Who will possibly be next housing minister ?

Ush1

Yurt! wrote: »

Do your homework. Vienna has the most effective and well lauded affordable rental model in Europe It has in fact been in place for most of last century (not implemented?) and has evolved as the decades have gone by. It forms one pillar of SF's housing proposals so the fact that you're unfamiliar with the Viennese model means your speaking from a position of lack of knowledge and automatic predjudice against a very good housing platform.

Similarly, Singapore has a globally recognized affordable home ownership scheme that 80 percent of the population avail of. Again, you're unfamiliar with it, and you don't appear to want to know. Much like FG.

As for the rest of your post, you're just listing city names and taking about crashing the economy so I'm not sure what to do with it.

This is where we're at with FG, they spent the entire election cycle saying things are they way they are and their approach is the only way, literally being reactive to mounting problems. Not a scintilla of humility that they're getting it wrong or even a question in their minds that there is another way.

As for their supporters, any suggestion of different ideas and you get derided as a waster looking for a forever home or a Marxist. They've never been so obnoxious to be honest.

Oh and FYI, Paris has dipped it's toe in the Viennese model, and it's limited experiment with it had been successful.

Got 10 years?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/dublin-will-take-10-years-to-copy-vienna-model-for-housing-says-expert-38011310.html

Cool story bro. So when will SF have the crisis solved can you tell me?

Yurt2

Ush1 wrote: »

Got 10 years?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/dublin-will-take-10-years-to-copy-vienna-model-for-housing-says-expert-38011310.html

Cool story bro. So when will SF have the crisis solved can you tell me?

I was really really hoping for a stronger retort than that.

You have nothing. And neither does Fine Gael.

rob316

Ush1 wrote: »

That's not what FG have done.

Go on I'm dying to hear what they did in 9 years.

Ush1

Yurt! wrote: »

I was really really hoping for a stronger retort than that.

You have nothing. And neither does Fine Gael.

There's no retort needed. Housing isn't a crisis that can be fixed. You've not shown otherwise? Just a weird, paranoid axe to grind about Fine Gael.

Ush1

rob316 wrote: »

Go on I'm dying to hear what they did in 9 years.

You think local authorities didn't build a single house under FG?

Muahahaha

NuMarvel wrote: »

On a point of order, Leo's shortfall wasn't funded by the bank of Mam and Dad.

It was funded by an actual bank, because he got a 100% mortgage!

(Not that I'm advocating for a return to those days or anything.)

You wouldnt know what to believe out of Leos mouth because this is what he said in the Dail in 2018

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has said in the Dail that getting money from parents is one of several avenues open to people looking to gather a housing deposit, saying "lots of us did".

Responding to questions from Labour leader Brendan Howlin on people faced with the “hopeless task” of gathering significant deposits Mr Varadkar suggested getting money from parents as one way to get a deposit together.

“It has always been the case that a person needs to raise a deposit to buy a house. People do it in many different ways,” he said.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/varadkar-on-buying-a-home-they-get-money-from-our-parents-lots-of-us-did-1.3366698

frillyleaf

Ush1 wrote: »

You think local authorities didn't build a single house under FG?

Mainly they didn’t. They sourced social housing “stock” by paying private landlords which has added huge pressure to the rental market squeezing it even further when there was lack of supply

Yurt2

Ush1 wrote: »

There's no retort needed. Housing isn't a crisis that can be fixed.

Like I said, you offer nothing. FG too, offer nothing. You regurgitate their weak talking points ad naueseum.

jaxxx

Fann Linn wrote: »

A better grasp of housing issues than the current one.

My cat has a better grasp of housing issues than that useless turd, and it's dead!!

Yurt2

.

Ush1

Yurt! wrote: »

Like I said, you offer nothing. FG too, offer nothing. You regurgitate their weak talking points ad naueseum.

Get some sleep mate.

Yurt2

Ush1 wrote: »

Get some sleep mate.

Timezones. Different parts of the world have them.

suicide_circus

Eoin O'B has to get a crack at it, he's the man with the plan

Ush1

Yurt! wrote: »

Timezones. Different parts of the world have them.

Bedroom in your parents gaff is still on GMT.:D

Yurt2

Ush1 wrote: »

Bedroom in your parents gaff is still on GMT.:D

Oh wow. You got schooled on housing by someone you think that still lives in their parents gaffe. Scarlet for you.

Nah pal, only slightly less embarrassing for you, I don't live with my parents.

And by the way, the snotty attitude your ilk took to people with different viewpoints gave the country a SF surge. Congrats to you.

MrMusician18

suicide_circus wrote: »

Eoin O'B has to get a crack at it, he's the man with the plan

Indeed. I'm looking forward to seeing how this guy can get 100k housing units built for €65k each.

Yurt2

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Indeed. I'm looking forward to seeing how this guy can get 100k housing units built for €65k each.

The 65k claim has been debunked over and over again, I'm not sure why you're repeating it.

shivermetimber

Yep, 100k houses for 65k figures are wrong as 50k houses have already been budgeted for.

It'll be very difficult still but on paper their plan works at the moment and O Broin seems intellectually sound enough to have an actual understanding of the situation for builds and rental market, unlike a lot of others. He's the right man for the job for me but if it can actually be done is anyone's guess - https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/election-2020-is-sinn-f%C3%A9in-s-housing-policy-credible-1.4163859 (if you can't read it just google headline)

MrMusician18

shivermetimber wrote: »

Yep, 100k houses for 65k figures are wrong as 50k houses have already been budgeted for.

It'll be very difficult still but on paper their plan works at the moment and O Broin seems intellectually sound enough to have an actual understanding of the situation for builds and rental market, unlike a lot of others. He's the right man for the job for me but if it can actually be done is anyone's guess - https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/election-2020-is-sinn-f%C3%A9in-s-housing-policy-credible-1.4163859 (if you can't read it just google headline)

It's actually even more bonkers than 100k for €65k, since it assumes that the net cost to the exchequer is €50k for some houses. In some of these cases assumes a zero land cost and the sites are serviced. And as we all know, serviced sites have a zero value, even if already in the states possession. :rolleyes:

And the remainder are budgeted at a cost of €230k/unit with a zero land cost. While the state doors have some decent sized land banks in good parts of the country (central bank in Sandyford for example) assuming a zero land cost isn't credible. It always doesn't have the land in the right places in the right quantity.

I couldn't see the fairness in handing out a massive subsidy to selected individuals either - and it's a one off trick.

suicide_circus

Yurt! wrote: »

And by the way, the snotty attitude your ilk took to people with different viewpoints gave the country a SF surge. Congrats to you.

Are SF voters Ireland's deplorables? Denigrated and maligned for their democratic decision. Gammons perhaps? There are certainly unavoidable parallels

mrslancaster

Muahahaha wrote: »

When FG took power in 2011 there was over 100,000 empty houses in the state. We've gone from that to nowhere near enough. Thats a failure of 9 years of FG housing policy, no point trying to spin it any other way

The population increased by about half a million people in the same period which didn't help anything. it's not hard to see how housing, health childcare & education would all be affected.

is_that_so

suicide_circus wrote: »

Are SF voters Ireland's deplorables? Denigrated and maligned for their democratic decision. Gammons perhaps? There are certainly unavoidable parallels

Deplorables? No but they are a very volatile and IMO unreliable base who will vote for the next big thing and some of them used to be BFFs with Labour.

shivermetimber

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It's actually even more bonkers than 100k for €65k, since it assumes that the net cost to the exchequer is €50k for some houses. In some of these cases assumes a zero land cost and the sites are serviced. And as we all know, serviced sites have a zero value, even if already in the states possession. :rolleyes:

And the remainder are budgeted at a cost of €230k/unit with a zero land cost. While the state doors have some decent sized land banks in good parts of the country (central bank in Sandyford for example) assuming a zero land cost isn't credible. It always doesn't have the land in the right places in the right quantity.

I couldn't see the fairness in handing out a massive subsidy to selected individuals either - and it's a one off trick.

All good points and agreed, assumptions are just that. There's no doubt it'll be a very difficult situation for anyone to fix but I do like O Brion's idea's and thinking for build and rent more than anyone else's.

jam_mac_jam

Ush1 wrote: »

Housing issues are a symptom of a large, successful and booming economy. You can't have both. Look at any major cities on earth.

Of course you can change things here or there, do you think everyone will be magically happy then? We all get three bed semis in Dublin 4.

To suggest you will solve housing is laughable, unless of course you want to crash the economy.

Yes, that's it. Three bed houses in Dublin 4.

Maybe just people on an average wage being able to afford decent housing.

That's a crazy idea?

Assetbacked

mrslancaster wrote: »

The population increased by about half a million people in the same period which didn't help anything. it's not hard to see how housing, health childcare & education would all be affected.

One side of the FG mouth talks about rentals being what the young, agile workers want while rents are constantly climbing, unsustainably and massively, but the other side of the mouth speaks to property owners and enabling a situation where house prices climb 90% from 2011 levels and that this is a good thing. Soundbites about jobs and the economy doing well is not music to the ears of working renters when this translates to higher rents and less cash in their pockets with each passing year.

It is not possible to have a situation where property prices and rents can keep climbing with renters being happy with the situation. As such, this is just the beginning of a neglected section of the electorate saying "enough" to high house prices and rents. There would appear to be little change coming to the renter portion of the electorate growing in number and this means even more votes for parties looking to sort out the housing catastrophe.

Jump_In_Jack

Does any party suggest a policy to combine freezing rents with setting a higher rate of tax on rental income to deter private investment from holding onto homes that young families should be buying instead?
That should make some bit of a difference in tackling the issue of a lack of availability of housing.

What would be the consequences of that, and would it even be legal/constitutional for a party to do it?

rob316

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Does any party suggest a policy to combine freezing rents with setting a higher rate of tax on rental income to deter private investment from holding onto homes that young families should be buying instead?
That should make some bit of a difference in tackling the issue of a lack of availability of housing.

What would be the consequences of that, and is it even legal/constitutional to do it?

Even a right wing country like the UK are considering clamping down on Buy to Rent. Of course it can be done.

jam_mac_jam

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Does any party suggest a policy to combine freezing rents with setting a higher rate of tax on rental income to deter private investment from holding onto homes that young families should be buying instead?
That should make some bit of a difference in tackling the issue of a lack of availability of housing.

What would be the consequences of that, and would it even be legal/constitutional for a party to do it?

The minute you freeze rents there will be no rentals. You cannot implement a price cap. You will have no availability or people paying under the table.

It would be an absolute disaster.

You tax people for non use of property and land. If you don't use it sell it. Incentives on supply.

I would also apply corporate tax on riets. Seems very strange the current system where they don't pay tax.

Topgear on Dave

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Does any party suggest a policy to combine freezing rents with setting a higher rate of tax on rental income to deter private investment from holding onto homes that young families should be buying instead?
That should make some bit of a difference in tackling the issue of a lack of availability of housing.

What would be the consequences of that, and would it even be legal/constitutional for a party to do it?

It would probably **** the rental market entirely.

Rents need to come down, this wont happen if you screw all landlords to the wall. Remember not everyone wants to own or can afford to own, not everyone are young families.

Jump_In_Jack

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

The minute you freeze rents there will be no rentals. You cannot implement a price cap. You will have no availability or people paying under the table.

It would be an absolute disaster.

You tax people for non use of property and land. If you don't use it sell it. Incentives on supply.

I would also apply corporate tax on riets. Seems very strange the current system where they don't pay tax.

Had to look that acronym up, assume you meant REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts).

I take your point that by disincentivising private investment in property rental it could cause a lack of available housing for renters.

Not all renters can afford to buy.

If indeed private landlords were to decide that a rent freeze combined with a hike in tax on rental income were enough of a reason to exit the market, then those properties would be sold at market rate to those that could afford to own a home.
Ideally the market rate would adjust to a lower rate after taking into consideration that rental income would not be as profitable so the bidders for the property would be aspiring home-owners and not private landlords.

In order to improve the situation for renters the government might be able to provide cheaper alternative rental properties than the private investors.

There would have to be an effort to build new affordable rental properties in that case.

Ideally, through that type of policy, there should be less private profits arising from housing, and there should be lower rents for renters, as well as more homes available at reduced prices for potential home-owners.

The alternative would be more homes being built but nothing being done to prevent private investors from investing even more to continue to take extortionate profits from renters, and the problem won't get any better for renters or aspiring home-owners, but it would really suit private investors.

Basically, if the housing market is allowed to be used by private investors to make higher rates of profit from renting than they would by investing in industry then housing prices and rents would have to stay artificially high to pay out to those investors.
There is little value to renters or home-owners by sharing a market with private investors.