Increase in population renting... ticking time bomb?

JupiterKid

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

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??????????

Would you have said that to the tens of thousands housed in social housing schemes in the 1925-80 period in this country, literally moved out of the slums and tenements? Who were offered the chance of a vastly better life in a much poorer country? Whose children subsequently moved into the owner occupied sector as mortgage holders as our country and society prospered? Perhaps your grandparents lived in social housing at some stage and were very grateful for the opportunity to be able to escape the slums?

Your hatred and contempt for those in need of social housing disgusts me.

tabby aspreme

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.;)

Are Dublin CC capable of organising the building of housing from scratch, do they actually want to be gifted land to build on. How long does it take them to refurbish vacant properties that they already own, and it's not just DCC , it's the same here in Kildare, with council property lying empty in need of minor work.

Wheeliebin30

JupiterKid wrote: »

Would you have said that to the tens of thousands housed in social housing schemes in the 1925-80 period in this country, literally moved out of the slums and tenements? Who were offered the chance of a vastly better life in a much poorer country? Whose children subsequently moved into the owner occupied sector as mortgage holders as our country and society prospered? Perhaps your grandparents lived in social housing at some stage and were very grateful for the opportunity to be able to escape the slums?

Your hatred and contempt for those in need of social housing disgusts me.

No problem for the people who work and genuinely need it, or have a disability etc.

Not for people who couldn’t be arsed helping themselves or anyone else and expect the government to house them forever.

Wanderer78

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

Not for people who couldn’t be arsed helping themselves or anyone else and expect the government to house them forever.

What if they simply can't?

Wheeliebin30

Wanderer78 wrote: »

What if they simply can't?

Did you not read my post where it says disability etc?

Wanderer78

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

Did you not read my post where it says disability etc?

What if those who simply cannot afford to buy a home and are not technically labeled 'disabled'?

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

....... are not technically labeled 'disabled'?

Depends, are they working? Available for work? Looking for work? Upskiling ?
Or waiting for a handout.

I know some folk have no interest in gathering or accumulating wealth and that essentially stunts motivation etc to get up off their arse to better themselves. Life is a competition at times, those who partake get rewarded often....should those on the sidelines due to various excuses get rewarded too when they don't even try to help themselves? Like, technically, they aren't disabled.

Wanderer78

Augeo wrote:

Depends, are they working? Available for work? Looking for work? Upskiling ? Or waiting for a handout.

What if some or none of these are possibilities for some? Believe it or not, there's people, even if they worked all their lives, will never be able to afford to buy a home, keep a close eye on younger generations!

Wanderer78

Augeo wrote:

I know some folk have no interest in gathering or accumulating wealth and that essentially stunts motivation etc to get up off their arse to better themselves. Life is a competition at times, those who partake get rewarded often....should those on the sidelines due to various excuses get rewarded too when they don't even try to help themselves? Like, technically, they aren't disabled.

What we experience nowadays and regularly call competition, can only be described as 'hyper-competativeness', this in fact is highly destructive for the well being of our societies, whereby outcomes such as 'winner takes all' occurs

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

What if some or none of these are possibilities for some? Believe it or not, there's people, even if they worked all their lives, will never be able to afford to buy a home, keep a close eye on younger generations!

Even if they relocated? Upskilled?
Excuses excuses for the mostpart.

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

What we experience nowadays and regularly call competition, can only be described as 'hyper-competativeness', this in fact is highly destructive for the well being of our societies, whereby outcomes such as 'winner takes all' occurs

The alternative, lazy fnckers getting "all" too won't go anything to enhance society.

Graces7

Graham wrote: »

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

What about the land owned by the Orders who owe abuse reparation payments? Time cpos started working in this

The_Conductor

Graces7 wrote: »

What about the land owned by the Orders who owe abuse reparation payments? Time cpos started working in this

+100
However- all of that land and/or property- is rightfully the property of the communities in which such land or property is located- and in a lot of cases serves multiple functions and purposes. Look at all the schools and their attached lands that are vested in orders- if you sell off the land (as has happened)- all of a sudden the playing pitches the school imagines are 'theirs' suddenly have planning permission for houses- and the kids have no where to play.

Yes- it is ridiculous that the religious orders have not paid what they owe (which arguably should be the entire bill for their past misdeeds- and not the token gesture that was agreed- which they haven't even paid). However- if they did- and it massively impacted on the locals- it would be entirely counter productive.

It suited the state to use the church as a substitute to social welfare- and it suited the church to assume the role and impose its beliefs and whatever rules it deemed fit, on those on whom it deemed worthy to 'assist'. This was a historical arrangement- that should have been tackled at the founding of the state- rather than regularised- and the fact that it wasn't addressed- means decades later the impact of that decision is coming home to roost.

We need funds to assist with some of the coming needs of our impending retirees- and while the religious orders could doubtlessly provide some of those funds and/or resources- their means, substantial though they doubtless are- are a drop of the ocean of what is necessary- and we have to ensure than if we insist on following through- that there is not a law of unintended consequence in our current actions.

Wanderer78

Augeo wrote: »

Even if they relocated? Upskilled?
Excuses excuses for the mostpart.

Augeo wrote: »

The alternative, lazy fnckers getting "all" too won't go anything to enhance society.

again, life is not black or white like some make it out to be, we dont have absolute equality in society, we dont have equal opportunities, and we probably never will, the market is not 'efficient', i.e. it is not truly capable of providing us with all our needs . its probably best we dont blame certain classes for all their woes in particular housing, as not all is equal in the real world

Well those who aren't disabled who can't provide are currently catered for, rent allowance, job seekers etc.
Hanging them a forever home as they haven't had "equal opportunity" won't be happening
I feel many if whom you seem to be describing are excuse merchants with the hand out.
Their are opportunities in boththe civil service and the private sector for folk not technically disabled who aren't e excuse merchants. When they explore these options relocation and property purchAse could well be an option.

Graces7

The_Conductor wrote: »

+100
However- all of that land and/or property- is rightfully the property of the communities in which such land or property is located- and in a lot of cases serves multiple functions and purposes. Look at all the schools and their attached lands that are vested in orders- if you sell off the land (as has happened)- all of a sudden the playing pitches the school imagines are 'theirs' suddenly have planning permission for houses- and the kids have no where to play.

Yes- it is ridiculous that the religious orders have not paid what they owe (which arguably should be the entire bill for their past misdeeds- and not the token gesture that was agreed- which they haven't even paid). However- if they did-
and it massively impacted on the locals- it would be entirely counter productive.

It suited the state to use the church as a substitute to social welfare- and it suited the church to assume the role and impose its beliefs and whatever rules it deemed fit, on those on whom it deemed worthy to 'assist'. This was a historical arrangement- that should have been tackled at the founding of the state- rather than regularised- and the fact that it wasn't addressed- means decades later the impact of that decision is coming home to roost.

We need funds to assist with some of the coming needs of our impending retirees- and while the religious orders could doubtlessly provide some of those funds and/or resources- their means, substantial though they doubtless are- are a drop of the ocean of what is necessary- and we have to ensure than if we insist on following through- that there is not a law of unintended consequence in our current actions.

I think you underestimate the funds and saleable assets the orders hold. And complicate the issues far too much .This invalidating real assets

And the number of fine empty convents...

Graces7

Augeo wrote: »

Well those who aren't disabled who can't provide are currently catered for, rent allowance, job seekers etc.
Hanging them a forever home as they haven't had "equal opportunity" won't be happening
I feel many if whom you seem to be describing are excuse merchants with the hand out.
Their are opportunities in boththe civil service and the private sector for folk not technically disabled who aren't e excuse merchants. When they explore these options relocation and property purchAse could well be an option.

By "excuse merchants" you mean who exactly please? And what is " not techncally disabled"also please?

Wanderer78

Augeo wrote: »

Well those who aren't disabled who can't provide are currently catered for, rent allowance, job seekers etc.
Hanging them a forever home as they haven't had "equal opportunity" won't be happening
I feel many if whom you seem to be describing are excuse merchants with the hand out.
Their are opportunities in boththe civil service and the private sector for folk not technically disabled who aren't e excuse merchants. When they explore these options relocation and property purchAse could well be an option.

again, life is not black or white, moving a family isnt as easy as some make it out to be, unemployment is extremely complex, particularly long term unemployment. your comments come across condescending and prejudice, no wonder some commentators use phrases such as 'class war' to describe whats currently happening. beleive it or not, we re moving into a phase whereby many workers will not be able to afford to buy their own homes, maybe never, this in fact is becoming a relatively common problem across the world, this is well written about

myshirt

I actually think more people renting is better from the perspective that you keep a pipeline of talent flowing to the economy. If you can't afford the rent, you leave, and in comes another to replace you. The pipeline of talent continues and we all benefit with an economy that gets fed what it needs.

Economic and housing policy should drive people close to jobs, and drive people not working away from the jobs.

We partly do the reverse at the moment with all the young Dubs travelling from Ratoath, Asbourne, Naas, Navan even, to get to a job, while Mary the retired civil servant sits a 4 bed house by herself and near the jobs under the face palming false belief she's sitting on that wealth due to all her hard effort. The commuters also clog up our roads, and tiredness etc costs the economy productiveness.

There is the social aspect to it though of course, and immediately the reaction of an Irish person is to be out with the pitchfork to protect the patch of land. I get it, but it's no good to anyone in the long run. Get the people to the jobs. Get the economy strong. And invest in the rest of Ireland for a counterbalance to Dublin. If part of that policy involves strangling the supply of houses to own, in favour of rental, I'm with it in concept, though I would speed it up by levying much much higher property taxes on the baby boomer class, especially the public and civil service.

Rural Ireland often gives out about Dublin, but Dublin pays the bills, and a stronger Dublin, supported a counterbalance corridor like Limerick Cork Galway, benefits everyone in this country.

handlemaster

JupiterKid wrote: »

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

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??????????

Would you have said that to the tens of thousands housed in social housing schemes in the 1925-80 period in this country, literally moved out of the slums and tenements? Who were offered the chance of a vastly better life in a much poorer country? Whose children subsequently moved into the owner occupied sector as mortgage holders as our country and society prospered? Perhaps your grandparents lived in social housing at some stage and were very grateful for the opportunity to be able to escape the slums?

Your hatred and contempt for those in need of social housing disgusts me.

We are around 6% unemployment which is all thing factored in zero . No issues with housing for thoses in need not for those who choose it

handlemaster

JupiterKid wrote: »

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

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??????????

Would you have said that to the tens of thousands housed in social housing schemes in the 1925-80 period in this country, literally moved out of the slums and tenements? Who were offered the chance of a vastly better life in a much poorer country? Whose children subsequently moved into the owner occupied sector as mortgage holders as our country and society prospered? Perhaps your grandparents lived in social housing at some stage and were very grateful for the opportunity to be able to escape the slums?

Your hatred and contempt for those in need of social housing disgusts me.

We are around 6% unemployment which is all thing factored in zero . No issues with housing for thoses in need not for those who choose it

Graces7

Graces7 wrote: »

By "excuse merchants" you mean who exactly please? And what is " not techncally disabled"also please?

Wanderer used "not technically" disabled.... I'm not sure what he means but if you aren't deemed disabled than how don't qualify for allowances etc for disabled. So I'm referring to whoever he reckons are not technically disabled .


By excuse merchants I am referring to those who claim we don't all have equal opportunity and use that as an excuse to not partake in self improvement activities.... upskilling etc etc while expecting the state to look after them.

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

again, life is not black or white, moving a family isnt as easy as some make it out to be, unemployment is extremely complex, particularly long term unemployment. your comments come across condescending and prejudice, no wonder some commentators use phrases such as 'class war' to describe whats currently happening. beleive it or not, we re moving into a phase whereby many workers will not be able to afford to buy their own homes, maybe never, this in fact is becoming a relatively common problem across the world, this is well written about

Nothing is easy.
Do you think folk earning decent money paying mortgages found it easy?
The have nots are extremely well looked after in Ireland. That's well written about too if you look at how other countries look the weakest in their societies.

Your comments come across as loony left whereby everyone without for whatever reason should be looked after.

Folk who aren't vtevhnucally disabled should get some sort of special treatment etc. No one is perfect .... some folk make the best of things and strive to get on..... you dismiss this type of activity as not being good for society with some winner takes all spiel. You seem to want some sort of society where opting out is rewarded.

Your attitudes aren't at all aligned with putting food on the table, work ethic or endeavouring to better oneself.

Wanderer78

Augeo wrote:

Your comments come across as loony left whereby everyone without for whatever reason should be looked after.

Again, yes, I'm a lefty, and proud of it, but please do continue with your ignorant, condescending language. talking about lazyness, I class many of your comments as 'lazy research'. So what should be done about those that simply cannot afford the most vital of needs, do we just leave them starve, leave them walk the streets?

AndrewJRenko

myshirt wrote: »

I actually think more people renting is better from the perspective that you keep a pipeline of talent flowing to the economy. If you can't afford the rent, you leave, and in comes another to replace you. The pipeline of talent continues and we all benefit with an economy that gets fed what it needs.

Economic and housing policy should drive people close to jobs, and drive people not working away from the jobs.

So presumably, all the people who retire with no pension beyond the State OAP () should be driven away from their communities, their roots, their families down to villages in the middle of nowhere with no infrastructure to live out their retirement in penury?

And all those people on minimum wage jobs, the people who mind your children and your parents/grandparents, the people who clean your toilets and wipe your table, they should also all be driven out of their communities, to locations beyond reach of any employment, in your search for 'talent'?

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Again, yes, I'm a lefty, and proud of it, but please do continue with your ignorant, condescending language. talking about lazyness, I class many of your comments as 'lazy research'. So what should be done about those that simply cannot afford the most vital of needs, do we just leave them starve, leave them walk the streets?

They get social welfare, rent allowance, emergency housing etc etc.

If you're not aware of that your own research is lacking.

I'm not overly interested what lefties class me as TBH

4068ac1elhodqr

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So presumably, all the people who retire with no pension beyond the State OAP () should be driven away from their communities, their roots, their families down to villages in the middle of nowhere with no infrastructure to live out their retirement in penury?

And all those people on minimum wage jobs, the people who mind your children and your parents/grandparents, the people who clean your toilets and wipe your table, they should also all be driven out of their communities, to locations beyond reach of any employment, in your search for 'talent'?

One important factor that causes these potential issues is indeed 'infrastructure'. Proper (vast) investment is also needed in this area, which could elimate the above issues.

Not to mention national productivity (2hrs sitting in slow moving traffic per day isn't helping anyone). So if young low-wage workers can get into urban centres quicker, they can live further out, and thus more cheaply.

Many of the eldery could well enjoy those shared community centre type housing, free bingo, fresh air, on-site health care, free visitor parking, occasional group day trips, a nice garden to peruse, rather than living in crowded polluted urban centres.

Funds from 'green policy targets' could be divereted into cycle lanes, e-buses, HS Rail (ideally also R&D towards hyperloop). The benefits of any, would surpass all other green target policies.

A seperate issue altogether - is that if you do make housing 'too cheap' and still have high wages and one of the most generous welfare states in the EU, won't the rest of the 1/2bn in the EU27 (not to mention the millions heading up to Libya) want their peice of the cake?

tom1ie

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

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??????????

Your an idiot. Have you even read some of the previous posts. Affordable not social. Educate yourself. By the way I'm a homeowner.

tom1ie

kaymin wrote: »

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.

This is the hit the government has to take to provide affordable housing.

ELM327

tom1ie wrote: »

Your an idiot. Have you even read some of the previous posts. Affordable not social. Educate yourself. By the way I'm a homeowner.

"You're an idiot"

Careful now, glass houses and all.

tom1ie wrote: »

This is the hit the government has to take to provide affordable housing.

Why should "the government" take the hit?
No one has a right to a free house.