Political Parties to Solve The Housing Crisis?

Graham

Mod Note

Thread split.

Samuel T. Cogley

Sheeps wrote: »

Paying a non crippling rent isn't a subsidy.

No, but paying less than it costs to build and maintain the property is. Are you suggesting that social housing is breaking even / making a profit?

Twenty Grand

Amirani wrote: »

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

I'd say that another report would show much the same.
Probably worse in plenty rural areas.
Huge movement of people from countryside to town. Had to happen since so many local factories closed.

Had a quick look on Daft.

There's 3 times more property for sale per person in Donegal than Kildare.
Twice as much as Louth.

Bob24

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.

terrydel wrote: »

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

A housing crisis as a goal? No matter how I disagree with them I think not. Some of their policies do make things worse as a side effect and I am certainly not excusing that, but accusing them of having the housing crisis as a *goal*??!!

Plus as I said, I don't see anything good coming from other parties either.

Bluefoam

Sheeps wrote: »

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.

It literally is... If someone else is paying the balance so you can have what you consider a non-crippling rent it is genuinely a subsidy. That's what subsidy means.

Sheeps

Bluefoam wrote: »

It literally is... If someone else is paying the balance so you can have what you consider a non-crippling rent it is genuinely a subsidy. That's what subsidy means.

It literally isn't a subsidy. It's charging a fare rate for a public service. Your role as tax payer is the equivillent of a share holder. It's not a subsidy. Hap is literally a subsidy.

Wheeliebin30

This nonsense again.

When will you learn most people don’t want to fund the free house brigade who end up causing havoc in general society when they get their house.

People have had enough of spongers and leeches.

Sheeps

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

This nonsense again.

When will you learn most people don’t want to fund the free house brigade who end up causing havoc in general society when they get their house.

People have had enough of spongers and leeches.

What an absolutely worthless and pathetic point of view you have.

Graham

Mod Note

quit the personal digs and sweeping generalisations about social welfare tenants.

amcalester

Sheeps wrote: »

What an absolutely worthless and pathetic point of view you have.

He’s right though.

All the noise created by the media about the housing shortage isn’t translating into votes for the left because most people don’t care enough.

All the people on the M50 at 7AM aren’t going vote in higher taxes to pay for Margaret Cash’s 5 bedroom house.

Sheeps

Realistically you can't have a serious discussion with anyone who holds some of the most vulnerable people in society with such contempt, even so when it concerns their most basic need, a roof over their head. Forget it, I'm out.

Amirani

Sheeps wrote: »

Realistically you can't have a serious discussion with anyone who holds some of the most vulnerable people in society with such contempt, even so when it concerns their most basic need, a roof over their head. Forget it, I'm out.

Be at as it may, it's the political reality. Willfully ignoring it by putting your head in the sand isn't going to make it go away. Fine Gael's potential voting base by and large don't want significant increases in taxation to fund a large expansion of social housing. FG are currently the most popular party, so it's not exactly a fringe view.

Maurice Yeltsin

Not a single party, centre or left, is prepared to address the elephant in the room.

How in the jaysus does a country in the midst of its worst housing crisis since the 20's find itself in a position where the government is doling out social housing to refugees, from the social housing budget (not, as some have claimed, from an EU fund set up for the purpose), without not the opposition of but the actual support of the loudmoth lefties who bang on about the lack of both social and private rental the most?

The government is literally competing with first time buyers in some areas to acquire property for permanent use by incoming families. This isn't a tale off a taxi driver, it is in hard print, raised at council meetings, sourced from Rebuilding Ireland.

https://www.laoistoday.ie/2019/02/25/syrian-families-due-to-be-housed-in-laois-this-year/

I've said before that a second look should be taken at whether any, or at least, how much, social housing should be provided in BMW regions where the vast majority of even low earners should be able to get a mortgage and buy a home locally, but this is trickle down in action. Surely this money would be better spent providing social and affordable housing in the cities? Why is the government competing with first time buyers via acquisition for properties for newcomers? Why are we spending so much extra money keeping families in hotel rooms for longer when the house they should have been given goes to a newcomer?

Fact is, there isn't a party to raise this. Peter Casey is an incoherent buffoon. Gemma O'Doherty is certifiable. I don't know a great deal about Hermann Kelly but Frances Fitzgerald initiated this program and Andrews wife makes money off the asylum racket.


Surely now, at election time, someone should ask Frances Fitzgerald to explain this

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/no-housing-priority-for-asylum-seekers-says-justice-minister-fitzgerald-31162805.html

However, Minister Fitzgerald said there was “no question” of any Syrian family taken in by Ireland being “bumped to the top of the housing queue”.

“There’s no question of local authorities giving priority to any of the 210 new families we will be taking in,” she said.

“One of the initiatives we’re taking in relation to our new resettlement programme for Syrian refugees will be to focus on those who already have family members here - one of the key assessments will be how these families will be able to support those arriving.”

Adding: “The issue of housing is extremely complex, as we’ve currently people in Direct Provision, who at present, have been processed and are in need of housing.”

“However, there is no question of those exiting direct provisions, or just arriving here, jumping to the top of the queue.”

A person who bailed the EU out of a mess of Merkel's creation blatatly and deliberately lied.

Maurice Yeltsin

Or how many cases like this are we entertaining? Where the HAP payments are grossly disproportionate to the PAYE paid.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/former-homeless-apollo-house-residents-secure-home-1.3355298

koheim

The main policy of FF and FG is to privatize services. Housing is for example now almost 100% privatized in Ireland, everything is being built by developers that then sells the houses back to the government. FF and FG believes this is the most effective way of supplying houses, so does the people voting for them.

But there are alternative housing policies:
https://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/affordable_housing_for_all_labour_housing_policy.pdf
https://www.sinnfein.ie/housing
https://www.socialdemocrats.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Soc-Dems-Housing-Policy-Document-AW-1-2.pdf

FG and FF will not solve the housing crises, but most people seems to be ok with that...

Wheeliebin30

koheim wrote: »

The main policy of FF and FG is to privatize services. Housing is for example now almost 100% privatized in Ireland, everything is being built by developers that then sells the houses back to the government. FF and FG believes this is the most effective way of supplying houses, so does the people voting for them.

But there are alternative housing policies:
https://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/affordable_housing_for_all_labour_housing_policy.pdf
https://www.sinnfein.ie/housing
https://www.socialdemocrats.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Soc-Dems-Housing-Policy-Document-AW-1-2.pdf

FG and FF will not solve the housing crises, but most people seems to be ok with that...

All about the €€€.

It’s just ain’t there to build 100s of thousands of houses for layabouts and people who expect it for nothing.

Sorry about that but that’s the cold hard facts.

overkill602

koheim wrote: »

The main policy of FF and FG is to privatize services. Housing is for example now almost 100% privatized in Ireland, everything is being built by developers that then sells the houses back to the government. FF and FG believes this is the most effective way of supplying houses, so does the people voting for them.

But there are alternative housing policies:
https://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/affordable_housing_for_all_labour_housing_policy.pdf
https://www.sinnfein.ie/housing
https://www.socialdemocrats.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Soc-Dems-Housing-Policy-Document-AW-1-2.pdf

FG and FF will not solve the housing crises, but most people seems to be ok with that...

If i was never going to contribute to the country and scrounge off those who pay taxes for the rest of my life i am ok with that and i would vote any of those alternatives.


Socialism works until it runs out of other peoples money...



if i am disabled/handicapped and genuinely cant work the other parties need to do more.

Samuel T. Cogley

Sheeps wrote: »

It literally isn't a subsidy. It's charging a fare rate for a public service. Your role as tax payer is the equivillent of a share holder. It's not a subsidy. Hap is literally a subsidy.

How on earth do you equate being a shareholder, who is in it for profit to a taxpayer subsidising social housing?

Wheeliebin30

It’s alright lads soon we can all stop paying our mortgage thanks to Sinn Fein, wahey!!

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/dail-to-debate-sinn-fein-motion-on-putting-right-to-housing-in-constitution-924269.html?fbclid=IwAR06Bn_dTtWG9P7xu4sXLK4Af5zyijl4FxCoyAUtxx6JjFhnE4tQLzErHpgOh

A Sinn Féin private members motion, seeking a referendum to put the right to housing into the Constitution

Varik

I'm pretty sure SF and Labour don't understand how constitutional rights work, they're about preventing infringement and not provision.

voluntary

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

It’s alright lads soon we can all stop paying our mortgage thanks to Sinn Fein, wahey!!

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/dail-to-debate-sinn-fein-motion-on-putting-right-to-housing-in-constitution-924269.html?fbclid=IwAR06Bn_dTtWG9P7xu4sXLK4Af5zyijl4FxCoyAUtxx6JjFhnE4tQLzErHpgOh

A Sinn Féin private members motion, seeking a referendum to put the right to housing into the Constitution

Idiots.

Samuel T. Cogley

There are numerous good reasons why there is preamble to Art. 45.

Danger781

Have any political parties mentioned reducing the amount of tax that landlords need to pay? Maybe I'm a bit naive here but surely more people would be open to renting out a property if they weren't paying almost 50% tax.. At the current tax rates the idea of people investing in a house to rent out seems implausible.

From what I can see lower tax would mean more properties on the market for rent, which would solve a lot of issues...

Totally open to someone pointing out the flaw in my logic. I'm assuming it isn't as straightforward as I'm thinking.

Touchee

Danger781 wrote: »

Have any political parties mentioned reducing the amount of tax that landlords need to pay? Maybe I'm a bit naive here but surely more people would be open to renting out a property if they weren't paying almost 50% tax.. At the current tax rates the idea of people investing in a house to rent out seems implausible.

From what I can see lower tax would mean more properties on the market for rent, which would solve a lot of issues...

Totally open to someone pointing out the flaw in my logic. I'm assuming it isn't as straightforward as I'm thinking.

Why should landlords be given preferential tax rates? Any other individual in this country pays tax @50% once their income goes over the lower tax rate threshold.

So, why should landlords be taxed at a lower rate?

What I would suggest is to tax the profits of REITs, to make sure they don’t get an unfair advantage.

voluntary

Touchee wrote: »

Why should landlords be given preferential tax rates?

Taxes are and have always been used to achive wider goals. The taxation is being increased in areas where the society wants to limit investment and is being decreased in areas where the society wants to encourage investment.

That's for the starter.

The second reason would be to level the playground for both instituational and private landlords. At the moment large funds have preferential tax treatment vs Irish individual. That's wrong and should be the oposite.

Touchee wrote: »

Any other individual in this country pays tax @50%; once their income goes over the lower tax rate threshold.

The state puts a lot of obligations on landlords, like an obligation to keep non paying client/tenant in the property for 18+ months for a starter. Such huge obligations should surely come with some tax benefits, don't you think?

Topgear on Dave

We need more rental accomodation to be available.

So we need to encourage more people to be landlords. (And the large risky 100 to 300k investment to do so)

So let them keep more of their profit and tax them less.

Touchee

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

We need more rental accomodation to be available.

So we need to encourage more people to be landlords. (And the large risky 100 to 300k investment to do so)

So let them keep more of their profit and tax them less.

There is a risk, but let’s remind ourselves that there is also a reward attached to lettings. The landlord owns the asset, at least 50% of it (in the current market a lot more) paid for by the tenant.

The tenant doesn’t own anything, still pays tax @50% for anything above the threshold, pays rent, the landlord gets more profit and the tax intake for the state is also reduced.

I fully support though every landlord in the country to be taxed at the same rate, be it a private individual or institutional investor

The Student

Touchee wrote: »

Why should landlords be given preferential tax rates? Any other individual in this country pays tax @50% once their income goes over the lower tax rate threshold.

So, why should landlords be taxed at a lower rate?

What I would suggest is to tax the profits of REITs, to make sure they don’t get an unfair advantage.

Do you not realize that the landlord is a huge cash cow for the Govt in terms of tax. The Govt receives significant tax from small landlords.

People forget the Govt did away with a tax break for tenants a couple of years ago. Tenants were able to get a tax rebate of 20% on the rent they paid.

This was initially designed to catch unregistered landlords for tax purposes. The Govt know there are landlords out there not registered for tax and are afraid if they go after them they will exit the market leaving more people looking for accommodation.

I have said on many occasions if the Govt extended the Rent a Room relief to landlords then tenants rent would decrease, landlords returns would not decrease and tenants could save for a deposit for their own properties.

Touchee

‘’The state puts a lot of obligations on landlords, like an obligation to keep non paying client/tenant in the property for 18+ months for a starter. Such huge obligations should surely come with some tax benefits, don't you think?’’

I completely agree, but instead of allowing a tax benefit, which is the easy way out, the state should deal with non paying tenants and allow the landlord to evict.

Topgear on Dave

Touchee wrote: »

There is a risk, but let’s remind ourselves that there is also a reward attached to lettings. The landlord owns the asset, at least 50% of it (in the current market a lot more) paid for by the tenant.

The tenant doesn’t own anything, still pays tax @50% for anything above the threshold, pays rent, the landlord gets more profit and the tax intake for the state is also reduced.

The tenant gets low risk and flexibility.

As a tenant I came out of the last "boom" much better off than many landlords who lost their shirt or my home buying friends who ended up in massive negative equity.

I lost my job and moved out of my rental to somewhere cheaper, my homebuying friends still had the mortgage hanging over them.

If anything broke in the house I rang the LL and it didn't cost me a bean.

When a better job came along in another city I upped and moved at short notice.

It's not all one way traffic to the landlords advantage