FF/FG/Green Next Government

efanton

markodaly wrote: »

Do you think a minister is an expert in project management, costing and procurement? The minister is simply the public face of the department, the policy maker. How are they to know if a plan is put before them for x that it will really cost x+y in years down the track? If every minister in the world was fired because of cost overruns then there would simply be no ministers left..

I don't disagree in principal but the issue is really within the civil service here and how procurement and tendering works, not the minister who signed off on the deal, per say.
Go visit the infrastructure forum and you will see good posts by people very familiar with the process who can shed light on the whys of things.

Simple answer. The details of the contract.
FIXED PRICE, fixed deadlines, and penalty clause. If the contract does not have all three then the minister takes on full responsibility if that contract is signed.

It really not that hard a principle to understand, even a FF minister could understand that.
If the contractor fecks up and the three clauses are there, then the minister is covered, he did his job and its down to the civil servants and the contractor to sort to out the mess. If the three clauses are not there then the minister made a judgement call which was a bad judgement and takes on full responsibility

When Covid dies down, there should be an investigation on how the civil service operates and how it can be made more agile and nimble to be able to respond to changes quickly. The whole civil service is a hulking mess of incompetence and inertia and outdated work practices ifested by work-shy jobs worths who are protected by Unions who look after their own no matter what.

If it were me, I would fire the worst-performing 10% of them, every year for 3 years. That would cull a lot of the wasters. But I would be branded an arch-right-wing Thatcherite for that.

No need to sack any civil servant.
If the top jobs are contract only, that reward those that deliver with a higher wage and bonuses for cost saving, only those that are confident they can deliver will apply lest they lose their civil service pension and cushy little number. The other advantage of putting the top civil service jobs out to contract is that it need not be a civil servant that apply for the job.

I again, agree in principle but politically its more complex than that.

Nothing politically complex about it at all. Making the top jobs in the civil service contract only will not affect 99.999% of the civil service, and dare I say it but ordinary hard working civil servants are probable likely to support it.
How many of them are sick and tired of having to clean up the mess of a lazy or incompetent boss?

I suppose the question then is, why would BAM or anyone sign a contract like that. They carry all the risk then. The government will then have no one tendering for work.

Its a tender process. Given that the contract would have fixed price and deadline no doubt the likes of BAM would demand a higher initial cost. They know if they do not take the contract competitors might, so yes I think even the likes of BAM would accept a fixed price contract. Market economics 101.

I have no doubt that tendered prices might be higher, but they would be fixed price, with little possibility of over runs in both cost or time.
Obviously there will be occasions here and there where an over-run happens due to unforeseen circumstances such as covid, labour strikes etc, but that is then a decision for a government to make as to how much additional cost they are will to accept or how long extra they are prepared to wait for a contract to be completed.
But the point is here that a government could plan budgets and borrowing confidently, and any possible additional cost would be far outweighed by potential overruns and deliberate under-costings by the likes of BAM

Afaik, with the NCH is that the civil service messed up the procurement on their side and BAM had come back. I am not absolving BAM here, but I would hazard a guess that BAM have smarter guys working for them, than we have for the Dept. of Health or whomever was behind the project.

Which is precisely why I advocate top civil service jobs being contract based. Only the smartest and most effective would apply. Also as stated earlier who said these contracts need be only open to existing civil servants. Plenty of extremely effective professional around the world make a living out of contracts such as these. The are well paid (because they deliver and get the bonuses), enjoy the variety of having multiple jobs and new challenges in their career, have the people management and organisational skills that would be required to deal with those working in the civil service, and their reputation is everything to them so they are unlikely to feck up.

Also if fixed price price, fixed deadlines and penalties were all included in the contract the wide boys that the likes of BAM employ to negotiate deals wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Bishop of hope

efanton wrote: »

Simple answer.
The details of the contract. FIXED PRICE, fixed deadlines, and penalty clause. If the contract does not have all three then the minister takes on full responsibility if that contract is signed.

It really not that hard a principle to understand, even a FF minister could understand that.
If the contractor fecks up and the three clauses are there, then the minister is covered, he did his job and its down to the civil servants and the contractor to sort to out the mess. If the three clauses are not there then the minister made a judgement call which was a bad judgement and takes on full responsibility




No need to sack any civil servant.
If the top jobs are contract only, that reward those that deliver with a higher wage and bonuses for cost saving, only those that are confident they can deliver will apply lest they lose their civil service pension and cushy little number. The other advantage of putting the top civil service jobs out to contract is that it need not be a civil servant that apply for the job.



Nothing politically complex about it at all. Making the top jobs in the civil service contract only will not affect 99.999% of the civil service, and dare I say it but ordinary hard working civil servant are probable likely to support it.
How many of them are sick and tired of having to clean up the mess of a lazy or incompetent boss?




Its a tender process. Given that the contract would have fixed price and deadline no doubt the likes of BAM would demand a higher initial cost. They know if they do not take the contract competitors might, so yes I think even the likes of BAM would accept a fixed price contract. Market economics 101.

I have no doubt that tendered prices might be higher, but they would be fixed price, with little possibility of over runs in both cost or time.
Obviously there will be occasions here an over happens due to unforeseen circumstances such as covid, labour strikes etc, but that is then a decision for a government to make as to how much additional cost they are will to accept or how long extra they are prepared to wait for a contract to be completed.
But the point is here that a government could plan budgets and borrowing confidently, and any possible additional cost would be far outweighed by potential overruns and deliberate under-costings by the likes of BAM





Which is precisely why I advocate top civil service jobs being contract based. Only the smartest and most effective would apply. Also as stated earlier who said these contracts need be only open to existing civil servants. Plenty of extremely effective professional around the world make a living out of contracts such as these. The are well paid (because they deliver and get the bonuses), enjoy the variety of having multiple jobs and new challenges in their career, have the people management skills that would e required to deal with those working in the civil service, and their reputation is everything to them so they are unlikely to feck up.

Also if fixed price price, fixed deadlines and penalties were all included in the contract the wide boys that the likes of BAM employ to negotiate deals wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Where would you stand on the salaries of these private ministers virtually that you're looking for?

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

Oh, we are back to that 1.2 Billion figure now, a figure which represents a cumulative price of purchasing 1,100 houses on the market to be used for social housing, over about an 8-9 year period, about 150 million per year, which as I already stated, if one was to build your own (which takes time), instead of on the market would save you about 15 million a year.

Its a saving, but nowhere, NOWHERE near enough...

Any other bright ideas or savings up your sleave?

It's like a game of three card monte with you.

You made a mistake, or pretended to, twice now on two figures I supplied with links.
Your last post claimed the 1.2 billion spent on buying houses to use as social was an error on my behalf as it pertained to builds.
I re-posted it to clarify.
Now you are posting like I pulled it out of my arse for no reason. It was reposted for your benefit.

You asked where money would come from I gave some examples of savings we could make on a move to building. I never claimed it would or would not cover the complete cost of an as yet unknown amount of social builds for an as yet unknown cost, no.

Can you tell me where we'll get the tens of millions a year required for the yearly cost of buying, leasing and renting for use as social housing? Or is that the money tree I keep hearing about?

RandomViewer

christy c wrote: »

No, Michael has a job hence it's not a jobless household. Thought Denis lives in Malta?

Family is here

James Brown

RandomViewer wrote: »

Family is here

So he's a resident of Malta, which is nice for taxation purposes, but his family are based in ireland?
Revenue should hang their heads. What a farce.

Bannasidhe

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

There was a huge recession in 2011....total tanking.

The economy had to be re structured, takes time dude.

Do you even know what we are talking about dude?

Slaintecare.

Cross party agreement this was as a good thing in 2017.
Minister for Health Simon Harris all gung-ho about it.

What has happened since dude?

A plan was published.

Bannasidhe

markodaly wrote: »

Yet, you keep looking back.

What in 2020 do you want the government to do regards Slaintecare?
Its a pity the SD's didn't have the stomach for government, otherwise, perhaps we could be closer to getting it, instead they preferred to sit and moan.

Looking back to see how much of a core policy it was?
You betcha.

Why are you whinging about the SD's - you are the one who claimed it was a core policy of the govt?

What to I want them to do?
Get their fingers out of the amply fed arses and start implementing the plan it took them 2 years to come up with - since it's a core policy.

efanton

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Unfortunately if that reform you seek is to take place what you are talking about is years in the doing.
It won't happen in the term of any govt, it would take years if not decades to implement and involve the virtual privatisation of our public services for that system to work.

I totally disagree with you on time scale.

Simply replace the top civil service jobs as and when natural attrition allows it (retirement, resignation, death etc). Of course this would take years to fully come into force, but no one in their right mind would think that it could be done in any other way.
The argument that it will take longer than the term of a government simply does not hold water. How many contracts or projects does the government sign off each year where delivery will be beyond the term of their government. Do government refuse to commit to these projects because they will not reap the rewards?

As for privatising the civil service, where did I suggest that?
The civil service employs contractors all the time for various specif tasks, I know that because I was one of them. The civil service did not change one iota while I was there, but the job was done on time and within budget.
For ordinary civil servants there would be no change, except that maybe they would be working for a more competent boss and no doubt many hard working civil servants would appreciate that.

The truth is that its not our civil service that's the problem, its our politicians.
They make promises to get elected and they estimate everything at the bottom end of the scale.
Take housing for instance, say they promise to build 10000 social houses a year, if they achieve that scale it would be great, but the true cost of that to the taxpayer will be much higher than any or at least most of them are bidding for our votes with.
If they happened to be more truthful and realistic with what they can achieve it would be a bigger help to us than most else.
The promise politics has become our biggest problem, they're all guilty of it, but SF and left of that are by far the worst offenders.

The truth is it is not the politicians either.
The biggest players in the success or failure of any government initiative is those at the top of the civil service.
It is the intransigence and reluctance of any rapid change that has prevented many government initiatives from actually delivering the benefits they promised.

If a minister does his job properly and actually consults with those that will carry out the task at hand why would there be any problems delivering promises?
Having the top jobs in the civil service on a contract basis would mean a minister having to deal with a 'free agent'. If a minister demands something that is simply unachievable do you think someone on a contract is going to accept that? of course they are not. They would have to alter the plan so that it is achievable. In fact your argument would be turned on its head because the minister could be reasonably confident that what he promises can be delivered.
Take the situation we have now, if a top civil servant is asked to do something he or she doesn't care whether it is deliverable or going to be on budget. That minister will be out of office long before that civil servant retires, and will not be held accountable in any way for cost over-runs, feck ups or delays. So if a minister promises to build a million social homes that civil servant is simply going to say 'Yes minister' and continue on as they always have, knowing that what was promised by a minister will never be delivered.


Making the top jobs in the civil service contract only would ensure that those that take them have an incentive to deliver.
If you have a guaranteed job for a lifetime whats the rush to get something done?
If what is asked by politicians when creating that contract is unreasonable then it simply will mean no sensible person would take on that contract. The politicians would have to rework their contract until what is demanded is achievable and deliverable.

BonnieSituation

Bishop of hope wrote: »

But that's a stock response re right wingers too.

It's a stock response because it LITERALLY keeps being repeated on this thread and elsewhere. Blanch is using it as his new go to.

There are considerable considerable costs in following these defaulters too, both legal and physical, as most of those not paying are letting their rentals fall into disrepair and there's a considerable cost involved in getting the properties ready for rent again + the loss of revenue while it's being sorted.
I said it earlier, most parties involved in promising this social housing are greatly underestimating the cost of the provision of it and then the upkeep of it as we go on.
The cost to the taxpayer is at the end of the day the real issue and its a fact that private housing last much longer and is much better overall value than social housing.
In short, social housing is a bottomless money pit and the bigger the hole you make with it the bigger amount you need to tip into it.
Go figure how to solve that problem, I don't know how it can be done.

I've had my fill of talking about housing policy today. I'll check back in tomorrow on this post and continue my rebuttal.

efanton

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Where would you stand on the salaries of these private ministers virtually that you're looking for?

For starter they would not be 'private ministers'.

As for payment, I would actually pay them more in line with any top business management or protect management job in hte private sector. I would also include bonuses related to any savings that department made.

You are going to go on a rant now that we could not afford that and you are completely wrong.

http://www.budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2019/Documents/Part%20II%20-%20Expenditure%20Allocations%202019-21%20(2).pdf

Take any government department you wish to name.


If a simple saving of 0.01% was made from any of them it would not only pay top rate for any one taking up these positions but there would be a return for the government too.

For example Rural & Community Development has a current budget of €144 million, which is probably one of the departments that has the smallest budget.

0.01% of that would be €1.44 million.
Are you suggesting to me that you could not employ from among the very best, pay them very handsomely, give them a bonus related to cost savings, and still not have significant change in your pocket from that amount?

Now consider what the effect would be on departments that have €500 million and beyond as their budget.

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

But that's a stock response re right wingers too.
There are considerable considerable costs in following these defaulters too, both legal and physical, as most of those not paying are letting their rentals fall into disrepair and there's a considerable cost involved in getting the properties ready for rent again + the loss of revenue while it's being sorted.
I said it earlier, most parties involved in promising this social housing are greatly underestimating the cost of the provision of it and then the upkeep of it as we go on.
The cost to the taxpayer is at the end of the day the real issue and its a fact that private housing last much longer and is much better overall value than social housing.
In short, social housing is a bottomless money pit and the bigger the hole you make with it the bigger amount you need to tip into it.
Go figure how to solve that problem, I don't know how it can be done.

If I may...
Defaulters are not the norm. That said what are the considerable costs in getting properties rental ready? I'm not disagreeing, they are valid concerns and costs.
We can take rent from source, (rent arrears would be an issue in private or state owned rentals).
We have Tenant agreements where they sign a contract to meet certain points of responsibility. We can write that up anyway we want. We can take any damages from source or garnish over time. These could be useful deterrents.

When the state pays to build a house we recoup overtime and have a house.
When the state leases or rents, we are paying likely a lot more per month than we would be towards the cost of the build and we'd have no stock to show after the 25 years or whatever. That's your money pit.

Generations were raised in social housing. We've been following the private market model for many years. I believe building en masse and renting to workers based on income is the way to go. Feeding the build to rent industry is making it difficult for the public to buy and a waste of tax money IMO.

We always ignore the working tax payer to talk about single mothers looking for houses near their mother and spongers who wreck these properties. What ever numbers we believe these people make up putting them in privately owned apartments and paying rents is an exercise in cutting the taxpayers nose to spite his face, as regards, 'forever homes'.

Bishop of hope

Bowie wrote: »

If I may...
Defaulters are not the norm. That said what are the considerable costs in getting properties rental ready? I'm not disagreeing, they are valid concerns and costs.
We can take rent from source, (rent arrears would be an issue in private or state owned rentals).
We have Tenant agreements where they sign a contract to meet certain points of responsibility. We can write that up anyway we want. We can take any damages from source or garnish over time. These could be useful deterrents.

When the state pays to build a house we recoup overtime and have a house.
When the state leases or rents, we are paying likely a lot more per month than we would be towards the cost of the build and we'd have no stock to show after the 25 years or whatever. That's your money pit.

Generations were raised in social housing. We've been following the private market model for many years. I believe building en masse and renting to workers based on income is the way to go. Feeding the build to rent industry is making it difficult for the public to buy and a waste of tax money IMO.

