Next governments affect on housing market

Ray Palmer · 12-02-2020 5:41pm

The Student wrote: »

You actually can if the debt is owed to the State eg TV licence, fines etc.

No you can't. I know because I worked on the social welfare system on debt recovery. Most social welfare payments are ring fenced and can't have debts removed from them with or without a court order. Court orders can be granted but even then it will be a minuscule amount like €3 a week for 50 years only allowable on some social welfare payments.

J_1980 · 12-02-2020 5:48pm

Wow 60% of DCC tenenats in arrears.
The whole welfare state/ social housing system is such a brutal joke.
Might sound harsh but I can’t wait for the next recession (2022, fingers crossed). This whole thing needs fundamental reform.
This country needs a Greek style troika program.

Ray Palmer · 12-02-2020 5:52pm

J_1980 wrote: »

Wow 60% of DCC tenenats in arrears.
The whole welfare state/ social housing system is such a brutal joke.
Might sound harsh but I can’t wait for the next recession (2022, fingers crossed). This whole thing needs fundamental reform.
This country needs a Greek style troika program.

Another recession will just make everything worse for everyone but will make housing way way worse.

Social housing has a place in society just not huge areas without any integration with private owners.

Claw Hammer · 12-02-2020 5:58pm

The Student wrote: »

We already have the ability to do all of this. It is done everyday of the week in the courts with maintance payments where a father is seperated from his partner and an attachment order is placed on his wages which instructs his employer to direct a given amount of his wages to his partner on behalf of the children.

The employer is legally obliged to do this and can't amend this unless they receive instructions from the courts.

All of the mechanisms are there to enforce alot of the issues, the political will is not.

The State via any of its functions does not want to be seen making someone homeless for whatever reason and will frustrate the process as much as possible.

Debt enforcement mechanisms are completely different to what i am saying. There should be no arrears arising if the rent was taken from the welfare before they get the welfare. There is no provision in law for that to happen, which their should be. If working, tax credits reduced, if not, deduct from welfare.

Boredstiff666 · 12-02-2020 5:59pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Another recession will just make everything worse for everyone but will make housing way way worse.

Social housing has a place in society just not huge areas without any integration with private owners.

I am from the UK and social housing as you call it was council housing in the UK.

After WW2 the UK needed new housing stock fast so council estates mushroomed everywhere. It appeared to be the thing to do. Building on a huge scale and 'New Towns' appeared in what was countryside.

Come the 70' and 80's the maintenance bills for those council houses was crippling and a side effect was council workers going on strike etc......So the 'Right to Buy' killed 2 birds with one stone. What was left became private rental.

How is a socialist Ireland going to 'magic' those same problems away?

J_1980 · 12-02-2020 6:14pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Another recession will just make everything worse for everyone but will make housing way way worse.

Social housing has a place in society just not huge areas without any integration with private owners.

200bn debt = 40bn before crash, 40bn bailout
Where are the 120bn from??????
Highest welfare rates in Europe, narrowest tax base in Europe, highest paid PS in Europe, highest PS pensions in Europe.
Next bailout the “t’was the banks” won’t cut it.
Add 120bn again and the imf is here with zero room for massive tax increases (LPT, USC etc already happended) to not kill the remaining economy (tax hikes in a recession are universally accepted as terrible).
Then there will hopefully be a german style welfare reform. Plus massive pension cuts, ideally implemented by a technical caretaker EU commision and not an Irish government. Plus they won’t care about the “cant pay wont pay” mortgagge rent brigade. The irish banking system is so dysfunctional because of that.

Ray Palmer · 12-02-2020 6:30pm

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

I am from the UK and social housing as you call it was council housing in the UK.

After WW2 the UK needed new housing stock fast so council estates mushroomed everywhere. It appeared to be the thing to do. Building on a huge scale and 'New Towns' appeared in what was countryside.

Come the 70' and 80's the maintenance bills for those council houses was crippling and a side effect was council workers going on strike etc......So the 'Right to Buy' killed 2 birds with one stone. What was left became private rental.

How is a socialist Ireland going to 'magic' those same problems away?

They aren't and I never said they would. Council housing is social housing it was called that here too but not every area had councils. In Dublin it was The Dublin City corporation so they were known as "corpo" houses.

