How about a cash incentive for selling property - €10,000 grant?

The Spider

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Typical Irish attitude. 12 reasons why an idea won't work but no ideas to offer of their own.

There was a solution, earn more money or move further out, like it or not, that's the only viable solution.

Balmed Out

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Typical Irish attitude. 12 reasons why an idea won't work but no ideas to offer of their own.

Typical Irish attitude, I don't have something I want so I begrudge those that do.

El_Dangeroso

The Spider wrote: »

There was a solution, earn more money or move further out, like it or not, that's the only viable solution.

Deeply shortsighted and unsustainable. If we continue to live longer as is the current trend.

Balmed Out wrote: »

Typical Irish attitude, I don't have something I want so I begrudge those that do.

Ah, the old accusation of begrudgery, can't be that there's a looming issue with an ageing population and a housing crisis, no.

More Irish than begrudgery: Mé Féinism - 'Feck everyone else 'cos I'm grand'.

The Spider

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Deeply shortsighted and unsustainable. If we continue to live longer as is the current trend.



Ah, the old accusation of begrudgery, can't be that there's a looming issue with an ageing population and a housing crisis, no.

More Irish than begrudgery: Mé Féinism - 'Feck everyone else 'cos I'm grand'.

Nah, no it isn't you sound like you don't want to compromise and move to an area that suits your pay packet. Even if old people die or move out, it won't happen all at once, and people on much bigger salaries will buy the houses in the desirable areas, and you or other people who want to live there, still won't be able to.

It's not about feck everyone I'm grand, it's about not giving up something you bought and paid for and raised a family in, at the end of the day we live in a free society people can keep their houses if they want.

I live outside and commute in, that's the reality, and if you want a decent house that's a decision you'll have to come to.

El_Dangeroso

The Spider wrote: »

Nah, no it isn't you sound like you don't want to compromise and move to an area that suits your pay packet. Even if old people die or move out, it won't happen all at once, and people on much bigger salaries will buy the houses in the desirable areas, and you or other people who want to live there, still won't be able to.

It's not about feck everyone I'm grand, it's about not giving up something you bought and paid for and raised a family in, at the end of the day we live in a free society people can keep their houses if they want.

I live outside and commute in, that's the reality, and if you want a decent house that's a decision you'll have to come to.

You are assuming a lot, you know nothing of my own personal situation. I don't live in Dublin, neither do I want to.

It's more like you made the decision to live and commute and now are saying it can never be any other way, because that justifies your own choice.

So you think there is no problem with a situation where as the population ages, there is more and more constraint on supply due to people living in houses that are no longer required for their needs? Because that's delusional.

The Spider

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

You are assuming a lot, you know nothing of my own personal situation. I don't live in Dublin, neither do I want to.

It's more like you made the decision to live and commute and now are saying it can never be any other way, because that justifies your own choice.

So you think there is no problem with a situation where as the population ages, there is more and more constraint on supply due to people living in houses that are no longer required for their needs? Because that's delusional.

Nah not really I like where I live, and still have property in Dublin so could live here if we wanted.

The problem isn't anything to do with an aging population, it's a supply problem and that needs to be addressed, however if you want to live on the east coast of Dublin I'd assume there'd be a problem there, because there's no room to build, so limited supply.

It's the exact same in any city across the globe, you pay to live in a desirable area, and that's it.

Ann Landers

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Typical Irish attitude. 12 reasons why an idea won't work but no ideas to offer of their own.

Not "typically Irish" at all actually.

El_Dangeroso

The Spider wrote: »

Nah not really I like where I live, and still have property in Dublin so could live here if we wanted.

The problem isn't anything to do with an aging population, it's a supply problem and that needs to be addressed, however if you want to live on the east coast of Dublin I'd assume there'd be a problem there, because there's no room to build, so limited supply.

It's the exact same in any city across the globe, you pay to live in a desirable area, and that's it.

Things I didn't say:

1. If only we were able to kick old people out of their homes there would be no issue with housing supply
2. Desirable areas should be within the reach of everyone

Now, do you care to address the things I did say? Or is there absolutely zero problems with an ageing population in a country where people stay in the same house until they die?

