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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Homelessness on the rise (over 130 more children) - Mod Warning Post #392

1235789

Comments

  • #202
    Naos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,738 ✭✭✭Naos


    ronoc wrote: »

    330 and 650 2 bed apartment units per year at a cost per unit between 293,000 and 578,000 source
    or
    Approx 580 3 bed houses @ development costs of 330,000

    A drop in the ocean.

    Why are we even considering houses? If you're in social housing (for the majority there are always exceptions) you should be in an apartment block like the majority of Europe.

    Houses should not even be a consideration.


  • #203
    NIMAN
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,021 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    Naos wrote: »
    Why are we even considering houses? If you're in social housing (for the majority there are always exceptions) you should be in an apartment block like the majority of Europe.

    Houses should not even be a consideration.

    But you do realise that many on the housing lists think they are entitled to a house as a basic human right?

    And many of the politicians in this country, and the media, are backing them up in this belief.


  • #204
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    NIMAN wrote: »
    But you do realise that many on the housing lists think they are entitled to a house as a basic human right?

    And many of the politicians in this country, and the media, are backing them up in this belief.

    and many think theyre entitled to a brand new house, with a garden, and to decline properties in areas with high densities of social housing tenants because of the problems that always occur in those areas.


  • #205
    Naos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,738 ✭✭✭Naos


    NIMAN wrote: »
    But you do realise that many on the housing lists think they are entitled to a house as a basic human right?

    And many of the politicians in this country, and the media, are backing them up in this belief.
    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    and many think theyre entitled to a brand new house, with a garden, and to decline properties in areas with high densities of social housing tenants because of the problems that always occur in those areas.

    Well I would say to that - You call yourselves homeless, not houseless.

    home
    /həʊm/

    noun
    1.
    the place where one lives permanently, especially as a member of a family or household.

    adjective
    1.
    relating to the place where one lives.


  • #206
    Abba987
    Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭Abba987


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    and many think theyre entitled to a brand new house, with a garden, and to decline properties in areas with high densities of social housing tenants because of the problems that always occur in those areas.

    Don't they deserve it! The biggest crisis here is the scamming. There would be enough for those in genuine need if declaring yourself homeless for the foreva home wasn't in fashion.


  • #207
    NIMAN
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,021 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    Abba987 wrote: »
    Don't they deserve it! The biggest crisis here is the scamming. There would be enough for those in genuine need if declaring yourself homeless for the foreva home wasn't in fashion.

    Thats where some investigative journalism wouldn't go amiss in this country, to see if we really have 10,000 people homeless or not.

    But we'll never see that, will me?


  • #208
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    ...and this wouldnt cause complex social problems?

    If people cause problems in a new areas, a few swift clubs with a Garda baton will solve it.


  • #209
    ogsjw
    Site Banned Posts: 328 ✭✭ogsjw


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    i think they mean that most rough sleepers suffer with addiction or mental health issues which I think is an agreed fact among most of society.


    I think we should let them answer, don't you?
    Abba987 wrote: »
    Genuinely unable to live with parents etc until they save up like the rest of us?

    Despite your frantic temper tantrum, you stumbled upon the one thing that connects all homeless people; lack of parents or support network. Whether they are dead, far away, or do not want their child in their life because they're horrible arseholes/ narcotics experts. Or if the parents are horrible sh1tes themselves of course.


  • #210
    The Student
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,279 ✭✭✭The Student


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    ...and this wouldnt cause complex social problems?

    You have some people who will cause trouble no matter where you put them. Why not put all the trouble makers in the same location away from all other law abiding people who just want to live a peaceful life.

    It is completely unfair and unjust to impose troublesome people on decent people and make the decent peoples lives a daily nightmare. The State has always done this and then refuses to deal with it.

    This is the main reason we have the social issues we have, I only spoke to my father who is 80yrs old and he told me when he was growing up if any of his neighbours did not pay there council rent they were moved out of their council property and sent to a single room in an old army barracks.

    He said after that people never fell behind in rent again. Maybe there is a lesson in this?


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    Ush1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,476 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    ...and this wouldnt cause complex social problems?

    Whereas social housing areas in Dublin currently have no "complex" social problems.:rolleyes:


  • #212
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    This is a positive move. I hope that it gets the go ahead. https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0501/1046753-co-living-housing-application/


  • #213
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Deleted User wrote: »
    This is a positive move. I hope that it gets the go ahead. https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0501/1046753-co-living-housing-application/

    Co-living is an interesting idea. Essentially studio apartments, generally with a number of communal areas for use by residents.

