Mayhem predicted as housing associations to be reclassified as statutory bodies

The_Conductor

A few stories in the media this morning- such as this one in the Irish Times- which are highlighting a massive issue about to hit the fan.

All the housing associations (Cluid, Respond, Circle etc) are almost wholly government funded (both with direct subventions- and also with quite remarkable tax treatment)- to the extent that Eurostat are expected in the next few weeks to reclassify all the 'voluntary housing associations' as statutory bodies- which means all their borrowings and expenditure has to go on the government expenditure.

This is expected to add a headline 250m to annual goverment expenditure- and over the course of the 3 year programme- add 4% to the national debt level.

The implications of this are several fold- but notably- as statutory bodies- and expenditure undertaken by any of the 'voluntary housing associations' from April onwards and in future- will have to be paid for with increased taxation and/or cuts in expenditure elsewhere.

Eoghan Murphy has said 'The decision of Eurostat is very disappointing. I will have to examine the text in detail once its published. Regardless of what they say- we will find the finances from within current expenditure to pay for our targetted delivery of social housing units'. (This is from the Oireachtas Housing Committee meeting yesterday). The decision on where the money is to come from- is up to the Minister for Finance- not Minister Murphy- however, if it has to be found from current expenditure this indicates that government policy to reduce the tax burden on middle class workers (predominantly through an increase in the threshold- but also further changes to USC and PRSI contributions)- is going to have to be put on hold.

The former structure of off-sheet financing of the voluntary housing associations- suited the government- because they were allegedly 'self financing' and thus there was no cognisance of the fact that the hard-pressed taxpayers were in fact paying for social housing.

Cluid have said 'the proposed placing of voluntary housing associations on a statutory footing- is singularly the most significant issue to hit the housing sector in Ireland in recent years, and is going to significantly impact on the ability of voluntary housing associations to deliver housing in future. As we are tasked with delivering over a third of all social housing units between now and 2020, it is foreseeable that the Minister's target will be unattainable'.

In some respects- its good that the smoke and mirrors are being pulled aside and a spade is being called a spade- on the other hand- its a bit of a mess- and all these bodies should never have been setup just to hide social housing from the government's balance sheet.......... One way or the other- the birds are coming home to roost.

The Student

Will be interesting to see how this impacts on the small landlord. Will the Govt now treat the small landlord with some equality with the Tenants.

Surely this will increase our National Debt above the agreed rates with Europe. Even if the Govt increase tax's on the middle income I can't see them raising enough to cover these costs. I suspect there would be a huge push for a General Election of the Govt try to renegade on spreading recovery to the middle income tax payer.

The_Conductor

The Student wrote: »

Will be interesting to see how this impacts on the small landlord. Will the Govt now treat the small landlord with some equality with the Tenants.

Surely this will increase our National Debt above the agreed rates with Europe. Even if the Govt increase tax's on the middle income I can't see them raising enough to cover these costs. I suspect there would be a huge push for a General Election of the Govt try to renegade on spreading recovery to the middle income tax payer.

From one of our public representatives:

'Rental income is unearned income, and a drain on our society by parasites. Any additional costs on the sector must be borne solely by landlords- and every effort must be made to drive them from the sector.'

(I'm not going to spell out who that is- but I think you can guess)

The Student

The_Conductor wrote: »

From one of our public representatives:

'Rental income is unearned income, and a drain on our society by parasites. Any additional costs on the sector must be borne solely by landlords- and every effort must be made to drive them from the sector.'

(I'm not going to spell out who that is- but I think you can guess)

I certainly can!

Suffice to say expect an increased exit from the market if any additional taxes/charges are levied. I would rather let me relatives live rent free in the property than pay anymore tax. I am being crucified with tax and all the costs associated with being a landlord.

dubrov

Can someone explain how this makes any difference to the funding?
The government is already directly funding these housing associations and this change is just a recognition of reality.

Franz Von Peppercorn

dubrov wrote: »

Can someone explain how this makes any difference to the funding?
The government is already directly funding these housing associations and this change is just a recognition of reality.

That is in fact true. However we may exceed the Maastricht deficit limit or something like that.

Apparently lots of countries are hiding debt in these associations and PFI schemes.

The_Conductor

dubrov wrote: »

Can someone explain how this makes any difference to the funding?
The government is already directly funding these housing associations and this change is just a recognition of reality.

