Rental Allowance coming down in December

subway

Really? All those clever landlords will just leave their places empty? Not one of them will drop their price?

PennyLane88

Graces7 wrote: »

Some of the attitudes here are appallingly unrealistic and scathing.

So eg pensioners and the disabled should live in hovels? In your zeal to condemn false claimants you are falling into the kind of mentality that creates ghettos.

Jobs? Who will pay for that kind of street cleaning? The tax payer of course.

Always measures hit at the already poor who cannot earn; E10 for a prescription will certainly kill many off.

A civilised society does not penalise sickness and age. It cares for those who cannot earn.

Someone in a similar thread opined that those on benefits should have only basics. Gee; we have minds as well as bodies. They hit out at the internet; never having lived on benefits they fail to understand that the internet becomes a life line, a library, etc and saves more than it costs.

The attitude seems to be that the weak must be punished by deprivation. Not a civilised attitude....

Ah come on, i think your being ott - no one mentioned putting those on welfare in hovels, and tbh rented accommodation standards have risen in the last decade alone (with the exception of some kips, but there'll always be a few out there).

Do you think its fair that tax payers have to pay for those in receipt of rent allowance for top standard apartments, while the working class still have to bear the brunt of paying full rent for the same types of accommodation - personally i think its crazy if a person the same age as me who hasn't worked for a year can claim rent allowance, medical card, on top of dole and still afford the same lifestyle as me, while i work 39 hours a week, get screwed on tax, and if i lose my job tomorrow or i get sick, i'm entitled to no help for medical costs and rent? That's crazy carry on and it has to stop.

I know of many people who shouldn't be entitled to RA, and won't look at a house, unless its top standard accommodation. And then they want their cable tv or sky, as they don't like the Irish channels, something i can't even afford as a full time worker.

Of course i know fully well there are genuine people on welfare, through no fault of their own, and i'm not trying to generalise, my parents both lost jobs a few years ago, and i know how hard it can be, but they had a mortgage, so were not entitled to RA. But there are a good few who just don't want to work, and i blame the SW system for allowing dis-genuine cases to claim.

I don't think cuts in RA will mean the social welfare recipients will be forced to live in kips, it might actually lower rent, making it fair game for all people - workers included.

In general, the countrys welfare system is far too generous, and the lower paid workers get the brunt of it. And i'm not worried about landlords income being slashed, i have had my fair share of ar**hole landlords who tried to withhold my deposit, they screwed me over in the boom years, So no pity for most of them.

djrichard

Graces7 wrote: »

More places will lie empty is all. As is already happening.

You wouldnt be on the welfare yourself would you?

None of my business, well actually seeing as I pay tax.......

robd

Graces7 wrote: »

Some of the attitudes here are appallingly unrealistic and scathing.

So eg pensioners and the disabled should live in hovels? In your zeal to condemn false claimants you are falling into the kind of mentality that creates ghettos.

Jobs? Who will pay for that kind of street cleaning? The tax payer of course.

I read an interesting article by Kevin Myers in the Indo 3 days ago, 4th Aug.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-we-have-created-a-dysfunctional-leviathan-of-a-welfare-state-2839236.html

Now, I don't really agree with a lot of the guys musings. He's generally over aggressive and controversial for the sake of it however he has a major point here in grouping us with other Catholic influenced countries.

Nobody wants to see pensioners, the sick etc. living in hovels and going hungry but the level of state benevolence in this country extraordinary when compared to the likes of the UK and Germany. To a large extent we seem as a nation to have offloaded our responsibilities as families to the state.

What happened to families caring for pensioners and disabled siblings or taking in siblings or children in need?

Just cause you have a kid shouldn't entitle you to a family home for free. What's wrong with living with Mammy? Who says a family home can't include different generations?

mm_surf

Just to play devils' advocate here:

How would people feel about cutting Mortgage Interest Relief & Mortgage Interest Supplement as well?

OMD

not even wrong wrote: »

50% of the private rental market in Ireland is rent allowance source

It is just not true to say that 50% of the renters can be priced out of the market -- who will rent the empty homes that they've been priced out of?

