# Government to begin paying older people to downsize



## Brendan Burgess

*Property revolution: Government to begin paying older people to downsize*

*Pay older people to downsize and move - report*
*Half of new apartments ‘must suit the elderly’*
*Land agency chief ’s radical rent-for-life plan*
*'Property tax very low compared to elsewhere’*

From today's Indo

Not sure if this is aimed at private housing or social housing.

In Dublin alone, about 5,000 people live on their own in 2,3& 4 bed units.

They should be told to share or rent on their own.

There are a total of over 12,000 spare bedrooms in social housing in Dublin alone.

There are 50 families of 4 or more people living in one roomed units.

Attached is a Briefing Note done by Karl Deeter and me.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess

*Immediate action is required *

·People living on their own should be told to find someone else in the same position and share with them.   
If the 2,258 people living in 3 and 4 bed houses moved into the spare room in the 2 bed houses, then we would immediately have 2,064 three bed houses and 194 four bed houses immediately available to house people.

We should not build any more social housing in Dublin other than one bed units and gradually move everyone living on their own into these.

We should immediately stop the sale of any social housing at a discount

We should ban successor tenancies – where a child inherits their parent’s social housing.

*Long term action *

Housing needs should be reviewed every 5 years and people should be moved to more appropriate housing whether that is larger or smaller.


----------



## Leper

We bought our own houses upgraded along the way. We spent a fortune getting our house and gardens to their present state. Mrs Lep and I are not moving for anybody. Move into a downsized apartment yourself Mr Varadkar.

Come, up with another idea Mr Varadkar. We went through life paying all our due taxes, didn't do 3rd Level because we couldn't afford it, couldn't get grants for our offspring for their 3rd Level. Half our children have emigrated, never to return fulltime. We don't qualify for state pensions. We never drew unemployment benefit. 

Mrs Lep and I are not the conscience of the state.


----------



## Early Riser

Leper said:


> Mrs Lep and I are not moving for anybody. Move into a downsized apartment yourself Mr Varadkar.



Who is forcing you to move ? What is wrong with making options available for people who might like to move ?
Are you opposed in principle to incentives?


----------



## Leper

Early Riser said:


> Who is forcing you to move ? What is wrong with making options available for people who might like to move ?
> Are you opposed in principle to incentives?



This is another scheme dreamed up by politicians to try to convince the public that they are concerned about Ireland's housing crisis. People like me owe the country nothing and now Mr Varadkar expects us to sell up and live in inferior accommodation and do what successive governments should have been doing anyway. We've invested our lives in our home and made it into what we wanted. We didn't cause the housing crisis. We are good citiziens, paid our taxes without thought, took on part time jobs to put our kids through university, never claimed unemployment benefit, never claimed any form of social welfare. 

. . . and who will get our house, if we went down the incentive road, I've no reason to believe some deserving family will. Some TD's will even be making representations for some serial freeloaders to get what we've attained. Incentives - I gave up on these years ago, such is the honesty of the dynasties of freeloaders Ireland has in abundance.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

I need the space at this point in my life but I could see myself downsizing in old age. 

The main things that would put me off aren't financial though. I would only ever downsize to an apartment in very precise circumstances:

Top floor
Small development with mostly owner occupiers
High charges and sinking fund in good shape

Most Irish apartments have awful soundproofing and the main way to avoid this is to be on the top floor. Management and maintenance of large blocks with lots of non-resident owners have problems. There are plenty of AAM threads on this.

I would also want a small development where your interests are generally aligned with other residents, and where it is easy to get agreement. 


It's very hard to find all of these in an Irish apartment.


----------



## Early Riser

Mr Leper - As rants go that is an interesting rant.

All we have at the moment is a newspaper article. There does not seem any reason to suspect that there is any proposal to oblige you to leave your house. From what I can gather, for the private sector the proposal is to make more attractive alternatives available for people who may wish to downsize - and, perhaps, some form of incentive in some situations.

There is no suggestion that anyone (and certainly not you specifically!) is being obliged to take such options. However, I would be surprised if some people might not - and be glad of it. Maybe you would regard them as freeloaders? But if it helps free up family homes in urban locations close to major centres of employment its seems ok to me. Do you think it a good idea that people have to buy houses 30-40 miles away from their work while retired couples (or individuals) are "trapped" in family homes locally for want of alternatives? (If someone is selling privately to downsize what has the TD got to do with it?)

