Political Parties to Solve The Housing Crisis?

terrydel

Assetbacked wrote: »

Some long and detailed reading on the so-called vulture funds, the Irish commercial property sector and s110 vehicles;

https://thepropertypin.com/t/dublin-office-bubble-fg-landlord-nirvana-iref-qiaifs-reits/48705
https://thepropertypin.com/t/irish-section-110-spv-vultures-tax-haven-orphaning-scam/48520

Very well put together - will rile landlords and tenants both!

Yet another government instituted transfer of vast wealth from the citizens of Ireland to the private sector. Unbelievable how this is tolerated by the electorate. They must laugh their cocks off at the stupidity of the voters who bend over for this.

terrydel

optogirl wrote: »

I can't even click. I am so dejected by the whole bloody thing. Goalposts just keep shifting and rent keeps going up.:(

Start by not voting fg. Thats step one to resolving the problem.

MayoSalmon

terrydel wrote: »

Start by not voting fg. Thats step one to resolving the problem.

Politicians FG or otherwise haven't a clue how to solve this honestly

beauf

The only way to solve this is slow down the economy, for sustainable growth. No politician wants to take that on.

machalla

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Politicians FG or otherwise haven't a clue how to solve this honestly

They certainly all seem to have a handle on how to make it worse though judging by the populist policies the current Dáil as a whole has pursued

Bob24

terrydel wrote: »

Start by not voting fg. Thats step one to resolving the problem.

I’m certainly not delighted with FG’s housing policies, but quite frankly I don’t see good policies form any other party. So I don’t think voting for FG or not makes the slightest difference in terms of solving the housing crises.

Mickiemcfist

Bob24 wrote: »

I’m certainly not delighted with FG’s housing policies, but quite frankly I don’t see good policies form any other party. So I don’t think voting for FG or not makes the slightest difference in terms of solving the housing crises.

Yea I agree, I really want to vote for someone else, but I don't want to vote for any of the other options. FF are basically the same thing & anyone outside of that are a rabble with half thought out ideals with no notion of actually gaining power.

terrydel

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Politicians FG or otherwise haven't a clue how to solve this honestly

But fg are knowingly and deliberately engineering the current situation.

terrydel

Bob24 wrote: »

I’m certainly not delighted with FG’s housing policies, but quite frankly I don’t see good policies form any other party. So I don’t think voting for FG or not makes the slightest difference in terms of solving the housing crises.

You are joking right?
Their policies have this as a goal.

terrydel

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

Yea I agree, I really want to vote for someone else, but I don't want to vote for any of the other options. FF are basically the same thing & anyone outside of that are a rabble with half thought out ideals with no notion of actually gaining power.

What utterly staggering logic.
You want things to change but will continue to vote for the same way and pray for a different outcome.
Wow.

Mickiemcfist

terrydel wrote: »

What utterly staggering logic.
You want things to change but will continue to vote for the same way and pray for a different outcome.
Wow.

Utterly staggering conclusion jumping there batman. I haven't made up my mind as to who I'll be voting for & I never indicated above who I would be voting for? I said I don't want either which if anything would imply I won't be voting.

terrydel

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

Utterly staggering conclusion jumping there batman. I haven't made up my mind as to who I'll be voting for & I never indicated above who I would be voting for? I said I don't want either which if anything would imply I won't be voting.

You really want to vote for someone else, so do it.

Mickiemcfist

terrydel wrote: »

You really want to vote for someone else, so do it.

Thanks for your advice mate, never thought of that :rolleyes:

voluntary

terrydel wrote: »

What utterly staggering logic.
You want things to change but will continue to vote for the same way and pray for a different outcome.
Wow.

Change for the sake of a change? Even if all other available options would be worse?

terrydel

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

Thanks for your advice mate, never thought of that :rolleyes:

Clearly.

terrydel

voluntary wrote: »

Change for the sake of a change? Even if all other available options would be worse?

If you are not happy with the current situation and want it changed, how will doing the same thing make that happen?
FG/FF have held power since the formation of the state, whatever way the state is is of their making.
How do you KNOW other options are worse when they are never given a chance to prove that one way or the other? Its purely theoretical if the idea is never tested.
We know what fg/ff give us, the former have given us this current housing situation by design, its in their power to fix it or at least improve it and they choose not to.
Its change in order to give someone who actually wants the current status quo to change, a chance, because the current incumbents do not want it to change.

Mickiemcfist

terrydel wrote: »

If you are not happy with the current situation and want it changed, how will doing the same thing make that happen?
FG/FF have held power since the formation of the state, whatever way the state is is of their making.
How do you KNOW other options are worse when they are never given a chance to prove that one way or the other? Its purely theoretical if the idea is never tested.
We know what fg/ff give us, the former have given us this current housing situation by design, its in their power to fix it or at least improve it and they choose not to.
Its change in order to give someone who actually wants the current status quo to change, a chance, because the current incumbents do not want it to change.

How do we know a monkey with a pet labrador is a worse option than FG/FF if they haven't been given a chance to prove that one way or the other?

It's called using your judgement, the information we have available to us shows that other parties have very little in the way of a coherent, comprehensive plan to run the country. When a challenging party can come up with one, they'll get my vote. Otherwise, I'll vote for the least worst option.

voluntary

terrydel wrote: »

If you are not happy with the current situation and want it changed, how will doing the same thing make that happen?
FG/FF have held power since the formation of the state, whatever way the state is is of their making.
How do you KNOW other options are worse when they are never given a chance to prove that one way or the other? Its purely theoretical if the idea is never tested.
We know what fg/ff give us, the former have given us this current housing situation by design, its in their power to fix it or at least improve it and they choose not to.
Its change in order to give someone who actually wants the current status quo to change, a chance, because the current incumbents do not want it to change.

Both far left and far right have been tested all over the world on so many many occassions. They always fail causing huge pain and misery. I'll just say: No, thank you.

Jaster Rogue

The alternative parties to FF/FG have even more wacky housing policies imo, such as everyone deserving a free house any location/size they want without contributing a cent, working/paying for the same house is optional.

voluntary

beauf wrote: »

The only way to solve this is slow down the economy, for sustainable growth. No politician wants to take that on.

Looking at what's been going on in the global markets in the last week or so I can only guess a massive slowdown is approaching right when we speak. Be careful what you wish for.

Mad_maxx

voluntary wrote: »

Looking at what's been going on in the global markets in the last week or so I can only guess a massive slowdown is approaching right when we speak. Be careful what you wish for.

The markets went too far too quickly, plus trump shoots his mouth off on twitter every few days and panic spreads

IAmTheReign

terrydel wrote: »

But fg are knowingly and deliberately engineering the current situation.

I'm genuinely curious, which FG policies do you think are deliberately aimed at knowingly and deliberately restricting housing supply? And to what end exactly?

Sheeps

IAmTheReign wrote: »

I'm genuinely curious, which FG policies do you think are deliberately aimed at knowingly and deliberately restricting housing supply? And to what end exactly?

Every expert under the sun is telling them to build social houses instead of buying and renting from the private market, and they're insisting on leaving the market to do what it wants. There's no other explaination for that other than that they want it to be this way. I don't believe they are incompetent to this extent.

Sheeps

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

The alternative parties to FF/FG have even more wacky housing policies imo, such as everyone deserving a free house any location/size they want without contributing a cent, working/paying for the same house is optional.

This is not the way it works and you know it. The only difference between private and public housing is that with public hosing the state is your landlord, and they don't rip you off.

Amirani

Sheeps wrote: »

Every expert under the sun is telling them to build social houses instead of buying and renting from the private market, and they're insisting on leaving the market to do what it wants. There's no other explaination for that other than that they want it to be this way. I don't believe they are incompetent to this extent.

Much of the electorate don't want to pay the taxation necessary to fund a large scale expansion of social housing provision. And of the proportion of the electorate that do, many of them wouldn't vote for Fine Gael anyway.

Bluefoam

Sheeps wrote: »

This is not the way it works and you know it. The only difference between private and public housing is that with public hosing the state is your landlord, and they don't rip you off.

The state is your landlord... they subsidise you... which means the tax payer pays for you... which means the person who is paying for their own home is also paying for yours... is that what you mean by not getting ripped off?

Mad_maxx

Sheeps wrote: »

Every expert under the sun is telling them to build social houses instead of buying and renting from the private market, and they're insisting on leaving the market to do what it wants. There's no other explaination for that other than that they want it to be this way. I don't believe they are incompetent to this extent.

Which " experts"?

Mad_maxx

Bluefoam wrote: »

The state is your landlord... they subsidise you... which means the tax payer pays for you... which means the person who is paying for their own home is also paying for yours... is that what you mean by not getting ripped off?

30% of social housing tenants are in arrears despite the very modest rent, the local authorities have little interest in the property game, no one is evicted and maintainence us a black hole

Sheeps

Amirani wrote: »

Much of the electorate don't want to pay the taxation necessary to fund a large scale expansion of social housing provision. And of the proportion of the electorate that do, many of them wouldn't vote for Fine Gael anyway.

They're already paying the taxation necessary the only difference is they're getting terrible value for money because it's going to private landlords who are ripping the state off through the HAP scheme. If you invest in social housing, the money doesn't disappear. The state owns the house and has a valuable asset. It's literally an investment for the state.

Sheeps

Bluefoam wrote: »

The state is your landlord... they subsidise you... which means the tax payer pays for you... which means the person who is paying for their own home is also paying for yours... is that what you mean by not getting ripped off?

Paying a non crippling rent isn't a subsidy.

Amirani

Sheeps wrote: »

They're already paying the taxation necessary the only difference is they're getting terrible value for money because it's going to private landlords who are ripping the state off through the HAP scheme. If you invest in social housing, the money doesn't disappear. The state owns the house and has a valuable asset. It's literally an investment for the state.

Building the number of social houses necessary to house everyone on HAP would require either a large increase in taxation right now, or a significant amount of borrowing. HAP at the moment costs far less in the short-term than such a building program, though would likely be more expensive over the long term. But rental costs will not stay at the current high level forever.

Only the biggest ideologues would have suggested a mass building of social housing in 2012 instead of Government-subsided rent: https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/itll-take-us-43-years-to-fill-all-empty-houses-26863864.html