Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]
Comments
-
Johnny Dogs wrote: »Guess Geuze cleared it up.
Eh no, he didn't. He only pointed out that while local authorities may be making a tiny profit, which explains their interest in it, the State would be at a huge loss overall.0 -
Eh no, he didn't. He only pointed out that while local authorities may be making a tiny profit, which explains their interest in it, the State would be at a huge loss overall.
The argument is between:
(1) State pay the rent in the private rental market, e.g. HAP, RAS, etc.
(2) State build houses on its own land
This involves a CBA, NPVs, etc.0 -
The argument is between:
(1) State pay the rent in the private rental market, e.g. HAP, RAS, etc.
(2) State build houses on its own land
This involves a CBA, NPVs, etc.
Correct, and I have no issue with that.
There is also the new FF proposal which may offer value for money as well.
The problems of high maintenance, low rent, poor rent collection and extended vacancies mean that building social housing is not the big solution others claim it to be.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »You seem very mixed up.
The Homeless and Housing crises need different approaches.
I'm been talking on the housing crisis.
I think buying off the market for social housing should only be an emergency stop gap measure.
Yes, we are currently in a crisis, however more effort seems to be going to utilising the private market policy wise. This does not work. Following these tactics will continue to make the crisis worse. I don't see any reasons it wouldn't. This is all about making renting and buying viable for tax payers caught in the current crisis. It's about a better deal for the tax payer.
Where homelessness crosses paths with the housing crisis requires emergency accommodation. The key word is 'emergency' now it's a crutch flawed housing policy depends upon. This is needed. I do not think policy that creates an ever increasing reliance on it is the way to get free of the need.
Do you think investing in the private industry may turn around at some point? If not do you have any ideas yourself or are things just the way things are, sure what can you do?
I'm not mixed up at all.
You basically are trying to solve a crisis on the back of the taxpayer to save taxpayers money!
The market price for housing is as it is, rents are as high as they are because of lack of years of private builds and investment.
This is not a present govt made issue, this is a consequence of our past financial trouble and virtually unregulated lending policies.
Unfortunately there is no avenue of cheap housing anymore, costs are high, ask anyone associated with building.
Direct housing builds are not the answer, unless you nationalise it all.0 -
https://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/colm-mccarthy/why-councils-are-unable-to-tackle-housing-37320492.html
"Putting local councillors and planning officials in the driving seat has failed and the Government's new plan is hostage to the same people. If the goal is the resolution of the housing crisis, it is time to accept that local councils are hopelessly conflicted and to curtail their powers."
I could not agree more, the local councils carry the responsibility for the housing crisis.0 -
Advertisement
-
The argument is between:
(1) State pay the rent in the private rental market, e.g. HAP, RAS, etc.
(2) State build houses on its own land
This involves a CBA, NPVs, etc.
At a simple look:
HAP, RAS, etc add to demand in the private rental sector, so these add to rental price inflation
Building social housing adds to supply in the overall no. of houses
So although building means huge capex, it has the indirect effects of helping to slow rental inflation.0 -
At a simple look:
HAP, RAS, etc add to demand in the private rental sector, so these add to rental price inflation
Building social housing adds to supply in the overall no. of houses
So although building means huge capex, it has the indirect effects of helping to slow rental inflation.
Agreed in principle.
But as a state, with limited borrowing potential, to build the number of houses needed to significantly address the problem would significantly reduce the opex needed for other services.
There has to be a balance somewhere I suppose, but reality is that state builds are unlikely to come close to changing prices.
Stricter regulation and actually decreasing house size and making more density regulatory in certain areas, like within the greater Dublin region for instance on private developments, could have a much more positive affect.0 -
Agreed - there isn't one solution to this. It's multi-pronged and requires taxation/regulation changes as well as state building and purchasing of property.Agreed in principle.
But as a state, with limited borrowing potential, to build the number of houses needed to significantly address the problem would significantly reduce the opex needed for other services.