Previously it was an 'off-the-book' funding mechanism that didn't impact on day-to-day expenditure, our reported national debt- or our EU approved budget (all Eurozone countries have to submit their annual budgets to Brussels for sanction before they can be signed off on- its a formality if you're within the guidelines- its sticky- if you're not).

Essentially- we need to find 250m a year- from within our 'current fiscal envelope' to fund the housing associations. This can be additional taxes, reduction in expenditure- or foregoing tax reform for the middle classes etc (the latter is the most probable way they'll deal with this- no tax relief for the middle income earners).

The stated aim was to incrementally increase the marginal tax band threshold to 40k and then 50k- with a suggestion we could potentially hit 50k by 2022. This cat among the pigeons means this quite simply isn't going to happen.

One of the biggest bugbears multinationals currently have in Ireland- is an inability to financially remunerate workers- given a marginal tax rate of up to 52% on all income above 34.5k- and the main drivers of tax reform for workers- ironically- is probably going to come from our many multinationals going forward..........

Idbatterim

This is expected to add a headline 250m to annual goverment expenditure- and over the course of the 3 year programme- add 4% to the national debt level.

Eoghan Murphy has said 'The decision of Eurostat is very disappointing. I will have to examine the text in detail once its published. Regardless of what they say- we will find the finances from within current expenditure to pay for our targetted delivery of social housing units'.

no worries lads, they will get "our money" together. Not only that, they will also be able to pull a billion or so out of their ass at election time, despite the fact we hear there isnt enough money for gardai, infrastructure etc... :mad::rolleyes:

garhjw

The_Conductor wrote: »

The Student wrote: »

Will be interesting to see how this impacts on the small landlord. Will the Govt now treat the small landlord with some equality with the Tenants.

Surely this will increase our National Debt above the agreed rates with Europe. Even if the Govt increase tax's on the middle income I can't see them raising enough to cover these costs. I suspect there would be a huge push for a General Election of the Govt try to renegade on spreading recovery to the middle income tax payer.

From one of our public representatives:

'Rental income is unearned income, and a drain on our society by parasites. Any additional costs on the sector must be borne solely by landlords- and every effort must be made to drive them from the sector.'

(I'm not going to spell out who that is- but I think you can guess)

So a landlord didn't work to save money to afford the property and doesn't work to maintain property, pay taxes etc?

Sad that this type of person has a voice in this country.

Cyrus

garhjw wrote: »

So a landlord didn't work to save money to afford the property and doesn't work to maintain property, pay taxes etc?

Sad that this type of person has a voice in this country.

who is it murphy or one of those?

enricoh

Good.
Sure these crowds are outbidding hard working young couples trying to get a house.
Multinationals can't get people to relocate to Dublin due to high tax and rent costs.
And then some of the people these charities place make they're neighbours lives a misery, while the neighbours pay 52% tax and sit on the m50.

JDD

I don't quite get this.

So say the government is funding independent agencies to build houses. The entire cost, which would include the cost of building the houses, staff wages, overheads, bills, servicing any loans etc, are funded by the government. These funds in the past must have come from taxes - where else would they have come from?

So Eurostat have said that these agencies must now become government agencies. Fine. Why is there an extra cost involved? We were fully funding them anyway? Yes, if they have any outstanding loans these now become government loans and perhaps these now increase our debt percentage. But we were servicing those loans anyway through fully funding the agency, so there's no actual extra cost to us involved.

And as for the reductions in tax of middle income earners, a 0.5% reduction in the USC would cost the government €336m per year in lost taxes. So if it is the case that the exchequer need to find an extra €250m to fund the agencies (which I still don't get, as we have committed to these payments in the past) it would only result in a delay to reducing the USC by about 0.3/0.4%. My impression of the government was that significant changes were afoot over the next five years to completely get rid of the USC (or similar other tax changes such as widening the bands). A cost this small (and I don't mean its small, but when you're talking total tax intake of a country its small) isn't going to significantly change tax reform?

The_Conductor

The individual housing associations were allowed to borrow commercially to fund their activities- independently on government subventions- on the pretense they were operating as going concerns- in order to keep both their current and capital expenditure off the government balance sheet.

They were tasked with supplying between a third and half of all social housing units- over the next few years.

Yes- there was massive duplication of everything- however, the argument was it meant it didn't get counted towards public debt- because they were charities, associations and other entities- despite them being subject to Departmental oversight and instruction and working under defined instructions.

