State is buying half of all new homes - this has to stop!

First paragraph had me worried but 2nd paragraph mentioned welfare so business as usual. Phew.

The state should never be in a position where it's outbidding people on houses and that's what we have at the moment. The current situation where the state either directly or through funding housing agencies buy houses to give away has a far greater impact on middle income earners being able to afford a home than the media bogeyman of REITS buying them

funnily enough, more state involvement generally means a far more stable property market, as it limits speculation in those markets, as what has occurred here and in many other countries, by primarily prompting the fire sectors to dictate and dominate the markets, Singapore is a perfect example of having very strong state involvement, and a far more stable market

...so theres no lower/welfare classes in other countries???

Yeah it's a ridiculous and infuriating situation when private buyers are being squeezed out of private estates.

All because the government who has the ability to build houses themselves won't.

And this is all from so-called centrist parties.

I understand the need for social housing but the priority they're been given in private estates is completely disproportionate.

The consistantant uninformed Blurb.

The REITS unlike one-off landlords are generally good landlords and don't mess around with illegal evictions because of a fictitious cousin moving into the house, take six months to do repairs, retain deposits because they are 12 months in arrears on the mortgage.

REITS must be registered in an EU stock exchange, the shares are therefore freely available to you to buy and are generally owned by European and Irish Pension funds.

So the Prison officers pension fund, the Irish Construction Workers Pension Fund and lots of other Irish pensions are the REITS.

75% of earnings MUST be distributed in Dividend. Dividend with-holding tax is paid on the Dividend, the shareholder must then declare the dividend as income.

But ignore me and don't let simple facts get in the way of flawed angry rant.

This post shows that you actually haven't a clue about what you are talking about.

But if it lets you let of steam ....

we re currently experiencing a catastrophic failure of the market based approach to property, otherwise known as the financialisation of markets....

Yes, this has been a big issue for a while and only getting worse. Until there is a sufficient supply of desirable property, everyone loses. All the tweaks and policies and stupid ideas are simply about making some people suffer more than others.

There should be a massive reform of "social" housing, and an immediate cessation of purchasing/renting more houses. At the moment, we have councils out-bidding working people looking to buy/rent a home (or where they do end up buying/renting, it is at a massively inflated price because of the council's activities). Thus, we end up with A) more working people becoming dependant on housing subsidies and B) a higher cost to the taxpayer per person on housing subsidies.

The only solution is to build large numbers of well designed properties in well-serviced urban areas and drive down the ridiculous prices. After that, there will be less people needing housing subsidies, and it will be much cheaper to provide those who still need help. Meanwhile, working people won't have to beg, borrow or steal just to get a $hitty shoebox.

Unfortunately, the big mantra at the moment is "we need more social housing" and "we should waste huge sums of taxpayers money to build more houses in the back and beyond where nobody wants to live". God help us if sf get into power. Not only will they do nothing to resolve the 30-year old crisis, but will make things even worse.

As someone in their late 30's,i don't think we will resolve the crisis in my lifetime. Politicians keep making things worse (with sf being the worst offenders) and even if they started doing the right thing tomorrow, it would be probably a decade before you would realise the benefits and several decades before it is completely resolved (hence why politicians won't do the right thing).

Saying REITs are the only ones providing capital to build is simply not true.

A. How does the rent they pay compare to the private sector for similar properties?

B. The rent is supposed to be based on household income. To what extent is this monitored?

C. What percentage are up to date with their payments?

As usual they’re doing what is politically expedient rather than looking after working tax payers (the very last thing they ever do) - funny thing is, they’ll get zero thanks from the free house brigade- they’ll all be voting SF if they can be bothered to go vote.

yes that's correct, pay rent.

as they are contractually obligated to pay money to the council, and will thus be paying what they are supposed to be paying then they are paying rent.

if they are not paying the rent then the council has options and remedies available and it's on them to use them.

If you are going to compare Ireland to other countries please do not cherry pick aspects of the country to further your argument. People in Singapore have a different work/culture to Irish people.

Gaming the system in Ireland is seen as a badge of honour. Relying on the State in Singapore is seen as being a failure.

Only those in Singapore who have no other choices rely on state support for housing. In Ireland we hear of unmarried mothers in their mid to late twenties getting their "forever home" which ironically is provided by the State.

So more involvement by the State actually distorts the market and encourages reliance on the State. At what point do people accept responsibility for their situation?

This is the hilarious thing about it all. It's FF/FG that have given the welfare class everything but they'll vote SF in their droves.