    I can see how it might appeal particularly to a young/mobile workforce who otherwise might have to house-share.


  • #214
    terrydel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,881 ✭✭✭terrydel


    Graham wrote: »
    Co-living is an interesting idea. Essentially studio apartments, generally with a number of communal areas for use by residents.

    I can see how it might appeal particularly to a young/mobile workforce who otherwise might have to house-share.

    All part of the neoliberal goal of lowering the expectations of the many so the few can become richer and richer, make people thankful for anything, decrease standards in certain areas from previous generations until it becomes the norm.


  • #215
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,563 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    terrydel wrote: »
    All part of the neoliberal goal of lowering the expectations of the many so the few can become richer and richer, make people thankful for anything, decrease standards in certain areas from previous generations until it becomes the norm.

    Previous generations had bedsits (until ~5 years ago) and tenament flats (until the early 90s).


  • #216
    IAmTheReign
    Registered Users Posts: 339 ✭✭IAmTheReign


    Deleted User wrote: »
    This is a positive move. I hope that it gets the go ahead. https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0501/1046753-co-living-housing-application/

    I think these are a great idea. If was moving to a new city where I didn't know anyone I would definitely look into something like this assuming it was done right.

    There's obviously a risk though that they won't be maintained properly or that one or two problem tenants could really bring down the place.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    IAmTheReign
    Registered Users Posts: 339 ✭✭IAmTheReign


    terrydel wrote: »
    All part of the neoliberal goal of lowering the expectations of the many so the few can become richer and richer, make people thankful for anything, decrease standards in certain areas from previous generations until it becomes the norm.

    Ah yes, because no one in Irish history ever had to share accommodation until FG were in power right?:rolleyes:


  • #218
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    terrydel wrote: »
    All part of the neoliberal goal of lowering the expectations of the many so the few can become richer and richer, make people thankful for anything, decrease standards in certain areas from previous generations until it becomes the norm.

    the standard of housing has been on massive increase for decades, the inner city slums of old are more or less gone, tenement buildings with a whole family in one room are gone.

    My grandad worked all his life and the most he could muster was a 3 bed council house for himself, wife and 12 children, that would never be allowed now.

    theres differences of opinion here but you're just factually wrong.


  • #219
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    IAmTheReign wrote: »
    I think these are a great idea. If was moving to a new city where I didn't know anyone I would definitely look into something like this assuming it was done right.

    There's obviously a risk though that they won't be maintained properly or that one or two problem tenants could really bring down the place.

    theyre exempt from social housing requirements, should actually work out pretty well. Nice to see a strategy to house working professionals for once.


  • #220
    terrydel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,881 ✭✭✭terrydel


    IAmTheReign wrote: »
    Ah yes, because no one in Irish history ever had to share accommodation until FG were in power right?:rolleyes:

    We've largely moved away from that, as societal standards have improved, and people can aspire to have a property of their own, lowering expectations towards expecting to have to share is a retrograde step, but fits the neoliberal narrative nicely. Make people thankful for anything at all
    This is undoubtedly the approach now, sure look at how many in this thread alone have been duped into excepting that the biggest homeless crisis in the history of the state is not an issue or even invented?
    Its clear the vast majority posting here are extremely right wing in their views, and will deny this completely.


  • #221
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,563 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    terrydel wrote: »
    Its clear the vast majority posting here are extremely right wing in their views, and will deny this completely.

    I was accused of being extremely left wing by another poster not an hour ago!


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    terrydel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,881 ✭✭✭terrydel


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    the standard of housing has been on massive increase for decades, the inner city slums of old are more or less gone, tenement buildings with a whole family in one room are gone.

    My grandad worked all his life and the most he could muster was a 3 bed council house for himself, wife and 12 children, that would never be allowed now.

    theres differences of opinion here but you're just factually wrong.

    I never said they havent, what I said was the goal now is to lower expectations, which is clearly going on. FG and their ilk use crisis like the one we have now to further their agenda.
    The generation now are the first in history to have it worse than their parents. Let that sink in.


  • #223
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    terrydel wrote: »
    I never said they havent, what I said was the goal now is to lower expectations, which is clearly going on. FG and their ilk use crisis like the one we have now to further their agenda.
    The generation now are the first in history to have it worse than their parents. Let that sink in.

    but it depends on how you define worse. The baby boomer generation championed urban sprawl, poor insulation, ever larger properties, poor planning and no environmental concern whatsoever. When you realise thats not sustainable then you have to claw back.

    do people have it worse now because you could get cigarettes in the cinema and they cost the equivalent of a quid in my dads day and now I have to stand outside like a lepper and they cost 13 quid, absolutely not. What was done then with regards to housing has led us to where we are now, its a claw back not 'worse off' , houses are better insulated, more secure and more practical now than they were in those days.

    just because having a garden big enough for a trampoline is no longer in the 'social housing plan' doesn't mean people are suffering.


  • #224
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Going from old houses sliced into bedsits to insufficient house shares to purpose built co-living spaces is a lowering of expectations?


  • #225
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,563 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Its also interesting that nobody seemed to care when a plan for something functionally identical was put in in Tallaght some weeks/months ago (the Cookstown development includes one block of this), but when proposed for Dun Laoghaire it becomes unacceptable somehow.


  • #226
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    L1011 wrote: »
    Its also interesting that nobody seemed to care when a plan for something functionally identical was put in in Tallaght some weeks/months ago (the Cookstown development includes one block of this), but when proposed for Dun Laoghaire it becomes unacceptable somehow.

    I don't think that will ever go away

    1) people who shelled out the postcode tax want nothing cheaper appearing
    2) people whove lived there for decades don't want any change
    3) people due to inherrit there have an interest in no new housing happening
    4) many of the more affluent politicians grew up in these SCD towns
    5) many don't read the article and realise that this doesn't include social housing and isnt for students, putting the comparison in the article frightens people.

    My only reservation with the scheme is no parking requirement, pull a tesco stores job and lift it off the ground and have a mostly open carpark with 1 space for every bedroom.


  • #227
    terrydel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,881 ✭✭✭terrydel


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    but it depends on how you define worse. The baby boomer generation championed urban sprawl, poor insulation, ever larger properties, poor planning and no environmental concern whatsoever. When you realise thats not sustainable then you have to claw back.

    do people have it worse now because you could get cigarettes in the cinema and they cost the equivalent of a quid in my dads day and now I have to stand outside like a lepper and they cost 13 quid, absolutely not. What was done then with regards to housing has led us to where we are now, its a claw back not 'worse off' , houses are better insulated, more secure and more practical now than they were in those days.

    just because having a garden big enough for a trampoline is no longer in the 'social housing plan' doesn't mean people are suffering.

    They are poorer by all meaningful, quantifiable measures, lower relative income, higher debt etc. There are loads of studies done which you can go and read if you wish. The effect of this will only play out after we are in the grave.


  • #228
    terrydel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,881 ✭✭✭terrydel


    Graham wrote: »
    Going from old houses sliced into bedsits to insufficient house shares to purpose built co-living spaces is a lowering of expectations?

    Going from aspiring to have a home of your own to yourself/your family, to living in a shared home is a lowering of expectations.


  • #229
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    terrydel wrote: »
    Going from aspiring to have a home of your own to yourself/your family, to living in a shared home is a lowering of expectations.

    You're debating against something nobody has suggested.


  • #230
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    terrydel wrote: »
    They are poorer by all meaningful, quantifiable measures, lower relative income, higher debt etc. There are loads of studies done which you can go and read if you wish. The effect of this will only play out after we are in the grave.

    not really though, if you want 'affordable' housing back you have to convince all the women to stop working again. We have had a massive explosion in available labour and a decreased need for human labour , and its now standard that its a double income couple bidding on a house.

    in my parents day there was none of this foreign holidays, takeaways every few days, 2 cars in the driveway etc... one wage had to support a man, his wife and a gaggle of kids so buying power was severely constrained compared to now.


  • #231
    terrydel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,881 ✭✭✭terrydel


    Graham wrote: »
    You're debating against something nobody has suggested.

    Im saying that people's expectations are being lowered, by design by the current political leadership and predominant ideology.
    Are you saying this is not the case?


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    Slydice
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭Slydice


    The Homelessness Report April 2019 has been released:
    https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/homeless_report_-_april_2019.pdf

    Homelessness is on the rise. I've updated the two charts based on the totals they give.

    Homelessness (Adults)
    481474.png

    Family Homelessness
    481473.png

    The latest report does not have commentary where previous reports did. They used to include:
    The long term solution to the current homeless issue is to increase the supply of homes
    or:
    The root cause of increased homelessness is the supply shortage across the housing sector, which in turn is a result of the recent economic collapse and the associated damage to the construction sector. Accordingly the long-term solution to the current homeless issue is to increase the supply of homes.


  • #233
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Slydice wrote: »
    The Homelessness Report April 2019 has been released:
    https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/homeless_report_-_april_2019.pdf

    Homelessness is on the rise. I've updated the two charts based on the totals they give.

    Homelessness (Adults)
    481474.png

    Family Homelessness
    481473.png

    The latest report does not have commentary where previous reports did. They used to include:

    or:

    Great to see a fall in the number of families homeless. The system is obviously working.


  • #234
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,620 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Slydice wrote: »
    The Homelessness Report April 2019 has been released:
    https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/homeless_report_-_april_2019.pdf

    Homelessness is on the rise. I've updated the two charts based on the totals they give.

    Homelessness (Adults)
    481474.png

    Family Homelessness
    481473.png

    The latest report does not have commentary where previous reports did. They used to include:

    or:

    Interesting charts. Are there any similar counting rough sleepers?


  • #235
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,156 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Great to see a fall in the number of families homeless. The system is obviously working.


    Obviously I welcome any reduction but I wouldn't be jumpin up & down at 4 families less out of 1733. My primary school maths suggests to me that the celebrated reduction is .23 of a percent. less than quarter of a percent. I think that clearly shows that the government isn't really making any dent in these figures at all


  • #236
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Great to see a fall in the number of families homeless. The system is obviously working.

    you forgot to mark it as obvious sarcasm.

    I suggest the ":rolleyes:" or even a "/s"


  • #237
    Old diesel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Great to see a fall in the number of families homeless. The system is obviously working.


    Obviously I welcome any reduction but I wouldn't be jumpin up & down at 4 families less out of 1733. My primary school maths suggests to me that the celebrated reduction is .23 of a percent. less than quarter of a percent. I think that clearly shows that the government isn't really making any dent in these figures at all

    At that small level of decrease - we could easily have an increase again in June.

    Remember too that reclassification of figures previously took place. So the decrease could well be people still being funded by section 10


  • #238
    The Student
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,279 ✭✭✭The Student


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    Obviously I welcome any reduction but I wouldn't be jumpin up & down at 4 families less out of 1733. My primary school maths suggests to me that the celebrated reduction is .23 of a percent. less than quarter of a percent. I think that clearly shows that the government isn't really making any dent in these figures at all

    On the contrary with the numbers of landlords leaving the market I would suggest that the policy is working. I would however urge caution to the Govt. Unless they review the treatment of private landlords they risk more leaving the sector to be replaced by institutional landlords.

    I think we are in for problems if institutional landlords are the majority supplier of rental accommodation. Once they are big enough they will have the power to dictate rental policy to the Govt rather than the other way around.


  • #239
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,156 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Old diesel wrote: »
    At that small level of decrease - we could easily have an increase again in June.




    Or keep decreasing the number by four every month for 433 months or 36 years. Yes these are wonderful figures.



    I can't wait for the next election.


  • #240
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,563 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Slydice wrote: »
    The Homelessness Report April 2019 has been released:

    Provide some analysis or get a blog instead, link dumping is not acceptable as you've been told before.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Old diesel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    The Student wrote: »
    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    Obviously I welcome any reduction but I wouldn't be jumpin up & down at 4 families less out of 1733. My primary school maths suggests to me that the celebrated reduction is .23 of a percent. less than quarter of a percent. I think that clearly shows that the government isn't really making any dent in these figures at all

    On the contrary with the numbers of landlords leaving the market I would suggest that the policy is working. I would however urge caution to the Govt. Unless they review the treatment of private landlords they risk more leaving the sector to be replaced by institutional landlords.

    I think we are in for problems if institutional landlords are the majority supplier of rental accommodation. Once they are big enough they will have the power to dictate rental policy to the Govt rather than the other way around.

    Small landlords cannot be depended on for a majority of our rental properties in the longer term imo.

    1) Generally disinterested in a wider market beyond their own situation.

    2) unable to work closely with other people in the wider market to deliver sustainable market solutions.

    3) To have a market made up of mainly small landlords requires a sufficient amount of random people who both have funds AND a willingness to invest in property. Where do you find the numbers.

    4) if I am Govt - want to put in sustainable housing solutions - who do I talk to when it comes to dealing with 170 k suppliers of rental housing.