The article says
"95,000 households are supported by rent supplement, which the Department of Social Protection says is about half of the total private rented market in Ireland."
Those figures don't seem to match. In the 2006 census there were about 1.5 million households in Ireland. That means that only 12.5% of households rent so I assume the rest are owners. So 87.5% own and 12.5% rent. Those figures are way out of line with anything I have heard before.

subway

mm_surf wrote: »

Just to play devils' advocate here:

How would people feel about cutting Mortgage Interest Relief & Mortgage Interest Supplement as well?

Delighted. Then they can stop pricing those into house prices too. It's basic economics

OMD

mm_surf wrote: »

Just to play devils' advocate here:

How would people feel about cutting Mortgage Interest Relief & Mortgage Interest Supplement as well?

Already being done

Bens

mm_surf wrote: »

Just to play devils' advocate here:

How would people feel about cutting Mortgage Interest Relief & Mortgage Interest Supplement as well?

Thats what should be done. Along with rent tax credits for renters. And that should be done first, even before cutting rent allowance. People can then go to their landlords and look for a discount from them if they can get it.

Why should anyone get tax relief for renting or buying a roof over their head. What are they going to do? Go live in a tent instead.

And i'll got further. Instead of a property tax where only a few house owners pay €100 for services. There should be a council tax, where each person living there has to pay for services.

not even wrong

OMD wrote: »

The article says
"95,000 households are supported by rent supplement, which the Department of Social Protection says is about half of the total private rented market in Ireland."
Those figures don't seem to match. In the 2006 census there were about 1.5 million households in Ireland. That means that only 12.5% of households rent so I assume the rest are owners. So 87.5% own and 12.5% rent. Those figures are way out of line with anything I have heard before.

You are forgetting the local authority rented sector.

Regardless, it is a fact that rent allowance accounts for a very large portion of the private rental sector, and so decreasing rent allowance will not lead to tenants being priced out of the market.

mm_surf

Anybody got any ideas what MIR & MIS are running at these days?

OfflerCrocGod

smccarrick wrote: »

FYI- there are also calls to bring forward December's budget to October- to try to assuage the fears of the public and if possible to try to encourage people to spend (while it may sound ironic- apparently we now have the highest levels of savings in Europe- who has this money to save, is beyond me..........)

Our savings rates are average for the eurozone, in fact all people are doing is no longer getting into as much debt as before. Deposits in banks are slightly downward trending. Ignore the high savings rate waffle. 13% savings rate is not out of this world, it's a normal one that we will have to get used to from now on.

Rents should be allowed to crater so I hope rent allowance is slashed.

Monife

Graces7 wrote: »

Some of the attitudes here are appallingly unrealistic and scathing.

So eg pensioners and the disabled should live in hovels? In your zeal to condemn false claimants you are falling into the kind of mentality that creates ghettos.

Jobs? Who will pay for that kind of street cleaning? The tax payer of course.

Always measures hit at the already poor who cannot earn; E10 for a prescription will certainly kill many off.

A civilised society does not penalise sickness and age. It cares for those who cannot earn.

Someone in a similar thread opined that those on benefits should have only basics. Gee; we have minds as well as bodies. They hit out at the internet; never having lived on benefits they fail to understand that the internet becomes a life line, a library, etc and saves more than it costs.

The attitude seems to be that the weak must be punished by deprivation. Not a civilised attitude....

Internet is a luxury, end of. Some working people cannot afford NTL and/or the internet. Why shouldn't it be targeted in the next budget?

Also, we were not saying that benefit recipients should live in hovels. If rent allowance was reduced, it might mean that they cannot have the nice apartments they are used to and have to scale down a bit OR that the landlords will have to reduce the rent.

Graces7 wrote: »

The attitude seems to be that the weak must be punished by deprivation. Not a civilised attitude....

So who do you suggest bear the brunt of the austerity measures? Tax payers...? AGAIN? Everyone is going to have to come to terms with the cuts, it shouldn't all be put on the workers. This country cannot afford to do what it has been doing anymore. There are many people out there who are already in deprived states of living and work 40 odd hours a week. Rent allowance is a start anyway, and will hopefully lift the high ceiling of rents to bring them in accordance (or close to) with the way the property market has fallen.

babsybaby01

Don't forget that 21% of social welfare budget is spent on rent allowance where only 19% is spent on job seekers allowance/benefit so you can see why the cut is coming....These are the very reasons Joan burton didn't want this ministery...She knew she had the job of kicking people when they were down....

subway

OMD wrote: »

Can you link them?

ffs
http://census.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=76526

Treehouse72

OMD wrote: »

The article says
"95,000 households are supported by rent supplement, which the Department of Social Protection says is about half of the total private rented market in Ireland."
Those figures don't seem to match. In the 2006 census there were about 1.5 million households in Ireland. That means that only 12.5% of households rent so I assume the rest are owners. So 87.5% own and 12.5% rent. Those figures are way out of line with anything I have heard before.

