Increase in population renting... ticking time bomb?

tom1ie

tom1ie wrote: »

So we’ve identified the problem which is political so what do we do about it?

The loony left aren't in government so I don't think your comment is correct.

tom1ie

Augeo wrote: »

The loony left aren't in government so I don't think your comment is correct.

? What do you mean?

tom1ie

tom1ie wrote: »

? What do you mean?

When you say we identified the problem what do you mean?

tom1ie

Augeo wrote: »

When you say we identified the problem what do you mean?

We identified that no current political party are representing the people who work and are trying to get a house but who don’t want to be saddled with a massive mortgage they’ll be paying for at least 30 years.
So what do we do about it?

No political party can address the issue.... look at the water charge protests. Anything for the greater good is a non runner if it's seen to be friendly to the middle class.

The loony left ensure the government is shackled heavily.

Common sense suggests growing your middle class and allowing them fruits of their labour is the best way for a country to provide adequate social welfare etc for those in need.

No one can be seen to help a respectable couple earning a joint 100k/annum until all the needy folk are sorted.

It's a tough balancing act.... a reduction in income tax at the higher rate or a tax credit achieving that is mire often than not accompanied by an increase in dole payments to avoid uproar.

tom1ie

Augeo wrote: »

No political party can address the issue.... look at the water charge protests. Anything for the greater good is a non runner if it's seen to be friendly to the middle class.

The loony left ensure the government is shackled heavily.

Common sense suggests growing your middle class and allowing them fruits of their labour is the best way for a country to provide adequate social welfare etc for those in need.

No one can be seen to help a respectable couple earning a joint 100k/annum until all the needy folk are sorted.

It's a tough balancing act.... a reduction in income tax at the higher rate or a tax credit achieving that is mire often than not accompanied by an increase in dole payments to avoid uproar.

But think about it. The majority of people in Ireland are middle class. These are the hard working people that are saddled with all the debt, yet still pay all the taxes that the welfare pay out and keep the lights on in the hse etc.
So if the majority of people had a political party that promised to reduce the debt burden on them by bringing in affordable housing, surely they’d end up with a majority or very close to it.

Maybe I’m looking at it too simplistically, I’m no political pundit, but it seems to make sense to me.

tom1ie

Augeo wrote: »

No political party can address the issue.... look at the water charge protests. Anything for the greater good is a non runner if it's seen to be friendly to the middle class.

The loony left ensure the government is shackled heavily.

Common sense suggests growing your middle class and allowing them fruits of their labour is the best way for a country to provide adequate social welfare etc for those in need.

No one can be seen to help a respectable couple earning a joint 100k/annum until all the needy folk are sorted.

It's a tough balancing act.... a reduction in income tax at the higher rate or a tax credit achieving that is mire often than not accompanied by an increase in dole payments to avoid uproar.

But the water charges were seen as another tax on the middle class, let alone the question marks over future privatization and profiteering.
Affordable housing would be seen as a debt reduction for the working/ middle class.

The_Conductor

tom1ie wrote: »

But the water charges were seen as another tax on the middle class, let alone the question marks over future privatization and profiteering.
Affordable housing would be seen as a debt reduction for the working/ middle class.

If it was widely available.
Think about it though- two parents working, 2-3 kids in creche/afterschool, 1-2 cars on the road, management charges in their negative equity celtic tiger apartment that they had never intended bringing up kids in- and a combined gross salary of 100-120k- which sounds like a lot- until you factor tax and all the necessary deductions into the equation- and they're probably living from paycheck to paycheck- despite having an extremely healthy headline salary- which excludes them from any consideration for social housing, medical cards or any sort of assistance with anything whatsoever.

The average working couple- once they have two kids- would be at least as well off- giving up work and throwing in the towel- than killing themselves trying to make the finances of working work............ I did the sums with a community welfare nurse a while back- we plugged it into an excel spreadsheet- she agreed that all the figures were plausible- the same family would be better off in social housing and drawing down whatever benefits they could- than working.........

The only saving grace- is most people actually want to work- there are very few people who will actively make it a choice to sit back, put their legs up, and see what they can get from the taxpayer.

tom1ie

The_Conductor wrote: »

If it was widely available.
Think about it though- two parents working, 2-3 kids in creche/afterschool, 1-2 cars on the road, management charges in their negative equity celtic tiger apartment that they had never intended bringing up kids in- and a combined gross salary of 100-120k- which sounds like a lot- until you factor tax and all the necessary deductions into the equation- and they're probably living from paycheck to paycheck- despite having an extremely healthy headline salary- which excludes them from any consideration for social housing, medical cards or any sort of assistance with anything whatsoever.

The average working couple- once they have two kids- would be at least as well off- giving up work and throwing in the towel- than killing themselves trying to make the finances of working work............ I did the sums with a community welfare nurse a while back- we plugged it into an excel spreadsheet- she agreed that all the figures were plausible- the same family would be better off in social housing and drawing down whatever benefits they could- than working.........

The only saving grace- is most people actually want to work- there are very few people who will actively make it a choice to sit back, put their legs up, and see what they can get from the taxpayer.

Ok let’s say the couple your talking about put there negative equity apartment up for sale and take a hit of 50k. They add this 50k to the affordable 3 bed house the council are selling for 150k. The council can sell it this cheap as they’ve got the land for nothing from Nama, bought materials in bulk, and the government has made council built affordable houses v.a.t free.

So there mortgage is now 200k on 100-120k a year. That’s affordable.

Even if they were stuck in that apartment, wouldn’t they want affordable housing available for their kids?

Remember I’m not talking about social housing that’s something completely different.

tom1ie

tom1ie wrote: »

But the water charges were seen as another tax on the middle class, let alone the question marks over future privatization and profiteering.
Affordable housing would be seen as a debt reduction for the working/ middle class.

Not at all. Pure soundbites, no one wanted to pay them obviously but it was the scrambler for Christmas & the career welfare folk most vehemently protesting.

If folk on the scratch weren't expected to pay there'd have been no protests.

tom1ie

tom1ie wrote: »

...... The council can sell it this cheap as they’ve got the land for nothing from Nama, bought materials in bulk, and the government has made council built affordable houses v.a.t free.....
Remember I’m not talking about social housing that

NAMA can't give land to anyone for free.

What are you proposing for social housing? You can't ignore the weakest in society and give folk on 100k household incomes cheap housing. Sinn Fein etc would go barmy.

tom1ie

Augeo wrote: »

Not at all. Pure soundbites, no one wanted to pay them obviously but it was the scrambler for Christmas & the career welfare folk most vehemently protesting.

If folk on the scratch weren't expected to pay there'd have been no protests.

I can categorically say you are wrong. Plenty of middle class marched against this me and my family included. I believe water should be paid for but under a very certain set of circumstances to avoid profiteering and privatization. If you don’t believe Irish water would have just been a profit driven vehicle for its shareholder (the government and in the future private companies) just look at the accounts for esb or board gais.

I can categorically say you are wrong.
Take away the dole heads etc & the few middle class protesting wouldn't have bothered their arse as there'd have been so few of them.

tom1ie

Augeo wrote: »

NAMA can't give land to anyone for free.

What are you proposing for social housing? You can't ignore the weakest in society and give folk on 100k household incomes cheap housing. Sinn Fein etc would go barmy.

Why can’t nama give anyone land for free? People keep saying they just can’t. Why? They are owned by the state. The council is owned by the state. The state has a housing crisis.
So what if sinn fein go mad. If enough people signaled that is what they want it wouldn’t matter if Sinn Fein went mad, as a party that promised affordable housing would get a majority vote.

So can everyone sell their current house and get a new affordable house?

What's the criteria to qualify?

FTB only?
FTB & folk in negative equity?
Folk big in negative equity but they reckon their mortgage is too high ?

If you ignore folk needing social housing is there a housing crisis?

tom1ie

Augeo wrote: »

I can categorically say you are wrong.
Take away the dole heads etc & the few middle class protesting wouldn't have bothered their arse as there'd have been so few of them.

No. I can tell you from experience there were more working people out marching then there were dole heads. People were not prepared to pay more tax as that was what it was seen as.
Anyway we are going off topic.

tom1ie

Augeo wrote: »

So can everyone sell their current house and get a new affordable house?

What's the criteria to qualify?

FTB only?
FTB & folk in negative equity?
Folk big in negative equity but they reckon their mortgage is too high ?

If you ignore folk needing social housing is there a housing crisis?

No not everyone can get a new affordable house. It would be for ftb only. I am a home owner already so wouldn’t directly benefit me. It will benefit my kids, and will benefit me indirectly as people who buy affordable homes have more available income to put back into the economy therefore increasing tax take for the government.

The alternative by the way is the next generation get sucked into mortgages of 500k plus to live in Dublin and work crazy hours to service this debt.

I know you’ll say it’s not fair on people that have houses already but we have to draw a line in the sand somewhere and stop these massive bank profits and the social breakdown of society caused by trying to payback these debts.

tom1ie

By the way you never answered why Nama (the left arm of the state) can’t give the council (the right arm of the state) free land in the midst of a housing crisis.;)

Graham

tom1ie wrote: »

By the way you never answered why Nama (the left arm of the state) can’t give the council (the right arm of the state) free land in the midst of a housing crisis.;)

To build entire developments of social housing?

Haven't we just finished knocking down some of the most recent examples of that particular housing model?

tom1ie

Graham wrote: »

To build entire developments of social housing?

Haven't we just finished knocking down some of the most recent examples of that particular housing model?

NO!!!! AFFORDABLE HOUSING not SOCIAL HOUSING. please read previous posts.

Graham

tom1ie wrote: »

NO!!!! AFFORDABLE HOUSING not SOCIAL HOUSING. please read previous posts.

Why didn't you say so.

So which land would you like NAMA to gift to local councils?

I won't even start on the idea of most local authorities capability for efficient delivery of large scale housing projects

tom1ie

tom1ie wrote: »

Ok let’s say the couple your talking about put there negative equity apartment up for sale and take a hit of 50k. They add this 50k to the affordable 3 bed house the council are selling for 150k. The council can sell it this cheap as they’ve got the land for nothing from Nama, bought materials in bulk, and the government has made council built affordable houses v.a.t free.

So there mortgage is now 200k on 100-120k a year. That’s affordable.

Even if they were stuck in that apartment, wouldn’t they want affordable housing available for their kids?

Remember I’m not talking about social housing that’s something completely different.

tom1ie wrote: »

No not everyone can get a new affordable house. It would be for ftb only. I am a home owner already so wouldn’t directly benefit me. It will benefit my kids, and will benefit me indirectly as people who buy affordable homes have more available income to put back into the economy therefore increasing tax take for the government.

The alternative by the way is the next generation get sucked into mortgages of 500k plus to live in Dublin and work crazy hours to service this debt.

I know you’ll say it’s not fair on people that have houses already but we have to draw a line in the sand somewhere and stop these massive bank profits and the social breakdown of society caused by trying to payback these debts.

FTB only?
What about the existing middle class struggling with debt that you were mentioning earlier?
Who will likely fall further into negative equity - I did tell you that no one looks after them, even you it seems

tom1ie

Augeo wrote: »

FTB only?
What about the existing middle class struggling with debt that you were mentioning earlier?
Who will likely fall further into negative equity - I did tell you that no one looks after them, even you it seems

Lol! These people will be the future middle class. This is where the debt circle has to be broken.

tom1ie

Graham wrote: »

Why didn't you say so.

So which land would you like NAMA to gift to local councils?

I won't even start on the idea of most local authorities capability for efficient delivery of large scale housing projects

I have said so multiple times if you read some of my previous posts.

There is large amounts of land owned by Nama around Dublin that can be given to councils.

Councils managed to do it in the 70s with large scale house building. If the right project managers were hired by the council on salaries with target based bonuses, houses would get built pretty quickly and efficiently. Tradespeople could be directly hired by project managers, the same as on a self builder project.
As I have already stated, profit needs to be removed from the price of a house for it to be affordable along with free land from Nama, v.a.t reduced to zero by government for affordable houses, and materials bought straight from manufacturers in bulk.

So how many affordable homes are needed to break the debt circle and what about the actual homeless who need social housing?

Policy wise you wouldn't be attracting a majority vote BTW.

tom1ie

Augeo wrote: »

FTB only?
What about the existing middle class struggling with debt that you were mentioning earlier?
Who will likely fall further into negative equity - I did tell you that no one looks after them, even you it seems

I’m pretty sure other measures can be put in place for the existing middle class (which includes me) such as tax breaks for children in crèches etc etc.

Graham

tom1ie wrote: »

Councils managed to do it in the 70s with large scale house building. If the right project managers were hired by the council on salaries with target based bonuses, houses would get built pretty quickly and efficiently. Tradespeople could be directly hired by project managers, the same as on a self builder project.
As I have already stated, profit needs to be removed from the price of a house for it to be affordable along with free land from Nama, v.a.t reduced to zero by government for affordable houses, and materials bought straight from manufacturers in bulk.

There is no free land in your equation, you are suggesting taking land.

Wheeliebin30

tom1ie wrote: »

By the way you never answered why Nama (the left arm of the state) can’t give the council (the right arm of the state) free land in the midst of a housing crisis.;)

Social housing my hole.

We are too generous of a nation, mollycoddling people from the cradle to the grave.

Where did this notion come from, that the government should house you forever??????????

Wheeliebin30

I can’t like this post enough.

Excellent.

kaymin

tom1ie wrote: »

I have said so multiple times if you read some of my previous posts.

There is large amounts of land owned by Nama around Dublin that can be given to councils.

Councils managed to do it in the 70s with large scale house building. If the right project managers were hired by the council on salaries with target based bonuses, houses would get built pretty quickly and efficiently. Tradespeople could be directly hired by project managers, the same as on a self builder project.
As I have already stated, profit needs to be removed from the price of a house for it to be affordable along with free land from Nama, v.a.t reduced to zero by government for affordable houses, and materials bought straight from manufacturers in bulk.

How will Nama repay it's debts if it gives its assets away for nothing? Nama debt is not included in the national debt for a reason.