Fr McVerry supporting lessons in how to occupy properties

Hitman3000

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

The house will be fit to be knocked in 50 years!!!

What makes you think that? My parents are living in a house built by Roscommon county council in 1952. They bought it in 1984. Structurally in prefect condition. Are you suggesting modern construction standards are sub standard and what evidence have you if that is your claim?.

Hitman3000

There isn't an infinate need of state provided houses. A considerable cohort of the population are more than capable of housing themselves. However we as a society by the governments we have elected decided to take care of those that for a multitude of reasons can't of course there are those that won't even try. Not enough to get upset about tbh.

Hitman3000

jjmcclure wrote:

Enlighten us then? There is no justification for someone on less than 2x18k paying 12.5 the tax.

You threw out the figures not I. You can put them in context.

enricoh

The country is spending more than it takes in. Ireland is the third most indebted country in the first world iirc.
Apparently a worldwide recession is due in the near future. brexit, eu tax harmonisation, Trump's trade wars and trying to get big business back home ain't gonna help Paddy.

But sod it build 10000 free gaffs in Dublin and let's solve this. And if another 20000 say I'd like one too, then we'll give them one too. We'll just tax the rich- easy

tayto lover

jjmcclure wrote: »

Respect the law
Respect property rights
Get out of those peoples/landlords/companies houses


Who the hell has time to be "occupying" a vacant property anyway?? Go to work!


If some of these protesters put as much effort into making a life for THEMSELVES instead of waiting for handouts they'd be much better off.

I often wonder if many of the protesters have a job. They never march for jobs anyway.
The Water protests were on Saturdays when people took to the streets but this crowd seem to be able to protest at the drop of a hat.

Hitman3000

tayto lover wrote:

I often wonder if many of the protesters have a job. They never march for jobs anyway. The Water protests were on Saturdays when people took to the streets but this crowd seem to be able to protest at the drop of a hat.

I've protested during the weekdays as have many people I know. We all work .Do you think the entire working population starts at 9 on a Monday and finishes every day at 5 till Friday?

tayto lover

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I've protested during the weekdays as have many people I know. We all work .Do you think the entire working population starts at 9 on a Monday and finishes every day at 5 till Friday?

I think very few of those Frederick St protesters actually work at all.
I could be wrong.;)

TheCitizen

tayto lover wrote: »

I often wonder if many of the protesters have a job. They never march for jobs anyway.
The Water protests were on Saturdays when people took to the streets but this crowd seem to be able to protest at the drop of a hat.

This is a far more valid campaign than the water protests. Paying for upgrading and up-keeping the water system makes sense it's just that Fine Gael made an arse of it by trying to get people to pay for something before they fixed it.

The housing and accommodation situation needs to be addressed and the government have failed to tackle it. Protests and social action around the issue can help to bring it to a head and force the powers that be to get the finger out and introduce reforms.

padd b1975

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Not if you supply an infinite amount of houses at discount rates.

The country will be bust in no time.

Discounted rates that are currently around 75,000,000 in arrears remember.

TheCitizen

enricoh wrote: »

The country is spending more than it takes in. Ireland is the third most indebted country in the first world iirc.
Apparently a worldwide recession is due in the near future. brexit, eu tax harmonisation, Trump's trade wars and trying to get big business back home ain't gonna help Paddy.

But sod it build 10000 free gaffs in Dublin and let's solve this. And if another 20000 say I'd like one too, then we'll give them one too. We'll just tax the rich- easy

Yeah, who said that though as a solution? Nonsense:pac:

Hitman3000

tayto lover wrote:

I think very few of those Frederick St protesters actually work at all. I could be wrong.

The American military has a great expression , "assumption is the mother of all fcukups". Several I believe are students. Nice to see the youth taking an interest in social affairs worrying though I suppose if they turn up at the polling booth with the same concerns.

tayto lover

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The American military has a great expression , "assumption is the mother of all fcukups". Several I believe are students. Nice to see the youth taking an interest in social affairs worrying though I suppose if they turn up at the polling booth with the same concerns.

Who would be worried if they voted?
Not one party is going to address this issue in any meaningful way. None.

Hitman3000

tayto lover wrote:

Who would be worried if they voted? Not one party is going to address this issue in any meaningful way. None.

I disagree slightly no party seems interested in addressing this in any meaningful way. Then again not party was interested in dealing with water charges until popular opinion forced them too.

Loves_lorries

jjmcclure wrote: »

FG are a center left party. An agenda of increasing social welfare, taxing "high earners", exceptionally soft on crime and criminals, granny grants, totally useless on social welfare fraud!


We need a center right party who will support hard work and success, reduce the social welfare bill substantially, eradicate social welfare fraud, brutalise criminals and above all incentivise those who contribute to society

First we need a Conservative media outlet with a significant market share

Loves_lorries

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Social housing, with rents based on income, which will recoup build costs over time is the most fiscally conservative way forward.
The other, current, is buying houses to use as social housing and paying rents to private landlords, not to mention hotels and B&B's. But alas that loses private concerns profit and center left FG don't play that.

Are you aware that close on 20% of local authority tenants are in arrears?

Non payers do not get evicted so the liklihood of a massive public housing programme washing its own face is pretty small unless we get tough on deadbeat tenants.

tayto lover

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I disagree slightly no party seems interested in addressing this in any meaningful way. Then again not party was interested in dealing with water charges until popular opinion forced them too.

That and the fact that people paying taxes and mortgages of their own don't feel like paying even more.
Social housing will be built gradually I'd say as we can't afford a major build without upping taxes and poking the bear who pays them.

Turnipman

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Stop doubling down on your ignorance you don't know so can assume nothing. I work shifts and have taken part in many protests down through the years and heard this go to work bs from people like you on multiple occasions. Again lazy ignorant commentary.

But your job could be done equally competently by a well-trained poodle with a Junior Cert.

Hitman3000

tayto lover wrote:

That and the fact that people paying taxes and mortgages of their own don't feel like paying even more. Social housing will be built gradually I'd say as we can't afford a major build without upping taxes and poking the bear who pays them.

The government had no problem poking the "bear" to pay for the banks. Helping families out of hotels especially children is more palatable to the average taxpayer than seeing their taxes prop up a banking sector that is bleeding them dry.

tayto lover

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The government had no problem poking the "bear" to pay for the banks. Helping families out of hotels especially children is more palatable to the average taxpayer than seeing their taxes prop up a banking sector that is bleeding them dry.

I agree but there's only so much tax a worker can take.
We're paying more now than we did 10 years ago and on less wages with the cuts. Add Property Tax to that and we cross the 50 percent.
Imagine if you paid all the taxes first, you'd be into July before you got any money for yourself.

_Brian

tayto lover wrote: »

I agree but there's only so much tax a worker can take.
We're paying more now than we did 10 years ago and on less wages with the cuts. Add Property Tax to that and we cross the 50 percent.

They well know that people will just work away, because you know we have to pay for our houses - it’s not like we get them free like some do.

McMurphy

enricoh wrote: »

The country is spending more than it takes in. Ireland is the third most indebted country in the first world iirc.
Apparently a worldwide recession is due in the near future. brexit, eu tax harmonisation, Trump's trade wars and trying to get big business back home ain't gonna help Paddy.

But sod it build 10000 free gaffs in Dublin and let's solve this. And if another 20000 say I'd like one too, then we'll give them one too. We'll just tax the rich- easy

Quick question.

If this apparent world wide recession strikes, and these EU taxation trump war thingymajig yokes all strike Ireland at the same time, and the arse falls out of things here with the auld cash....

Where's the money going to come to still pay the private landlords, the hotels and the bed and breakfast owners that are currently receiving state euro to house these people?

Maybe they'll all simultaneously be turned out on to the streets on their bare asses, turning the place into a post apocalypse wasteland overnight......

tayto lover

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Quick question.

If this apparent world wide recession strikes, and these EU taxation trump war thingymajig yokes all strike Ireland at the same time, and the arse falls out of things here with the auld cash....

Where's the money going to come to still pay the private landlords, the hotels and the bed and breakfast owners that are currently receiving state euro to house these people?

Maybe they'll all simultaneously be turned out on to the streets on their bare asses, turning the place into a post apocalypse wasteland overnight......

Maybe we should spend the Apple billions on housing and promise to pay them back in small amounts gradually. Tee hee.

James Brown

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Have you a costing for these houses and the recoup figures etc?

Can I show building is cheaper than buying off market? School childer know that. Or are we to believe developers and builders are in it for sport? :rolleyes:
Build and rent out or buy and rent out.
Recoup rents on your own property or pay to subsidise rents on a private property.
Are you codding me?

James Brown

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Ha not in Ireland as their is rent arrears of 50 million and the maintenance costs far out do any balancing.

Say a house costs 250,000 and someone is paying 400 month.

It would tak nearly 55 years to just recoup the money.

Anyway have you a costing on the actual building of these houses and where the money will come from?

Say a house costs 350,000 and they're paying 400 a month? Because that's what we have now with Eoghan buying them off the market.

Makey up rent. If you are a working tax payer and being charged a reasonable rent by the LA's it would be a different story. Not everyone affected by the housing crisis is a no mark dutch gold whinger. We have hard working tax payers too.

Rent arrears on a house you own and rent out or putting the very same people up in the Gresham, which costs more? Surely you're clowning?

dxhound2005

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Can I show building is cheaper than buying off market? School childer know that. Or are we to believe developers and builders are in it for sport? :rolleyes:
Build and rent out or buy and rent out, are you codding me?

But it is a lot slower. Partly because of objections from those who already have a house.

Immediate solutions are needed. They lie in using some of the 200,000 vacant houses.

Hitman3000

Turnipman wrote:

But your job could be done equally competently by a well-trained poodle with a Junior Cert.

Rather a stupid comment when you are ignorant to what my job is. Thanks the laughs though keep it up.

Hitman3000

_Brian wrote:

They well know that people will just work away, because you know we have to pay for our houses - it’s not like we get them free like some do.

Always amuses when I see the free houses crap being thrown out. Not a day goes by on boards than someone doesn't say it. It's an expectation now tradition if you will.

Wheeliebin30

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Can I show building is cheaper than buying off market? School childer know that. Or are we to believe developers and builders are in it for sport? :rolleyes:
Build and rent out or buy and rent out.
Recoup rents on your own property or pay to subsidise rents on a private property.
Are you codding me?

How many houses do we need and at what cost and where is the money gonna come from?

I have asked you this already and received nothing.

I won’t hold my breathe...

Hitman3000

tayto lover wrote:

I agree but there's only so much tax a worker can take. We're paying more now than we did 10 years ago and on less wages with the cuts. Add Property Tax to that and we cross the 50 percent. Imagine if you paid all the taxes first, you'd be into July before you got any money for yourself.

I pay 23 per cent tax on my entire income. The property tax is negligible. Noone pays over 50 per cent of their income in tax. If you want to start to adding excise and vat that's a different story but everyone pays those not just the workers.

James Brown

dxhound2005 wrote: »

But it is a lot slower. Partly because of objections from those who already have a house.

Immediate solutions are needed. They lie in using some of the 200,000 vacant houses.

Agreed, but they said that in 2011. They've still not made a start.

James Brown

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

How many houses do we need and at what cost and where is the money gonna come from?

I have asked you this already and received nothing.

I won’t hold my breathe...

I always answer you messer. You're asking the same questions I always answer and you know it.

Enough houses that working people can afford to put a roof over their head. That being enough to help cool the market. Only available to people who need it.
The money will come from the same place NAMA gets money to give cheap loans to private developers. The same place LEO got 2.5bn for his latest housing gimmick. The same place Eoghan gets his money to buy houses off the market and use them as social housing anyway.

You're little digs are a nonsense. You've a problem with the state building to rent because of the caliber of tenant but you're okay with the state buying to house the same people or put them up in hotels. You're talking nonsense.


What's your solution? Off you go and disappear until you can roll out the same shineola again....

I dont agree with occupying properties whatsoever because its important to remain credible in the battle to end homelessness but i do believe in the whole protest movement.

dxhound2005

Here is a suggestion for a solution, which does not involve students having to be taught how to invade vacant properties.

The 2017 LPT data base shows 176,000 people paying for more than one property. 121,000 of them have two properties, the rest have three or more. The 2016 census identifies 203,000 vacant properties.

It is probably not possible to cross reference LPT and census. But as a start it should be possible for a government agency to write to the 121,000, asking them to express an interest in making their non principal residence available if it is one of the 203,000 vacant. Under the same terms which McVerry's operation obtains homes. The owner would have the right to refuse those with a history of anti social activities, or a history of recidivism.

The properties would be offered to the homeless, ideally more than one choice. If the homeless person felt that it was no improvement on the accommodation which they occupy at present, they would have the right to stay where they are.

When all the new houses are built, they could then move into one of those.

vladmydad

TheCitizen wrote: »

LOL at the right wingers on here that don't like the occupy stunt. I'm not totally in agreement with all of the tactics of the Take Back the City campaign myself but they're succeeding in highlighting the issue and the lack of action relating to it.

Ironically they’re actually hurting the housing issues. This is the sort of crap that pushes landlords and potential landlords out of the market.

Wheeliebin30

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I always answer you messer. You're asking the same questions I always answer and you know it.

Enough houses that working people can afford to put a roof over their head. That being enough to help cool the market. Only available to people who need it.
The money will come from the same place NAMA gets money to give cheap loans to private developers. The same place LEO got 2.5bn for his latest housing gimmick. The same place Eoghan gets his money to buy houses off the market and use them as social housing anyway.

You're little digs are a nonsense. You've a problem with the state building to rent because of the caliber of tenant but you're okay with the state buying to house the same people or put them up in hotels. You're talking nonsense.


What's your solution? Off you go and disappear until you can roll out the same shineola again....

So basically you haven’t really answered any of my questions?????

No costing, no number of houses that you think we need and some rabble about Leo and nama.

How predictable, just like the left and Sinn Féin, no credible solutions just bluster.

Subcomandante Marcos

enricoh wrote: »

The country is spending more than it takes in.

No it's not. And it hasn't been for a few years now. We have debt but that's a legacy debt that's being paid off not being increased.

TheCitizen

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

So basically you haven’t really answered any of my questions?????

No costing, no number of houses that you think we need and some rabble about Leo and nama.

How predictable, just like the left and Sinn Féin, no credible solutions just bluster.

Leo and The Blueshirts are centre-Left now apparently, did you not hear that one?

dxhound2005

TheCitizen wrote: »

Leo and The Blueshirts are centre-Left now apparently, did you not hear that one?

I heard it was left of centre.

Subcomandante Marcos

tayto lover wrote: »

I agree but there's only so much tax a worker can take.
.

You don't need to increase tax to build public housing. The EIB will give low interest loans attached to the life of cost rental developments that are paid back by the rent paid by those living in them. It also doesn't contribute to official government debt figures do doesn't risk falling foul of EU rules on spending.

It the CUI had also offered a similar deal several years ago for almost 10billion they were sitting on and couldn't use. They offered a near interest free loan to build public housing with the loan being paid back by rents over the following few decades.

Hitman3000

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

So basically you haven’t really answered any of my questions?????

I've seen many people answer your questions, almost like you don't see the replies.

Hitman3000

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Always amuses when I see the free houses crap being thrown out. Not a day goes by on boards than someone doesn't say it. It's an expectation now tradition if you will.

its free.

when you dont work for something and you get it from money you have handed to you for doing nothing, its free.

this is true for a great deal of people on the housing list.

we will disagree about this, but the above is a fact.

NB i worked years in social housing. wheres your expertise coming from?

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

its free.

It's not. There is a cost.

Deleted User wrote:

when you dont work for something and you get it from money you have handed to you for doing nothing, its free.

Not everyone on in social housing/ housing list are on Social welfare

Deleted User wrote:

this is true for a great deal of people on the housing list.

See above

Deleted User wrote:

we will disagree about this, but the above is a fact.

It's not

Deleted User wrote:

NB i worked years in social housing. wheres your expertise coming from?

I don't care what you do. You can claim to be Frodo Baggins for all I care and strangle pigeons as your job.

yeah, see

breaking the statement up and evading the truth of the entirety doesnt work ('see above' indeed, how cute)

it also doesnt fool anyone

so when you (and others) try to pull people up on the statement, you neednt act as if there is confusion.

there isnt.

there's a fundamental disagreement as to what ppl mean by 'free'

which is fine, but why pretend to be correcting someone?

so much of these discussions parade as attempts to converse or persuade but its really just directly-opposing views that wont ever shift each other an inch (obv im as guilty as anyone tbf)

btw, if you have no expertise to fall back on when discussing social housing issues, thats ok! but by all means have the courtesy/courage to call me a liar outright when i give mine and you cant match it.

x

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

btw, if you have no expertise to fall back on when discussing social housing issues, thats ok! but by all means have the courtesy/courage to call me a liar outright when i give mine and you cant match it.

Do you expect me or anyone else to believe what you claim on an anonymous internet forum without evidence to back your claims up. How naïve do you believe others are. Have some cop on. You seem to think your opinion carries more weight than any one who happens to disagree with.

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

it also doesnt fool anyone

It's not meant fool. But if you going to post generalized crap all one can do is break it up and address each string of nonsense.

marieholmfan

you have no credibility , wheRE did you work , what section , what can you tell me that I can't just google.
you haven't demonstrated expertise ffs. you have claimed to be an expert.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

yeah, see

breaking the statement up and evading the truth of the entirety doesnt work ('see above' indeed, how cute)

it also doesnt fool anyone

so when you (and others) try to pull people up on the statement, you neednt act as if there is confusion.

there isnt.

there's a fundamental disagreement as to what ppl mean by 'free'

which is fine, but why pretend to be correcting someone?

so much of these discussions parade as attempts to converse or persuade but its really just directly-opposing views that wont ever shift each other an inch (obv im as guilty as anyone tbf)

btw, if you have no expertise to fall back on when discussing social housing issues, thats ok! but by all means have the courtesy/courage to call me a liar outright when i give mine and you cant match it.

x

help, help

my character is being assassinated late at night on boards.ie

the humanity

the_syco

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Where's the money going to come to still pay the private landlords, the hotels and the bed and breakfast owners that are currently receiving state euro to house these people?

Maybe they'll all simultaneously be turned out on to the streets on their bare asses, turning the place into a post apocalypse wasteland overnight......

An post will be kept in business delivering eviction notices.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Always amuses when I see the free houses crap being thrown out.

As someone who works to pay for their rent, it amuses me when people don't see that;
Rent paid by the government
plus
Money (social welfare) paid the government
equals
total rent comes from money from the government.

Thus, it's free in the sense that the tenant doesn't have to work for it. Whilst some do pay some of the money themselves, it's nowhere near the full amount, and quite often single digit percent of the total rent, if any.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Enough houses that working people can afford to put a roof over their head.

Thus far, the government is only helping the non-working people. Seems they should get houses near the family, while those who work should pay full whack 2 hours away from their job.

dxhound2005 wrote: »

The properties would be offered to the homeless, ideally more than one choice. If the homeless person felt that it was no improvement on the accommodation which they occupy at present, they would have the right to stay where they are.

Are we talking about deposit and payment up front, direct into their account, with the government guaranteeing the property? Or the usual craic of the landlord taking all the risk for very little reward, and less rights?

TheCitizen wrote: »

LOL at the right wingers on here that don't like the occupy stunt. I'm not totally in agreement with all of the tactics of the Take Back the City campaign myself but they're succeeding in highlighting the issue and the lack of action relating to it.

They're highlighting the fact that it takes a high court injunction to get out trespassers.

dxhound2005

the_syco wrote: »

Are we talking about deposit and payment up front, direct into their account, with the government guaranteeing the property? Or the usual craic of the landlord taking all the risk for very little reward, and less rights?

I would hand over the operation to McVerry or one the other homeless charities funded by the government. The homeless people would have more trust in them.

But they would have to use that government money to fully look after the home owner financially. They would not be put in the position of being a landlord.

CruelCoin

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

No it's not. And it hasn't been for a few years now. We have debt but that's a legacy debt that's being paid off not being increased.

Bollox.

When are you loony lefties going to abandon the magic money tree?

Exchequr reports up to 2016.
If you can read, you'll note a deficit for every year on the report leading to 2016.
http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/annualreports/2016/report/en/Chapter1.pdf
CSO up to 2017
https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/giea/governmentincomeandexpenditurejuly2018/