The eviction ban

...its a lot more complicated than just pure greed, this is ideological collapse, and parties such as ff are simply unwilling to accept it, its rather disturbing to see such a large group, of well educated, yet deeply misinformed people, maintaining pursuit of such beliefs....

That may be the case. But it's simply not true that a person on the AIW couldn't buy a house in decades past. This idea that a modest gaff should cost half a mil and hock you into debt until you're an OAP is a relatively new situation brought about over the last couple of decades by chronic mishandling by laissez faire governmental "management" and we need to stop trying to normalise that particular state of affairs.

And no frappucino's to blow the deposit

A house in Dublin doesn't cost 500k unless you don't consider apartments to be houses. There are plenty of 2 bed apartments selling for 250k or less in Dublin. Never mind outside Dublin where prices are lower.

Thats well within the price range of a couple on a combined salary of 60k or single professional. Generally the challenge is saving for the deposit.

Based on Information so far provided by Revenue the average salary of people renting is between 30 and 40k and are generally relatively young. So for couples at least buying their own house/accommodation is still possible providing they can work up a deposit. The deposit is the hard part as it will take at least 2/3 years to build that up. Which the rent crisis does not help.

When people talk about OAPs renting they appear to be the exceptions rather than the rule when it comes to renting based on the information available.

The opposition that want to drive foreign investment out of the country through increased taxation.

Morally I'm in agreement with them on that, big multinationals shouldn't be getting an easy time of it but we also have no natural resources and we're heavily reliant on foreign investment so we're stuck with what we've got unless we want an exodus of foreign investment from Ireland which is what the opposition are offering.

That would certainly go some way to sorting out the housing crisis, large numbers of people won't have a job and the only people able to afford property at the new knock down prices will be the existing landlord class and vulture funds.

The eviction ban was a sticking plaster solution, and we all know it hurts when they're ripped away. The FF/FG axis of greed remaining in power is option 1. A future devoid of employment that only ends up benefitting the existing wealthy people of Ireland brought to us by the current opposition and their short sighted approach to governance is the other.

Either way the rich benefit and the working person gets stiffed yet again. Two bad options but at least the current opposition will be able to claim their ministerial pensions in years to come if we choose to elect them, every cloud and all that.

Am I missing something re the following three points:-

(1) I find it of interest the blocking of a lot of housing development plans by SF - the very party that want more houses built albeit on public lands only. If the builders/ developers are allowed to build the houses/apartments then they reckon there is a market for , then where do these people come from. I would expect that , in the main, they would come from other accommodation and a large % would be moving to upgrade their accommodation. My thinking is the more houses /apartments that are built the more accommodation that is freed up - irrespective of the type of accom built, where it is built, the price range , etc, etc. if this is allowed to proceed then we should see the price of houses/ renting cost come down. IS It NOT SIMPLE ECONOMICS?

(2) rented property - especially residential type houses developed into apartments/flats could have anything between two and up to , say, 8 flats/apts. This is probably the case because a lot of landlords are smalltime/accidental landlords. So if such a landlord sells up and the house is bought by a family to be used exclusively for family purposes then this is solving the housing for one family but putting from one and to up to eight families/individuals back on to the housing market thus excaborating the housing problem. The simple solution is to keep landlords in the business of accommodation provision. - the more accommodation available the lower the rent. Is that not also SIMPLE ECONOMICS/LOGIC

(3) Park the law with regards to bedsits and bring them back - until the housing crisis is solved There was no outcry -even a tiny screech- at the time when the gov decided to outlaw them. By all means basic standards / regulations should apply. Of course the Gov and others will come up with all kinds of reasons why that’s not on BUT at the end of the day a bedsitwill provide your own key, access to a toilet/washing facilities ,your own cooking/ food storage facilities, a BED TO SLEEP ON , a much reduced rent compared to current high rents, etc, etc. SO WHAT MORE DOES ONE WANT? I wonder at times if we are living beyond our means?

(4) when you listen to Joe Duffy and other programmes and people come on and say that they are being evicted , thrown out on the road/ street, etc. , and have nowhere else to go. The interviewer then asks the minister, irrespective of what minister it is- where are these people/ families to go/ what are you doing about it, etc, etc, etc.

how come the interviewer- WITHOUT EXCEPTION - never ask the interviewee if they have a mother, father , aunt , uncle, brother, sister, friend, neighbour, grandfather, grandmother, etc, etc, that they can stay with - at least in the short term. Of course such a question would not be asked as it would deflate a lot of interested parties

the first go to re where to sleep in is the car

s

That's very true. If you have 100 people looking to buy houses and only 50 houses available, no matter how much everyone bids up the price, 50 people are going without a house. Eventually, with sky high prices supply will increase but this process can take many years.

Interest rates are the cost to you of using other people's money. That is up to you.

Correct. You make a decision to swap rental income for either interest paid or forgone (the cost of capital....but not the capital repayments though even though plenty think they are entitled to that too). You take that interest rate risk though. Your decision

No they couldn’t, completely unconstitutional, the gov can’t just seize property from one person to give it to another (my Christ)

CPO has to be for the common good, like building a hospital or a road or something everyone can use, not just taking one insidious assets and giving them to someone else

Why is it that people conflate "profit" (or income) with "after tax income"? You only see landlords and teachers doing that.

Granted, she isn't taking into account expenses but it appears most peoples gripes are along the lines that "the profit is only half that because of tax".