Mayhem predicted as housing associations to be reclassified as statutory bodies

mikemac2

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)

Why the game playing? Who said it?

Arcade_Tryer

The_Conductor wrote: »

At present- there is no imperative to work- for a great many people- they're financially better off not working.

Only those living beyond their means.

CruelCoin

The_Conductor wrote: »

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.

This reminds me of when the truth behind the Greeks Euro application started coming out.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-16834815

""The Greek railway had more employees than passengers. A former minister, Stefanos Manos, had said publicly at the time that it would be cheaper to send everyone by taxi."
The authorities used a neat conjuring trick to make the problem vanish.
"The [railway] company would issue shares that the government would buy. So it was counted not as expenditure, but as a financial transaction."
And it did not appear on the budget balance sheet.
So Greece fulfilled the Maastricht criteria and was admitted to the eurozone on January 1, 2001 - but by 2004 the deception was becoming transparent."

This all sounds remarkably similar.

hmmm

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.

Events like Trump, Brexit and the anti-immigrant movement are less about skin colour and more about a feeling that people who haven't paid into the system are taking from it. Some of the strongest evidence for this is that it is predominantly working class voters who are the ones voting in favour of these loopers - and the media can't seem to get its head around why people who are supposed to be benefiting from social spending also seem to be voting for people who are proposing to reduce access to it.

It's an interesting dynamic which I think hasn't quite hit Ireland (in public), but is bubbling under. A tax increase to pay for increased social spending would be dynamite - and it suits governments to hide this spending in off-balance sheet vehicles. Politicians know how hard it would be to explain to workers who are paying for their houses, and have disruptive social housing* nearby, that the government want them to pay more in tax to finance more social housing. It's not going to happen.

* I realise most social housing tenants are perfectly normal neighbours, but all it takes is one out-of-control family to ruin a neighbourhood.

The Student

hmmm wrote: »

Events like Trump, Brexit and the anti-immigrant movement are less about skin colour and more about a feeling that people who haven't paid into the system are taking from it. Some of the strongest evidence for this is that it is predominantly working class voters who are the ones voting in favour of these loopers - and the media can't seem to get its head around why people who are supposed to be benefiting from social spending also seem to be voting for people who are proposing to reduce access to it.

It's an interesting dynamic which I think hasn't quite hit Ireland (in public), but is bubbling under. A tax increase to pay for increased social spending would be dynamite - and it suits governments to hide this spending in off-balance sheet vehicles. Politicians know how hard it would be to explain to workers who are paying for their houses, and have disruptive social housing* nearby, that the government want them to pay more in tax to finance more social housing. It's not going to happen.

* I realise most social housing tenants are perfectly normal neighbours, but all it takes is one out-of-control family to ruin a neighbourhood.

:
Completely agree social tennant's have a bad name because of a small minority and the councils unwillingness to deal with them.

Mrs OBumble

The Student wrote: »

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.

Really? When did that change come in, and why was there not more publicity about it?

Respond's website certainly says differently even now:

You can remain in your Respond! home for as long as you wish, provided you don’t breach any of the Letting Agreements agreed to when you initially received your new home.

ref: http://www.respond.ie/find-a-home/faqs/


I know for definite that there are a large number of existing voluntary housing association tenants who have tenancy agreements exactly like those of council tenants, with the only difference being that they have no chance of ever being allowed to buy the property.

Mrs OBumble

Skedaddle wrote: »

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.

It's already like that.

According to Clúid's website (bolding mine)

500 housing associations provide 27,000 housing tenancies
95% of housing associations own less than fifty units
Only 10 housing associations own more than 300 dwellings
Only two have more than 4,500 tenants

ref: https://www.cluid.ie/advice-on-housing/about-social-housing/

Idbatterim

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.

NO this I should not true. The vast majority who want better services sure as hell aren't paying for them.

Also this bulk**** of having to hike taxes. They can cut expenditure. They can not send up a few hundred million in smoke ever year with welfare increases... there are far too many here getting a free ride at the expense of others! People want improved services? Right. Let them pay for them directly , at the point of use if possible

Also there wont be tax hikes. It doesnt work like that here. If less money is available, there will simply be smaller tax reductions and smaller welfare increases and less spend on infrastructure and services etc.

Idbatterim

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

Irish workers have themselves to blame. Fg have been talking about rewarding the working man and woman for years. Talking about it. Simply vote for Renua or don't complain about the income tax situation in this country, if you are voting for parties that are doing nothing to change the situation in any meaningful way. Which is all of them except Renua ...

Browney7

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.

But the whole system is a clusterf**ck - if you do go out and work and you have children you've to pay astronomical childcare too just to be able to work. Some people aren't paid a hell of a lot by employers and are topped up by FIS then aswell (a subsidy for employers really).

The whole thing is a busted flush

Regarding the housing provision, why does our department of housing/government only take responsibility for housing people who can't house themselves? Why doesn't the state build and provide accommodation for people with good jobs and rent at a fair rent (say 1300 for a two bed apartment). Instead, these people are left at the mercy of the private market being hammered with massive rent. It's no wonder young teachers and nurses are leaving in droves