People here will refer to the councils having assets if they own social housing. As you are pointing out they are actually expensive liabilities. So using private rental property makes a lot of financial sense as it limit maintenance and liability in general.

Some people think building large social housing will solve all issues and don't consider future impact. I have seen the towns built in the UK like around Essexs and they seem to be better designed than what was tried here. They basically used the same three house designs and placed them all around the country.

Saudades · 12-02-2020 9:30pm

The_Conductor wrote: »

Its going to have to come from taxation- which is going to hurt those who can least afford it, most.
Also- the current discussions with the Greens- include a 5 fold increase in the carbon tax- once again, it'll hurt those who can least afford it, most.

How much would be raised by increasing Capital Acquisitions tax / inheritance tax from 33% to 40%? This won't hurt those who can least afford more taxes.

Then there's Capital Gains Tax - which also won't hurt those who can least afford it.

Property Tax is far too low - certainly a lot of room to manoeuver there.

PRSI at 4% is too low in parallel to how much the state pension is.

Saudades · 12-02-2020 9:36pm

odyssey06 wrote: »

In Sinn Fein manifesto, page 66 they state they want to:
* Remove all Residential Tenancies Act Section 34 grounds for new and renewed tenancies
https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2020/SF_GE2020_Manifesto.pdf

My understanding and please someone correct me if I've misunderstood this is that eviction for non payment of rent is currently in Section 34.
The tenant has failed to comply with any of his or her obligations in relation to the tenancy
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/section/34/enacted/en/html

About Section 34; It's not morally correct that tenants with a signed contract can be evicted just because a family member of the landlord suddenly wants to live there.

The family member should find another place to live, and the incumbent tenant's life/lives are not disturbed.

Roger Mellie Man on the Telly · 12-02-2020 10:08pm

Unfortunately I think the measures regarding the housing market propagated in SF's manifesto will have the opposite effect. Private developers will stop building. Would you do a job if you are operating at a loss? Many people would not...I would rather do nothing and enjoy my wealth if I had any in a sunny place until the wind changes again.. Housing stock will not improve.
The rent freeze is a good idea though, something needs to be done to change the rental situation. But the real change can probably only happen if there is more apartments and houses built - which I do not see happening with a PART 5 provision of 25 percent in any new development.
We should have proper rental laws giving more rights to tenants coupled with responsibilities to look after the place that you are renting. ( Like eg in Germany and other European countries with a healthier rental market).
I understand they also want to end PPPS - which might mean that the Councils will need to produce more houses... I think last year Dublin City Council was able to produce in house just under 200 units... you do the maths how long it will take them to build 100 000 council houses.
If you are an architect working in the private sector hold on tight as the next recession in the construction industry is looming...

OwlsZat · 12-02-2020 11:53pm

J_1980 wrote: »

Wow 60% of DCC tenenats in arrears.
The whole welfare state/ social housing system is such a brutal joke.
Might sound harsh but I can’t wait for the next recession (2022, fingers crossed). This whole thing needs fundamental reform.
This country needs a Greek style troika program.

100%. Would love the Germans to deliver the austerity to the non-working class we don't have the neck / political representation system to deliver.

garhjw · 13-02-2020 12:03am

OwlsZat wrote: »

100%. Would love the Germans to deliver the austerity to the non-working class we don't have the neck / political representation system to deliver.

What do you mean by that? I’m middle class and austerity affected my family and I during the recession. Do you think working class people were the only ones?

The Student · 13-02-2020 9:28am

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No you can't. I know because I worked on the social welfare system on debt recovery. Most social welfare payments are ring fenced and can't have debts removed from them with or without a court order. Court orders can be granted but even then it will be a minuscule amount like €3 a week for 50 years only allowable on some social welfare payments.

Your post reads that you can't and then goes on to say well actually you can in certain circumstances.

The following shows that attachment orders are available. http://mcmahonsolicitors.ie/attachment-of-earnings-and-benefitshttp://mcmahonsolicitors.ie/attachment-of-earnings-and-benefits/

It would not be unreasonable to assume that those not working and in receipt of social welfare would be claiming all available benefits some of which would not be "ring fenced".

For those working the attachment would be placed on their income from employment.

I would rather stop the rot now rather than do nothing about it.

The Student · 13-02-2020 9:31am

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Debt enforcement mechanisms are completely different to what i am saying. There should be no arrears arising if the rent was taken from the welfare before they get the welfare. There is no provision in law for that to happen, which their should be. If working, tax credits reduced, if not, deduct from welfare.

We have two issues at the moment, outstanding arrears and ongoing delays in getting current payment.

Use the court system for outstanding arrears and get attachment orders.

Use deduction at source for future payments from non working social welfare receiptents for those who have a history of non payment.

Use reduced tax credits or deduction at source from employees income exactly as they do for the local property tax.

Fann Linn · 13-02-2020 9:32am

OwlsZat wrote: »

100%. Would love the Germans to deliver the austerity to the non-working class we don't have the neck / political representation system to deliver.

4% are non working according to FG. Almost full employment.

The Student · 13-02-2020 9:34am

Saudades wrote: »

About Section 34; It's not morally correct that tenants with a signed contract can be evicted just because a family member of the landlord suddenly wants to live there.

The family member should find another place to live, and the incumbent tenant's life/lives are not disturbed.

If you were given a pay rise in work would you give it back and say morally I don't think I should get a payrise?

If you have a spare bedroom in your house why don't you take a moral stance and offer it to someone currently homeless.

The Student · 13-02-2020 9:37am

Fann Linn wrote: »

4% are non working according to FG. Almost full employment.

Exactly what is the definition of not working? how many are on courses who are "not working" how many are not making any income tax contributions?

I would actually like to see the Germans come in and actually shake up our welfare system once and for all.

Dav010 · 13-02-2020 9:50am

Saudades wrote: »

About Section 34; It's not morally correct that tenants with a signed contract can be evicted just because a family member of the landlord suddenly wants to live there.

The family member should find another place to live, and the incumbent tenant's life/lives are not disturbed.

Not only is it not morally correct, it is not legally correct if there is a signed TERM contract, during the term of that contract.

But in the case of Part 4 tenancies, not only is it legally, but also morally correct to evict a tenant if a family member needs it. The LLs need trumps the tenants in this case as the LL is the owner.

It is hard to argue that the RTA benefits and protects tenants more than it does LLs, so if the owner is acting in accordance with the RTA, then they should not be criticised for exercising their rights.

Fann Linn · 13-02-2020 9:54am

The Student wrote: »

Exactly what is the definition of not working? how many are on courses who are "not working" how many are not making any income tax contributions?

I would actually like to see the Germans come in and actually shake up our welfare system once and for all.

From my economics 101 days I think you're looking for 'participation in the labour force classifications'.

Google it.

Fol20 · 13-02-2020 10:01am

The Student wrote: »

Exactly what is the definition of not working? how many are on courses who are "not working" how many are not making any income tax contributions?

I would actually like to see the Germans come in and actually shake up our welfare system once and for all.

What is Germans social system and why is it better than our own - genuinely interested as I don’t know

odyssey06 · 13-02-2020 10:09am

Dav010 wrote: »

Not only is it not morally correct, it is not legally correct if there is a signed TERM contract, during the term of that contract.

But in the case of Part 4 tenancies, not only is it legally, but also morally correct to evict a tenant if a family member needs it. The LLs need trumps the tenants in this case as the LL is the owner.

It is hard to argue that the RTA benefits and protects tenants more than it does LLs, so if the owner is acting in accordance with the RTA, then they should not be criticised for exercising their rights.

Unfortunately, it's very hard to prove the legitimacy of the 'need' for the family member, or even their existence

It was inevitable that some LLs would use this loophole and inevitable that they would be a backlash against it.
But SF seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater if they rid of all the valid reasons for eviction.

Geuze · 13-02-2020 10:13am

Fann Linn wrote: »

4% are non working according to FG. Almost full employment.

The vast majority of non-workers are not unemployed.

They are on DA, OPFP, CA, etc.

They are also SAHP.

We have low unemployment, yet we lead Europe in joblessness.

Numerical example:

Country A has 100 adults, 60 in labour market, 57 at work, 3 unemployed.

So 5% unemployment, great, very low.

Country B has 100 adults, 70 in labour market, 63 at work, 7 unemployed.

So 10% unemployment, but more people at work and a higher employment-population rate.

Ireland is like country A - low unemployment, but very high joblessness.

Geuze · 13-02-2020 10:16am

Fol20 wrote: »

What is Germans social system and why is it better than our own - genuinely interested as I don’t know

First 12 months of unemployment = 60% - 67% of your former net wage

After that, dole, known as Hartz IV = approx 100 euro per week.

Actually 424 pm.

https://hartziv.info/en/ratgeber/hartz-iv-regelbedarf#single/0

Geuze · 13-02-2020 10:20am

Fol20 wrote: »

What is Germans social system and why is it better than our own - genuinely interested as I don’t know

Much more emphasis on social insurance, less on social assistance.

Fol20 · 13-02-2020 10:22am

Geuze wrote: »

First 12 months of unemployment = 60% - 67% of your former net wage

After that, dole, known as Hartz IV = approx 100 euro per week.

Actually 424 pm.

https://hartziv.info/en/ratgeber/hartz-iv-regelbedarf#single/0

That seems much fairer although I could see some going back o work for a few months then going unemployed again and the cycle continues.

J_1980 · 13-02-2020 10:41am

Fann Linn wrote: »

4% are non working according to FG. Almost full employment.

Copy paste from propertpin forum

Broad Jobless Rate:

If we add the total Live Register rate + Live Register Activation Programmes, the broad jobless rate stands at 9.5%

[183,900 (January 2020) + 48,555 (December 2019)/ 2,454,900 per Labour Force Survey Q3 2019]

Its 10% not 4%
In a country with labour shortages. Total joke of a kip.
Luckily I’m a foreigner on SARP relief. Would bolt here in a second without it.

The Student · 13-02-2020 10:42am

Fol20 wrote: »

That seems much fairer although I could see some going back o work for a few months then going unemployed again and the cycle continues.

I would completely agree with the German model, at least those who contribute most actually get a fairer share of their actual contributions rather than our system which takes no account of the value of your contributions.

J_1980 · 13-02-2020 10:43am

Fol20 wrote: »

What is Germans social system and why is it better than our own - genuinely interested as I don’t know

https://m.dw.com/en/german-issues-in-a-nutshell-hartz-iv/a-39061709

In a nutshell:

The clear intent of the Hartz IV package is to avoid making life too comfortable for benefits recipients, and to nudge or push them into employment - even if poorly paid. This is reflected in the government's Hartz IV slogan: ‘Fördern und Fordern,’ i.e. support recipients, yet make demands on them, in the manner of a stern parent.

The next recession will wipe the friendly smile of the irish middle class. Will be brutal, but I can’t wait.

Fol20 · 13-02-2020 10:49am

J_1980 wrote: »

https://m.dw.com/en/german-issues-in-a-nutshell-hartz-iv/a-39061709

In a nutshell:

The clear intent of the Hartz IV package is to avoid making life too comfortable for benefits recipients, and to nudge or push them into employment - even if poorly paid. This is reflected in the government's Hartz IV slogan: ‘Fördern und Fordern,’ i.e. support recipients, yet make demands on them, in the manner of a stern parent.

The next recession will wipe the friendly smile of the irish middle class. Will be brutal, but I can’t wait.

Why do you want the hard middle to get hurt. It should be the people who refuse to work.

The Student · 13-02-2020 10:50am

J_1980 wrote: »

https://m.dw.com/en/german-issues-in-a-nutshell-hartz-iv/a-39061709

In a nutshell:

The clear intent of the Hartz IV package is to avoid making life too comfortable for benefits recipients, and to nudge or push them into employment - even if poorly paid. This is reflected in the government's Hartz IV slogan: ‘Fördern und Fordern,’ i.e. support recipients, yet make demands on them, in the manner of a stern parent.

The next recession will wipe the friendly smile of the irish middle class. Will be brutal, but I can’t wait.

Will be very interesting to see what happens. Ironically just read in the Irish Independent that neither Finna Fail or Finna Gael will go into govt with SF.

Looks like we are going to have another election so! Interesting times ahead.

Next governments affect on housing market

Comments