€700m social welfare cuts in budget

djpbarry

gurramok wrote: »

You're pathetic attempt at lessening the affect of RS on the market is dreadful.

Em, ok. That’s not what I was doing, but anyways...

gurramok wrote: »

At the peak of a bubble that was.

2002 was not the peak. Not even close. Rents rose by 15-20% between 2002 and 2007.

gurramok wrote: »

Asking from 900+ for a 2bed in Dublin whether its in D15 or D4 or D24 is still very high.

Because you’re selectively comparing to cities in Northern Britain?

gurramok wrote: »

“Because they’re higher?". That is a very weak back up to your assessment.

I don’t really have a clue what you’re asking me? Yes, salaries are higher in Dublin. Go have a look on any job site and compare, say, salaries for office administrator and you will see a pretty big diffierence between Dublin and Newcastle or Manchester. And that’s before tax.

gurramok wrote: »

Do they have 15% unemployment and countless others on OPFP & RS?

Do they have NAMA withholding thousands of apts from the rental market in Dublin? No.

Are their govt broke? No. Paying nearly €600m on RS to private landlords is a disgrace.

I’m not the one who first made the comparison, am I? In fact, if anything, you’re making my point – there’s a world of difference between the North of Britain and Dublin, so comparing rents is a bit pointless.

gurramok wrote: »

The most expensive area in Manchester for a 2bed in £524.

Bollocks. As is the case everywhere, you can pay as much as you want for a place in Manchester:
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-35506991.html

gurramok wrote: »

Now, try and back up your assertion that 930quid is justified in Dublin on RS.

I made no such assertion. I simply stated that, in a European context, I would not consider < €1,000 per month as expensive for a 2-bed property in a capital city.

gurramok

djpbarry wrote: »

Em, ok. That’s not what I was doing, but anyways...

Yeh sure you were, you had an issue with the word worker when it came to rents. If not, you would not have objected to it.

djpbarry wrote: »

2002 was not the peak. Not even close. Rents rose by 15-20% between 2002 and 2007.

Where did I say 2002 was the peak? I said 2007

djpbarry wrote: »

Because you’re selectively comparing to cities in Northern Britain?

Because Dublin ain't London.

djpbarry wrote: »

I don’t really have a clue what you’re asking me? Yes, salaries are higher in Dublin. Go have a look on any job site and compare, say, salaries for office administrator and you will see a pretty big diffierence between Dublin and Newcastle or Manchester. And that’s before tax.

You see what you are trying to do, you are trying to say 50% of the private rental sector which are rentals by workers earn high salaries hence high rents are justified. Unreal stuff.

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not the one who first made the comparison, am I? In fact, if anything, you’re making my point – there’s a world of difference between the North of Britain and Dublin, so comparing rents is a bit pointless.

Nope, comparing rents is not pointless as RS controls 50% of the private rental sector here. Its good to know how high accommodation costs are when comparing to our neighbour, ain't it?

djpbarry wrote: »

Bollocks. As is the case everywhere, you can pay as much as you want for a place in Manchester:
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-35506991.html

I throw you that Bollocks back. £524 is the maximum LHA rate in Manchester, not the market rate for a 2 bed. Read the bloody link before spouting tripe.

djpbarry wrote: »

I made no such assertion. I simply stated that, in a European context, I would not consider < €1,000 per month as expensive for a 2-bed property in a capital city.

Oh boy. Shall we compare to Tallinn then? Since when are all capital cities the same??! Hilarious.

Godge

djpbarry wrote: »

I made no such assertion. I simply stated that, in a European context, I would not consider < €1,000 per month as expensive for a 2-bed property in a capital city.

This is the bit we need to get over as a country. Dublin is not a metropolis of a capital city. It is a provincial town more akin to the likes of Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds, Lyons or Hamburg (in fact struggling to rise up to the standards of some of those). Rents should reflect that reality.

Dublin is not Paris, London, Brussels, Amsterdam or Berlin.

djpbarry

gurramok wrote: »

Yeh sure you were, you had an issue with the word worker when it came to rents.

No, I have an issue with the term “worker” in general.

gurramok wrote: »

Because Dublin ain't London.

No, it isn’t. But it’s not Newcastle or Manchester either.

gurramok wrote: »

You see what you are trying to do, you are trying to say 50% of the private rental sector which are rentals by workers earn high salaries hence high rents are justified.

No, I’m saying salaries are high in Dublin relative to the UK. Real simple.

gurramok wrote: »

Oh boy. Shall we compare to Tallinn then? Since when are all capital cities the same??!

They’re not. Since when are Dublin and Manchester the same?

For the record, I’m not claiming that rent supplement is not distorting the market – I don’t really see the need for it. But I have a hard time believing that removing these supplements will cause rents to tumble, particularly in Dublin.

srsly78

Dublin is a lot more expensive than Berlin

gurramok

djpbarry wrote: »

No, I have an issue with the term “worker” in general.

Why? You prefer people not to work?!

djpbarry wrote: »

No, it isn’t. But it’s not Newcastle or Manchester either.

Name a comparable city then.

djpbarry wrote: »

No, I’m saying salaries are high in Dublin relative to the UK. Real simple.
They’re not. Since when are Dublin and Manchester the same?

No it ain't. You stated the following;

djpbarry wrote:

I'm not necessarily disagreeing about rent supplement, but I really don't think it can be argued that rents in Ireland are all that high any more. Two-bed properties are to be found in Dublin, relatively centrally, for less than EUR 1,000 per month - that's really not expensive by European standards, especially when you factor in that salaries in Ireland are still relatively high.

Thats 50% of the market for worker access, you lay the cause at high salaries in Dublin.

djpbarry wrote:

For the record, I’m not claiming that rent supplement is not distorting the market – I don’t really see the need for it. But I have a hard time believing that removing these supplements will cause rents to tumble, particularly in Dublin.

Why not? Say it again - high salaries. You're blaming the workers for high rents, not RS.

italodisco

a lot of people talking alot of 'facts' and 'figures'......

Most are rubbish.....

Why are threads like this allowed to go on and on is beyond me.

Sorry for sounding like a crank but if you worked in my place you'd see things differently... Sorry for annoying anyone but im tired of all the 'experts' dishing out nonsense.

thebman

I think it has an effect and I don't see any logical argument for how giving loads of money and setting a floor in rental property doesn't effect the rest of the market. Of course it does.

djpbarry

gurramok wrote: »

You're blaming the workers for high rents, not RS.

Ok, I'm done with this thread. You seem intent on finding things in my posts that aren't there.