Increase in population renting... ticking time bomb?

tom1ie

tabby aspreme wrote: »

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.

Yes but if the expertise were hired into the council to project manager it could work. But it's all about getting the land off Nama and having vat 0 applied to the scheme.

tom1ie

This thread has descended into social housing bashing.
I am not advocating social ****ing housing for the last time!!!!!
I am talking about AFFORDABLE HOUSING for people that are working and paying taxes!
I can't believe some of the morons on here that can't understand the difference between SOCIAL and AFFORDABLE.
I don't really care about social housing- it has nothing to do with me, except my tax pays for it.

I DO care about the future debt my kids will have to pay back to profiteering banks, because we didn't introduce AFFORDABLE housing.

Seriously it's not that hard to understand the difference.

tom1ie

ELM327 wrote: »

"You're an idiot"

Careful now, glass houses and all.


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

For the last time it's not a free house. You still need a mortgage for an AFFORDABLE HOUSE.
You must work to have an AFFORDABLE HOUSE.
You must pay tax to have an AFFORDABLE HOUSE.

The opposite is true for social housing.

The_Conductor

Guys- if you disagree with another poster- refute their post- without resorting to personal attacks.
If you can't be civil- don't post.
You're not going to get another warning.

tom1ie

The_Conductor wrote: »

Guys- if you disagree with another poster- refute their post- without resorting to personal attacks.
If you can't be civil- don't post.
You're not going to get another warning.

Can we get a moded post stating that affordable housing is not social housing please. I think it might help clear up alot of confusion.

ELM327

tom1ie wrote: »

Can we get a moded post stating that affordable housing is not social housing please. I think it might help clear up alot of confusion.

There is no confusion.
If you want affordable housing created by government involvement, subsidy or rebate, that is social housing in all but name, funded by Joe Taxpayer.

tom1ie

The_Conductor wrote: »

Guys- if you disagree with another poster- refute their post- without resorting to personal attacks.
If you can't be civil- don't post.
You're not going to get another warning.

Can we get a moded post stating that affordable housing is not social housing please. I think it might help clear up alot of confusion.

tom1ie

ELM327 wrote: »

There is no confusion.
If you want affordable housing created by government involvement, subsidy or rebate, that is social housing in all but name, funded by Joe Taxpayer.

Your wrong. Affordable housing puts housing on the market for working people to purchase with the aid of a mortgage from a bank.
How is that the same as social housing.

Do you think the status quo is acceptable and working at the moment?

tom1ie

tom1ie wrote: »

Your wrong. Affordable housing puts housing on the market for working people to purchase with the aid of a mortgage from a bank.
How is that the same as social housing.............

SOME working people.
And anything available at a reduced price is funded by someone, in this case, those not getting affordable housing.

ELM327

tom1ie wrote: »

Your wrong. Affordable housing puts housing on the market for working people to purchase with the aid of a mortgage from a bank.
How is that the same as social housing.

Do you think the status quo is acceptable and working at the moment?

The status quo is not working because of government interference, both indirectly by their interference in the rental market, and directly via the central bank.


Any method of subsidising free market pricing to make them "affordable" will require government subvention. Since the government derives its funding from the taxpayer, that means that it is the (risible) higher earners from 34k and above funding those just below them.


Housing topped up from public funds. Or, as known by its other moniker, social housing.


Q.E.D.


(a little less of the "your wrong" [sic] and a little more viewing of the larger picture is needed here.)

ELM327

Augeo wrote: »

SOME working people.
And anything available at a reduced price is funded by someone, in this case, those not getting affordable housing.

Exactly.
Some people have this attitude that items funded by "de gubbernment joe" is free. It's not. It's funded from general taxation which is where any government derives its funding from.

tom1ie

ELM327 wrote: »

The status quo is not working because of government interference, both indirectly by their interference in the rental market, and directly via the central bank.


Any method of subsidising free market pricing to make them "affordable" will require government subvention. Since the government derives its funding from the taxpayer, that means that it is the (risible) higher earners from 34k and above funding those just below them.


Housing topped up from public funds. Or, as known by its other moniker, social housing.


Q.E.D.


(a little less of the "your wrong" [sic] and a little more viewing of the larger picture is needed here.)

So builders making large profits, government making large profit from vat and banks making large profit from large mortgages are ok to you then yeah?

ELM327

tom1ie wrote: »

So builders making large profits, government making large profit from vat and banks making large profit from large mortgages are ok to you then yeah?

Free market profit = good.
Taxation is a necessary evil.


The only problem with the market currently, is the repeated direct and indirect government interference.

tom1ie

ELM327 wrote: »

Exactly.
Some people have this attitude that items funded by "de gubbernment joe" is free. It's not. It's funded from general taxation which is where any government derives its funding from.

I'm well aware that the money government spend is not free but comes from "my taxes"
I'm also well aware Nama took bad loans off bank loan balance sheets. Nama owns assets some of which is in the form of land. A deal could be done to give this land to councils to build affordable housing. Any liabilities still owed on this land can be absorbed back into Nama or the council can take on these liabilities. But preferably the land is transferred at zero cost.

If we don't provide affordable housing future generations will have even greater amounts of debt.
Are you all happy with that yeah?

ELM327

tom1ie wrote: »

I'm well aware that the money government spend is not free but comes from "my taxes"
I'm also well aware Nama took bad loans off bank loan balance sheets. Nama owns assets some of which is in the form of land. A deal could be done to give this land to councils to build affordable housing. Any liabilities still owed on this land can be absorbed back into Nama or the council can take on these liabilities. But preferably the land is transferred at zero cost.

If we don't provide affordable housing future generations will have even greater amounts of debt.
Are you all happy with that yeah?

The land/other nama assets cannot be transferred to any state/government/council ownership.
The whole point of nama was for "off book" debt - so it wasnt state debt and didnt count towards the national debt


I'm not a socialist or a communist so yes I am happy with people making a profit.

tom1ie

ELM327 wrote: »

Free market profit = good.
Taxation is a necessary evil.


The only problem with the market currently, is the repeated direct and indirect government interference.

So enslaving people to debt for 500k+ for 35 years is ok with you. Then you have the problem of interest rates if they rise.

Old diesel

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.

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.

Well the two key suppliers to the rental market are small landlords who want to sell up if you tell them they have to spend 10 k to bring the house up to 2018 standard. But will happily take a 2018 spec price. I heard of a house thats up for sale because the council RAS scheme want 3 k worth of work done.

I get the idea that council specs might be too excessive but you can't really depend on suppliers who will pull out rather then invest 10 k in the property. Regardless of what you think of building regs all housing will require work doing during their lifetime.

Or Reits who will have very little interest in supplying enough when they can get 1500 euro a month for a 1 bed.

So you need another way which someone will have to figure out.

tom1ie

ELM327 wrote: »

The land/other nama assets cannot be transferred to any state/government/council ownership.
The whole point of nama was for "off book" debt - so it wasnt state debt and didnt count towards the national debt


I'm not a socialist or a communist so yes I am happy with people making a profit.

I am not a socialist or communist either and I am not advocating such crazy ideas, however I can see the folly in putting people in massive debt while taxing the bollox off them, even though you don't seem to be able to see this.

Nama debt is almost paid off going on 2010 levels.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/nama-now-owes-less-than-2-of-its-original-30-2bn-debt-1.3037499%3fmode=amp

ELM327

tom1ie wrote: »

So enslaving people to debt for 500k+ for 35 years is ok with you. Then you have the problem of interest rates if they rise.

tom1ie wrote: »

I am not a socialist or communist either and I am not advocating such crazy ideas, however I can see the folly in putting people in massive debt while taxing the bollox off them, even though you don't seem to be able to see this.

Nama debt is almost paid off going on 2010 levels.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/nama-now-owes-less-than-2-of-its-original-30-2bn-debt-1.3037499%3fmode=amp

Careful now, your AAA PBP is showing.

waffleman

I thought affordable housing is paid for by the rest of the estate e.g. In a private estate of 30 houses where 3 are set aside at reduced price the other buyers make up the difference so the estate is viable for the developer to make profit.

Or is there some council grant or tax break for a developer to include affordable housing?

Proud Irishman 101

newbie here
the problem as i see is everyone looks at housing as a luxury instead of a necessity
if anyone has ever looked at a survival program on the telly ud notice that there are three things that are needed to survive food,water and a SHELTER without any of the three we don't survive
those three thing should be provided at cost and everything else should be left to capitalism those who can afford it have it

tom1ie

ELM327 wrote: »

Careful now, your AAA PBP is showing.

Ah but seriously I'm not a member of any party. Surely this is just common sense no?
If people take on this much debt will we just end up in the same place we were during the crash?

ELM327

tom1ie wrote: »

Ah but seriously I'm not a member of any party. Surely this is just common sense no?
If people take on this much debt will we just end up in the same place we were during the crash?

Nothing you said could be classed as "common sense" to be fair.
You have a cavalier attitude towards capitalism and debt to acquire property.

tom1ie

ELM327 wrote: »

Nothing you said could be classed as "common sense" to be fair.
You have a cavalier attitude towards capitalism and debt to acquire property.

Ok fair enough. You know what your on about and you've presented a good solution to the housing crisis......oh no wait.

ELM327

tom1ie wrote: »

Ok fair enough. You know what your on about and you've presented a good solution to the housing crisis......oh no wait.

So you've mastered sarcasm. Well done.


Now back on topic, there is no housing crisis.
Buy a house. Rent a house. Provide for yourself, the state does not owe you a living.
If you want a house, get a job. When you have a job, earn enough to save for a deposit. When you have a deposit, buy your house.
It's how our parents, and their parents in turn operated.

Why is this only a problem for the millennials?

tom1ie

ELM327 wrote: »

So you've mastered sarcasm. Well done.


Now back on topic, there is no housing crisis.
Buy a house. Rent a house. Provide for yourself, the state does not owe you a living.
If you want a house, get a job. When you have a job, earn enough to save for a deposit. When you have a deposit, buy your house.
It's how our parents, and their parents in turn operated.

Why is this only a problem for the millennials?

Wow. Go ahead ignore the warning signs. Some people just can't be helped or even debated with.

Best of luck.

ELM327

Your posts read like LA LA LA I'M RIGHT WHY AREN'T YOU LISTENING YOU ARE WRONG LA LA
That's not a debate, it's a lefty loony parade.
We're not all Richy Boyd Barrett on here you know.


The veiled threats/harbingers of doom do no favours either. If you predict a crash it will happen, could be 20 years away but we live in a boom bust cyclical fiscal environment.

Proud Irishman 101

An idea i'v had for a while is the government had pledged
€1.9 billion for 25,000 social houses how the math works i don't know
My idea is if they used that money and set up a scheme to gave €500 to house holders mortgage accounts every month that would help 316,667 house holders
one of the criteria to receive the money is one of the house holders have to be in full time employment basic wage
if a young couple goes into a bank and has a guarantee
from the government the banks would supply the funds to build social housing taking the burden off the government
and 40 years later when the couple is ready to retire they can use the same house as collateral for their pension

AndrewJRenko

ELM327 wrote: »

So you've mastered sarcasm. Well done.


Now back on topic, there is no housing crisis.
Buy a house. Rent a house. Provide for yourself, the state does not owe you a living.
If you want a house, get a job. When you have a job, earn enough to save for a deposit. When you have a deposit, buy your house.
It's how our parents, and their parents in turn operated.

Why is this only a problem for the millennials?

How about the people in the jobs where they would need to be working for about 300 years to repay a mortgage? You know, minimum wage work like childcare, elder care, retail and hospitality? You're going to suggest that they should work harder to earn more, right? The problem is that the minimum wage role doesn't go away. As long as we've decided that looking after our children and our parents has minimal value, those roles are still going to be there - so where would you suggest those people are going to live?

tom1ie

ELM327 wrote: »

Your posts read like LA LA LA I'M RIGHT WHY AREN'T YOU LISTENING YOU ARE WRONG LA LA
That's not a debate, it's a lefty loony parade.
We're not all Richy Boyd Barrett on here you know.


The veiled threats/harbingers of doom do no favours either. If you predict a crash it will happen, could be 20 years away but we live in a boom bust cyclical fiscal environment.

Lol! Good man. I couldn't be further from the left, I've just got a healthy dose of common sense. Plus I'm reading the money doctor. I highly recommend it for the likes of you.