Increase in population renting... ticking time bomb?

zl1whqvjs75cdy

cruel_barber wrote: »

also needs to be pointed out that building standards are light years more strict today than in the golden age of council house building

standards from 2008 are well behind 2018 , this adds major cost

And about to be updated again at the end of the year.

tom1ie

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Does the fact, banks actually create the majority of our money through loans, also cause the price of houses to rise?

The price of NEW houses rise due to the builder putting a cost on that house and working out his profit margins after paying costs. He’ll get more profit if there’s more demand. These are cost I’ve previously mentioned like materials v.a.t land etc.

The price of second hand houses is determined by supply and demand. If there’s less supply in the new and secondhand you get what we have now.

Banks provide a service for people to afford to buy houses. A mortgage. To generate a profit for the banks they apply interest rates on the mortgage. This enables them to loan out the interest they accumulate to builders and developers who sell their houses at a profit, which causes mortgage seekers to take out a larger mortgage and thus pay more profit to the bank, who can give the builder and developer more money.
The big debt wheel just keeps turning.

Franz Von Peppercorn

DubCount wrote: »

Question: What is an affordable home? By the time we pay the going rate for materials, labour, planning and meeting building regulations, the cost of a home (with or without profit) is just not what people think is affordable. If experienced developers cant make the maths work, I cant see how our bureaucratic Councils can. If we want real affordable housing, we need to look at standards, minimum size requirements etc. Wishing it could be more affordable wont help.

Question: What level of social housing are we prepared to pay for? What level of taxes are we prepared to pay and what kind of housing do we provide to those that dont (cant or wont) contribute. Is it fair that one person works overtime/2 jobs and cuts out all social life to pay for a home, should be living next door to someone who has the same house provided free from the state. I would like to live in a large house with a sea view in Killiney - that is something my income does not allow - should the government provide that to me.

The thing is social housing has to be separate from private housing or else private purchasers do get annoyed.

As far as I know councils used to take out loans based on their own revenue projections, so the cost to the taxpayer was limited. The payments were the rent.

Franz Von Peppercorn

cruel_barber wrote: »

also needs to be pointed out that building standards are light years more strict today than in the golden age of council house building

standards from 2008 are well behind 2018 , this adds major cost

I mean people pay lots of money for houses built pre 2008. Obviously we probably need to have more efficient heating etc but the costs shouldn’t be as high as they are.

Councils are probably sitting in sites they could use, and they don’t have to make margins either. And they can buy in bulk - it should be cheaper.

Wanderer78

tom1ie wrote:

Banks provide a service for people to afford to buy houses. A mortgage. To generate a profit for the banks they apply interest rates on the mortgage. This enables them to loan out the interest they accumulate to builders and developers who sell their houses at a profit, which causes mortgage seekers to take out a larger mortgage and thus pay more profit to the bank, who can give the builder and developer more money. The big debt wheel just keeps turning.

It's important to realise, banks do not loan out deposits, but merely create the money for loans by a method known as 'double-entry bookkeeping', I.e. we have given banks too much freedom to create money, this process should be a public utility, operated under democratic rule and control, rather than our current method which is largely for pure profit making reasons.

Claw Hammer

Wanderer78 wrote: »

It's important to realise, banks do not loan out deposits, but merely create the money for loans by a method known as 'double-entry bookkeeping', I.e. we have given banks too much freedom to create money, this process should be a public utility, operated under democratic rule and control, rather than our current method which is largely for pure profit making reasons.

The local authorities give mortgages. They are no cheaper than the banks, in fact in a lot of cases they're more expensive. The trouble with the state getting involved in anything is that it has to employ civil servants, who unionise their salaries have to be paid for. The result is inevitably higher costs. Compare the old Aer Lingus with Ryanair.

The Student

Wanderer78 wrote: »

It's important to realise, banks do not loan out deposits, but merely create the money for loans by a method known as 'double-entry bookkeeping', I.e. we have given banks too much freedom to create money, this process should be a public utility, operated under democratic rule and control, rather than our current method which is largely for pure profit making reasons.

