Homelessness on the rise

Sleeper12

Gatling wrote:

But it could be arguedaddition of non homeless people keeps the figures artificially high and keeps the newly minted homeless charity's well funded

That doesn't take away the the fact that the government doctors the figures.

If we calculated our homeless in the same way as most of the EU we could easily double our numbers to over 20k.

Would you be of the opinion that these EU countries are wrong to calculate the fig the way they do? And that we are wrong in the way that we calculate ours, even though we knock off half of the poss numbers as it is?

Gatling

Sleeper12 wrote: »

That doesn't take away the the fact that the government doctors the figures.

I believe all the figures are artificially inflated .


I'm sure we could include prisoners too

Sleeper12

Gatling wrote:

I'm sure we could include prisoners too

I hear what you say.

On a slightly different note a huge percentage of the prisoners released are homeless the day they are released. This is why the McVerry Trust engages with the prisoners long before release in the hopes of securing accommodation for them. I get that many will go back to crime one way or the other but putting a prisoner on the street with nowhere to stay & little money will guarantee he'll be back in jail

Old diesel

Gatling wrote: »

Sleeper12 wrote: »

That doesn't take away the the fact that the government doctors the figures.

I believe all the figures are artificially inflated .


I'm sure we could include prisoners too

Who do you think is currently classed as homeless but really isn't????

zell12

Rents (asking) reach yet another all-time high
according to Daft.ie

Sleeper12

zell12 wrote: »

Rents (asking) reach yet another all-time high
according to Daft.ie

This in turn pushes more people into homelessness. The government claim to have helped over 4000 people lest year out of homelessness yet the figures continue to grow. It's such a shame that FG have ignored the growing housing shortage since for years before they slowly woke up to the problem.


If FF are responsible for the housing bubble then FG have to be responsible to the rent bubble

Tony EH

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This in turn pushes more people into homelessness. The government claim to have helped over 4000 people lest year out of homelessness yet the figures continue to grow. It's such a shame that FG have ignored the growing housing shortage since for years before they slowly woke up to the problem.

If FF are responsible for the housing bubble then FG have to be responsible to the rent bubble

They were always "awake" to the problem. They choose to do nothing about it.

Twenty Grand

FG have single handedly fixed the negative equity issue in Ireland.

Eric Cartman

Twenty Grand wrote: »

FG have single handedly fixed the negative equity issue in Ireland.

I love it being called a 'negative equity' issue. A heap of people made a bad investment and expected the government to fix their own mistakes for them

Sleeper12

Eric Cartman wrote:

I love it being called a 'negative equity' issue. A heap of people made a bad investment and expected the government to fix their own mistakes for them

We're only starting to be able to make statements like that. 10 years ago we first blamed the builders. Then the government & then the banks. You'd be shot for suggesting that there might be some personal blame.

Everyone padded out their earnings, fibbed about their overtime & promised to rent out the spare room when they had no intention of doing so. The banks were loaning too much but most people lied & borrowed more than even the banks were willing to loan if told the truth.

I do feel for sorry for the thousands caught out but at the end of the day it was a bad investment.

beauf

The govt fanned the flames of that bubble as well...

Eric Cartman

Sleeper12 wrote: »

We're only starting to be able to make statements like that. 10 years ago we first blamed the builders. Then the government & then the banks. You'd be shot for suggesting that there might be some personal blame.

Everyone padded out their earnings, fibbed about their overtime & promised to rent out the spare room when they had no intention of doing so. The banks were loaning too much but most people lied & borrowed more than even the banks were willing to loan if told the truth.

I do feel for sorry for the thousands caught out but at the end of the day it was a bad investment.

This is exactly it , its like blaming the drug dealer because you got addicted, the banks were lending like mad but anyone with half a brain should have realised they were overspending and prices couldn't stay like that, but sure everyone went mad and then when the house value tumbled they were the first ones to blame everyone except themselves.

Tony EH

Banks should be regulated strictly, so they can't give out bad loans.

When you have a situation whereby renting is not a realistic option, as an alternative to owning your own home, people will resort to taking out unrealistic loans in order to get their "foot on the ladder".

We can place the blame all we want on borrowers who desperately took out mortgages to provide a stable home for their families, only to see their fortunes turn a corner and find out that they can't actually pay it back, despite good intentions. But, that conveniently lets the lender off of the hook, when they have a HUGE part to play too.

Irresponsible lending is just as much to blame.

handlemaster

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Twenty Grand wrote: »

FG have single handedly fixed the negative equity issue in Ireland.

I love it being called a 'negative equity' issue. A heap of people made a bad investment and expected the government to fix their own mistakes for them

Most people didnt buy an investment more a home to live in.

beauf

Tony EH wrote: »

....Irresponsible lending is just as much to blame.

Exactly. That's the start of the chain.

Wasnt the Irish regulator warned of risky loans taken by Irish banks by the German regulator. Way back.

Sleeper12

handlemaster wrote:

Most people didnt buy an investment more a home to live in.

Then they got what they paid for , negative equity or not. If however they bought as an investment then negative equity plays a big part

The_Conductor

Twenty Grand wrote: »

FG have single handedly fixed the negative equity issue in Ireland.

The CSO tables tabulating house prices in Ireland have a start date of Feb 2005- which is 100 on the graph. However, the peak of the market was almost exactly two years later (in or around March 2007)- when the CSO graph peaked at a little under 140. We have surpassed 100 on the graph now- at about 108- which represents between 87 and 88% of the peak of the market- and is the point that was reached in August 2005. Thus anyone who bought between August 2005 and March 2007- with the exception of capital repayments that might have been made (and many mortgages were 10 year interest only mortgages- particularly in the BTL market)- could very well still be in negative equity.

Several journalists have seriously misinterpreted the CSO stats- mostly by assuming that the figure of 100 on the graph, represents the peak of the property market- and not a date two years previous to the peak. Its a pretty rookie error- however, they've been loathe to correct their mistake.

Edgware

handlemaster wrote: »

Most people didnt buy an investment more a home to live in.

The numbers who bought investments by mortaging their own home was substantial as well.

pwurple

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This in turn pushes more people into homelessness. The government claim to have helped over 4000 people lest year out of homelessness yet the figures continue to grow. It's such a shame that FG have ignored the growing housing shortage since for years before they slowly woke up to the problem.


If FF are responsible for the housing bubble then FG have to be responsible to the rent bubble

We have a ginormous social welfare machine. This is what the govt controls.

Housing is what private citizens do for ourselves.

The govt is not some deity, I don't know why it needs to be either blamed or praised for everything that falls from the sky.

Sleeper12

pwurple wrote: »

We have a ginormous social welfare machine. This is what the govt controls.

Housing is what private citizens do for ourselves.

The govt is not some deity, I don't know why it needs to be either blamed or praised for everything that falls from the sky.

That's nonsense really now isn't it?


I believe it was charlie haughey that introduced tax relieve on new investment property in certain run down areas in the late 80s & kick started our tiger economy. Where they called section 32 investments? I'm not sure of the name but he encouraged investors to build, build & then build some more! He turned temple bar from derelict eyesore into the "Left Bank" of Dublin. We can thank him for the overpriced pints there. All over Dublin Millions was pumped in. Apartments sprung up everywhere in areas that no wanted to touch in the years before



If FG didn't waste billions on the whole Irish water shambles they could have afforded to do something to stimulate building as early as 2013 through VAT reductions on building materials. They could have reduced the cost of building homes but instead they gave a buyers grant.. Giving a buyers grant in a housing shortage can only push the cost of homes up & doen't increase demand. They were warned of this & it did happen


Non FG Governments have VERY successfully encouraged builders & or investors to get into the property game, increasing housing stock at the same time. A government Burring their head in the sand for 5/6 years wont accomplish anything positive

PokeHerKing

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Sleeper12 wrote: »

We're only starting to be able to make statements like that. 10 years ago we first blamed the builders. Then the government & then the banks. You'd be shot for suggesting that there might be some personal blame.

Everyone padded out their earnings, fibbed about their overtime & promised to rent out the spare room when they had no intention of doing so. The banks were loaning too much but most people lied & borrowed more than even the banks were willing to loan if told the truth.

I do feel for sorry for the thousands caught out but at the end of the day it was a bad investment.

This is exactly it , its like blaming the drug dealer because you got addicted, the banks were lending like mad but anyone with half a brain should have realised they were overspending and prices couldn't stay like that, but sure everyone went mad and then when the house value tumbled they were the first ones to blame everyone except themselves.

I'm not disagreeing with your overall point but unless you were ready to buy in 2005,6,7 with mortgage approval and deposits saved BUT decided to continue to rent due to what you perceived to be a bubble.

Then the bolded part of your statement is just hindsight.

Tony EH

pwurple wrote: »

We have a ginormous social welfare machine. This is what the govt controls.

Housing is what private citizens do for ourselves.

The govt is not some deity, I don't know why it needs to be either blamed or praised for everything that falls from the sky.

What bloody nonsense.

The government are at the helm of the country and control the levers that allow our society to function. Their decisions and indecisions directly affect the lives of every citizen in that society. As such, they are very open to both blame and praise from those they govern and quite rightly too.

Your post is utterly ridiculous.

Sleeper12

PokeHerKing wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with your overall point but unless you were ready to buy in 2005,6,7 with mortgage approval and deposits saved BUT decided to continue to rent due to what you perceived to be a bubble.

Then the bolded part of your statement is just hindsight.

Everyone padded out their earnings, fibbed about their overtime & promised to rent out the spare room when they had no intention of doing so

Defiantly not hindsight. When my parents moved into their own place in the 60s they kitted it out with 2nd hand stuff. My mother is in her mid 80s & the only thing she bought on credit in her whole life was a fridge for her first home & she worried sick until it was paid off.


When I bought my first house in the early 90s I kitted it out with hand me downs till I could afford to buy nice new things.


What happened to most (not all) people is that the year they bought their first house in the mid 0s was they still wanted their holiday. In some cases winter & summer holiday. They wanted decking on the new house before they even moved in. They wanted to deck the whole place out in brand new stuff, even a HD TV (expensive at the time). Bottom line is most (but not all) borrowed not just for the house but for everything. They are the credit generation with no real concept of saving up before spending 3K on a TV. They over stretched themselves



This isn't hindsight. Anyone over the age of 35 knew that it was the wrong way to buy a house. They knew that lying about your earnings, overtime & renting a room was going to leave these young people wide open to failure. The problem is these people wouldn't listen as young people usually don't listen. They bought bigger houses then needed at higher prices than they could afford. If we didn't have the world rescission & banking crises many of these still would have lost their homes. They were living on credit. Never a good idea & the worst plan when buying a house. My mother knew this in the 60s. It's not a new idea.

PokeHerKing

Sleeper12 wrote:

This isn't hindsight. Anyone over the age of 35 knew that it was the wrong way to buy a house. They knew that lying about your earnings, overtime & renting a room was going to leave these young people wide open to failure. The problem is these people wouldn't listen as young people usually don't listen. They bought bigger houses then needed at higher prices than they could afford. If we didn't have the world rescission & banking crises many of these still would have lost their homes. They were living on credit. Never a good idea & the worst plan when buying a house. My mother knew this in the 60s. It's not a new idea.

If you read my post you would know I was not referring to any part of your post.

Sleeper12

PokeHerKing wrote:

If you read my post you would know I was not referring to any part of your post.

The part that you had in bold then. Anyone with half a brain knew that you can't borrow like that. Everyone knew that they were over stretching themselves. The only way they would have gotten away with it was if they the economy kept booming but even the government weren't predicting that. They predicted a soft landing.

It is not hindsight to say that they borrowed too much money that they could not afford to pay back. Most people knew that they were borrowing too much of at the time

Tony EH

Everyone padded out their earnings, fibbed about their overtime & promised to rent out the spare room when they had no intention of doing so

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Anyone over the age of 35 knew that it was the wrong way to buy a house. They knew that lying about your earnings, overtime & renting a room was going to leave these young people wide open to failure.

Sorry, not "everyone" or "anyone over the age of 35" did this type of thing. In fact, I'd say those that did were in the minority.

The VAST majority of people who took out a mortgage, did so simply to buy a home. Not a "house" or an "asset", or an "equitable" product. Just a home. Because renting in this dumb shithole isn't a viable option for a stable family situation.

Actually buying your own home, where you can lay roots, is essential to building a stable family. You cannot do that, if you are at the behest of a landlord, who may decide your future for you at the drop of the hat. We have an extremely poor tenancy situation in this country and renting is only ok, if your a 20 something with no responsibilities. Once you get to be a real adult, with real responsibilities, living in a house where you go from 12 month lease to 12 month lease means you have no solidity in your home/family life.

PokeHerKing

Sleeper12 wrote: »

PokeHerKing wrote:

If you read my post you would know I was not referring to any part of your post.

The part that you had in bold then. Anyone with half a brain knew that you can't borrow like that. Everyone knew that they were over stretching themselves. The only way they would have gotten away with it was if they the economy kept booming but even the government weren't predicting that. They predicted a soft landing.

It is not hindsight to say that they borrowed too much money that they could not afford to pay back. Most people knew that they were borrowing too much of at the time

I quoted this - but anyone with half a brain should have realised they were overspending and prices couldn't stay like that

Its pure hindsight, unless you were of the few people in a position to buy and actively looking for a home in say 05,06,07 spotted that we were in a bubble and that something was not right and decided not to buy.

If the poster was one of those few then I doff my cap to him nd hes entitled to the above post. If hes not then its pure hindsight imo and he should be less judgemental of people who did buy back then.

Sleeper12

PokeHerKing wrote:

Its pure hindsight, unless you were of the few people in a position to buy and actively looking for a home in say 05,06,07 spotted that we were in a bubble and that something was not right and decided not to buy.

What wasn't hindsight was lying to the banks about income and overtime. Lots of people blaming the banks for not catching them out lying. Personal responsibility has to come into this somehow.

It's not hindsight to know that you don't borrow extra money for a wide screen TV, holidays or upgrade the car while you are buying a new house.

They are the credit generation

Sleeper12

Tony EH wrote:

Sorry, not "everyone" or "anyone over the age of 35" did this type of thing. In fact, I'd say those that did were in the minority.

In Dublin most did. I don't know about the rest of country. In Dublin we spent like there was no tomorrow. Max out overdrawn, credit card, cred union. "Sure we'll be grand".

I believe it was 2005 or 2006 that Richard Bruton stood up in the Dail and said that we can't continue to live on credit the way we were. He said it'll come crashing around our ears. Yet people borrowed more & more.

PokeHerKing

Sleeper12 wrote: »

PokeHerKing wrote:

Its pure hindsight, unless you were of the few people in a position to buy and actively looking for a home in say 05,06,07 spotted that we were in a bubble and that something was not right and decided not to buy.

What wasn't hindsight was lying to the banks about income and overtime. Lots of people blaming the banks for not catching them out lying. Personal responsibility has to come into this somehow.

It's not hindsight to know that you don't borrow extra money for a wide screen TV, holidays or upgrade the car while you are buying a new house.

They are the credit generation

Again I never said any of the above were. So I've no idea why you're rabbiting on tbh.