Homelessness: The disgrace that is Varadkar and the Government

James Brown

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Your economics is off. A lack of supply causes the gouging and profiteering.

If you try to rent to me but I can't afford it, the tax payer might fund the shortage. If you sell to me, but I can't afford it, I may be eligible for a grant, funded by the tax payer. That's certainly not allowing the market set the price and only serving to keep prices artificially high. They are feeding the industry off the crisis. That's why we don't see a move toward the more financially feasible, (for the tax payer anyway) social housing.
It's the governments need to feed the housing/rental industry that is a major part of why we increasingly need emergency accommodation.

Even if you disagree, it's quite obvious whatever Fine Gael are doing, it's not helping and things are getting worse. Common sense would suggest a change or strategy.

James Brown

oscarBravo wrote: »

Right, but you said:

You can't chip in that money unless you're not spending it. If you're not advocating not spending it, then the original question stands: where will the money come from to build social housing?

To fend off the inevitable deflection, I'm not arguing against building social housing. I'm just pointing out that you deflected the question about how to pay for it with something that you didn't actually believe. So: how should we pay for it?

I'll clarify.
The money going to emergency accommodation would be required less and less as we move to social housing. We can find the money for the increasingly record breaking need for emergency accommodation. I would suggest saving the tax payer money with social housing is achievable. We've found money for other less worthy ventures such as IW for example.
Things will implode if we continue this take from the tax payer to feed a worsening problem rather than financing a fix.

oscarBravo

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'll clarify.
The money going to emergency accommodation would be required less and less as we move to social housing. We can find the money for the increasingly record breaking need for emergency accommodation. I would suggest saving the tax payer money with social housing is achievable. We've found money for other less worthy ventures such as IW for example.

That's not a clarification so much as a further evasion, with respect.

tayto lover

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi

Obvious Otter

tayto lover wrote: »

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi

Like the caste system in India?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It would be cheaper, long-term, to build social housing.



Rent is based on your income. If this is not being enforced, that's for the LA's to do their job..

So if rent is not being collected that's for the LAs to do their job. What about the councillors who oversee the LAs? Should we dump them at the next election?

Actually, LAs are also responsible for building social housing. Yet this is a thread about Varadkar and the current government but they don't control any of the councils you are complaining about. The councils in the areas with the biggest homelessness problem are controlled by SF, PBP and independents.

You should open a new thread where you give out about them.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'll clarify.
The money going to emergency accommodation would be required less and less as we move to social housing. We can find the money for the increasingly record breaking need for emergency accommodation. I would suggest saving the tax payer money with social housing is achievable. We've found money for other less worthy ventures such as IW for example.
Things will implode if we continue this take from the tax payer to feed a worsening problem rather than financing a fix.

A great example. If we hadn't abolished water charges, we could have used the money saved on the IW subsidy to build social housing. Who are the irresponsible parties who protested about water charges?

end of the road

blanch152 wrote: »

A great example. If we hadn't abolished water charges, we could have used the money saved on the IW subsidy to build social housing. Who are the irresponsible parties who protested about water charges?

water charges were unaffordible, and were bringing undue hardship upon many people. they were not viable and had to go.

tomwaterford

blanch152 wrote: »

A great example. If we hadn't abolished water charges, we could have used the money saved on the IW subsidy to build social housing. Who are the irresponsible parties who protested about water charges?

Was the water charges money not supposed to be ring fenced for water repairs/works etc??



How much money was spent policing the water protests??....I've heard a figure from a fairly in the know source that suggests it is nearly more than money was raised by the charges,

And they are waiting for confirmation before releasing the info

blanch152

end of the road wrote: »

water charges were unaffordible, and were bringing undue hardship upon many people. they were not viable and had to go.

The money saved could have been used for social housing. I suppose the magic money tree will have to do.

hatrickpatrick

blanch152 wrote: »

The money saved could have been used for social housing. I suppose the magic money tree will have to do.

How many housing units do you think we might be able to afford if we abolished the HSE and made all of the non medical senior staff redundant over night?

blanch152

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How many housing units do you think we might be able to afford if we abolished the HSE and made all of the non medical senior staff redundant over night?

None, the HSE would collapse without anyone to manage it.

hatrickpatrick

blanch152 wrote: »

None, the HSE would collapse without anyone to manage it.

Given that I'm talking about abolishing it altogether, it's collapse would be entirely pre-emoted...

Good loser

tomwaterford wrote: »

Was the water charges money not supposed to be ring fenced for water repairs/works etc??



How much money was spent policing the water protests??....I've heard a figure from a fairly in the know source that suggests it is nearly more than money was raised by the charges,

And they are waiting for confirmation before releasing the info

That so called 'info' will never be 'confirmed' as the differences are enormous.

Anyway as well as being responsible for the abolition of charges ( though strictly FF are to blame) they were responsible for the expenses of policing the protests.

The money that the Govt now gives to IW could have been used for housing. €350 m plus per annum. At 300k per house that would have provided 1,000 houses per annum.

Or if it supported people buying their own homes at €50,000 a pop, say, they could support 6,000 homes a year.

McMurphy

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Varadkar compared Ireland's homeless figures to a report from 2015, from other countries, which includes people living with their parents or friends as homeless. Using these figures he dangerously downplayed a crisis he seems to know very little about.
McVerry pointed out that we do not include people living with their parents or friends as homeless in our figures, but if Varadkar truly, genuinely wants to compare like with like, our figures would be even higher.
Either Varadkar's team willfully or ignorantly supplied him with figures not relevant to our crisis.
Varadkar using any figures, even irrelevant ones from other countries to downplay a national crisis exacerbated by and creating constantly record breaking levels, directly due to his policies and the policies of his government and their partners Fianna Fail, is absolutely irresponsible and shameful.

You'd think with the €5m propaganda centre behind him (more money that could have been better spent)

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has come under direct attack for opening a so-called “propanganda unit” costing €5m.

Leo's backroom PR staff could have come up with better spoof proof figures than what they did.

Wheeliebin30

Rick Shaw wrote: »

You'd think with the €5m propaganda centre behind him (more money that could have been better spent)

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has come under direct attack for opening a so-called “propanganda unit” costing €5m.

Leo's backroom PR staff could have come up with better spoof proof figures than what they did.

The only spinning is claiming people living with their parents are now classed as homeless.

Jesus when did this whole sham get so ridiculous.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

water charges were unaffordible, and were bringing undue hardship upon many people. they were not viable and had to go.

And now other services, like housing, health etc have to suffer in order to pay for upgrading the system and supplying potable water for all. Thanks for nothing.

christy c

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How many housing units do you think we might be able to afford if we abolished the HSE and made all of the non medical senior staff redundant over night?

What would you replace it with and how much have you set aside for redundancy payments/unemployment benefit?

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

water charges were unaffordible, and were bringing undue hardship upon many people. they were not viable and had to go.

If that's the case, then I say solving homelessness is unaffordable and people will just have to tough it out on the streets.

If people are not willing to pay for water (basic requirement for their own life), what makes you think they are going to be willing to pay for affordable housing for total strangers?

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

And now other services, like housing, health etc have to suffer in order to pay for upgrading the system and supplying potable water for all. Thanks for nothing.

other services would have had to suffer more with water charges, as the undue hardship brought upon people would have caused extra poverty.

salonfire wrote: »

If that's the case, then I say solving homelessness is unaffordable and people will just have to tough it out on the streets.

If people are not willing to pay for water (basic requirement for their own life), what makes you think they are going to be willing to pay for affordable housing for total strangers?

a basic requirement for life like water is not a commodity. it's a vital human right. not wanting to pay for a human right doesn't mean one won't wish to pay to help others.

James Brown

My reference to IW was more to do with the waste of money than the concept. The sweet deal, the crony appointments, the millions on consultants.