    Let's consider how a bigger supplier model might work in future.

    1) people for whome housing is their profession and who are interested in the longer.

    2) a professional supplier can work with Govt, builders and other suppliers to deliver to the market.

    3) in the future 170 k people could invest into a fund. The fund takes on all the property problems and the small investor can invest as much or as little into the fund as desired. This allows more people to invest - even tenants.

    4) if there were 20 suppliers into the Dublin market then it's easy for Govt to talk to 20 suppliers both in a meeting with all 20 or meeting individually


  • #242
    Old diesel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    The key to handling the problems of depending for a majority housing on REITs OR small landlords is to have alternatives to BOTH.

    Housing associations, plentiful social housing.

    Change eligibility criteria for social housing so more people eligible


  • #243
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Old diesel wrote: »
    Change eligibility criteria for social housing so more people eligible

    or fewer


  • #244
    Old diesel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Old diesel wrote: »
    Change eligibility criteria for social housing so more people eligible

    or fewer

    Nope - needs to be more people eligible for social housing - ie more higher income people.

    This would allow more people to access rent that is affordable.

    It also means that the gap between whats affordable to a tenant and what an investor needs can be managed via a scheme like HAP*.

    It also means more people can be housed by the likes of housing associations at a cost that's managable for tenants

    *HAP needs changes anyway.


  • #245
    The Student
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,279 ✭✭✭The Student


    Old diesel wrote: »
    Small landlords cannot be depended on for a majority of our rental properties in the longer term imo.

    1) Generally disinterested in a wider market beyond their own situation.

    2) unable to work closely with other people in the wider market to deliver sustainable market solutions.

    3) To have a market made up of mainly small landlords requires a sufficient amount of random people who both have funds AND a willingness to invest in property. Where do you find the numbers.

    4) if I am Govt - want to put in sustainable housing solutions - who do I talk to when it comes to dealing with 170 k suppliers of rental housing.

    Let's consider how a bigger supplier model might work in future.

    1) people for whome housing is their profession and who are interested in the longer.

    2) a professional supplier can work with Govt, builders and other suppliers to deliver to the market.

    3) in the future 170 k people could invest into a fund. The fund takes on all the property problems and the small investor can invest as much or as little into the fund as desired. This allows more people to invest - even tenants.

    4) if there were 20 suppliers into the Dublin market then it's easy for Govt to talk to 20 suppliers both in a meeting with all 20 or meeting individually

    Sustainable market solutions as you suggest would occur if the Govt actually stopped interfering with the market. A market is exactly what is says "willing buyers and sellers come together to agree a price".

    We have significant funds on deposit in the Irish banks most on minimal if any interest. Some of these funds could be used for investing in property for a return higher than that achieved in the banking sector. Have you ever wondered why this is not happening, it makes business sense to invest in a market that returns higher yields than that achieved in the bank.

    A market finds its own equilibrium naturally this is a fundamental basic law of economics.

    Can I suggest you google "Porters five forces" and see what this model highlights as the risks of having a small number of suppliers dominating the market.


  • #246
    The Student
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,279 ✭✭✭The Student


    Old diesel wrote: »
    Nope - needs to be more people eligible for social housing - ie more higher income people.

    This would allow more people to access rent that is affordable.

    It also means that the gap between whats affordable to a tenant and what an investor needs can be managed via a scheme like HAP*.

    It also means more people can be housed by the likes of housing associations at a cost that's managable for tenants

    *HAP needs changes anyway.

    You do realize that the Govt is making a killing using the HAP model.

    An example may help to explain my point. These are rounded figs just for example purposes.

    Say for example rent is €2000 a month. The tenant must earn €4000 to fund this take home pay of €2000. So on this transaction alone the Govt has received €2000 in taxes and USC, PRSI etc.

    So the landlord receives €2000 in rent and he has to pay the Govt €1000 in tax.

    So if we look at the above trans from earnings of €4000 the Govt has taken €3000 of this €2000 directly from the tenant and €1000 from the landlord.

    And for all of this the Govt does not have any responsibility for the tenant at all, the landlord has all the maintenance and all of the risk of damage, non payment of rent etc.

    If you change the model and the tenant wants to buy a property the Govt has lost revenue from the landlords rental income. So on the above model (again just example figs) the Govt has lost a third of their tax (eg the €1000 from the landlord.

    HAP does not work, the only way the housing situation is going to improve is for the Govt to stop interfering in the market and let the market find its own equilibrium.