At the moment, the options for downsizing are generally poor, unless people want to uproot in their retirement and move somewhere far away. Even at that, the options may not be great.


----------



## RETIRED2017

Leper said:


> This is another scheme dreamed up by politicians to try to convince the public that they are concerned about Ireland's housing crisis. People like me owe the country nothing and now Mr Varadkar expects us to sell up and live in inferior accommodation and do what successive governments should have been doing anyway. We've invested our lives in our home and made it into what we wanted. We didn't cause the housing crisis. We are good citiziens, paid our taxes without thought, took on part time jobs to put our kids through university, never claimed unemployment benefit, never claimed any form of social welfare.
> 
> . . . and who will get our house, if we went down the incentive road, I've no reason to believe some deserving family will. Some TD's will even be making representations for some serial freeloaders to get what we've attained. Incentives - I gave up on these years ago, such is the honesty of the dynasties of freeloaders Ireland has in abundance.


I agree with you
Over my life time I have seen many examples of it,
Just one example back  oround 1983/4 I seen many newspaper articles very close to no 1 post above arguing the point that cutting unemployment benefit would get the skivers into the workforce ,
The argument was made by out of touch right wing parties and there fellow travellers  in the end the got there way ,

It was a great day for skivers and a bad day for workers,

The results was up until around 1985/6 if you were working and lost your job or let off for a  short time you got 75% of your wage for around 6 months and tapered off from there until it reached the same rate as someone who never worked,

The out of touch people could not see the 75% unemployment Benefit got people back working as soon as possible  to preserve there entitlement ,

If the right wing and there fellow travellers had not got there way in 1983/4 things would have being a lot better for the people who lost there jobs in 2008,

Between 1985/6  and 2008 all of the money taken in in prsi which by the way was close to 18% of payroll was spent supporting the skivers rather than building up a fund to support people who wanted to work and lost there job,


----------



## Early Riser

I see there is a short article in today's IT about it :
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/pol...ffered-incentives-to-downsize-homes-1.3803765

It says a report will be launched on Wednesday. You might know better then if they are coming to get you!


----------



## Saavy99

Leper said:


> We bought our own houses upgraded along the way. We spent a fortune getting our house and gardens to their present state. Mrs Lep and I are not moving for anybody. Move into a downsized apartment yourself Mr Varadkar.
> 
> Come, up with another idea Mr Varadkar. We went through life paying all our due taxes, didn't do 3rd Level because we couldn't afford it, couldn't get grants for our offspring for their 3rd Level. Half our children have emigrated, never to return fulltime. We don't qualify for state pensions. We never drew unemployment benefit.
> 
> Mrs Lep and I are not the conscience of the state.




I would imagine this is refering to social housing.  Not a hope would I share my own large home with a stranger.  Like Leper, I worked too hard for my privacy and independence for some work shy individual to move in with me. Over my dead body...


----------



## RETIRED2017

Saavy99 said:


> I would imagine this is refering to social housing.  Not a hope would I share my own large home with a stranger.  Like Leper, I worked too hard for my privacy and independence for some work shy individual to move in with me. Over my dead body...


Rather than spend money build houses it will be squandered on people in a position to work the system by people in  public and private sectors,


----------



## Early Riser

Saavy99 said:


> I would imagine this is refering to social housing.  Not a hope would I share my own large home with a stranger.  Like Leper, I worked too hard for my privacy and independence for some work shy individual to move in with me. Over my dead body...



Is yours a privately owned house ? If so, where is the suggestion that you might be obliged to share it with anyone?
There is the rent-a-room scheme as an incentive. Do you object to such incentives being available ? Do you experience it as a threat?


----------



## Steven Barrett

Watch out, Ireland is becoming a communist country!! Since when can the State tell people that they must share their privately owned dwelling with someone else?!! Or tell them they have to sell it to a younger family? 

If I am rattling around my own mansion on my own in my 70's, that's my choice and the State have absolutely no authority to tell me I have to share it. 

And what would be the process of making someone share a house? A series of interviews for suitable housemates? And what if no one is suitable? 

Or if I have a 6 bedroom house, do I have to fill all 5 spare rooms with a gaggle of kids?


----------



## RETIRED2017

Early Riser said:


> Is yours a privately owned house ? If so, where is the suggestion that you might be obliged to share it with anyone?
> There is the rent-a-room scheme as an incentive. Do you object to such incentives being available ? Do you experience it as a threat?


A long term threat to taxpayers money being squandered ,another loophole being built into the system for people to abuse,


----------



## Early Riser

RETIRED2017 said:


> A long term threat to taxpayers money being squandered ,another loophole being built into the system for people to abuse,



How do you see that, more specifically ?


----------



## odyssey06

Ah, before we lose the run of ourselves here can someone point me towards the comment where John Moran says anything about forcing people in private homes to downsize? As opposed to using 'carrots' versus 'sticks'?


----------



## RETIRED2017

odyssey06 said:


> Ah, before we lose the run of ourselves here can someone point me towards the comment where John Moran says anything about forcing people in private homes to downsize? As opposed to using 'carrots' versus 'sticks'?


The carrot is taxpayers money ,and the carrots will be in short supply in a few years,

John Moran needs to start sowing carrots himself then he can give them away if he wants to,


----------



## Sarenco

I happen to know quite a few seniors that are keen to downsize from large family homes to modern apartments.  It can make a lot of economic sense.

The problem they typically run into is a lack of suitable apartments in their desired location.

BTW the idea of forcing seniors to live with strangers in their own homes is bizarre.


----------



## Early Riser

SBarrett said:


> Watch out, Ireland is becoming a communist country!! Since when can the State tell people that they must share their privately owned dwelling with someone else?!! Or tell them they have to sell it to a younger family?
> 
> If I am rattling around my own mansion on my own in my 70's, that's my choice and the State have absolutely no authority to tell me I have to share it.
> 
> And what would be the process of making someone share a house? A series of interviews for suitable housemates? And what if no one is suitable?
> 
> Or if I have a 6 bedroom house, do I have to fill all 5 spare rooms with a gaggle of kids?



Is this a thread about an as yet unannounced proposal to increase options to people who may wish to move, or to provide them with incentives? Or is it about paranoid ramblings ? Maybe the space invaders are coming in their flying saucers to take your (private) houses away to Planet OM ?


----------



## odyssey06

Remember the UK has this... so not exactly unprecedented for a state to look at ways to increase use of the rooms it has available in its social housing stock:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under-occupancy_penalty


----------



## RETIRED2017

Sarenco said:


> I happen to know quite a few seniors that are keen to downsize from large family homes to modern apartments.  It can make a lot of economic sense.
> 
> The problem they typically run into is a lack of suitable apartments in their desired location.
> 
> BTW the idea of forcing seniors to live with strangers in their own homes is bizarre.


I looked at moving into a smaller home within a few miles of where I live there is nothing around at present, There are lots more in the same position around where I live at present,
I actually rent out a few looked at selling one and buying one that I can downsize to at present, I will wait and see if John Moran is  going to give me a hand,


----------



## Early Riser

odyssey06 said:


> Remember the UK has this... so not exactly unprecedented for a state to look at ways to increase use of the rooms it has available in its social housing stock:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under-occupancy_penalty



Very true - it would be surprising if something along these lines is not proposed here. But it is for social housing. And I suspect the outraged will not be so outraged about this. Which is a bit outrageous - after all it is good to find something to be outraged about on a monday morning! 
Oops - who is that knocking on the door - could it really be a mother and 5 kids moving in ?


----------



## RETIRED2017

Early Riser said:


> Very true - it would be surprising if something along these lines is not proposed here. But it is for social housing. And I suspect the outraged will not be so outraged about this. Which is a bit outrageous - after all it is good to find something to be outraged about on a monday morning!
> Oops - who is that knocking on the door - could it really be a mother and 5 kids moving in ?