We always ignore the working tax payer to talk about single mothers looking for houses near their mother and spongers who wreck these properties. What ever numbers we believe these people make up putting them in privately owned apartments and paying rents is an exercise in cutting the taxpayers nose to spite his face, as regards, 'forever homes'.

It's simple to look at it in this respect.
Even if the state has to subsidise rents for people it's overall cheaper than providing a build and maintaining it over the lifetime of a tennancy.
That's not speculation that's a fact.

RandomViewer

Bishop of hope wrote: »

It's simple to look at it in this respect.
Even if the state has to subsidise rents for people it's overall cheaper than providing a build and maintaining it over the lifetime of a tennancy.
That's not speculation that's a fact.

Will you agree that high rents are stifling employment, social housing frees up private accommodation, the alternative is rent controls and all state subsidised rental properties controlled by a central state controlled letting agency with monthly checks and fines for landlords who fail to keep properties to highest standard,

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

It's simple to look at it in this respect.
Even if the state has to subsidise rents for people it's overall cheaper than providing a build and maintaining it over the lifetime of a tennancy.
That's not speculation that's a fact.

Can you show that?
How much would a council spend on maintenance over a year? Especially taking into account that they can give up or take responsibility as they see fit.

efanton

Bishop of hope wrote: »

It's simple to look at it in this respect.
Even if the state has to subsidise rents for people it's overall cheaper than providing a build and maintaining it over the lifetime of a tennancy.
That's not speculation that's a fact.

I fails to see how that can be so. In fact have you got evidence to back this up?

The life time of a tenancy is more often than not going to be two separate leasing agreements.

Now considering that a leasing agreement is considerably more than the initial build cost, I fail to see how maintaining ANY property over its lifetime could cost more than actually building it. If it did we are all in the wrong line of work, everyone would be into the property maintenance game

Bishop of hope

RandomViewer wrote: »

Will you agree that high rents are stifling employment, social housing frees up private accommodation, the alternative is rent controls and all state subsidised rental properties controlled by a central state controlled letting agency with monthly checks and fines for landlords who fail to keep properties to highest standard,

To an extent yes some of that is correct maybe.
It's making for commutes definitely.
Rents are driven by the market for them and in areas of high demand they are very expensive for sure.
Landlords should be responsible for keeping their properties to a high standard, but tenants should be responsible for anything they cause to take away from that too.
But that's another topic and is based on terms and conditions.
Building isn't necessarily the cheapest option to providing social housing in the short or long term.

Bishop of hope

efanton wrote: »

I fails to see how that can be so. In fact have you got evidence to back this up?

The life time of a tenancy is more often than not going to be two separate leasing agreements.

Now considering that a leasing agreement is considerably more than the initial build cost, I fail to see how maintaining ANY property over its lifetime could cost more than actually building it. If it did we are all in the wrong line of work, everyone would be into the property maintenance game

A firm I worked with did a study for four local authorities in the Midlands, a private report at the behest of each and found that to be the case in connection with council owned housing as opposed to subsidised rentals.
The difference even in upkeep of the supplemented rentals was huge as a lot were based in shared private residential estates too.
I car link the study as, as far as I know it was being used as to a formulation of housing policy going forward.
Admittedly, this was outside the capital and midland based where rents are lower, but providing the housing would also be cheaper too.
While some building is still taking place in these counties, the majority is being subrented as it is economically more viable.

Bishop of hope

Bowie wrote: »

Can you show that?
How much would a council spend on maintenance over a year? Especially taking into account that they can give up or take responsibility as they see fit.

The cost would vary, but in council estates that includes all services as well as the housing.
Try as you might to keep it it's a fact that the cost of maintaining council housing estates is far greater than private residential areas.
It's just an attitude thing probably, and that's not me being down on council estates or the people in them, it's probably just because it's not in anyone's interest to keep them to a standard as it doesn't benefit them in terms of future marketability of the houses.

efanton

Bishop of hope wrote: »

A firm I worked with did a study for four local authorities in the Midlands, a private report at the behest of each and found that to be the case in connection with council owned housing as opposed to subsidised rentals.
The difference even in upkeep of the supplemented rentals was huge as a lot were based in shared private residential estates too.
I car link the study as, as far as I know it was being used as to a formulation of housing policy going forward.
Admittedly, this was outside the capital and midland based where rents are lower, but providing the housing would also be cheaper too.
While some building is still taking place in these counties, the majority is being subrented as it is economically more viable.

So basically no evidence to say that building homes would be more expensive over the lifetime of that home.
Exactly what time period was this study done over to account for costs. Was it done over the period of a year, 5 years, 10 years or the actual lifetime of the property?

I get the argument that potentially in the first 25 years, there might not be much difference or possibly a saving in in favour of leasing property but you forget two important factor, maintenance work force and that beyond 25 years that lease will have to be renewed.
Like I previously stated I fail to see how over the lifetime of a tenancy (40 to 60 years typically) that the maintenance of a property could amount to the same cost of building it.

Now all maintenance, upgrades, or renovation are no longer carried out by workers employed directly by most councils. With an increase in the number of state owned homes, councils employing full time maintenance workers would become far more cost effective. I get that in rural counties where there is a low volume of state owned or leased property that there might not be enough work to warranty the employment of full time electricians, plumbers, and general maintenance staff. But if the government were to go ahead and build 100,000 homes there certainly would be for most councils.

Private contractors do not work as a non profit benefactors of the state. With state or council employed maintenance workers there is no additional profit to factor in, just the consideration that is there enough work to justify employing workers full time.

Bishop of hope

efanton wrote: »

So basically no evidence to say that building homes would be more expensive over the lifetime of that home.
Exactly what time period was this study done over to account for costs. Was it done over the period of a year, 5 years, 10 years or the actual lifetime of the property?

I get the argument that potentially in the first 25 years, there might not be much difference or possibly a saving in in favour of leasing property but you forget two important factor, maintenance work force and that beyond 25 years that lease will have to be renewed.
Like I previously stated I fail to see how over the lifetime of a tenancy (40 to 60 years typically) that the maintenance of a property could amount to the same cost of building it.

Now all maintenance, upgrades, or renovation are no longer carried out by workers employed directly by most councils. With an increase in the number of state owned homes, councils employing full time maintenance workers would become far more cost effective. I get that in rural counties where there is a low volume of state owned or leased property that there might not be enough work to warranty the employment of full time electricians, plumbers, and general maintenance staff. But if the government were to go ahead and build 100,000 homes there certainly would be for most councils.

Private contractors do not work as a non profit benefactors of the state. With state or council employed maintenance workers there is no additional profit to factor in, just the consideration that is there enough work to justify employing workers full time.

I can't remember the, figures offhand and I no longer work there either so can't reference it tbf, so I'm just speaking on the findings so you're right of course.
It was based on a 50 year period with a house built at current costs and it was 2017.
But in reference to your reply, the country is full of boarded up houses on council estates of a lot less than your lifetime of a tennancy.
While there are exceptions to that they aren't in the majority.

You should look up the rates being paid in the private sector for qualified maintainence men and wonder how much they would cost on an annual salary to keep in place to compete with that.
While your thoughts aren't profit based, these workers are.

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

The cost would vary, but in council estates that includes all services as well as the housing.
Try as you might to keep it it's a fact that the cost of maintaining council housing estates is far greater than private residential areas.
It's just an attitude thing probably, and that's not me being down on council estates or the people in them, it's probably just because it's not in anyone's interest to keep them to a standard as it doesn't benefit them in terms of future marketability of the houses.