The Spider

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Things I didn't say:

1. If only we were able to kick old people out of their homes there would be no issue with housing supply
2. Desirable areas should be within the reach of everyone

Now, do you care to address the things I did say? Or is there absolutely zero problems with an ageing population in a country where people stay in the same house until they die?

No, no, you're right of course, the government should own all property, and when residents reach a certain age, they should be quietly euthanised, and a new young family should take over.

The_Conductor

The Spider wrote: »

No, no, you're right of course, the government should own all property, and when residents reach a certain age, they should be quietly euthanised, and a new young family should take over.

I seem to remember doing an Irish short story for the leaving cert- almost 25 years ago- which had that plot- think it was called 'Halla an Suaimhneas'..........

Speaking of the government owning all property- we are but a Republic in name these days- we have lost our grasp of what it means to live in a Republic, and so few people are willing to play a part- even here, all we do is bitch about the politicians, there are so few people willing to stand up and be counted.

I don't think incentivising people to move to smaller properties, more appropriate to their life stages- is akin to quietly euthanasing the elderly though- there are many people who would be only too happy to sell their big houses and move into smaller managed units which have little upkeep and might be closer to public transport and utilities and amenties that might not be available in more traditional type dwellings.

Children do not care for the elderly any longer. Its a simple observation- they don't. The next best thing is to assist the elderly to live as independent and fulfilling lives as possible- and to enable them to enjoy their twilight years as best they can. I know- I don't want to be worrying about painting the house when I'm 60, or 70- I want some place with the minimum of fuss- where I can enjoy whatever life I have left- preferably with the minimum of interference from anyone.

El_Dangeroso

The Spider wrote: »

No, no, you're right of course, the government should own all property, and when residents reach a certain age, they should be quietly euthanised, and a new young family should take over.

What ludicrous nonsense you come out with in lieu of a cohesive argument.:) You're not capable of discussing the point so you're just playing sillybeggars.

You didn't even read my post by the sounds of it.

Glenbhoy

marathonic wrote: »

The answer to all the supply problems would be, shock-horror, incentives for builders. Grants for selling as suggested by the OP would only further exasperate the issue of lack of supply (the expectation would be that current sellers would accept lower prices for existing houses due to the receipt of the grant making it less worthwhile for developers to build new houses).

If there were a budget for this, it would be much better spent offering builders a reduction in tax on profits on any new-build house started over the next 1-2 years. The government would probably actually gain from this - there'd be less tax taken in on more properties making it close to cost neutral. The construction industry would get a significant boost meaning people would be coming off the dole and, instead, paying the government income tax.

However much sense the above proposal would make, I can only imagine the backlash the government would get if they suggested it. The scorn felt by the general public towards the builders will go on for a long time to come.

The problem isn't lack of supply so much as lack of supply of a certain type of property in certain areas. There's no point in builders building, unless they're going to build family homes in in SCD.

As others have said, if the govt had stayed out of this whole malarkey from day one, we would be in a much better position now, prices might have been allowed to find their own level and we might be confident by now that the bottom has actually been reached rather than just been kicked on down the road for another year.

The Spider

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

What ludicrous nonsense you come out with in lieu of a cohesive argument.:) You're not capable of discussing the point so you're just playing sillybeggars.

You didn't even read my post by the sounds of it.

Because your post is nonsense, it boils down to basically:

We have a shortage of houses and the ones we have are occupied by older people who would be better off in some retirement home, correct?

You then propose various ways to encourage (for encourage read tax) them out of their homes so younger people can buy them, correct?

Now outside of the inequity of working your whole life to pay for your home only to then have it taxed out from under you, which demographic consistently votes more than any other demographic?? ( its the elderly)

Now what government is going to tell them they want to take their houses?

On the other side you've addressed none of he issues I've mentioned, like being shipped off out of the area you've lived in for years to some retirement village in god knows where.

Your idea is defunct, a non runner, dead, immature and really hasn't been thought through!