There has to be a balance somewhere I suppose, but reality is that state builds are unlikely to come close to changing prices.
Stricter regulation and actually decreasing house size and making more density regulatory in certain areas, like within the greater Dublin region for instance on private developments, could have a much more positive affect.
Some posters on here (not suggesting Geuze btw) are yearning for some communist ideal state where the state provides all houses and there is no private market - this isn't realistic so some of us have to actually consider what will happen to the market in real life.0 -
Stricter regulation and actually decreasing house size and making more density regulatory in certain areas, like within the greater Dublin region for instance on private developments, could have a much more positive affect.
That would have the biggest effect. The number of units in developments opposed by Dublin City Council far exceeds their ability to actually build units.0 -
I'm not mixed up at all.
You basically are trying to solve a crisis on the back of the taxpayer to save taxpayers money!
The market price for housing is as it is, rents are as high as they are because of lack of years of private builds and investment.
This is not a present govt made issue, this is a consequence of our past financial trouble and virtually unregulated lending policies.
Unfortunately there is no avenue of cheap housing anymore, costs are high, ask anyone associated with building.
Direct housing builds are not the answer, unless you nationalise it all.
Yes I am.
The tax payer can become an investor in property and sell and rent to those fellow tax payers in need and the poor. Monies will be recouped over time. Even if we are breaking even, we'll be saving on hotel and landlord billing. It is a far better policy than buying or renting privately to house the very same people.
The state/LA's could set their own profit margin by selling and renting at reasonable rates based on income. I've gone over this a million times.
If you want to come back at me about arrears, those very same troublesome tenants will be getting put up in private rentals or housing bought off market or even hotels.
Why would private developers lower sale price when the state and LA's are buying off them and speculators, companies and individuals know they have a customer base in tenants subsidised by the state/LA's?
The only way I could see prices lowering is if the customer base dried up.
However the more we rely on HAP and the private market the more we heat up the market and the more we become reliant on HAP and squeeze the working tax payer into reliance on state/LA aid to find a roof.
The state and LA's are feeding the problem.
That's a cop out and an irrelevance. 'It was like that when I got here' won't wash 7 or 8 years in while following and creating policy that has seen the problem get worse year on year and continue as is. 'No quick fix' 'these things take time' granted, we are going in the wrong direction though.
The only way government, local and national can fix the problem using their current logic is to spend a hell of a lot more and increasingly so year on year, on private rentals and buying off a housing market with no need to lower pricing many can't afford.
The state building it's own on it's own land is as cheap as you can get. Reports that DCC have been in talks with property companies about organising housing supply for HAP tenants is gross and indefensible.
Yes we are in crisis, but we are making it worse with such idiocy.
You seem to be suggesting we continue as is, but more so and in higher density?
High density is a good idea from a planning perspective. They'll charge what they like because the tax payer will subsidise any customers/tenants shortfall. More will not necessarily lead to lower pricing.0 -
Advertisement
-
Matt Barrett wrote: »Yes I am.
The tax payer can become an investor in property and sell and rent to those fellow tax payers in need and the poor. Monies will be recouped over time.
As has been explained already to you, given the high maintenance costs, the low rents charged, the poor rate of collection, the length of time between rentals, as well as the need to pay interest on the borrowings, it simply isn't true that money will be recouped over time.
A proper cost/benefit analysis is needed to see whether the figures hold up. Several independent reports, including the audit report I linked to earlier, have pointed out the issues.
It may well be that the FF proposal of shared ownership for couples earning between 30k and 90k may well be a better solution for the following reasons:
(1) The State has no responsibility for maintenance or finding tenants
(2) The State only has to pay a % of the cost of the house rather than the full cost plus subsidisation which is required in your scheme.
(3) If a house is valued at 300k with building costs of 200k, the State is better off investing 150k in shared ownership than in building its own houses
(4) The proposal is aimed at productive members of society who can't afford their own houses
However, this proposal will also need a serious cost/benefit analysis.Matt Barrett wrote: »
Even if we are breaking even, we'll be saving on hotel and landlord billing. It is a far better policy than buying or renting privately to house the very same people.
The state/LA's could set their own profit margin by selling and renting at reasonable rates based on income. I've gone over this a million times.
If you want to come back at me about arrears, those very same troublesome tenants will be getting put up in private rentals or housing bought off market or even hotels.
Why would private developers lower sale price when the state and LA's are buying off them and speculators, companies and individuals know they have a customer base in tenants subsidised by the state/LA's?
The only way I could see prices lowering is if the customer base dried up.
However the more we rely on HAP and the private market the more we heat up the market and the more we become reliant on HAP and squeeze the working tax payer into reliance on state/LA aid to find a roof.
The state and LA's are feeding the problem.
That's a cop out and an irrelevance. 'It was like that when I got here' won't wash 7 or 8 years in while following and creating policy that has seen the problem get worse year on year and continue as is. 'No quick fix' 'these things take time' granted, we are going in the wrong direction though.
The only way government, local and national can fix the problem using their current logic is to spend a hell of a lot more and increasingly so year on year, on private rentals and buying off a housing market with no need to lower pricing many can't afford.
The state building it's own on it's own land is as cheap as you can get. Reports that DCC have been in talks with property companies about organising housing supply for HAP tenants is gross and indefensible.
Yes we are in crisis, but we are making it worse with such idiocy.
You seem to be suggesting we continue as is, but more so and in higher density?
High density is a good idea from a planning perspective. They'll charge what they like because the tax payer will subsidise any customers/tenants shortfall. More will not necessarily lead to lower pricing.
The rest of your post is waffle built on a false premise.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19466
Agreed in principle.
But as a state, with limited borrowing potential, to build the number of houses needed to significantly address the problem would significantly reduce the opex needed for other services.
There has to be a balance somewhere I suppose, but reality is that state builds are unlikely to come close to changing prices.
Stricter regulation and actually decreasing house size and making more density regulatory in certain areas, like within the greater Dublin region for instance on private developments, could have a much more positive affect.
It costs about €50 k for a site judging by recent sales, both city and suburban.
It costs about €200 k to build a house/apartment (net).
Add to this the margin developers get (16.5%) as reported recently by one of the large developers, then we have the cost of a house at €300 k. Now add the VAT @ 13.5% and we get €340 k.
Now say we build 30% social housing, 30% affordable housing (@ €300K) and the rest at market rate, which say is €425 k. Now for 100 houses, we get €25.5 m for market rate houses, €9 for affordable plus 30 social houses. So we have income of €34.5 million, VAT of €4.6 million, and a direct cost of €25 million. So we have 30 social houses for a net cost of minus €4.9 million.
Some trick. Just by avoiding the developers margin, and building a high proportion of social and affordable houses, but selling the balance at market rate. We avoided putting public money into private pockets.
Now the figures quoted above are based on figures bandied about in the press in recent times, and are likely to be not far out. The mode of operation would be DCC or some Gov agency tenders for builders to build a planned development for a fixed price with a bonus if completed on time. Planning and design would be up to Gov agency or DCC.
Buying from the market is just daft, pushing up prices, and reducing supply. Renting from private landlords is also daft as it creates no new residential space but pushes up rents. Putting people in hotels is not just daft, it is insane.0 -
don't know why there is such a push to build lots of social and affordable housing, the taxpayer shouldn't have to fork out houses for next to nothing for wasters (I know there are some worthy cases)
Myself and my partner employ between 35-45 people and the reason for the range of 35-45 is because of people we take on in recent times don't want to work and there priorities are to get on housing list and get a 3 bed house and work maybe 10 hours per week while spending most of this time hiding from the boss and waiting at the chance to jump out the gap at a minute to six o clock !0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19466
severeoversteer wrote: »don't know why there is such a push to build lots of social and affordable housing, the taxpayer shouldn't have to fork out houses for next to nothing for wasters (I know there are some worthy cases)
Myself and my partner employ between 35-45 people and the reason for the range of 35-45 is because of people we take on in recent times don't want to work and there priorities are to get on housing list and get a 3 bed house and work maybe 10 hours per week while spending most of this time hiding from the boss and waiting at the chance to jump out the gap at a minute to six o clock !
If there are too many social houses, they can be sold at full market price, or at a price set for affordable houses. Currently, there is a massive shortage of social houses because there have been few built in the last twenty years, and next to none in the last decade.0 -
...and we totally screw up the market is the part you left out. Government imposed property crash is the stuff of left wing dreams but actual nightmares.Sam Russell wrote: »It costs about €50 k for a site judging by recent sales, both city and suburban.
It costs about €200 k to build a house/apartment (net).
Add to this the margin developers get (16.5%) as reported recently by one of the large developers, then we have the cost of a house at €300 k. Now add the VAT @ 13.5% and we get €340 k.
Now say we build 30% social housing, 30% affordable housing (@ €300K) and the rest at market rate, which say is €425 k. Now for 100 houses, we get €25.5 m for market rate houses, €9 for affordable plus 30 social houses. So we have income of €34.5 million, VAT of €4.6 million, and a direct cost of €25 million. So we have 30 social houses for a net cost of minus €4.9 million.
Some trick. Just by avoiding the developers margin, and building a high proportion of social and affordable houses, but selling the balance at market rate. We avoided putting public money into private pockets.
Now the figures quoted above are based on figures bandied about in the press in recent times, and are likely to be not far out. The mode of operation would be DCC or some Gov agency tenders for builders to build a planned development for a fixed price with a bonus if completed on time. Planning and design would be up to Gov agency or DCC.
Buying from the market is just daft, pushing up prices, and reducing supply. Renting from private landlords is also daft as it creates no new residential space but pushes up rents. Putting people in hotels is not just daft, it is insane.0 -
Sorry Sam - you know from Infrastructure that I have almost infinite time for your opinions, but I just can't buy this one on an economic scale. Where do you draw the line on this; what's the monetary scale for those buying "affordable"; what do we do for people that purchased within that scale on the proper market; what do we do for those in negative equity due to this decision... my list of questions goes on, but let's start here.Sam Russell wrote: »If there are too many social houses, they can be sold at full market price, or at a price set for affordable houses. Currently, there is a massive shortage of social houses because there have been few built in the last twenty years, and next to none in the last decade.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »It costs about €50 k for a site judging by recent sales, both city and suburban.
It costs about €200 k to build a house/apartment (net).
Add to this the margin developers get (16.5%) as reported recently by one of the large developers, then we have the cost of a house at €300 k. Now add the VAT @ 13.5% and we get €340 k.
Now say we build 30% social housing, 30% affordable housing (@ €300K) and the rest at market rate, which say is €425 k. Now for 100 houses, we get €25.5 m for market rate houses, €9 for affordable plus 30 social houses. So we have income of €34.5 million, VAT of €4.6 million, and a direct cost of €25 million. So we have 30 social houses for a net cost of minus €4.9 million.
Some trick. Just by avoiding the developers margin, and building a high proportion of social and affordable houses, but selling the balance at market rate. We avoided putting public money into private pockets.
Now the figures quoted above are based on figures bandied about in the press in recent times, and are likely to be not far out. The mode of operation would be DCC or some Gov agency tenders for builders to build a planned development for a fixed price with a bonus if completed on time. Planning and design would be up to Gov agency or DCC.
Buying from the market is just daft, pushing up prices, and reducing supply. Renting from private landlords is also daft as it creates no new residential space but pushes up rents. Putting people in hotels is not just daft, it is insane.
Nice kick in the stones for working tax payers: the privilege of handing over 50% of what they earn over 34k plus the privilege of borrowing over 30+ years to fund people paying a pittance in rent living beside them.
Is your proposal better than what we have now? Maybe, but that isn't what we should be using as the benchmark.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19466
FreudianSlippers wrote: »Sorry Sam - you know from Infrastructure that I have almost infinite time for your opinions, but I just can't buy this one on an economic scale. Where do you draw the line on this; what's the monetary scale for those buying "affordable"; what do we do for people that purchased within that scale on the proper market; what do we do for those in negative equity due to this decision... my list of questions goes on, but let's start here.
I am not the decider on the scale of who qualifies for 'Social' or 'affordable' housing. That is a political decision. In my mind, social is rented out at market rates less a subsidy based on the income of the renter - based at a percentage of that income. Also 'affordable' is also dependant on income, and is given to people who would qualify for 'social' but want to buy - but as with all such sales would be subject to a claw-back if sold within a decade. This is not to be a give away.Nice kick in the stones for working tax payers: the privilege of handing over 50% of what they earn over 34k plus the privilege of borrowing over 30+ years to fund people paying a pittance in rent living beside them.
Is your proposal better than what we have now? Maybe, but that isn't what we should be using as the benchmark.
Our tax rates start to ramp up at too low an income, but then do not go up at the very high rates. Those just over the current limits are hit at all sides.
However, that is a different subject. We have a huge national debt due to the bank bail-out that should have been handled differently, but we are where we are.
We need, as well as houses, transport infrastructure, more and better spending on health, better management of the Gardai, etc, etc, etc. Most of all, we need more Gov money to spend on these things.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »If there are too many social houses, they can be sold at full market price, or at a price set for affordable houses. Currently, there is a massive shortage of social houses because there have been few built in the last twenty years, and next to none in the last decade.
lets say the government builds more social houses and then starts dumping them on the private market, who in there right mind would buy a house over 200k beside others that have been ''gifted'' a house.
having developed housing estates before, buyers would look to be shown where the part 5 houses are and make sure they were well away from that area of the estate !
a lot of developers bought out the part 5 clause and added the cost onto the houses so dear and all as the house was, you wouldn't be beside a council house in that estate.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »It costs about €50 k for a site judging by recent sales, both city and suburban.
It costs about €200 k to build a house/apartment (net).
Add to this the margin developers get (16.5%) as reported recently by one of the large developers, then we have the cost of a house at €300 k. Now add the VAT @ 13.5% and we get €340 k.
Now say we build 30% social housing, 30% affordable housing (@ €300K) and the rest at market rate, which say is €425 k. Now for 100 houses, we get €25.5 m for market rate houses, €9 for affordable plus 30 social houses. So we have income of €34.5 million, VAT of €4.6 million, and a direct cost of €25 million. So we have 30 social houses for a net cost of minus €4.9 million.
Some trick. Just by avoiding the developers margin, and building a high proportion of social and affordable houses, but selling the balance at market rate. We avoided putting public money into private pockets.
Now the figures quoted above are based on figures bandied about in the press in recent times, and are likely to be not far out. The mode of operation would be DCC or some Gov agency tenders for builders to build a planned development for a fixed price with a bonus if completed on time. Planning and design would be up to Gov agency or DCC.
Buying from the market is just daft, pushing up prices, and reducing supply. Renting from private landlords is also daft as it creates no new residential space but pushes up rents. Putting people in hotels is not just daft, it is insane.
Huge caveat to your proposal is that you assume that the State can build houses as efficiently as a developer.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sam Russell wrote: »It costs about €50 k for a site judging by recent sales, both city and suburban.
It costs about €200 k to build a house/apartment (net).
Add to this the margin developers get (16.5%) as reported recently by one of the large developers, then we have the cost of a house at €300 k. Now add the VAT @ 13.5% and we get €340 k.
Now say we build 30% social housing, 30% affordable housing (@ €300K) and the rest at market rate, which say is €425 k. Now for 100 houses, we get €25.5 m for market rate houses, €9 for affordable plus 30 social houses. So we have income of €34.5 million, VAT of €4.6 million, and a direct cost of €25 million. So we have 30 social houses for a net cost of minus €4.9 million.
Some trick. Just by avoiding the developers margin, and building a high proportion of social and affordable houses, but selling the balance at market rate. We avoided putting public money into private pockets.
Now the figures quoted above are based on figures bandied about in the press in recent times, and are likely to be not far out. The mode of operation would be DCC or some Gov agency tenders for builders to build a planned development for a fixed price with a bonus if completed on time. Planning and design would be up to Gov agency or DCC.
Buying from the market is just daft, pushing up prices, and reducing supply. Renting from private landlords is also daft as it creates no new residential space but pushes up rents. Putting people in hotels is not just daft, it is insane.
100 houses would be nothing like what's needed, nor 1000.
The scale needed would be colossal, and again I ask, where is the type of funding needed going to come from?0 -
100 houses would be nothing like what's needed, nor 1000.
The scale needed would be colossal, and again I ask, where is the type of funding needed going to come from?
Some of it could come from the much revered National Development Plan.
120 Billion or so earmarked for that isn't there.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19466
100 houses would be nothing like what's needed, nor 1000.
The scale needed would be colossal, and again I ask, where is the type of funding needed going to come from?
Well, study the figures. All houses sold are funded privately by their purchasers through mortgages through the banks. It would not be on the Gov balance sheet.
I used 100 houses, but it could be 10,000.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »It costs about €50 k for a site judging by recent sales, both city and suburban.
It costs about €200 k to build a house/apartment (net).
Add to this the margin developers get (16.5%) as reported recently by one of the large developers, then we have the cost of a house at €300 k. Now add the VAT @ 13.5% and we get €340 k.
Now say we build 30% social housing, 30% affordable housing (@ €300K) and the rest at market rate, which say is €425 k. Now for 100 houses, we get €25.5 m for market rate houses, €9 for affordable plus 30 social houses. So we have income of €34.5 million, VAT of €4.6 million, and a direct cost of €25 million. So we have 30 social houses for a net cost of minus €4.9 million.
Some trick. Just by avoiding the developers margin, and building a high proportion of social and affordable houses, but selling the balance at market rate. We avoided putting public money into private pockets.
Now the figures quoted above are based on figures bandied about in the press in recent times, and are likely to be not far out. The mode of operation would be DCC or some Gov agency tenders for builders to build a planned development for a fixed price with a bonus if completed on time. Planning and design would be up to Gov agency or DCC.
Buying from the market is just daft, pushing up prices, and reducing supply. Renting from private landlords is also daft as it creates no new residential space but pushes up rents. Putting people in hotels is not just daft, it is insane.
First three paras are about okay.
After that the maths is all wrong. Surely the fixed price would include the 16.5% margin etc etc.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »Well, study the figures. All houses sold are funded privately by their purchasers through mortgages through the banks. It would not be on the Gov balance sheet.
I used 100 houses, but it could be 10,000.
I wonder about your figures.
You include tax savings, tax the govt gets anyway so their inclusion is meaningless really.
Also the pricing, if the govt were to be seen to be building for profit how would that sit with competition rules?
The cut off for qualification for the subsidised housing is also a point that would interest me.
Take the FF proposal, I think its €90000.
So Tom and Biddy earn €90000, Pat and Mary earn €91000, couple 1 end up with a mortgage of €300000, couple 2 with a mortgage of €425000, which of them is now the better off couple?
I think if the govt were to actually do this and borrow off the books, they would have to set up a company, like IW for instance, they could call it IBC or something, but anyway you get the idea.
While the figures work on paper, I wonder how it would go in practice?
I did a quick check on the KBC mortgage checker.
Couple on the lower mortgage are now saving €6772 over the couple on the higher mortgage!
Way to go Sam!0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19466
I wonder about your figures.
You include tax savings, tax the govt gets anyway so their inclusion is meaningless really.
Also the pricing, if the govt were to be seen to be building for profit how would that sit with competition rules?
The cut off for qualification for the subsidised housing is also a point that would interest me.
Take the FF proposal, I think its €90000.
So Tom and Biddy earn €90000, Pat and Mary earn €91000, couple 1 end up with a mortgage of €300000, couple 2 with a mortgage of €425000, which of them is now the better off couple?
I think if the govt were to actually do this and borrow off the books, they would have to set up a company, like IW for instance, they could call it IBC or something, but anyway you get the idea.
While the figures work on paper, I wonder how it would go in practice?
I did a quick check on the KBC mortgage checker.
Couple on the lower mortgage are now saving €6772 over the couple on the higher mortgage!
Way to go Sam!
I am not a politician and I would not set the thresholds. You are right that those above the threshold do come out very badly, but the Gov can ameliorate that sudden cut off as they have in the past by allowing tax credits against those extra costs for those that find themselves on the wrong side of it.
The basic idea is to fund social housing by selling the rest of the development through private mortgages, and recycling the VAT element, while 'selling' state land.
The main point is that houses must get built and that a large portion of them should be social houses.0 -
severeoversteer wrote: »don't know why there is such a push to build lots of social and affordable housing, the taxpayer shouldn't have to fork out houses for next to nothing for wasters (I know there are some worthy cases)
Myself and my partner employ between 35-45 people and the reason for the range of 35-45 is because of people we take on in recent times don't want to work and there priorities are to get on housing list and get a 3 bed house and work maybe 10 hours per week while spending most of this time hiding from the boss and waiting at the chance to jump out the gap at a minute to six o clock !
This isn't the case though.
Currently you are paying to buy new houses off the market to house the very same people.
As for the 'wasters' and those who 'don't want to work', how many are we talking and how are they dodging getting caught out? Didn't Leo run some PR thing on that very issue?
You can fund state builds used as social housing for fellow tax payers on low income or you can fund buying social housing off the market at the going rate or cheap loans for private developers to do same. Your choice.
The majority of your post is anecdotal tosh. It smacks of PR for current failed policy using blarney as it's basis. Even your story suggests the current system is flawed. Enjoy paying the Gresham to put up people who don't want to work.0 -
Nice kick in the stones for working tax payers: the privilege of handing over 50% of what they earn over 34k plus the privilege of borrowing over 30+ years to fund people paying a pittance in rent living beside them.
Is your proposal better than what we have now? Maybe, but that isn't what we should be using as the benchmark.
Do you think buying houses off the market to house the same people is a better way to go?
We can be saving money and building housing stock. Instead we are funding the private profits of Landlords and developers. Keep the economy going sure.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Do you think buying houses off the market to house the same people is a better way to go?
We can be saving money and building housing stock. Instead we are funding the private profits of Landlords and developers. Keep the economy going sure.
Any reason why you ignore where I said that we shouldn't use the current model as the benchmark? And why you ignore where I said his proposal is possibly better than the current setup?0 -
Advertisement
-
Any reason why you ignore where I said that we shouldn't use the current model as the benchmark? And why you ignore where I said his proposal is possibly better than the current setup?
I didn't ignore anything. I've not seen it. There's no tit for tat one-upmanship on my end.
You haven't answered the question I posed in relation to your post I fully quoted.Do you think buying houses off the market to house the same people is a better way to go?
You are complaining about spending money on building housing for people while we spend money to buy housing for the same people.
If you are not in favour of current policy, what do you suggest, surely (edit: building affordable and social) it's a move in the right direction?0
Advertisement