Banks loan out money based on a multiple of the deposits they have. "Double entry bookkeeping" is the principle for every debit in a set of accounts there is a corresponding credit. The principle behind this is that at any given point the level of withdrawals by depositors will be below the 10% of the funds on deposit and hence the bank will not have liquidity issues.

Please don't use incorrect terminology adding to confusion amongst people.

Whether you like it or not we need banks. The State is not capable of managing finances as it has a social responsibility as well as an economic one.

Franz Von Peppercorn

The Student wrote: »

Banks loan out money based on a multiple of the deposits they have. "Double entry bookkeeping" is the principle for every debit in a set of accounts there is a corresponding credit. The principle behind this is that at any given point the level of withdrawals by depositors will be below the 10% of the funds on deposit and hence the bank will not have liquidity issues.

Please don't use incorrect terminology adding to confusion amongst people.

Whether you like it or not we need banks. The State is not capable of managing finances as it has a social responsibility as well as an economic one.

He’s right that banks create money when they issue loans. The reserves the banks have (money which isn’t owed to anybody) does have to be 10% of the loan book at the end of some accounting period but banks can issue loans at lower reserves with the intention of getting those reserves in line.

In practice this isn’t much of a restriction which is why we have laws to prohibit the amount of loans that can be issued, relative to income.

Wanderer78

The Student wrote:

Please don't use incorrect terminology adding to confusion amongst people.

What terminology is incorrect?

The Student wrote:

Whether you like it or not we need banks. The State is not capable of managing finances as it has a social responsibility as well as an economic one.

Of course we need banks, but should that process be of a more democratic nature than our current more plutocratic one, maybe we should include a public banking system to balance this money creation system?

The Student

Wanderer78 wrote: »

What terminology is incorrect?



Of course we need banks, but should that process be of a more democratic nature than our current more plutocratic one, maybe we should include a public banking system to balance this money creation system?

Double entry bookkeeping is an accounting term and not a banking one.

GingerLily

Wanderer78 wrote: »

It's important to realise, banks do not loan out deposits, but merely create the money for loans by a method known as 'double-entry bookkeeping', I.e. we have given banks too much freedom to create money, this process should be a public utility, operated under democratic rule and control, rather than our current method which is largely for pure profit making reasons.

Can you explain your point please - how does

"The double entry system of accounting or bookkeeping means that every business transaction will involve two accounts (or more). For example, when a company borrows money from its bank, the company's Cash account will increase and its liability account Loans Payable will increase."

Equal too much freedom?

GingerLily

Wanderer78 wrote: »

What terminology is incorrect?



Of course we need banks, but should that process be of a more democratic nature than our current more plutocratic one, maybe we should include a public banking system to balance this money creation system?

If you think banks are corrupt, state run banks would be multiples worse

handlemaster

How about people take control of their own destiny. Work save and invest. Take it the state pension will not be enought to live off. In saying that some people move within Europe to cheaper locations and live very happly on the pension.

Wanderer78

The Student wrote:

Double entry bookkeeping is an accounting term and not a banking one.

GingerLily wrote:

Can you explain your point please - how does

Appolgies but I'm busy now folks, I'd recommend the work of people such as Steve keen and Ellen brown in explaining how our modern monetary system works, and possibly Google two recently published papers from the bank of England and the Bundesbank explaining in detail of its workings, I and others have been posting these papers on boards for some time now, I can post these again if need be. Thank you

GingerLily

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Appolgies but I'm busy now folks, I'd recommend the work of people such as Steve keen and Ellen brown in explaining how our modern monetary system works, and possibly Google two recently published papers from the bank of England and the Bundesbank explaining in detail of its workings, I and others have been posting these papers on boards for some time now, I can post these again if need be. Thank you

I am comfortable in my knowledge of how they work, I am just confused by the odd incorrect things you say on this thread

tom1ie

GingerLily wrote: »

If you think banks are corrupt, state run banks would be multiples worse

A state run bank would be a nightmare.
Lower the cost of the house you lower the mortgage. Lower the mortgage you lower personal debt.