It doesn't many things are the tenants responsibility. Admittedly my knowledge would be dated but the Tenancy agreement can be amended to put more of the onus onto the tenant is that;s a big problem.
Not trying anything. My goal is the best deal for the tax payer.
I rented for many years and I never wrecked any place I was in and I grew up surrounded by social housing estates and aside from a very small few dodgy families people kept the places well. This is just my experience of course.
On that note I've seen many a private rental in bad shape because the landlord didn't want to put any more money in than was needed.

I look at it like this:

Private:

Recoup cost to build/buy + Profit margin based on going market rate = Rent/sale price.


One is cheaper by virtue of not trying to gouge. The private landlord/seller we buy or rent off is trying to make as much as they can. So we would be and are paying to line their pockets on top of any costs.

KyussB

efanton wrote: »

So basically no evidence to say that building homes would be more expensive over the lifetime of that home.
Exactly what time period was this study done over to account for costs. Was it done over the period of a year, 5 years, 10 years or the actual lifetime of the property?

I get the argument that potentially in the first 25 years, there might not be much difference or possibly a saving in in favour of leasing property but you forget two important factor, maintenance work force and that beyond 25 years that lease will have to be renewed.
Like I previously stated I fail to see how over the lifetime of a tenancy (40 to 60 years typically) that the maintenance of a property could amount to the same cost of building it.

Now all maintenance, upgrades, or renovation are no longer carried out by workers employed directly by most councils. With an increase in the number of state owned homes, councils employing full time maintenance workers would become far more cost effective. I get that in rural counties where there is a low volume of state owned or leased property that there might not be enough work to warranty the employment of full time electricians, plumbers, and general maintenance staff. But if the government were to go ahead and build 100,000 homes there certainly would be for most councils.

Private contractors do not work as a non profit benefactors of the state. With state or council employed maintenance workers there is no additional profit to factor in, just the consideration that is there enough work to justify employing workers full time.

Consider as well, that if it pays for itself over time as well, then it doesn't make sense to not borrow to fund it (factoring in debt servicing costs and interest).

The same automatically goes for everything in goverment finances that is a recuperable capital expense, and not an everyday running cost.

In fact, Keyne's advocated for segregating such investments and its servicing costs from the main government budget.

After all, if something pays for itself over time, it's meaningless to be including it as a measure of sustainability in Public Debt figures, or in debt servicing costs, or in considering whether such measures should restrict further government spending - yet this is something people do pretty much all the time, and is codified in EU law despite being bad economics...

Bishop of hope

Bowie wrote: »

It doesn't many things are the tenants responsibility. Admittedly my knowledge would be dated but the Tenancy agreement can be amended to put more of the onus onto the tenant is that;s a big problem.
Not trying anything. My goal is the best deal for the tax payer.
I rented for many years and I never wrecked any place I was in and I grew up surrounded by social housing estates and aside from a very small few dodgy families people kept the places well. This is just my experience of course.
On that note I've seen many a private rental in bad shape because the landlord didn't want to put any more money in than was needed.

I look at it like this:

Private:

Recoup cost to build/buy + Profit margin based on going market rate = Rent/sale price.


One is cheaper by virtue of not trying to gouge. The private landlord/seller we buy or rent off is trying to make as much as they can. So we would be and are paying to line their pockets on top of any costs.

Basically all I see is anti Profit at more cost to the taxpayer overall B.
There is nothing wrong with people making a profit you know, that's how the world works and how efficiency is achieved.
Our problem with providing housing at low costs is having to compete with the private market money wise to get the work done.
There aren't too many builders going to volunteer cheap labour, be it contractors or just ordinary trades people and that's the biggest cost.

efanton

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Basically all I see is anti Profit at more cost to the taxpayer overall B.
There is nothing wrong with people making a profit you know, that's how the world works and how efficiency is achieved.
Our problem with providing housing at low costs is having to compete with the private market money wise to get the work done.
There aren't too many builders going to volunteer cheap labour, be it contractors or just ordinary trades people and that's the biggest cost.

I'm not against anyone making a profit.

What I am against is people making the argument that we as a country should spend more because they are against any form of social ownership.

If the numbers really did stack up and were proven to cost more buying property and maintaining rather than leasing it, I would be for leasing.
I have yet to see any analysis done that proves that over the lifetime of a property that more than the initial cost of building it will be spent on upkeep and repairs.

Seriously, are you for one minute suggesting that for a house that cost 250k to build that over 40 to 60 years a further 250k and more will be spent on management and maintenance?
Are you going to argue that every single year between €4,166 and €6,250 will be spent on average on every single state owned property?
If you are, it's going to be very hard for me to take you seriously at all

Bishop of hope

efanton wrote: »

I'm not against anyone making a profit.

What I am against is people making the argument that we as a country should spend more because they are against any form of social ownership.

If the numbers really did stack up and were proven to cost more buying property and maintaining rather than leasing it, I would be for leasing.
I have yet to see any analysis done that proves that over the lifetime of a property that more than the initial cost of building it will be spent on upkeep and repairs.

Seriously, are you for one minute suggesting that for a house that cost 250k to build that over 40 to 60 years a further 250k and more will be spent on management and maintenance?
Are you going to argue that every single year between €4,166 and €6,250 will be spent on average on every single state owned property?
If you are, it's going to be very hard for me to take you seriously at all

No I'm not saying that at all, but a lot of them never reach their expected lifetime at all so jacking up the cost.

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Basically all I see is anti Profit at more cost to the taxpayer overall B.
There is nothing wrong with people making a profit you know, that's how the world works and how efficiency is achieved.
Our problem with providing housing at low costs is having to compete with the private market money wise to get the work done.
There aren't too many builders going to volunteer cheap labour, be it contractors or just ordinary trades people and that's the biggest cost.

There is when it's off the taxpayer B.
Why? We can hire the same developers and pay the going rate.
Going to market we have to factor in them wanting to make a profit on top of paying for costs and wages.

Truthvader

BonnieSituation wrote: »

So you don't agree?

Nope. Every city in the world has a homeless problem. If it was "easy" to fix it would be fixed. As is evidenced here, for kick off you have to tackle the left wing right wing name calling. The usual example wheeled out as the " easy" solution is Helsinki. Firstly Helsinki made it a priority and it took 30 years. Secondy the tax rate on €33K per annum in Helsinki is 65%. And upwards from there. Plus guess what a pint costs. Not personally adverse to this solution but you cant pretend it is "easy". Plus it remains to be seen whether the Finns can keep it up.

To adopt the Helsinki model would involve a massive change in social habits, the dismatling of the capitalist / meritocracy model and it may be simply impossible to impose it on the Irish psyche. Even the suggestion that we pay for water led to huge civil unrest.

All this may be good or even achievable. Know people in Helsinki who love it. BUT if anyone things it is "easy" they are insane. It would be a bitter 50 year project to enforce a complete reimagination of how an entire society works and how you can expect to be rewarded for your work or to choose what you spend your money on. So good luck with having Boyd Barrett or Mary Lou even attempt to start the process.

Easy?????

Truthvader

Correction 57% 0n €33K

Bishop of hope

Bowie wrote: »

There is when it's off the taxpayer B.
Why? We can hire the same developers and pay the going rate.
Going to market we have to factor in them wanting to make a profit on top of paying for costs and wages.

But you're still talking provision at a much higher cost than is being touted.
We've gone full circle now and we are back at where we started.
If you take workers away from the private market then you see the cost of private construction increase because of a worker shortage and you have to compete with that.
It's a vicious circle.

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

But you're still talking provision at a much higher cost than is being touted.
We've gone full circle now and we are back at where we started.
If you take workers away from the private market then you see the cost of private construction increase because of a worker shortage and you have to compete with that.
It's a vicious circle.

So what's the difference to the private market/worker shortage if we:

A) pay developers to build housing for us...

or

tell developers to build and guarantee them we'll buy/rent them on completion?

I think it's nothing. Is it nothing?