The mother and her  5 kids will be knocking on your wage packet come friday and every friday from now on,

 she will not want to live with you she wants a place of her own, Hopefully yours in time, With a little help from the missguided right wing and there fellow travellers,
Go no go on go on you don't really need all that space do you  come on move on like a good taxpayer?, Your grand children can play on the landing if the come to visit ,


----------



## Saavy99

Early Riser said:


> Is yours a privately owned house ? If so, where is the suggestion that you might be obliged to share it with anyone?
> There is the rent-a-room scheme as an incentive. Do you object to such incentives being available ? Do you experience it as a threat?



100% privately owned. 
Over the last ten years or so  government policy on housing has seen an over reliance on private landlords with zero protection for landlords when tennents decide to stop paying their rent.  It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the government don't try to push this in through the back door.  As for the rent a room scheme, that's up to private individuals whether they want to rent out rooms in their house for monatoey gain but it's not for me as I said I value my home privacy too much.


----------



## Early Riser

Saavy99 said:


> 100% privately owned.
> As for the rent a room scheme, that's up to private individuals whether they want to rent out rooms in their house for monatoey gain but it's not for me as I said I value my home privacy too much.



Saavy, I was not suggesting you should use it. I was just giving it as an example of an incentive that is there (which some people opt to use) and asking if you have an objection to it. If not, then you do not have have an objection to incentives in general. So what might be your objection to an incentive for people to downsize, should they choose to do so ?



Saavy99 said:


> It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the government don't try to push this in through the back door.



Push what exactly through the  back door? Are you conflating a proposal regarding social housing with a proposal re options for people in private housing to downsize ?


----------



## Gordon Gekko

It’s gas how these kites seem to pitch people against one another.

Like many people, I’ve taken the 48% of my surplus income that I’m allowed to keep and bought somewhere that I’ll happily stay in forever.


----------



## RETIRED2017

Gordon Gekko said:


> It’s gas how these kites seem to pitch people against one another.
> 
> Like many people, I’ve taken the 48% of my surplus income that I’m allowed to keep and bought somewhere that I’ll happily stay in forever.


48% ia away more than you need wait until the missguided right wing are finished of being taken advantage of ,

Wait until they are finished messing with housing and move on to the tax pension breaks,

The two back quarters have not being milked yet,


----------



## Early Riser

Gordon Gekko said:


> Like many people, I’ve taken the 48% of my surplus income that I’m allowed to keep and bought somewhere that I’ll happily stay in forever.



That is absolutely fine, Gordon. But none of us know how or when our circumstances might change, eg, health, disability, need to access equity for unforeseen reasons. It would be nice to think that there might be a lot more options for older people to downsize than there are now, eg, suitable apartments in central locations, low dependency communities.

And even if you never want to (or opt to) move, others may choose to do so for whatever reason. If it suits them and if it simultaneously frees up a family home, that seems like a win/win.

I am not sure why this seems so threatening to some.


----------



## Early Riser

RETIRED2017 said:


> ....wait until the missguided* right wing *are finished of being taken advantage of ,
> 
> Wait until they are finished messing with housing and *move on to the tax pension breaks*,



And I thought it was the left wingers that were threatening the tax breaks! Do you mean they are all out to get us?


----------



## RETIRED2017

Early Riser said:


> That is absolutely fine, Gordon. But none of us know how or when our circumstances might change, eg, health, disability, need to access equity for unforeseen reasons. It would be nice to think that there might be a lot more options for older people to downsize than there are now, eg, suitable apartments in central locations, low dependency communities.
> 
> And even if you never want to (or opt to) move, others may choose to do so for whatever reason. If it suits them and if it simultaneously frees up a family home, that seems like a win/win.
> 
> I am not sure why this seems so threatening to some.


Not threatening if you are already guaranteed some of the milk left in the last two quarters for your lifetime,


----------



## Saavy99

RETIRED2017 said:


> Not threatening if you are already guaranteed some of the milk left in the last two quarters for your lifetime,



Can you explain


----------



## RETIRED2017

Early Riser said:


> And I thought it was the left wingers that were threatening the tax breaks! Do you mean they are all out to get us?


The right wing always get there before them, Left wing only threaten, It is Right Wing who have taken 52% and still rising,


----------



## Tintagel

I would consider downsizing if.

I don't have to pay stamp duty on my new house.
If I can get a low interest bridging loan to purchase my new home while waiting for mine to be sold.
If I don't have to pay property tax for at least 5 years on my new home.
If I can offset my apartment management costs against my property tax.
If I can find a suitable home within a half mile from where I presently live.
If I received some assistance toward my Estate Agents costs.


----------



## RETIRED2017

Saavy99 said:


> Can you explain


Now now It reminds me of the last time I was in Prague I was sitting out having refreshments one side of Charles Bridge when what appeared like a group of well to do young people came along all of a shot the started messing one pretended to throw one of there comrades into the river while the rest in the group robbed handbags ,The reminded me of the right wing in Ireland,

The want your support ,they get your support , then the rob you ,


----------



## Delboy

This is one of the more bizarre threads that I'v read on AAM. It's gone off in so many directions, some posters must be suffering severe dizzy spells at this stage!


----------



## RETIRED2017

Delboy said:


> This is one of the more bizarre threads that I'v read on AAM. It's gone off in so many directions, some posters must be suffering severe dizzy spells at this stage!


The right wing never get dizzy seeing they wear there blindfold all the time,


----------



## Jim2007

Leper said:


> We bought our own houses upgraded along the way. We spent a fortune getting our house and gardens to their present state. Mrs Lep and I are not moving for anybody. Move into a downsized apartment yourself Mr Varadkar.



So you spent a fortune creating a home that is too big for your needs and are now determined to continue maintaining it and trying to do the work necessary for the upkeep of the gardens etc as you grow older.... it is your choice and no one can make you give up your property it is constitutionally guaranteed, so don't blow your top.  Personally I'd prefer to spend my time and money on other things in retirement.


----------



## Laramie

Jim2007 said:


> Personally I'd prefer to spend my time and money on other things in retirement.


 I spent two hours out in my garden this morning, doing a tidy up and putting some compost on my raised vegetable beds. I didn't want to go out at first, but when I got going it was magical. I can buy my veggie cheaper in the German supermarkets but I still like pottering about.
This afternoon I will watch a few downloads and spend some time planning my holidays to apartments that someone else owns in Spain/Portugal. If the sun stays I will crack open a bottle of wine that I bought before Christmas for a few Euro when the supermarkets were killing each other to offer me discounts. I will sit in the sun and enjoy it.
My big house is a summer house. Not so much a winter house. If things get too difficult for me I might downsize, but it will be my choice when and where I do it.
I might even contact Leper and see if he has availability in his Spanish apartment this year. It's My time now.


----------



## Early Riser

Laramie said:


> My big house is a summer house. Not so much a winter house. If things get too difficult for me I might downsize, but it will be my choice when and where I do it



Good for you. But could you be more specific about its relevance to proposals to increase options for people who may wish to downsize and/or provide incentives for downsizing ? Do you see either of these as interfering with your freedom ?


----------



## Gordon Gekko

Early Riser said:


> That is absolutely fine, Gordon. But none of us know how or when our circumstances might change, eg, health, disability, need to access equity for unforeseen reasons. It would be nice to think that there might be a lot more options for older people to downsize than there are now, eg, suitable apartments in central locations, low dependency communities.
> 
> And even if you never want to (or opt to) move, others may choose to do so for whatever reason. If it suits them and if it simultaneously frees up a family home, that seems like a win/win.
> 
> I am not sure why this seems so threatening to some.



I’ll tell you why Early Riser. Because the next step is disincentivising people from staying in their family homes. Newstalk referred to the idea of a “bed tax” similar to the very old window tax.

There is a risk here of demonising people who done their own thing with the 48% of their money that they’re allowed to keep.

I’ve no issue with supporting older people to move by choice; just don’t penalise them for wanting to enjoy things like gardens that they may have put decades into.


----------



## jpd

Sarenco said:


> I happen to know quite a few seniors that are keen to downsize from large family homes to modern apartments.  It can make a lot of economic sense.
> 
> The problem they typically run into is a lack of suitable apartments in their desired location.



I was involved in a project in a well-to-do community to convert 2 4-bed semis into a number of smaller apartments to provide properties for seniors to downsize and remain within the same locality. The project ran into a brick wall from the very start with opposition from all sides of the community

So imho, the lack of suitable apartments is down to lack of understanding and foresight amongst political leaders who cannot, and will not, try to educate local communities on the benefits of having a mix of residences in a neighbourhood


----------



## Early Riser

Gordon Gekko said:


> Because the next step is disincentivising people from staying in their family homes. Newstalk referred to the idea of a “bed tax” similar to the very old window tax.