The fact that they were wholly funded by debt and government subvention- in an attempt to keep them off the government's current expenditure- is what drew the ire of Eurostat.

Current expenditure on social housing by the associations- was 250m in 2016- with a stated intention to ramp this up to 500m per annum by 2020.......

Aka- it was a handy way for the government to ramp up a social housing programme- without it featuring in the national finances (it was viewed as an off-book manner of accounting for it). Its also why Irish Water fell foul of Eurostat- and doubtless a lot of other entities are in similar positions.

Once it has to be openly accounted for- it has to come out of current expenditure- and thus we either increase taxes or decrease expenditure under other headings- to account for it (if we want our budget signed off on).

The Commission are getting wise to these off-book shenanigans- largely as a result of the mess Greece created through them.......... Ireland and Portugal are firmly in their headlights.

Skedaddle

I'd much prefer to see the local authorities doing this.
What the hell is wrong with having local, elected, representative government doing stuff like this, instead of a load of what effectively amount to non-profit charitable trusts.

At least with the local authorities you get direct lines of accountability.

Also EVERY country does off-the-book public expenditure. I've yet to see any in Europe that doesn't and that includes Germany and France.

We basically have no choice but to spend on housing as the current situation is just totally untenable.

JDD

I would prefer if the government spent increased tax intake on building houses, however they might be forced to do it, rather than decrease taxes for the “squeezed middle”. And I say that as a member of the squeezed middle. So this is a wholly welcome development rather than to be feared.

Skedaddle

I think they'd want to be a bit careful about what they're doing in that regard and not confuse Ireland with the USA. The Tories are falling into that trap in the UK.

All of the market research I've seen for Ireland shows that there's huge upset about health, housing and other public services and very little upset about tax rates. I think Irish people have an expectation of good public services as a priority and are willing to pay reasonably for them. For example, I don't think anyone would begrudge paying for the HSE if it functioned.

The_Conductor

JDD wrote: »

I would prefer if the government spent increased tax intake on building houses, however they might be forced to do it, rather than decrease taxes for the “squeezed middle”. And I say that as a member of the squeezed middle. So this is a wholly welcome development rather than to be feared.

Its going to have to come out of current expenditure from other budgets- when the Gardaí are looking for 200m for a new IT system, the HSE are advising they need a cool billion- and the local authorities want 400m......... I.e. the sums don't add up- as-is- we've only gotten away with it- by booting expenditure down the road- adding a few billion more (plus 250m rising to 500m in current expenditure to the budget)- means its not just tax cuts that are going to be deferred- we are actually going to need to further increase taxation- its the only way to balance the books.

We do not have the leeway people seem to imagine we have.

If we build 100,000 social housing units- great- but the whole issue is we let the local authorities sell off their social housing in the 90s and 00's- and indeed the local authority tenant purchase scheme is still live. Whats the point in building tens of thousands of social housing units- if we're going to flog them (for half their market value- but worse still, flog them, period)........ We need a stock of social housing- irrevocably in public ownership- that is never ever flogged by local authorities or anyone else.

Ideally- social housing should be a short term solution to enable a tenant get their act together and support themselves. Short term could well be 10 years (or however long)- but it shouldn't be viewed as a house for life- or a 'forever home' as Erica Fleming likes to proclaim it to anyone who will listen.

Social housing should be a safety net for people who have difficulty in housing themselves- not a target for people.

Skedaddle

I can't understand the logic of putting social housing stock into private hands like that with the purchase scheme at below market value. Effectively, it's a huge gift to whoever benefits from it.

Even if someone is in social housing all their life, at least it eventually should become available again as social housing stock when they pass on.

If you're buying the house, it should be based on the real market rate. Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with a long term lease with very strong security of tenure.

The big problem here at the moment is the housing market's over-inflated with way too poor supply to meet demand and a vested interest from all sorts of people (including a lot of voters) in keeping prices very high on pretty basic homes. I'd say if you suggested policies to bring house prices down by 50% you'd have an angry mob outside your office though!

What really worries me is that Ireland has a history of very high inflation and I think that's almost culturally embedded in the housing system here. Historically you borrowed as much as you could possibly afford and you were charged astronomically high prices, but with very high inflation rates across most of the 20th century with IEP here and GBP in the UK, those prices you paid ended up being inflated away to affordable.

We're now in a situation where we've a low-inflation policy and a very strong currency and we are still behaving like the yahoos we were in the 1970s and 80s and being surprised we max our ability to borrow and then get stuck with a huge loan that is against a stable asset price in a very stable currency.

We have to get to a situation where normal housing is affordable on a normal income. At present, in the cities anyway, it really isn't and that isn't good for the economy as it's sucking huge amounts of what would otherwise be cash sloshing around on general economic activities into serving mortgages and high rents that ultimately service mortgages. That money ultimately ends up in the banks and probably entirely outside the Irish economy, disappearing into the financial markets.

Having a target of ensuring that housing in Ireland is affordable and not painfully expensive driving people to their pin-of-the-collar is pretty essential to ensuring the long term success of the economy. Whether you look at it from a social or business point of view, having huge amounts of disposable income disappearing into property finance is not a good thing.

Also you wouldn't need to have so much state intervention creating social housing, as housing would just be generally affordable. One could even argue that a big spend social housing model is actually just a an indirect subvention to speculators as it allows the very high prices to continue in the private sector and takes the political pressure off entirely.

All we're doing is creating a pyramid scheme where a small number of people make money on the way up, and at the very top the money is just vaporised into the financial markets and benefits nobody locally in Ireland at all.

We need to stop chasing paper wealth - it's not real money.

surrender monkey

A major bugbear of mine is the rents that these voluntary housing bodies and the local authorities charge. This is usually based on a percentage of income coming into the household. Percentages are as low as 10% rising to 20% Now where ahousehold live solely on social welfare payment 10% of income does not leave a lot for other necessities.Where The members of the household are working 10% of income is a very nominal amount. For example if you were earning 1000 Euro a week you will only pay €100 in some local Authority areas. Clearly rent should be applied on a sliding scale the 10% should only be reserved for households living solely on social welfare, where a large wage is coming into the household The rent should be a higher percentage to entice that household to give up their social housing in favour of a family who require housing. This situation as it is is untenable in my opinion. If the government need to fund the extra money to pay for the voluntary housing bodies they can charge their working tenants afair rent rather than come back to hard-pressed middle income families who are often struggling to pay for everything

Mrs OBumble

Skedaddle wrote: »

I'd much prefer to see the local authorities doing this.
What the hell is wrong with having local, elected, representative government doing stuff like this, instead of a load of what effectively amount to non-profit charitable trusts.

At least with the local authorities you get direct lines of accountability.

From what I've seen, people working for the not-for-profit associations work harder on average than their city or county council counterparts. (And saying that, housing officers are some of the hardest-working council staff that I've seen - it's really a horrible job, because 90% of the time is spent on the 5% of tenants who are troublesome.)

One of the benefits is that the non-council people aren't subject to the same public sector restrains and controls that local government workers are. So they have more flexibility to solve problems, rather than have to go thru bureaucratic processes. (Not sure how true that really is when they're so heavily public-funded, but that's the argument.)

It is handy to have 2 social housing providers operating in an area. That way, when an anti-social tenant gets so bad that one provider evicts them, there is an option for them to be housed by the other provider (with very strict promises etc). If there's no other provider to house then, then it's almost impossible for a council to find a judge willing to evict, because there is literally nowhere for the person to go. So people end up staying in places, despite the most outrageous behaviour.

Skedaddle

The problem is that you could easily end up replicating the health service with countless 'trusts' and 'charities' operating public services with poor control over finances and accountability.

The_Conductor

Skedaddle wrote: »

I think they'd want to be a bit careful about what they're doing in that regard and not confuse Ireland with the USA. The Tories are falling into that trap in the UK.

All of the market research I've seen for Ireland shows that there's huge upset about health, housing and other public services and very little upset about tax rates. I think Irish people have an expectation of good public services as a priority and are willing to pay reasonably for them. For example, I don't think anyone would begrudge paying for the HSE if it functioned.

The reason the HSE doesn't function better- is exactly because we don't want to fund it as it would like to be funded. That said- it looks like its running a 1 billion Euro deficit as-is. People say they'd be happy to pay more tax- but when push comes to shove- its not practical to give every single community a primary care centre, an oncology unit in each county, cardiac units in all stations etc etc.

We are a small nation with (Dublin aside) a widely settled population. However- we have a remarkable history of parochial politics- with a history of diverting largess to Minister's communities- resulting in some weird infrastructure projects (separate dual carriageway between Naas and Newbridge anyone?- and I'm not even going to begin on South Kerry........)

There is a price associated with all of this. There is a historic expectation that sure Dublin will pay for it. Look at the wailing and gnashing of teeth- when it was stated that Shannon and Cork airports would have to shoulder their own debt! We have a decade of underinvestment nationally- to the extent that some of the worst roads in the country- are now actually in Dublin.

Unfortunately- the whole concept of a magic money tree that you can liberally shake and shower largess on communities- has been shown up for what it is- a mirage. It was fine- as long as there was a disconnect between spending money and someone actually paying for it. That disconnect is no longer there- there is ample clarity that if we spend 500m on social housing- its at the cost of a hospital somewhere else. We can't have it all- we have a priority list- cognisant of the fact that we actually pay for it. Stupid though it may sound- a lot of people have no grasp of the fact that they have to pay for things. There is a perception that if they want something- they have to make as much noise as possible- and it'll magically appear. There is no concept that to supply a library in Sligo town- the hedges won't be cut (or some such other priority gets cut).

Unfortunately- and I hate to say this- an incredibly large proportion of the electorate- are stupid- thick as two planks- off their rockers.......... And the remainder- are fickle and have short memories. Its a perfect recipe for mayhem- however, when you extrapolate nationally- usually there is an element of 'normalisation'. All hell breaks loose- when too many communities have been neglected for too long- and there is an expectation that people's wish lists will be granted- because they haven't received their share of the pie for a protracted period of time- the fact that no-one else has either- be damned.

We now have a situation where expectation management on the part of the government- simply isn't going to cut it- so they try these sleight of hand tricks- off book financing for social housing etc- to magic an extra half billion in current expenditure etc. Their hand has now been called- and found wanting. Yet, there is no solution- and regardless of what people think- hiking taxes further- simply isn't going to cut it- we're going to have to hike taxes just to stand still, much less- build 80,000 social housing units and run them. We can kid ourselves to our hearts content that they're a 'going-concern'- the fact of the matter is- they aren't- and Eurostat- on the back of questions from the CSO- are calling our bluff.

Our current expenditure is shooting up- just as our dependency ratio is shooting off the charts. This is before we start to factor esoteric programmes like off the books financing of Irish Water, Social Housing (and god only knows what else) into the equation.

A day of reckoning was always going to come- unfortunately- its come a little too fast for the Irish government.

tretorn

Do the social housing houses go back into public stock or do adult members of the family living there with elderly parents take over the tenancy.

I have often wondered about this, how do you get someone out of the council house if they have made no provision to house themselves, do councils force people out.

The_Conductor

tretorn wrote: »

Do the social housing houses go back into public stock or do adult members of the family living there with elderly parents take over the tenancy.

I have often wondered about this, how do you get someone out of the council house if they have made no provision to house themselves, do councils force people out.

Once upon a time you could 'inherit' a tenancy- however, that concept was quashed in or around 2004. As to whether or not councils force people out- the simple answer is- other than in the case of anti-social behaviour- a local authority or council property- is considered to be a 'forever-home' (thankyou Erica Fleming).

Personally- I think local authority or council housing (and all social housing should be transferred to them forthwith)- should remain vested in the council or local authority forever. No-one should have a right to purchase a social house. It should remain in stock for those who are incapable of housing themselves. And- everyone in a social housing unit- should have a defined period of time in that property (for arguments sake say 10 years) after which they either house themselves where-ever they are capable of doing so- or they move to another social housing unit (of the local authorities choosing) and their property is refreshed and given to the next person on the list.

This whole house for life lark- has to end. I'm sorry- we *need* a security net to catch those who fall on hard-times- however, it should be a security net- rather than a target for people.

lawred2

The_Conductor wrote: »

Previously it was an 'off-the-book' funding mechanism that didn't impact on day-to-day expenditure, our reported national debt- or our EU approved budget (all Eurozone countries have to submit their annual budgets to Brussels for sanction before they can be signed off on- its a formality if you're within the guidelines- its sticky- if you're not).

Essentially- we need to find 250m a year- from within our 'current fiscal envelope' to fund the housing associations. This can be additional taxes, reduction in expenditure- or foregoing tax reform for the middle classes etc (the latter is the most probable way they'll deal with this- no tax relief for the middle income earners).

The stated aim was to incrementally increase the marginal tax band threshold to 40k and then 50k- with a suggestion we could potentially hit 50k by 2022. This cat among the pigeons means this quite simply isn't going to happen.

One of the biggest bugbears multinationals currently have in Ireland- is an inability to financially remunerate workers- given a marginal tax rate of up to 52% on all income above 34.5k- and the main drivers of tax reform for workers- ironically- is probably going to come from our many multinationals going forward..........

Where was this stated aim? I heard about reducing the burden alright but never actually saw any numbers...

50k is still too low but at least it's better than the current farce

The Student

The_Conductor wrote: »

Once upon a time you could 'inherit' a tenancy- however, that concept was quashed in or around 2004. As to whether or not councils force people out- the simple answer is- other than in the case of anti-social behaviour- a local authority or council property- is considered to be a 'forever-home' (thankyou Erica Fleming).

Personally- I think local authority or council housing (and all social housing should be transferred to them forthwith)- should remain vested in the council or local authority forever. No-one should have a right to purchase a social house. It should remain in stock for those who are incapable of housing themselves. And- everyone in a social housing unit- should have a defined period of time in that property (for arguments sake say 10 years) after which they either house themselves where-ever they are capable of doing so- or they move to another social housing unit (of the local authorities choosing) and their property is refreshed and given to the next person on the list.

This whole house for life lark- has to end. I'm sorry- we *need* a security net to catch those who fall on hard-times- however, it should be a security net- rather than a target for people.

What people don't realise is that you only get a tenancy for 10 yearsif with the housing bodies and you are reassessed to see if the property is still suitable for you. If you are in a three bed and your family has moved out you Wii be housed in a more appropriate sized property.

The_Conductor

lawred2 wrote: »

Where was this stated aim? I heard about reducing the burden alright but never actually saw any numbers...

50k is still too low but at least it's better than the current farce

It was discussed at a recent lunch at the American Chamber of Commerce- I'm not sure what the genesis of the figures is (I suppose its DoF/DPER- but don't know who and where they are). Its an aim in the Programme for Government- but it doesn't list the targets- simply an aspirational aim.......... (aka its good for nothing).

It is policy of the US multinationals- to make representations to reduce the taxation burden on employees- with the stated aim of making it viable to pay people to work. At present- there is no imperative to work- for a great many people- they're financially better off not working.

The Student

The_Conductor wrote: »

It was discussed at a recent lunch at the American Chamber of Commerce- I'm not sure what the genesis of the figures is (I suppose its DoF/DPER- but don't know who and where they are). Its an aim in the Programme for Government- but it doesn't list the targets- simply an aspirational aim.......... (aka its good for nothing).

It is policy of the US multinationals- to make representations to reduce the taxation burden on employees- with the stated aim of making it viable to pay people to work. At present- there is no imperative to work- for a great many people- they're financially better off not working.

Whether people accept it or not the whole idea of a council house for life is gone. You may be housed by the state but expect to move a number of times throughout your lifetime.

The_Conductor

The Student wrote: »

Whether people accept it or not the whole idea of a council house for life is gone. You may be housed by the state but expect to move a number of times throughout your lifetime.

Someone should tell Erica Fleming this..........

The Student

The_Conductor wrote: »

Someone should tell Erica Fleming this..........

Its happening all over western economies and will gather pace. We can't be everything to everybody no matter how much people demand. I expect middle income Ireland will get pi**ed off if tax is increased.

The_Conductor

The Student wrote: »

Its happening all over western economies and will gather pace. We can't be everything to everybody no matter how much people demand. I expect middle income Ireland will get pi**ed off if tax is increased.

The squeaky wheel gets oiled though- and middle Ireland isn't making the fuss that the socialists are- demanding their 'forever homes' and pretty much any other thing they set their minds on.

Eventually- as the Irish Water debacle shows- people will reach a breaking point- however, if its over taxation in general- rather than a specific issue- you're actually risking a wholesale civil insurrection- which I suspect wouldn't be supressed by An Garda Síochána or the Armed Forces- as their members are as badly affected by the whole lark as anyone else.

We have pandered to the whims of socialists- for far too long. No-one has called halt. Now we have a particularly infectious entitlement culture- why would anyone try to better themselves and go out and work- when they're only going to be punished for doing so?

Its akin to tenancy legislation- its tilted far too far in one direction- there is no reciprochal quid-pro-quo- so we have all the small scale landlords abandoning the sector- and why the hell wouldn't they? Its the only sane thing to do. Yet- the calls are to punish them for running- it really is a damned if you do, and damned if you don't situation.