Of the 12.5% who rent, half are on support. If you think about 14% unemployment figure, that figure approximately makes sense.

And 12.5% of 1.5m households is 187,000, and half of that is ~95,000, which matches the figure in the report.

The_Conductor

Less of the rhetoric and back ontopic please folk.
Any personal abuse towards any other forum member- will be met with a posting holiday.

Regards,

SMcCarrick

subway

Well, I Think you will be greatly surprised in the months after this cut is introduced. It's a highly visible crutch to the Market and when 95000 landlords are givent the option to face a vacancy or drop the rent I think a lot will drop the rent.
Those who don't will find either clever working tenants who will know how to negotiate or more ra tenants with the same budgetary problems.

Rents are very very elastic and we should see a comparable drop in asking prices within months of the cut

Victor

ShadowHearth wrote: »

90% of people I know that have these benefits are taking social warfare for a ride anyway.

Perhaps choose your acquaintances more wisely?

Treehouse72

Merch wrote: »

You obviously dont have a clue. do you, you really dont, but you think you do. Why would you assume that RA tenants are in really bad properties, its contradictory to what you yourself are saying. If RA is so high and as great as you ay then landlords should be falling over themselves to get RA tenants, after all (and unfortunately) its more likely a private rented tenant will lose their job. It also smacks of how you put across that you look down on people who are on RA, why dont you go and tear strips out of someone that caused this problem, instead of wailing on people that have very little that they need to get state assistance, people on RA dont see that money.

A depressing post on every level.

you say you accept things go up and down, then say you are bitter?? how were you not well treated? ahh diddums, christ sake, you feel due for something do yo? what?

Yes, it's called a conflicted position. It's what happens in real life sometimes. Get over it.

PennyLane88

I'll sum it up - Rent Allowance too high, reduce it, we are in a recession, tax payer is sick and tired of getting the brunt of this fu**ing recession, time after time we get screwed, and you think rent allowance should stay the same? Im all for rent allowance decreases

The_Conductor

mm_surf wrote: »

Just to play devils' advocate here:

How would people feel about cutting Mortgage Interest Relief & Mortgage Interest Supplement as well?

One of the articles in the IMF agreement concerns property supports- and specifically mortgage interest relief as an allowance for landlords. It has been reduced to 75% already, and is due to be abolished in 3 stages between now and 2017.

With respect of Mortgage Interest Supplement- Richard Bruton has undertaken to address it as an all-inclusive approach to dealing to negative equity, delinquent mortgages and personal bankruptcy law. What he comes up with will be interesting- and doubtless controversial, the current argument being why should the person who was prudent with their finances, now shoulder the weight of baling out those who were not. Why should someone who can't pay the mortgage on a mansion continue to live in said mansion when a similar or larger family who are paying their mortgage on a much more modest property- somehow have to bailout their profligate neighbour?

The_Conductor

Bens wrote: »

And i'll got further. Instead of a property tax where only a few house owners pay €100 for services. There should be a council tax, where each person living there has to pay for services.

This is the proposal?
There are to be no exceptions, its a residency based taxation payable directly to the council in which the property is located, and the initial €100 charge is only an opening charge while the councils decide on a manner of levying the charge (the councils on the East coast want the charge based on property size- whereas almost everyone else wants it based on property value).

It was originally proposed as a national charge- to be divvied up and split among the various councils to fund their operations- however it was pointed out that the last time we had this it turned into a Dublin tax- because it was phrased in such a way that you could live in a Mansion in an exempt area, or indeed a very nice property in Tipperary- but still have a larger tax demand from a shoebox apartment in Dublin 1.........

Current proposal is to leverage the NPPR infrastructure along with Revenue's database- and run it on a council by council basis- with basic legislation governing how it functions- and removing exemptions or opt outs- so if you live in property x- you owe council tax. Meanwhile as the NPPR has not been repealed- in the case of rented accommodation- the tenant owes council tax, and the landlord owes property tax..........

The government are getting really really sneaky with indirect taxation.........

The_Conductor

Guys- I've just removed 24 posts from this thread from 8 separate posters. I could do a further hatchet job- but I simply don't have the time this morning.

Please look at the thread title- and the topic that the person who opened the thread intended to discuss.

This is not a thread where the relative merits of a social welfare state- and whether we can afford it, is to be debated- its about one specific measure- and the proposals for that measure.

If people decide to share their own personal experiences as a posting style and then get their noses out of joint because others decide to pick holes in what they're doing- tough luck- I am not going to nanny you- if you decide to share you make your own personal circumstances open to debate- if you do not want your own circumstances debated- stick to commenting on other people's posts in a factual manner- preferably backing up what you're saying.

I have posts reported in this thread from 5 different people- some of which I've allowed to stand. If you want to report a post- use the report post function- and have a reason other than you don't like what the person is saying for reporting the post- I'm not a clairvoyant, nor do I want to pretend I am.

Stick on-topic, by all means offer opinions- accept that other people's opinions will not match yours- if you disagree with theirs- debate it factually, if you resort to attacking other posters- I'll nuke your post, and most probably give you a posting holiday.

As a final comment- if you disagree with my decision- I have a co-mod in this forum- and there is a structure in place for referring any arguments you have with a moderator up the line- doing it onthread- or using other forums on boards to snipe at me or others- is not acceptable, and will be dealt with.

If you are unsure of why/whether you want to post in this forum- or any other forum for that matter- please read the forum charter which governs conduct in that particular forum- there should be one for each forum- and please note- just because you are allowed behave in a particular manner in another forum- does not mean you have a similar right to behave in that manner here or elsewhere.

Regards,

SMcCarrick

Merch

Treehouse72 wrote: »

A depressing post on every level.


Yes, it's called a conflicted position. It's what happens in real life sometimes. Get over it.

I think you are just making a glib remark but otherwise say nothing, whats depressing about it? I'm interested to hear other opinions, I cant accept even if I aggree RA is too high that it needs to be cut that people should have shock reduction applied. To me that person They contradicted themself.

RA is too high, but you cant just look at in isolation and say its only all about RA, some people are preparing themselves to look on with malicious glee as they hope others will suffer, without looking at the bigger picture. Posters have stated here in this thread they are not happy with certain people living near them. I'd suggest phased reductions rather than a shock cut. It still needs to be one element of overall reductions.
The whole argument about "private sector workers are sick of this, its a joke, we wont take it anymore" you're not solely propping the whole system up, we are all in this mess. I'll bet it's the same kind of people that suggests wholesale slashing foreign aid when people are starving (certainly foreign AID needs to be looked at, but not in a, I couldn't care less let them starve or eat cake attitude), not to that or RA, some people really are at the poverty line or below it.

ShadowHearth

Victor wrote: »

Perhaps choose your acquaintances more wisely?

My English is not that good. I mean that of 100% who has this beefit, big part of them will be having social welfare for a ride. It's not that all the poeple I know are all welfare scammers .

Ussually it's really laizy bastords who have those in my experience. It's on bouth sides btw ( Irish and foreigners ) .

I am not Irish, but I really really hate foreigners doing all this **** with welfare... In my eyes it's way worse then Irish milking theyr of country, thought bouth deserve bullet in the head...

subway

Merch wrote: »

I cant accept even if I aggree RA is too high that it needs to be cut that people should have shock reduction applied.

RA is too high, but you cant just look at in isolation and say its only all about RA, some people are preparing themselves to look on with malicious glee as they hope others will suffer, without looking at the bigger picture.

I'm quoting these two sentences as the rest of your post continues with your inability to not throw in emotional arguments. I won't get into your ad hominem attacks but I do want to state that I have no regard for such childish debating tactics.

Sentence one, you are conflicted. This is called cognitive dissonance. You know something needs to happen but are constructing arguments as to why it should not. There is no factual base for this (you already concede this by saying you know it needs to happen) so you are resorting to ad hominem attacks.