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    Old diesel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    The Student wrote: »
    Old diesel wrote: »
    Nope - needs to be more people eligible for social housing - ie more higher income people.

    This would allow more people to access rent that is affordable.

    It also means that the gap between whats affordable to a tenant and what an investor needs can be managed via a scheme like HAP*.

    It also means more people can be housed by the likes of housing associations at a cost that's managable for tenants

    *HAP needs changes anyway.

    You do realize that the Govt is making a killing using the HAP model.

    An example may help to explain my point. These are rounded figs just for example purposes.

    Say for example rent is €2000 a month. The tenant must earn €4000 to fund this take home pay of €2000. So on this transaction alone the Govt has received €2000 in taxes and USC, PRSI etc.

    So the landlord receives €2000 in rent and he has to pay the Govt €1000 in tax.

    So if we look at the above trans from earnings of €4000 the Govt has taken €3000 of this €2000 directly from the tenant and €1000 from the landlord.

    And for all of this the Govt does not have any responsibility for the tenant at all, the landlord has all the maintenance and all of the risk of damage, non payment of rent etc.

    If you change the model and the tenant wants to buy a property the Govt has lost revenue from the landlords rental income. So on the above model (again just example figs) the Govt has lost a third of their tax (eg the €1000 from the landlord.

    HAP does not work, the only way the housing situation is going to improve is for the Govt to stop interfering in the market and let the market find its own equilibrium.

    My thinking on HAP is that going forward the amount of money an investor will need will be beyond what many tenants can pay themselves even with incentives for the investor - ie lower tax.

    So the idea of a HAP type scheme if you widen the eligibility criteria in future for social housing is that we could set it up so the investor gets his return* - yet the tenant gets affordable rent*.

    The problem is that the investor needs to pay off his loan each month, cover repair/maintenance and tax. And he needs a worthwhile return.

    This gets pricey if loans are based on high purchase prices and the investor needs full payback and a surplus

    *HAP making up the difference


  • #248
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    There's room for everyone.

    This is like the corner shop analogy, where housing is bread.

    Yes, there's room for the corner shop style landlord, selling one off, hand made artisan bread (or country cottage, an apartment they bought before they had kids, or whatever) No need to kill those guys.

    Yes, there's also a need for the massive monolith supermarket chain type REITs providing house farms and apt blocks.

    And yes, there's room for the midrange smaller developments.


    And for people who don't fit those, there does need to be govt supported housing. Whether they do that through setting up their own govt service, or giving people money in the form of HAP to rely on the existing services provided by the landlords is policy of the day.

    But there is no earthly reason to demonise and penalise one-off landlords, or REITS. None of these are the bad guys, because the govt is farting about unable to decide whether it's gong to be in the business of baking bread, or paying for bread.


  • #249
    The Student
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,279 ✭✭✭The Student


    Old diesel wrote: »
    My thinking on HAP is that going forward the amount of money an investor will need will be beyond what many tenants can pay themselves even with incentives for the investor - ie lower tax.

    So the idea of a HAP type scheme if you widen the eligibility criteria in future for social housing is that we could set it up so the investor gets his return* - yet the tenant gets affordable rent*.

    The problem is that the investor needs to pay off his loan each month, cover repair/maintenance and tax. And he needs a worthwhile return.

    This gets pricey if loans are based on high purchase prices and the investor needs full payback and a surplus

    *HAP making up the difference

    The problem is not having to pay off the loan, the problem is the tax take. If the landlord was able to take home the same after tax fig as he is now then the funds available to pay the mortgage and the yield from his investment would stay the same.

    Remember the yield is based on the after tax income not the pre tax income.


  • #250
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    This makes my blood boil. 21 years old. On housing list for 3 years. 2 kids. 20 months and 3 months and pregnant with third.
    No personal responsibility here. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/weve-nowhere-else-to-go-desperate-family-squatting-in-empty-council-house-faces-court-38246224.html


  • #251
    InTheShadows
    Closed Accounts Posts: 727 ✭✭✭InTheShadows


    Deleted User wrote: »
    This makes my blood boil. 21 years old. On housing list for 3 years. 2 kids. 20 months and 3 months and pregnant with third.
    No personal responsibility here. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/weve-nowhere-else-to-go-desperate-family-squatting-in-empty-council-house-faces-court-38246224.html

    Someone having kids makes your blood boil? :pac:


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement