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
Is it not time EVERYONE considers not voting for FF or FG in the upcoming election
Options
Comments
-
-
0
-
Good post. I’d vote fg , as a worker , the others are just going to shake you down for even more. Allexcelt fg clambering over themselves to reduce pension age again etc. black holes in health , housing. An immoral fifty percent marginal rate, all far more urgent than the plans to throw more money at Margaret cash and co as proposed by everyone except fg[Deleted User] wrote: »interesting work, ty
the economy has recovered on the books, which basically means that the bad investments made in property were kept uncrystallized as far as possible.
property prices had to be let recover, and an unspoken priority has been that current housing stock value could not be affected by any govt moves. plenty of homeowners have done very well on paper, the same way that they did very badly on paper from 2007-2013
its been a homeowner's recovery, and rather than learn anything- nor, indeed, ensure that the consequences of bad investments were visited on to the banks or the borrowers, its been a continuation of FF policy of "we all partied".
Everyone in the country paying their own rent has been working for the above property owning class since the crash. and clearly no party fears the renter vote, because no party has even hinted at policies that would buy that vote
the parties that rail at landlords and want free houses for all dont do anything for me as a working renter who pays his own rent. theyre -imo- a "cant someone else pay?" grouping and, to them, im lumped in with the "someone else"
the parties that are keeping the price of housing high in order to ensure the magical "underlying fundamentals" recover dont consider me one of them, because i never threw my €300k into the pyramid.
Im probably down in the minds of most boardsies that note such things as a FG head, but its not the case. theyre looking after the propertied class and little else and have been a great disappointment given the opportunity they had to change how we behaved about property.
But i know id never vote FF after the crash, and I know that id be worse off in many new and interesting ways were SF ever anywhere near financial power.
a renters/non homeowners analysis of policies that didnt just treat us as pay pigs, or desperate to get on the ladder, or etc etc would be a very welcome one- be interesting to see whether its a vote that could sway things0 -
Idbatterim wrote: »Good post. I’d vote fg , as a worker , the others are just going to shake you down for even more. Allexcelt fg clambering over themselves to reduce pension age again etc. black holes in health , housing. An immoral fifty percent marginal rate, all far more urgent than the plans to throw more money at Margaret cash and co as proposed by everyone except fg
They already threw money at Margaret cash.you had the establishment cheerleader Miriam o Callaghan hanging with Margaret for photo ops.0 -
They waste nearly that on the welfare bonus every year. Easily my more than that when they increase welfare too , in perpetuaty. Also they pay up to 3000 in Dublin on hAp in some cases !I really cannot understand FG policy on housing at all. It makes no common sense and worse it makes no economic sense whatsoever.
At the moment we have families using the HAP scheme where in most parts of the country a house could cost up to €1200 a month and in Dublin €1600 a month.
When governments build housing they dont pay cash.No government does in any country, its amortised over a period of 20 to 25 years.
the average price paid for a social housing unit was €158,200 nationally, while this rises to €223,951 in Dublin
https://www.independent.ie/irish-new...-38125430.html
so lets just call it 200k to make things relatively simple.
200k over 20 years is only 10k a year, yet FG seem happier to pay around €14.4k a year for HAP scheme housing outside of Dublin and 19.2k in Dublin.
replacing these with government built social homes would result in savings of about 4.4k per household outside of Dublin and a whopping 9.4k per household in Dublin
Multiply that by the numbers already on the HAP scheme (50,000) and the total sum is astounding.
There is no breakdown that I could find to say how many households in Dublin are on HAP.
Even if we assumed that every household on HAP was outside Dublin the saving would be €220 Million a year.
If we assumed that every household on HAP was in Dublin the saving would be €470 million a year.
Obviously the true saving would be somewhere in between
Seriously, are FG so crazy that they would let their political ideology allow them to squander what is likely to be in excess of €300 million a year.
I wonder what the FG supporters here feel about that?
Can wasting €300 million a year even be justified?
The moron councils instead of building on their own land in the area , are renting luxury apartments now in Dundrum As social housing for twenty five years. At astronomical cost. This practice should be stopped immediately. The councils should build their own housing to provide more supply. They should absolutely not be doing what they are doing. Which is building virtually nothing and renting from vulture funds. This is a Banana republic though0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Idbatterim wrote: »People rightly point out fg haven’t done much for workers. True ! Wait till the other parasites get in , they’ll wish they had fg!
Throw in another exclamation mark,I don't think your hyperbole is quiet exaggerated enough.0 -
Assetbacked wrote: »https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/politics-and-your-pocket-how-have-the-last-nine-years-treated-you-1.4152881
If there was a silver bullet reason needed for voting for an alternative to the government, this article gives provides it, from the IT today.
To highlight, in particular;
Since 2011;
- Salary of €80k is 8% better off.
- Salary of €25k is 1.7% better off.r3
- Salary of €18k is 2.3% better off.
- 2x salaries of €25k as a family are 1.73% better off.
- Salary of €50k within a family with a carer's credit is 6% better off.
However, we know that rents have increased by at least 90% in the same time period.
Therefore, while the economy may have come out of recession on paper a few years ago, the recession has been ongoing for the past 9 years for renting workers. The policy of the government for more jobs is essentially a pyramid scheme, artificially propping up the GDP figure and these new jobs are coming from new people arriving to Ireland each day. However, for each year a person spent in Ireland the past 9 years, they have ended up with less cash then the previous year (even factoring in wage increases, due to the massive rental increases).
Multi-national activity being slowed is not something the government will try to encourage but it would be of great benefit to those already in Ireland. However, if there are renting workers, it would be madness to vote for the current government parties as you would be voting for less money in your pocket.
The IT left out the context which is critical. The last 11 years have been the most unprecedented - especially from an economic perspective- in the state since independence. The period was totally in chartered waters - not only from an Irish bet international perspective also. Major decisions had to be made to stop the downslide, get the economy to start performing so that the books are at least balancing and then get the economy growing so that the budget is - ideally- in annual surplus so that investment in infrastructure/ public services can be made.
Economic pundits/journalists were of the opinion that the country will be in the doldrums for at least the next 10 years+.
The governments over the last 11 yrs made some very tough cut backs, some individuals / groups suffered mort than others, etc , etc. During the early part of that period any individual/family with a few quid as savings in a bank/ building society we’re in real fear of losing the lot. Jobs were lost wholesale as businesses closed down etc, etc.
From a government perspective , it could take any gov 3 or 4 years to stop the down slide of the economy - involves planning a strategy, organize borrowing, implementing programme , getting it rooted, monitoring same, etc
Then when the down slide has been arrested there would be a period of a few years of ‘balancing the books’, and making sure that the economy is at least put on a sound and sustainable footing. This could take another 3 to 4 years.
Once the economy has stabilized/ consolidated, gov would then plan for a period of sustainable growth and to build a budget surplus. Once this ability is established and is recognized as sustainable the next phase should kick in.
That phase involves the spending of budget surpluses on needed infrastructure/ public services and maybe along with a level of sustainable borrowing
.
In summary:-
Arrest downturn could take 3 to 4 years
A period of stability / balanced books 3 to 4 years
A period of 3 to 4 years to grow the economy/ build up a surplus that is sustainable
Then entering a period of investing the built up surplus in needed infrastructure/social services
That’s a timescale of 9 to 12 years before a government would start to make serious investments on behalf of the public at large. Year 12 is around now.
The nation at large must critique where we are today in relation to the above. One may not agree with the various timelines but one swallow ( year) does make a summer0 -
Assetbacked wrote: »RPZ are ensuring the institutional investors can secure 4% rental increases each year who are the ones bringing new builds on the market. However, as with all of FG's interference in the rental market, this has just stymied supply by spooking individual landlords.
Asset , your post is not the full picture. New builds can start off by charging the full market rate. It is after that that the max increase is 4% per annum. The new builds coming on streamed that are contributing very significantly the average rent increase per annum0 -
Auguste Comte wrote: »I wonder what percentage of Fine Gael TD's are landlords and are profiting handsomely from the system as it stands?
what percentage of all TD's?
and what their share portfolios look like, and any private pension or other financial instruments they may have?
and their spouses.
and close family or personal connections?
this country was voted into a property/bank bailout by a property-owning, bank-stock wealthy legislature.0 -
Advertisement
-
eoin burke-kennedy with a relevant piece in the IT on housing anyway.
govt promises on behalf of private sector are worthless, local authorities must build
i dont consider myself too far right nor left, but as far as social housing goes the government should be absolutely churning out houses at present and im happy for my taxes to go on that.
(dont agree that social housing should be mixed in with private housing, dont agree it should be eg in central dublin)
there that should annoy everyone0 -
Deleted User wrote: »eoin burke-kennedy with a relevant piece in the IT on housing anyway.
govt promises on behalf of private sector are worthless, local authorities must build
i dont consider myself too far right nor left, but as far as social housing goes the government should be absolutely churning out houses at present and im happy for my taxes to go on that.
(dont agree that social housing should be mixed in with private housing, dont agree it should be eg in central dublin)
there that should annoy everyone
Not me, agree 100%. Generations of people living for free 100 metres from Stephens Green is utter madness.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Well 1 in 4 are landlords but I'd wager more are profiting off the crisis. I expect revelations about Noonan in years to come.
You've been expecting those revelations for most of the last decade. Is it possible that they are a figment of your imagination?0 -
Not me, agree 100%. Generations of people living for free 100 metres from Stephens Green is utter madness.
Except that a) it's not free. Every tenant is expected to pay some rent depending on income - including social welfare (pensions, invalidity, carers, job seekers etc) recipients. b) Not everyone living in LA housing is receiving a social welfare payment as their primary source of income. Many work at actual jobs. c) It can only be for 'generations' if those who 'inherit' the lease are actually living full time in the property and so, you know, need housing - you would have them evicted and place on the housing list so someone else on the housing list gets the property but the actual number of people on the housing list remains exactly the same?
If people are not paying their rent ( i.e getting 'free' housing) they should be evicted - no one is saying otherwise.0 -
It's not free but when your "rent" is 10-50% of market rent, what is that!Bannasidhe wrote: »Except that a) it's not free. Every tenant is expected to pay some rent depending on income - including social welfare (pensions, invalidity, carers, job seekers etc) recipients. b) Not everyone living in LA housing is receiving a social welfare payment as their primary source of income. Many work at actual jobs. c) It can only be for 'generations' if those who 'inherit' the lease are actually living full time in the property and so, you know, need housing - you would have them evicted and place on the housing list so someone else on the housing list gets the property but the actual number of people on the housing list remains exactly the same?
If people are not paying their rent ( i.e getting 'free' housing) they should be evicted - no one is saying otherwise.0 -
this rent they pay, around a single digit percent of market rent v the poor tenants next door, paying actual market rent. You agree with that I suppose do you? the colossal discrepancy between two people, who have "limited" means, often the only difference, is one person will be working for those means!0
-
Idbatterim wrote: »this rent they pay, around a single digit percent of market rent v the poor tenants next door, paying actual market rent. You agree with that I suppose do you? the colossal discrepancy between two people, who have "limited" means, often the only difference, is one person will be working for those means!
Any stats to back that up considering unemployment rate is only approx 4%.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »Except that a) it's not free. Every tenant is expected to pay some rent depending on income - including social welfare (pensions, invalidity, carers, job seekers etc) recipients. b) Not everyone living in LA housing is receiving a social welfare payment as their primary source of income. Many work at actual jobs. c) It can only be for 'generations' if those who 'inherit' the lease are actually living full time in the property and so, you know, need housing - you would have them evicted and place on the housing list so someone else on the housing list gets the property but the actual number of people on the housing list remains exactly the same?
If people are not paying their rent ( i.e getting 'free' housing) they should be evicted - no one is saying otherwise.
Every tenant might be expected to pay some rent, but the reality is that most of the tenants don't pay what they owe.
https://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-council-5-4956180-Jan2020/
"The latest figures show around 60% of tenants are in arrears with over 5% of tenants owing at least €7,000."
The percentage working in jobs is very low.
In relation to the inheritance of the lease, we have situations where single people are inheriting the lease of a three or four-bedroomed house because their extended family used to live there, while families on the housing list are being offered two-bedroomed apartments.0 -
It's not free but when your "rent" is 10-50% of market rent, what is that!
Fact remains that it is not Free as is continually claimed.
And market rents rise and fall and are profit driven so are really not a good basis to base housing policy on.
What it is a sustainable housing - plus, if as the poster I was responding to claimed 'generations' have been living in these properties metres from Stephens Green then presumably these properties have long since had the cost of construction paid for so the rent (however much it is) is no longer paying that off - most of it would be 'profit'.
What the rent is not is money being paid directly to private landlords out of taxpayer funds. It is not government propping up the private rental market.
TBH these LA units with their damp, mould etc may be overpriced at 10% of 'market rent'.
https://dublininquirer.com/2019/09/18/just-off-st-stephen-s-green-council-tenants-struggle-with-damp-and-mould0 -
Every tenant might be expected to pay some rent, but the reality is that most of the tenants don't pay what they owe.
https://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-council-5-4956180-Jan2020/
"The latest figures show around 60% of tenants are in arrears with over 5% of tenants owing at least €7,000."
The percentage working in jobs is very low.
In relation to the inheritance of the lease, we have situations where single people are inheriting the lease of a three or four-bedroomed house because their extended family used to live there, while families on the housing list are being offered two-bedroomed apartments.
Massive arrears in rent due to Dublin City Council by tenants. Why cant it be recovered from wages or welfare payments?
Bad estate management as said, houses occupied by one or two people which should be allocated to families and every effort made to give accommodation in the locality to people having to leave those houses0 -
Advertisement
-
Idbatterim wrote: »this rent they pay, around a single digit percent of market rent v the poor tenants next door, paying actual market rent. You agree with that I suppose do you? the colossal discrepancy between two people, who have "limited" means, often the only difference, is one person will be working for those means!
Poor tenants next door in a LA housing complex - in which case are you saying LA's do charge market rates? Or the poor tenants next door who due to lack of LA housing have been forced to rent in the private market currently being subsidised by government through the HAP scheme?
It may come as a shock but LA housing - when we had enough of it before it was sold off and not replaced - was determined by need so these very people of limited means you are so busy advocating for would have been able to secure LA housing.
The point of LA housing was to provide affordable, secure, accommodation for people of limited means - which includes those on low wages.
Government made the decision to sell the stock off and not replace it. Now those on limited means are at the mercy of the private rental market which is being subsidised by taxpayers.0 -
Every tenant might be expected to pay some rent, but the reality is that most of the tenants don't pay what they owe.
https://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-council-5-4956180-Jan2020/
"The latest figures show around 60% of tenants are in arrears with over 5% of tenants owing at least €7,000."
The percentage working in jobs is very low.
In relation to the inheritance of the lease, we have situations where single people are inheriting the lease of a three or four-bedroomed house because their extended family used to live there, while families on the housing list are being offered two-bedroomed apartments.
Failure to collect rent is a failure by those managing not a failure of the policy of having LA housing.
What are the figures for rent arrears in the private sector?
How easy is it in the private sector to collect arrears?
Is the problem actually one of failure by government to introduce legislation to allow landlords (LA and private) to deal efficiently with tenants in arrears?
Do you have stats to show how many LA tenants are unemployed or are you assuming?
Even if the majority are then that is besides the point - those with lower incomes plus dependents would be more in need of housing and when the stock of housing is severely limited they will take priority. These would be the very people who would struggle to find accommodation in the private sector even with HAP and most likely to end up in B&Bs/Hotels are a massive cost to the taxpayer.
People baulking at the cost of subsidised LA housing when millions is being paid to hotels to provide so called temporary accommodation for the very people who would be housed in these units is frankly a bit bizarre.
Not to mention the human cost to the children crowing up in hotels rooms - that apparently doesn't fit on some people's balance sheet.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »interesting work, ty
the economy has recovered on the books, which basically means that the bad investments made in property were kept uncrystallized as far as possible.
property prices had to be let recover, and an unspoken priority has been that current housing stock value could not be affected by any govt moves. plenty of homeowners have done very well on paper, the same way that they did very badly on paper from 2007-2013
its been a homeowner's recovery, and rather than learn anything- nor, indeed, ensure that the consequences of bad investments were visited on to the banks or the borrowers, its been a continuation of FF policy of "we all partied".
Everyone in the country paying their own rent has been working for the above property owning class since the crash. and clearly no party fears the renter vote, because no party has even hinted at policies that would buy that vote
the parties that rail at landlords and want free houses for all dont do anything for me as a working renter who pays his own rent. theyre -imo- a "cant someone else pay?" grouping and, to them, im lumped in with the "someone else"
the parties that are keeping the price of housing high in order to ensure the magical "underlying fundamentals" recover dont consider me one of them, because i never threw my €300k into the pyramid.
Im probably down in the minds of most boardsies that note such things as a FG head, but its not the case. theyre looking after the propertied class and little else and have been a great disappointment given the opportunity they had to change how we behaved about property.
But i know id never vote FF after the crash, and I know that id be worse off in many new and interesting ways were SF ever anywhere near financial power.
a renters/non homeowners analysis of policies that didnt just treat us as pay pigs, or desperate to get on the ladder, or etc etc would be a very welcome one- be interesting to see whether its a vote that could sway things
Except that many of those parties, SF included, are also implementing rent freezes, and will then legislate so that any rent rises are index linked to cost of living or inflation0 -
I really cannot understand FG policy on housing at all. It makes no common sense and worse it makes no economic sense whatsoever.
At the moment we have families using the HAP scheme where in most parts of the country a house could cost up to €1200 a month and in Dublin €1600 a month.
When governments build housing they dont pay cash.No government does in any country, its amortised over a period of 20 to 25 years.
the average price paid for a social housing unit was €158,200 nationally, while this rises to €223,951 in Dublin
https://www.independent.ie/irish-new...-38125430.html
so lets just call it 200k to make things relatively simple.
200k over 20 years is only 10k a year, yet FG seem happier to pay around €14.4k a year for HAP scheme housing outside of Dublin and 19.2k in Dublin.
replacing these with government built social homes would result in savings of about 4.4k per household outside of Dublin and a whopping 9.4k per household in Dublin
Multiply that by the numbers already on the HAP scheme (50,000) and the total sum is astounding.
There is no breakdown that I could find to say how many households in Dublin are on HAP.
Even if we assumed that every household on HAP was outside Dublin the saving would be €220 Million a year.
If we assumed that every household on HAP was in Dublin the saving would be €470 million a year.
Obviously the true saving would be somewhere in between
Seriously, are FG so crazy that they would let their political ideology allow them to squander what is likely to be in excess of €300 million a year.
I wonder what the FG supporters here feel about that?
Can wasting €300 million a year even be justified?
Circa €224,000 to construct a house in Dublin re housing the homeless. Anyone knows what this comprises of?
Does the price include architects fees, vat, percolation tests, planning application fees, etc, etc. And what would be the BER rating?
Also, does it include kitchen worktop, furniture , electrical equipment, etc, etc.
What part of Dublin would this house be built , how many bedrooms would be in this house and what is the sq, mt size of the house?
The fig of circa €224,000 has been thrown out there and apparently nobody has asked what in included in it. I would love to know0 -
Field east wrote: »Circa €224,000 to construct a house in Dublin re housing the homeless. Anyone knows what this comprises of?
Does the price include architects fees, vat, percolation tests, planning application fees, etc, etc. And what would be the BER rating?
Also, does it include kitchen worktop, furniture , electrical equipment, etc, etc.
What part of Dublin would this house be built , how many bedrooms would be in this house and what is the sq, mt size of the house?
The fig of circa €224,000 has been thrown out there and apparently nobody has asked what in included in it. I would love to know
so ask the man that wrote the article. All you are going to get here is conjecture and biased opinions.
I would imagine it is the average for a 3 bed semi, bearing in mind that the cost is minus the price of the site being that they will be built on state owned land.
But again this is only a opinion or conjecture0 -
Deleted User wrote: »
the parties that rail at landlords and want free houses for all dont do anything for me as a working renter who pays his own rent. theyre -imo- a "cant someone else pay?" grouping and, to them, im lumped in with the "someone else"
Who is calling for free housing for anyone?
The nearest I can see to 'free' is those unfortunates in B&B's and Hotels - and who would wish that on anyone?
If there was affordable, secure, LA housing those people could be housed at a massive saving to the taxpayer - and they would be obliged to pay rent!
At the moment we have a situation where there simply isn't enough LA housing to meet the needs of those with a low income (or high income but many dependents) so the vast majority of non-home owners are forced into the private rental market - which is subsidised by government when it come to those who would have been the LA tenants in times past via the HAP scheme.
It's a perfect storm for renters - too many people looking for too few properties and direct government interference in the market via direct payments to landlords.
I say the above as someone who over the course of my life has been a LA tenant (in the UK), a homeowner (in UK and Ireland), a private renter (in UK and Ireland) and an accidental landlord (in Ireland) - I was even briefly homeless in the 80s in London so I have experience of pretty much most of the housing situations.
That is why I advocate LA housing - to give low income people secure, affordable, accommodation removing them from the private rental market (and hotels!) and thereby limiting the the need for government to subsidise that same market via HAP. This would free up the more affordable private units, lessen the number of people looking to rent privately overall.
I do not advocate anyone getting free housing.
I advocate for the availability of affordable, secure, accommodation in both public and private 'markets' and the end of taxpayers money being pumped into the private market.0 -
-
so ask the man that wrote the article. All you are going to get here is conjecture and biased opinions.
I would imagine it is the average for a 3 bed semi, bearing in mind that the cost is minus the price of the site being that they will be built on state owned land.
But again this is only a opinion or conjecture
Re my post no 445 I forgot to refer to site cost which is significant no matter where it is. Nothing is free including public land. Tax payers paid for it.0 -
Correct.
Are their social housing tenants near Piccadily Circus?
Yes - you can contact the City of Westminster for a detailed map if you wish to measure distance from Eros.
https://www.westminster.gov.uk/housing
And they aren't Free- just like the one's in Dublin aren't Free.
Paris I don't know about. I could google it - but so can you.0 -
Advertisement
-
Massive arrears in rent due to Dublin City Council by tenants. Why cant it be recovered from wages or welfare payments?
Bad estate management as said, houses occupied by one or two people which should be allocated to families and every effort made to give accommodation in the locality to people having to leave those houses
Agree but try recovering that rent from wages, welfare payments and/ or evicting these tenants and you'll be dumped on by O'Broinn, Rich Boy and all the rest of the parties complaining about lack of public housing.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement