Simon calls for more public money for private landlords

nostro

I'll

TSQ wrote: »

Providing a house is not a one-off cost. It costs a lot of money to maintain a property, especially where homes have to be completely renovated and provided with brand new fit-out where tenancies change.

What however if someone is allocated a social house and they stay there for 20,30 or 40 years. Raise their families there. Eventually buy house from the state after decades of paying rent to the state.
Is this not preferabe to an insecure rented place with the flow of money in the other direction. The state paying €1200 a month to a private landlord every month indefinitely. Taking a house out of the pool of properties available to private renters.

One of the above options is hughly preferred by private landlords and their political servants which is why we have a housing crisis and why we are in the mess we are in.

But which option is better for those in need of social housing, private renters and the states finances?

If we have to have amateur landlords and they need to be helped find some other way of doing it. Cut tax on rental income of give them a few hundred million a year in amateur landlord dole.

TSQ

nostro wrote: »

What however if someone is allocated a social house and they stay there for 20,30 or 40 years. Raise their families there. Eventually buy house from the state after decades of paying rent to the state.....
But which option is better for those in need of social housing, private renters and the states finances.

That someone who spends decades paying less in rent to the state than interest on the borrowing used to fund the construction of their house would be entitled to buy it at a discount makes no financial sense. Nor is in any way fair that those who save up tens of thousands of euro for a deposit and pay interest which equates to double or more of the rent paid by social tenants (and yes, for a similar property in the same area) should also be subsidising the uneconomic rents paid by those lucky enough to get a council house.

People in social housing pay an unrealistic rent, with free maintenance, repairs and upgrades thrown in on top. It is so uneconomic that some housing associations wont even take over of social houses when given them for free - i.e. with only the maintenance costs and no construction costs to factor in.

Don't take my word for it - see Review of Irish Social and Affordable Housing Provision NESC Secretariat Papers Paper No. 10 -
"Tenants in local authority dwellings pay weekly rents which are based on the household’s ability to pay, a method known as differential rent. If the tenant’s household income changes, they must inform the local authority, so that the rent paid can be adjusted accordingly.13 Each local authority operates its own differential rent scheme, with different rates, and different minimum and maximum rents payable,14 although these rents average about 15 per cent of household income. From 2015 a single national differential rent scheme will apply, with a minimum payment of €30 per week."
"At the same time some housing associations are concerned about stock transfer under schemes which would only pay them differential rent, as they are concerned that this rental income would not be adequate to pay the costs of maintaining the properties."

antoinolachtnai

nostro wrote: »

I'll

What however if someone is allocated a social house and they stay there for 20,30 or 40 years. Raise their families there. Eventually buy house from the state after decades of paying rent to the state.
Is this not preferabe to an insecure rented place with the flow of money in the other direction. The state paying €1200 a month to a private landlord every month indefinitely. Taking a house out of the pool of properties available to private renters.

One of the above options is hughly preferred by private landlords and their political servants which is why we have a housing crisis and why we are in the mess we are in.

But which option is better for those in need of social housing, private renters and the states finances?

If we have to have amateur landlords and they need to be helped find some other way of doing it. Cut tax on rental income of give them a few hundred million a year in amateur landlord dole.

The problem is that what you describe is extremely expensive to do. It will cost about 1300 a month to finance a new state-built home when all is said and done. The cost of managing it and maintaining it will be about 150 euros more per month.

If the state sells the house to the occupier at a discount as you propose, it is a further loss.

All you are really doing is systematically transferring wealth from the general public to an individual who by whatever means got access to a house which they could purchase and live in at a vast discount. This is called 'expropriation'.

The State could have gotten the same type of property from the private sector for maybe 600 euros per month net (because half the rent goes in taxes).

beauf

You are wasting your time debating with someone who ignores all the facts just to post nonsense about a conspiracy theory. Copying Trump no doubt.