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's not a clarification so much as a further evasion, with respect.

Sorry, your request is not genuine. You want me to budget for a national social housing project? I cannot. That does not mean it's not the better way to go. I also can't budget for emergency accomodation, yet here we are.
If we can find money for the pockets of private interests to maintain the housing/homeless crisis and feed it as it grows, we can surely find money to build social housing.

Do you believe what the state is currently doing is the best road to follow?
As I've said, things are getting worse and Fine Gael's answer is more of the same and a disgraceful attempt at down playing it. They either aren't capable or are unwilling to tackle the issue.
Trying to defend or deflect from this obviousness, is just silly.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

other services would have had to suffer more with water charges, as the undue hardship brought upon people would have caused extra poverty.



a basic requirement for life like water is not a commodity. it's a vital human right. not wanting to pay for a human right doesn't mean one won't wish to pay to help others.

Who pays for your food, then?

I assume you don't buy it yourself, since you do not believe in paying for basic requirement for life.

MadYaker

end of the road wrote: »

other services would have had to suffer more with water charges, as the undue hardship brought upon people would have caused extra poverty.



a basic requirement for life like water is not a commodity. it's a vital human right. not wanting to pay for a human right doesn't mean one won't wish to pay to help others.

Water is absolutely a commodity, just like food and in years to come it's going become extremely valuable. Water charges will come back its inevitable. Clean drinking water is a service that costs money to provide just like electricity, internet, mains gas etc and it must be paid for one way or another.

end of the road

MadYaker wrote: »

Water is absolutely a commodity, just like food and in years to come it's going become extremely valuable. Water charges will come back its inevitable. Clean drinking water is a service that costs money to provide just like electricity, internet, mains gas etc and it must be paid for one way or another.

it's not a commodity but a vital human right. water charges will be faught again and we will win.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

it's not a commodity but a vital human right. water charges will be faught again and we will win.

Food is also a vital human right.

So, I will ask you again, who pays for your food?

oscarBravo

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If we can find money for the pockets of private interests to maintain the housing/homeless crisis and feed it as it grows, we can surely find money to build social housing.

The problem with "we can surely find money" is that it's nothing more than hand-wringing, especially in the same thread where property taxes and water charges are denounced as immoral.

There's something depressingly predictable about the whole "it's a disgrace that the government isn't raising someone else's taxes to pay for this problem that I feel strongly about" line of argument.

tomwaterford

oscarBravo wrote: »

The problem with "we can surely find money" is that it's nothing more than hand-wringing, especially in the same thread where property taxes and water charges are denounced as immoral.

There's something depressingly predictable about the whole "it's a disgrace that the government isn't raising someone else's taxes to pay for this problem that I feel strongly about" line of argument.

This being the same government who don't bother collecting taxes that the eu pointed out was due to em??



How can yous in all honesty ask someone scraping and barely getting by to pay extra tax??

while leaving one of the richest corporation in the world,use cute hoorism and loopholes to pay 0.05% tax?.....

what is the effective tax rate in ireland for everyone else who works while rich coroporations pay <0.1% tax??.....

Varadkar claims to represent the middle class etc....he do in his balls they as always represent the only the rich....while throwing soundbites and sops to the working poor

christy c

tomwaterford wrote: »

This being the same government who don't bother collecting taxes that the eu pointed out was due to em??



How can yous in all honesty ask someone scraping and barely getting by to pay extra tax??

while leaving one of the richest corporation in the world,use cute hoorism and loopholes to pay 0.05% tax?.....

what is the effective tax rate in ireland for everyone else who works while rich coroporations pay <0.1% tax??.....

Varadkar claims to represent the middle class etc....he do in his balls they as always represent the only the rich....while throwing soundbites and sops to the working poor

Criticising Varadkar for using soundbites is ironic after reading the rest of your post

oscarBravo

tomwaterford wrote: »

This being the same government who don't bother collecting taxes that the eu pointed out was due to em??

No, it's the government that disagrees that the tax is owed to them. Now, if your idea of an ideal government is one that collects billions in tax that it doesn't believe is owed, we'll agree to differ.

Once again: the mantra of "the government should solve the world's problems by taxing someone else" is predictable and facile.

tomwaterford

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, it's the government that disagrees that the tax is owed to them. Now, if your idea of an ideal government is one that collects billions in tax that it doesn't believe is owed, we'll agree to differ.

Once again: the mantra of "the government should solve the world's problems by taxing someone else" is predictable and facile.

Looks to me....they won't to bother there arse going after tax owed to the state tbh


They'll bend over backwards to please the eu...but soon as they point out were due tax,they spend millions on solicitors to avoid collecting it....pure mugabe behaviour tbh

tomwaterford

christy c wrote: »

Criticising Varadkar for using soundbites is ironic after reading the rest of your post

If this helps yous to avoid engaging with the points raised....do what you have to do,to avoid debate

christy c

tomwaterford wrote: »

If this helps yous to avoid engaging with the points raised....do what you have to do,to avoid debate

Just pointing out that you come out with soundbites and then criticise someone else for using soundbites.

The Apple tax has been done to death in other threads, I've nothing further to add

christy c

And by the way I think Varadkar is a spoofer but hope he proves me wrong

oscarBravo

tomwaterford wrote: »

Looks to me....they won't to bother there arse going after tax owed to the state tbh

If you think "the government couldn't be bothered collecting tax" is a more likely explanation than "the government doesn't believe it's owed the tax", there's frankly not much point trying to discuss the issue with you.

tomwaterford

christy c wrote: »

Just pointing out that you come out with soundbites and then criticise someone else for using soundbites.

The Apple tax has been done to death in other threads, I've nothing further to add

All I done was point out the pure hypocrisy of this....people blindly cheering on varadkar for cutting the dole/welfare and screwing over the poor.......while blindly agreeing with the stance of not bothering collecting tax ...


.seem to imo lack critical thinking and falling for cheap/easy soundbite politics.....we have no right to critise yanks for electing trump while people hold the above position

tomwaterford

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you think "the government couldn't be bothered collecting tax" is a more likely explanation than "the government doesn't believe it's owed the tax", there's frankly not much point trying to discuss the issue with you.

How many other eu directives have the government spent millions on solicitors to avoid doing



There's a conspiracy/stinks of potential corruption in there somewhere

But yes...they dont think it's due :rolleyes:

christy c

tomwaterford wrote: »

All I done was point out the pure hypocrisy of this....people blindly cheering on varadkar for cutting the dole/welfare and screwing over the poor.......while blindly agreeing with the stance of not bothering collecting tax ...


.seem to imo lack critical thinking and falling for cheap/easy soundbite politics.....we have no right to critise yanks for electing trump while people hold the above position

Haha, you seem to have fallen for a few cheap easy soundbites yourself. Could you think of any reasons why we wouldn't collect that money? Other than the usual looking after the rich nonsense spouted by the likes of Pearse Doherty obviously

McMurphy

salonfire wrote: »

If people are not willing to pay for water (basic requirement for their own life), what makes you think they are going to be willing to pay for affordable housing for total strangers?

Serious question here, but who or how do you think water has been funded before Irish water seen the light of day, further to that, when it was set up, who was paying for it, or how do you think water service was being funded when it wasn't bringing in enough cash to exist, never mind water provisions?

tomwaterford

christy c wrote: »

Haha, you seem to have fallen for a few cheap easy soundbites yourself. Could you think of any reasons why we wouldn't collect that money? Other than the usual looking after the rich nonsense spouted by the likes of Pearse Doherty obviously

Tbh I struggle to think of any sane reason why a state running a deficit deosnt bother it's arse collecting while preaching austerity for poor people??



To perhaps make it easier....if you were to sit down and explain to your children....yous pay at higher rate 40+% tax on earnings while rich companies pay 0.05% and the people your paying your tax to are spending millions (of your tax) to keep it so? ?

How is that anything approaching fair/equitable

blanch152

tomwaterford wrote: »

If this helps yous to avoid engaging with the points raised....do what you have to do,to avoid debate

Very funny, would you criticise someone who raised the Apple tax issue in a debate about how water charges could pay for social housing?

tomwaterford

blanch152 wrote: »

Very funny, would you criticise someone who raised the Apple tax issue in a debate about how water charges could pay for social housing?

No

It is interesting government was spending hundreds millions introducing said water tax,while simultaneously spending millions so as they wouldn't have to collect tax they were due??



Its apples problem...why are the government paying so as they don't have to pay tax???


(Rather curiously...I did support water charge ..and unlike most here,people's right to protest)

christy c

tomwaterford wrote: »

Tbh I struggle to think of any sane reason why a state running a deficit deosnt bother it's arse collecting while preaching austerity for poor people??



To perhaps make it easier....if you were to sit down and explain to your children....yous pay at higher rate 40+% tax on earnings while rich companies pay 0.05% and the people your paying your tax to are spending millions (of your tax) to keep it so? ?

How is that anything approaching fair/equitable

If I had to explain I'd say that these companies are extremely mobile. So we are better off getting a small percentage of something rather than 40 per cent of nothing. And by the way a lot of the profit on which .05 per cent was paid was generated outside Ireland, so I don't see us having a moral right to it.

In an ideal world, every company would be paying more. But the only way to do this would be through tax harmonisation which will probably never happen. And ironically enough Ireland would probably loose out under this plan. So there would be more austerity for the poor people, as worldwide profits would no longer be flowing Ireland

blanch152

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Serious question here, but who or how do you think water has been funded before Irish water seen the light of day, further to that, when it was set up, who was paying for it, or how do you think water service was being funded when it wasn't bringing in enough cash to exist, never mind water provisions?

Doesn't really matter how it was funded in the past.

The point is now it is sucking up €350m in State money that if we had water charges to that level, it would mean that we would have €350m for social housing.

When you think that homeless people don't pay water charges, it is a more than suitable way of taxing home-owners so that the homeless benefit. The same with LPT.

tomwaterford

christy c wrote: »

If I had to explain I'd say that these companies are extremely mobile. So we are better off getting a small percentage of something rather than 40 per cent of nothing. And by the way a lot of the profit on which .05 per cent was paid was generated outside Ireland, so I don't see us having a moral right to it.

Ireland was eu hq...money funnelled through here...tax due here


But ya...your honestly going to tell your kids that it's ok yous paying through the nose and those richer can pay less.....logic i can't ever fathom tbh??
In a republic country of equals....rich companies only have to pay a token amount of tax???...in no world is that right

Where are apple going to go in the eu and get away with paying 0.05% tax??. ...this is same logic has rte paying it's "stars" outrageous money.....

Spanish Eyes

Why are councils not just purchasing second hand houses that come on the market? Bit by bit they will solve the issue by doing that. They seem to have plenty of loot for HAP and Hotels... So qui bono? I am sure you have figured it out yourselves. Disgraceful waste of money IMO but anyway.

It might not be palatable to those who have had to make the usual sacrifices to purchase their own home, but with the 10/20% requirement for social housing in new builds, I think it should also be distributed around established areas now.

It is happening I know that here and there, but not quickly enough. One house = one less ongoing hotel cost for a few years.

Tell me I am deluded here.

tomwaterford

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Why are councils not just purchasing second hand houses that come on the market? Bit by bit they will solve the issue by doing that. They seem to have plenty of loot for HAP and Hotels... So qui bono? I am sure you have figured it out yourselves. Disgraceful waste of money IMO but anyway.

It might not be palatable to those who have had to make the usual sacrifices to purchase their own home, but with the 10/20% requirement for social housing in new builds, I think it should also be distributed around established areas now.

It is happening I know that here and there, but not quickly enough. One house = one less ongoing hotel cost for a few years.

Tell me I am deluded here.

This is a very valid point....but maybe it's cost of repairing second hand houses etc??

But if they brought in laws to make sure it was value for money etc...(maybe get some consultants to precheck?)...can't see anyone againest this??


>>and use property price register so those selling are getting the market value?

christy c

tomwaterford wrote: »

Ireland was eu hq...money funnelled through here...tax due here


But ya...your honestly going to tell your kids that it's ok yous paying through the nose and those richer can pay less.....logic i can't ever fathom tbh??
In a republic country of equals....rich companies only have to pay a token amount of tax???...in no world is that right

Where are apple going to go in the eu and get away with paying 0.05% tax??. ...this is same logic has rte paying it's "stars" outrageous money.....

I might let you explain to my kids so how it was morally right that profits were funnelled away from the country in which they were generated and should be taxable in Ireland, because I don't understand that one myself.

And while you're at it you might explain the intricacies of international tax law that led to .05 being paid.

And I never said it was ok that they pay so little, but it's the way the world works and can't be solved without worldwide tax harmonisation

tomwaterford

christy c wrote: »

I might let you explain to my kids so how it was morally right that profits were funnelled away from the country in which they were generated and should be taxable in Ireland, because I don't understand that one myself.

And while you're at it you might explain the intricacies of international tax law that led to .05 being paid.

And I never said it was ok that they pay so little, but it's the way the world works and can't be solved without worldwide tax harmonisation

You don't think taxes of the eu should be paid in the country where it's eu headquarters are??

Should an Irish company exporting to another eu country not pay tax on the items it exported,if there not sold here??


The intracities are simply put,cute hoorism and walking a thin line on fraud which the government us spending millions to assist apple in doing??


I've a farm,pay taxes on net profits,getting workshops measured next Jan with look to finding out rates etc for opening a business.....

if I don't pay tax/the rates,VAT etc.....the government can send in bailiffs to close me down and take away goods/machinery to value of the rates owed (plus fines I think)......

The government here finds out they are owed massive money and spend millions fighting it in court so they don't have to collect it???....only in ireland would people not see any issues with this

christy c

tomwaterford wrote: »

You don't think taxes of the eu should be paid in the country where it's eu headquarters are??

Should an Irish company exporting to another eu country not pay tax on the items it exported,if there not sold here??


The intracities are simply put,cute hoorism and walking a thin line on fraud which the government us spending millions to assist apple in doing??


I've a farm,pay taxes on net profits,getting workshops measured next Jan with look to finding out rates etc for opening a business.....

if I don't pay tax/the rates,VAT etc.....the government can send in bailiffs to close me down and take away goods/machinery to value of the rates owed (plus fines I think)......

The government here finds out they are owed massive money and spend millions fighting it in court so they don't have to collect it???....only in ireland would people not see any issues with this

Should an Irish company pay tax here? Yes. An American company having sales in Australia (not sure why you mention EU only) pays taxes in Ireland is morally right? My poor kids heads would be spinning if I had any.

And the intricacies are cute hoorism? Yet you criticise Varadkar for soundbites.

Anyway as I said earlier the Apple tax has already been done to death so over and out. Good luck with your new business if you decide to go ahead

tomwaterford

christy c wrote: »

Should an Irish company pay tax here? Yes. An American company having sales in Australia (not sure why you mention EU only) pays taxes in Ireland is morally right? My poor kids heads would be spinning if I had any.

And the intricacies are cute hoorism? Yet you criticise Varadkar for soundbites.

Pretty sure the eu only requested payment on taxes due from eu sales??

What oz has to do wit it...Idk? ?



It is what they are...fraudentry playing the system to benefit yourself Is close to cute hoorism definotion yous are likely to get


Cheers for best wishes though