in turning a discussion about the housing crisis and social housing/funding into a debate about welfare being the problem. Where do you stand on the current state policies causing the housing crisis to worsen?
Even with current arrears, do you think social housing is a better alternative to selling off homes cheaply to have them rented back to us, renting off private landlords, giving cheap loans of tax payer money to developers and buying homes at market rate to use as social housing?

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/green-light-given-for-313-new-homes-in-cherrywood-37241858.html


Here is another example of local authorities refusing to address the housing crisis. Rather than taking 9 apartments off the top of these blocks, why aren't they pressing the builders to go up another floor or two? Cherrywood is on the LUAS line, with little development of historical value nearby, there is no reason not to go high-rise.

If ever you take the Luas Green line south you'll see another world. Politicians, local and national don't like to spoil their view or that of their voters.

Edward M wrote: »

I'm reading this thread, I throwing the odd comment, but I don't see any solution to the housing crisis on here, just talk of the vulnerable in society being hit or govt trying to hit them again for the solution.
From what I can see, I see the vulnerable being looked after pretty well here, homelessness is very troublesome and worrying for sure, but the vast majority are at least sheltered.
I see a lot of vulnerable housed people too, just above the line for a lot of entitlements, struggling to hold on to their homes, commuting long journeys with no prospects of anything different in their future, slaves just to keep their heads above water, that aren't classed as vulnerable at all, a,lot of them classed as middle income earners, always hit and having to drag their load a bit heavier.
Social/council housing has been a disaster for the most part in towns around where I live and spreading outs bit.
Good houses destroyed by uncaring and ungrateful Tennant's who had no regard for the help they were given. With rent arrears high, maintainance costs through the roof when they were occupied, and unsocial behaviour of their occupiers, I can see the reasoning for not trying this approach to housing again.
These type of estates are boarded up in every county in the country.

There was talk of looking to those on welfare to garnish some funds for social housing and talk against it. You are discussing welfare reform. Fair enough.

Social housing has been a disaster? When Dublin was filled with slums did social housing or a can do attitude help us out?
Now you've an issue with anti-social behaviour. Fair enough.
Should we close down the Dail every time a TD is found with his hands in the till?

So carry on as is? Pay private landlords. You know we buy housing off the market to use as social housing, housing the very people ruin social housing? Still stands building our own is the best deal IMO.

Edward M wrote: »

Putting everybody in a house won't solve societal problems, it won takeaway much from the cost of keeping them as is either, by th e time the cost of the housing and maintainance is put together.
Problems can't be solved just by saying govt needs to provide adequate housing, that's a myth always has been.

We are talking about helping honest people who need it. No more, no less.
What societal problems are you talking about now? We were on the housing crisis. You believe paying a landlord enough rent that he pays any personal cost and comes out with profit is cheaper than the state doing the same, renting out stock it owns but at a reasonable rate?
Any rent could easily result in profit, in the least pay back for the build over time. Same goes for affordable. We'd simply be selling at profit, only cheaper than the market.
It is not nor ever has been a myth. It worked for decades. We are not talking about everyone gets a house, it's a worsening housing crisis needs cooling.

Edward M wrote: »

People themselves have to be prepared to make some sort of restitution for the conditions they live in, the biggest problem is too many are sort of telling them and trying to gain support for themselves by convincing others it can be done.
It can of course, but at the total cost to other taxpayers.

Are you talking about fraud? If so we should root it out.
Now back to housing. So what should a low paid working tax payer do? There's always an inference that anyone less well off isn't taking responsibility for themselves or pretending they are in need of state aid. That is not the case as much as gets bandied about. Again, we don't close down the Dail when a politician gets caught on the take.

Edward M wrote: »

I never mentioned fraud.
What I meant was working the system and the promotion of it for personal gain, be that for votes or other.
You have highlighted the banks working the system for their own gain, perfectly legally, ifeel a lot of ordinary citizens,do the same.

I would guess you are correct. It happens in all walks I'd imagine. We need be more vigilant. Again, the idea is sound IMO. Paying rent to a private landlord, from which he covers costs and makes profit or the state/LA's doing the same but at a lower more reasonable and affordable rate based on income. That's the choice really.