El_Dangeroso

The Spider wrote: »

Because your post is nonsense, it boils down to basically:

We have a shortage of houses and the ones we have are occupied by older people who would be better off in some retirement home, correct?

No. Not correct, read my posts again.

The Spider wrote: »

You then propose various ways to encourage (for encourage read tax) them out of their homes so younger people can buy them, correct?

No. Not correct, I mentioned a spare bedroom tax, but then someone else mentioned incentives and I think that's a much better idea. Again, I suggest you read my posts instead of assuming.

The Spider wrote: »

Now outside of the inequity of working your whole life to pay for your home only to then have it taxed out from under you, which demographic consistently votes more than any other demographic?? ( its the elderly)

Now what government is going to tell them they want to take their houses?

On the other side you've addressed none of he issues I've mentioned, like being shipped off out of the area you've lived in for years to some retirement village in god knows where.

And again you have misrepresented what I said, tell me where I said that people should be shipped to a remote retirement village. Again I advise you to read before sounding off.

The Spider wrote: »

Your idea is defunct, a non runner, dead, immature and really hasn't been thought through!

'My idea' is something that you have made up in your head as a strawman argument as you can't think of a valid point to make.

Your idea (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is to entirely ignore the issue.

The Spider

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

No. Not correct, read my posts again.



No. Not correct, I mentioned a spare bedroom tax, but then someone else mentioned incentives and I think that's a much better idea. Again, I suggest you read my posts instead of assuming.



And again you have misrepresented what I said, tell me where I said that people should be shipped to a remote retirement village. Again I advise you to read before sounding off.



'My idea' is something that you have made up in your head as a strawman argument as you can't think of a valid point to make.

Your idea (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is to entirely ignore the issue.

Straw man my hoop! You basically said older people should be encouraged to downsize through a bedroom tax.

I have read your post, and my suggestion remains the same, warn more month or move to an area you can afford, the basics of any market.

El_Dangeroso

The Spider wrote: »

Straw man my hoop! You basically said older people should be encouraged to downsize through a bedroom tax.

I have read your post, and my suggestion remains the same, warn more month or move to an area you can afford, the basics of any market.

You were creating a strawman argument. You said that I was proposing:
a. Forcing people out of their homes
b. Encouraging euthanasia to free up houses
c. Sending people into retirement villages far from their communities

Now, I'll ask you again, in the context of an ageing population where people tend to stay in one house that doesn't meet their requirements and may in fact be an additional burden in terms of maintenance and where young families stuggle to find suitable accommodation, what is your proposed solution?

So far I've got from you: Do nothing and ignore the problem.

The Spider

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

You were creating a strawman argument. You said that I was proposing:
a. Forcing people out of their homes
b. Encouraging euthanasia to free up houses
c. Sending people into retirement villages far from their communities

Now, I'll ask you again, in the context of an ageing population where people tend to stay in one house that doesn't meet their requirements and may in fact be an additional burden in terms of maintenance and where young families stuggle to find suitable accommodation, what is your proposed solution?

So far I've got from you: Do nothing and ignore the problem.

It's not about ignoring the problem, it's about letting the market work, I told you my solution three times now, earn more or move out.

Your solution seems to be punish the elderly by taxing spare rooms in their house.

Again it's a nonsense, elderly ate the biggest voters, there's a lot of assumptions going on here.

Even though you say your parents would never give up their house, you think others would? You're not the only one who said it.

In fact it's all assumption the only thing I get from this thread is that the elderly people you and others know, would not give up their homes, and somehow without a shred of evidence you and others seem to think the elderly will be clambering to offload their houses, if only they could, be it downsizing, retirement village or whatever.

Uriel.

The Spider wrote: »

Again it's a nonsense, elderly ate the biggest voters, there's a lot of assumptions going on here.

So that's how they have all the influence

MouseTail

Its a non runner.
- Politically unpalatable
- It won't ease supply anyway in any meaningful way, our age demographic is a pyramid
- We already have tax incentives to build retirement villages, Developers haven't been clamouring to avail of them, because culturally we are averse.

El_Dangeroso

The Spider wrote: »

It's not about ignoring the problem, it's about letting the market work, I told you my solution three times now, earn more or move out.

Your solution seems to be punish the elderly by taxing spare rooms in their house.

Again it's a nonsense, elderly ate the biggest voters, there's a lot of assumptions going on here.

Even though you say your parents would never give up their house, you think others would? You're not the only one who said it.

In fact it's all assumption the only thing I get from this thread is that the elderly people you and others know, would not give up their homes, and somehow without a shred of evidence you and others seem to think the elderly will be clambering to offload their houses, if only they could, be it downsizing, retirement village or whatever.

So, all that rambling can be summed up with:

'Do nothing and ignore the problem'. Gotcha.

The Spider

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

So, all that rambling can be summed up with:

'Do nothing and ignore the problem'. Gotcha.

Nope, I iterate again, earn more or move to a location you can afford, what's so hard to understand about that? (that's four times I've explained it to you!)

You said your own parents would never move, you have your answer from them!:rolleyes:

El_Dangeroso

The Spider wrote: »

Nope, I iterate again, earn more or move to a location you can afford, what's so hard to understand about that? (that's four times I've explained it to you!)

You said your own parents would never move, you have your answer from them!:rolleyes:

Yes because every old person is exactly the same and thinks the same way. But I have your answer, you think that the problem should be ignored and nothing done, you can move the goalposts all you like, but that is your fundamental point.

I am not asking 'what should buyers do'. I'm asking what should be done at policy level. But like all your posts on this forum, yours is an answer to a question no one asked.

The Spider

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Yes because every old person is exactly the same and thinks the same way. But I have your answer, you think that the problem should be ignored and nothing done, you can move the goalposts all you like, but that is your fundamental point.

I am not asking 'what should buyers do'. I'm asking what should be done at policy level. But like all your posts on this forum, yours is an answer to a question no one asked.

Why don't you ask your parents if they'd like to pay a bedroom tax, and if they'd vote for any government that introduced one?

I think you'll find your answer.

Ray Palmer

I have been suggesting similar for years.

The best suggestions to solve some of the problems are as follows

1) It is an incentive not a punishment
2) You do not give cash you give pension increases or tie the incentive into a pension scheme
3) You convert existing homes in the area into suitable accommodation for the elderly
4) You build proper purpose built properties in the area the people live. That means extra soundproofing, emergency call cords, disable bathrooms etc...
5) communal halls within building for socialising and food.

The main thing is the people can downsize and remain close to their own community and it's services. I don't want to be in some retirement village no where near a hospital and away from shops, entertainment, museums etc... I like where I live and don't plan to move when I retire.

The problem is the government wouldn't make any money from it. They would save a lot by using existing infrastructure but that is always a harder sell.

It is insane not to use the housing stock we have efficiently and also have a housing shortage. Where I live the majority of the properties have 2 free bedrooms and some more but very few full. There are schools closing nearby as there aren't enough pupils, mean while other areas are screaming for schools and parent commute long distances.

It won't suit all but it could help a lot of people.

Nothing stopping a community from doing it themselves

MysticalRain

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

So, all that rambling can be summed up with:

'Do nothing and ignore the problem'. Gotcha.

I'll do an even better job of summing up The_Spiders posts in this forum...

The_Spiders view on first time buyers and renters: live within your means, work harder, let the market take it's course.
The_Spiders view on homeowners in mortgage arrears: socialism in the form of taxpayer funded bailouts, no lifestyle adjustments (it would apparently hurt the economy if these people actually tried to live within their means)

Basically the kind of Me Feinism that has been the economic ruin of this country for several years running now.

The Spider wrote: »

Why don't you ask your parents if they'd like to pay a bedroom tax, and if they'd vote for any government that introduced one?

I think you'll find your answer.

See Ray Palmer's post.

The Spider

Well you don't have it so bad really, here's a modern economy the rent is cheaper, but the accommodation may need some updating!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2275206/Hong-Kongs-metal-cage-homes-How-tens-thousands-live-6ft-2ft-rabbit-hutches.html