Flip side is, lower the mortgage, the bank and it’s shareholders don’t make as much money. (Now who are the big shareholders in Irish banks?......)
Lower the cost of a house by cutting the profit margin of the builder/developer, the builder looses out.

Cupatae

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Not everyone needs one but this system has worked for decades. Council gets paid back & they invest the money in more property.

What exactly do you have against it? Remembering that we pay HAP & the likes anyway. We spent millions per month putting people in emergency accommodation

Nothing against gettin a free house, or next to free, i wouldnt mind one myself!

Graces7

Staplor wrote: »

Just to state, I disagree with the idea, I like living in a community of different aged people, it's good for everyone.

Me too! I got out of "Dodge" mighty fast when hints were dropped re "sheltered accommodation"! As far away as I could!

The old expression, "God's waiting room" echoes in my mind. HORRORS.. Yet some like it which is fine.

The village I mentioned? They adapted ,and all the old ones stayed in their homes with the help they needed and a good meals on wheels service . The new houses are loved by families and built a lovely playground .

Graces7

Cupatae wrote: »

Nothing against gettin a free house, or next to free, i wouldnt mind one myself!

Wish folk would stop with the "free house " thing. IF they applied the going rent, they would have to raise eg pensions and welfare allowances. So yes, "free" and "free" many other things if that it your way of thinking,

seamus

I think retirement villages are the way to go. Let's not go with the hysterical "ghetto" concept; these are for all intents and purposes, villages of self-contained units that allow retirees the independence and security of a front door they can close and a home of their own, but without the social and economic isolation that can come when you're in your 70s and still living in a 5-bed house.
The entire complex is built with accessibility in mind, and all of the basic services are within it too - shops, medical centre, community hall, etc. I've heard nothing but praise for the model tbh when it's done the right way.

Rattling around your family home when you can't climb the stairs any more and have to rely on family and neighbours to come and clean the house and tend the garden, is not "dignity" for many people. Likewise, moving in with your adult children and their children is for many people just one step below a nursing home, waiting to die.

There are a few of these villages around, they're not just jammed away into the midlands or cheap parts of the country.

We should be planning to put these everywhere. Give priority of application to individuals who live close by or have family close by. Economically the state would likely save massive amounts of money by having those most at risk from injury and health issues concentrated into a location where they can receive timely intervention from trained individuals.

Of course it shouldn't be obligatory. But it should be an option. If given the choice between living on a street of people 40 years younger than you and being stuck in the house waiting for charity to come knocking, or being able to move into a small village packed with people around their age, I think a large proportion of retirees would choose the latter.

Graces7

seamus wrote: »

I think retirement villages are the way to go. Let's not go with the hysterical "ghetto" concept; these are for all intents and purposes, villages of self-contained units that allow retirees the independence and security of a front door they can close and a home of their own, but without the social and economic isolation that can come when you're in your 70s and still living in a 5-bed house.
The entire complex is built with accessibility in mind, and all of the basic services are within it too - shops, medical centre, community hall, etc. I've heard nothing but praise for the model tbh when it's done the right way.
Rattling around your family home when you can't climb the stairs any more and have to rely on family and neighbours to come and clean the house and tend the garden, is not "dignity" for many people. Likewise, moving in with your adult children and their children is for many people just one step below a
nursing home, waiting to die.

There are a few of these villages around, they're not just jammed away into the midlands or cheap parts of the country.

We should be planning to put these everywhere. Give priority of application to individuals who live close by or have family close by. Economically the state would likely save massive amounts of money by having those most at risk from injury and health issues concentrated into a location where they can receive timely intervention from trained individuals.

Of course it shouldn't be obligatory. But it should be an option. If given the choice between living on a street of people 40 years younger than you and being stuck in the house waiting for charity to come knocking, or being able to move into a small village packed with people around their age, I think a large proportion of retirees would choose the latter.

''
Disagree
You are seeing this as an "outsider" . Wish we could take a vote among older folk as my experience of old folk says the opposite. What you are describing IS per se a ghetto. Separation from community.. isolation from family. Surrounded by the same age as you are? Depression would set in very fast

"waiting for charity to come knocking"? What do you mean please? In any setting, younger folk SHOULD be helping older folk , as older folk once helped them. That is not charity or dependence but healthy community.

almost missed the word "economically" :rolleyes:

Costs far less in reality to help informally at home. And is healthier.

seamus

Graces7 wrote: »

''
Disagree
You are seeing this as an "outsider" . Wish we could take a vote among older folk as my experience of old folk says the opposite. What you are describing IS per se a ghetto. Separation from community.. isolation from family.

Well, for a start it would be a choice. If you don't want to live in one, don't. But the option should be there. And as I mention, those who live in the local area or have family locally would get first dibs. So social or family isolation is not an issue.

"waiting for charity to come knocking"? What do you mean please? In any setting, younger folk SHOULD be helping older folk , as older folk once helped them. That is not charity or dependence but healthy community.

Depends on your perspective. Many older people would consider this charity; they'd feel ashamed that they need to rely on their neighbours to help them out.

Costs far less in reality to help informally at home. And is healthier.

The constant discussion about social isolation for older people, particularly in rural areas, would indicate the exact opposite.

You're looking at it from your perspective and assuming that it must be the same for everyone. It's not.

If you don't like the idea of a retirement village, that's your perogative. But don't assume that living in the mountains on your own, working the fields and depending on the assistance of the local community is the best thing for everyone. Because it's not.

Graces7

seamus wrote: »

Well, for a start it would be a choice. If you don't want to live in one, don't. But the option should be there. And as I mention, those who live in the local area or have family locally would get first dibs. So social or family isolation is not an issue.

Depends on your perspective. Many older people would consider this charity; they'd feel ashamed that they need to rely on their neighbours to help them out.
The constant discussion about social isolation for older people, particularly in rural areas, would indicate the exact opposite.

You're looking at it from your perspective and assuming that it must be the same for everyone. It's not.

If you don't like the idea of a retirement village, that's your perogative. But don't assume that living in the mountains on your own, working the fields and depending on the assistance of the local community is the best thing for everyone. Because it's not.[/QUOTE]

A skewed idea of my life here.. lol.. I am simply adding a dimension? From an aged viewpoint? I am not condemning, just adding a different dimension, and as an near octagenarian this IS a problem well known to me . A retirement facility is per se isolating . A huge thing to ask of an old person.

I am all but housebound and all but bedbound at times and ask almost nothing
here of anyone. And I give to the local community of my skills in many ways..

You are seeing old folk as needing help? Many of us do not. And vital that we keep our independence
as fully as possible But interacting with local community is another matter altogether and a thing we are losing. As a country/ We old ones have so much to give.
.
The shortcomings you describe are our failure as family and community. Cannot be solved as easily as you suggest .

That any old one feels isolated is OUR fault, and it will not be solved by creating places where they will have to form new relationships etc. The loneliest places on earth are instititions of any kind . Dropping in on old neighbours? Please do. That any old person is isolated is a shame. We can help. Each other.

And one very real issue neglected here is the huge amount of specialist care that will be needed for severe Alzheimers.

THAT is going to be the real problem soon.

seamus

Graces7 wrote: »

A retirement facility is per se isolating. A huge thing to ask of an old person.

Again, it would be optional. Not an "ask". And I find it very hard to see how a village filled with people around your age and therefore on your level, is "isolating".

You are seeing old folk as needing help? Many of us do not.

And many do.

And vital that we keep our independence

Which is in fact, exactly what a retirement village does - provide the ability for one to maintain their independence as long as humanly possible, but with minimum risk and minimum isolation.

The shortcomings you describe are our failure as family and community. Cannot be solved as easily as you suggest .

That any old one feels isolated is OUR fault, and it will not be solved by creating places where they will have to form new relationships etc. The loneliest places on earth are instititions of any kind . Dropping in on old neighbours? Please do. That any old person is isolated is a shame. We can help. Each other.

Retirement villages are not "institutions", I think that's what you're missing.

And talking about communities pulling together is all well and good, but that won't help either. Relying on people to help eachother doesn't work anywhere in the world. Everyone has their own thing to do, people have their own families, their own priorities, their own needs to tend to. Saying, "C'mon guys, if we all just pull together we'll get this done", doesn't work for ongoing support. That's charity, and while it's a noble sentiment and worthwhile work for those who engage in it, it is not a realistic solution on an ongoing basis.

The state needs to fill in the gaps that community can't.

professore

Lamar Icy Gill wrote: »

Not neccessarily, Branson who recently invested in it, reckons it's 1/3rd cheaper than H-S rail (no moving parts, no rials, 2m wide tube, no friction). Also at least 300% faster than HS2 (which will cost the UK £26bn+ for 2026 completion).

Once built (essentially just 2m wide sealed tubes).



There is no reason a ticket should cost more than any other alternative with near zero and autonomous maintence costs.

Just 6 lines with x19 hubs means you have 'nineteen near equal choices' of where to live, commute from, and importantly build housing, instead of just 1.

Hahahaha Donegal ignored again !

GingerLily

I used to work in a retirement home with flats attached. It was in a very central location - it honestly felt like a great idea, they had access to the nurse on call of required and they had access to meals If they wanted.

It seems like a sensible OPTION to me, definitely something that should be more widely available IMO

professore

seamus wrote: »

Of course it shouldn't be obligatory. But it should be an option. If given the choice between living on a street of people 40 years younger than you and being stuck in the house waiting for charity to come knocking, or being able to move into a small village packed with people around their age, I think a large proportion of retirees would choose the latter.

You would be surprised. My 82 year old mum wouldn't be seen dead in one, or moving in with me or my brother. She prefers living on her own in a house big enough for a family in the middle of nowhere. Now she is still active and of sound mind and able to do everything herself, even though she suffers from arthritis.

I worry for her to be honest. Having said that the neighbours are good, and she would probably go downhill rapidly if she had to move from her house. Lots of people like her in rural Ireland.

Wanderer78

professore wrote:

You would be surprised. My 82 year old mum wouldn't be seen dead in one, or moving in with me or my brother. She prefers living on her own in a house big enough for a family in the middle of nowhere. Now she is still active and of sound mind and able to do everything herself, even though she suffers from arthritis.

I will agree, herding old people together wouldn't work for all, but probably should be considered, it's upsetting to hear stories of loneliness and unhappiness of elderly people

Graces7

seamus wrote: »

Again, it would be optional. Not an "ask". And I find it very hard to see how a village filled with people around your age and therefore on your level, is "isolating".
And many do.
Which is in fact, exactly what a retirement village does - provide the ability for one to maintain their independence as long as humanly possible, but with minimum risk and minimum isolation.
Retirement villages are not "institutions", I think that's what you're missing.

And talking about communities pulling together is all well and good, but that won't help either. Relying on people to help eachother doesn't work anywhere in the world. Everyone has their own thing to do, people have their own families, their own priorities, their own needs to tend to. Saying, "C'mon guys, if we all just pull together we'll get this done", doesn't work for ongoing support. That's charity, and while it's a noble sentiment and worthwhile work for those who engage in it, it is not a realistic solution on an ongoing basis.

The state needs to fill in the gaps that community can't.

NOT.. Basic humanity...

Graces7

professore wrote: »

You would be surprised. My 82 year old mum wouldn't be seen dead in one, or moving in with me or my brother. She prefers living on her own in a house big enough for a family in the middle of nowhere. Now she is still active and of sound mind and able to do everything herself, even though she suffers from arthritis.

I worry for her to be honest. Having said that the neighbours are good, and she would probably go downhill rapidly if she had to move from her house. Lots of people like her in rural Ireland.

A great lady who knows her mind.