Sentence two. No one has done this on this thread. You are ascribing these characteristics to other posters in order to further your own flawed argument. I think you should have a think about your argument against ra cuts and if it goes no further than a "think of the children" type defence of ra landlords and tenants then maybe you will realise the flaw. If you come up with a factual argument I look forward to reading it

robd

I've said it already as part of another post but no-one seems to have taken it up.

What about the responsibility of family in looking after parents, siblings, children etc. in need. Plenty of middle class families for as long as I can remember have had an uncle, grandparent, or grandchild live with them as needed. My sister in law still lives at mothers home with her child as a single parent. She works and doesn't cost the state anything.

Why in so many cases does the state have to pick up the tab for all this?

I know of so many cases all around me of single mothers with partners living with them, claiming rental allowance. Father not on birth certificate and paying nothing. Their own parents well able to house them if it came to it.

The level of benevolence in this country is ridiculous. People need to get real and families/friends need to start looking out of each other again.

Treehouse72

Merch wrote: »

I think you are just making a glib remark but otherwise say nothing, whats depressing about it? I'm interested to hear other opinions, I cant accept even if I aggree RA is too high that it needs to be cut that people should have shock reduction applied. To me that person They contradicted themself.

RA is too high, but you cant just look at in isolation and say its only all about RA, some people are preparing themselves to look on with malicious glee as they hope others will suffer, without looking at the bigger picture. Posters have stated here in this thread they are not happy with certain people living near them. I'd suggest phased reductions rather than a shock cut. It still needs to be one element of overall reductions.
The whole argument about "private sector workers are sick of this, its a joke, we wont take it anymore" you're not solely propping the whole system up, we are all in this mess. I'll bet it's the same kind of people that suggests wholesale slashing foreign aid when people are starving (certainly foreign AID needs to be looked at, but not in a, I couldn't care less let them starve or eat cake attitude), not to that or RA, some people really are at the poverty line or below it.

Merch, the main point is NOT NOT NOT about the taxpayer funding people's RA. Once more: THAT IS NOT THE POINT. I am a strong believer in the welfare safety net and happily pay taxes to fund dole and housing support and the rest. That is NOT the issue.

The point is that when you reduce RA the main hurt you impose is on landlords. Not on the RA recipient.

As has been set out several times in this thread, that is for the following reason. By definition, the people who inhabit the houses at the bottom of the rental market are those with the least money. That means, or should mean, people who are out of work and on welfare. This is not a value judgement, it is a statement of reality: people working earn more than those on the dole and so can afford better rental properties.

So when you cut RA you are cutting the support to the people at the bottom. And here is the point you seem unwilling to open your mind to: when you cut RA to those at the bottom, their Landlords have nobody else to rent to because they are already renting to those who have the least money. So the Landlords' option is either to continue to rent at the new RA level, or evict tenants and leave their property idle. Since very few would chose no income over some income, they are overwhelmingly more likely to continue to rent at the new RA level to existing tenants.

Now that is as clear an explantion as I can make. Please don't come back at me with off-topic or strawman arguments.

quaalude

Treehouse72 wrote: »

Merch, the main point is NOT NOT NOT about the taxpayer funding people's RA. Once more: THAT IS NOT THE POINT. I am a strong believer in the welfare safety net and happily pay taxes to fund dole and housing support and the rest. That is NOT the issue.

The point is that when you reduce RA the main hurt you impose is on landlords. Not on the RA recipient.

As has been set out several times in this thread, that is for the following reason. By definition, the people who inhabit the houses at the bottom of the rental market are those with the least money. That means, or should mean, people who are out of work and on welfare. This is not a value judgement, it is a statement of reality: people working earn more than those on the dole and so can afford better rental properties.

So when you cut RA you are cutting the support to the people at the bottom. And here is the point you seem unwilling to open your mind to: when you cut RA to those at the bottom, their Landlords have nobody else to rent to because they are already renting to those who have the least money. So the Landlords' option is either to continue to rent at the new RA level, or evict tenants and leave their property idle. Since very few would chose no income over some income, they are overwhelmingly more likely to continue to rent at the new RA level to existing tenants.

Now that is as clear an explantion as I can make. Please don't come back at me with off-topic or strawman arguments.

Nice post Treehouse72 - I too don't have a problem with the subsidy itself, it's about the level of the subsidy (too high), and who it is subsidizing (in reality, it is subsidizing the landlords, not the tenants).