I haven't heard the Newtalk "talk". But I would be more than surprised if there were to be any proposal along these lines.
What is being talked about are ideas around incentives and alternatives. If people have some reasoned opposition to either of these then by all means lets hear it. But frankly, I think it is bizarre to be getting outraged (I am not suggesting that you are) about something that is being proposed - and which, on the face of it, seems positive all round - on the basis of something else that could speculatively happen.

It would be easy to speculate about all sorts of things that could happen (Why not confiscation of private property? After all it could happen.). Would it not be better to focus on the pros and cons of current proposals - or what we know of them at this stage.

By the way, I believe the window tax was abolished in 1851? Perhaps a light tax would be more appropriate nowadays?


----------



## AlbacoreA

Early Riser said:


> That is absolutely fine, Gordon. But none of us know how or when our circumstances might change, eg, health, disability, need to access equity for unforeseen reasons. It would be nice to think that there might be a lot more options for older people to downsize than there are now, eg, suitable apartments in central locations, low dependency communities.
> 
> And even if you never want to (or opt to) move, others may choose to do so for whatever reason. If it suits them and if it simultaneously frees up a family home, that seems like a win/win.
> 
> I am not sure why this seems so threatening to some.



Its unworkable. Even before you look at the track record with housing, health etc. 
But the Govt and Lobbyists will keep at it, not doubt. Blind leading the blind over a cliff. 

People don't downsize because there is no supply of suitable properties to downsize too. There is no financial advantage in doing so either.  
In fact a larger property might be more suitable for converting for accessible bathrooms, bedrooms and stair-lifts, ramps, accessible vehicles, mobility aids. 
As they have the space to accommodate them. Also same for family members to stay over, live in nurses etc. 

So do you spend all the money on taxes and fees on moving to something smaller, or use the money to convert where you currently own. 
Considering the medical card has been stripped off them anyway. 


Build more houses and stop wasting time with these political soundbites.


----------



## MangoJoe

Given that so many people do seek to downsize anyhow for lots of sensible and practical reasons surely there would be a case to be made for policy to incentivise this to facilitate more people to go ahead and do it and make it easier and more attractive to those who mightn't otherwise have taken the opportunity.

Personally speaking if I get to the stage in life where my kids have moved out and I have become a custodian to a pile of empty bedrooms and am still devoting hours to cutting the grass/hedges/etc then I have very definitely taken a wrong turn somewhere.

I hope to sell up and buy somewhere nice and manageable by the Sea.


----------



## Folsom

Hi 

I and my wife and two kids currently live with my mother in law. We were renting in Dublin but my wife lost her job and rents got too high. My wife started working again last Summer and we are staying in the three bed terrace and are close to saving a deposit of our own.

Whilst reading about mortgages on this site I came across this topic and the interesting views expressed. 
It also became apparent to me that if we move out we will leave my mother in law in a three bed terrace by herself. Considering the housing shortage and the circumstances upon which we find ourselves rearing two kids, should it not be a case of my wifes mother moving out and leaving us with the accommodation? 
We would gladly pay her rent and pay towards a deposit if she wanted to buy elsewhere.


----------



## Early Riser

AlbacoreA said:


> Its unworkable.



Perhaps and perhaps not. I think there are quite a few people who would be interested in alternatives and would consider downsizing if good options were available. I certainly don't think that building more and more three and 4 bed semis at ever more distant locations is a "solution" that works well for almost anyone.

It is , in my opinion, well worth trying some alternatives. Then we will know whether they will work or not (I don't think anyone is suggesting that  this is "the solution" in itself). And providing suitable alternatives obviously includes making provision for supports and adaptations an aging person might need. To me this makes more sense than than building in stairlifts, etc. into older two-storey, four-bedroom houses. They are good family homes as they are and if some older people free them up by choosing to move to something they consider more suitable, that is fine by me. (By the way, I am not on the look-out to acquire one of these vacated houses!)


----------



## Early Riser

Folsom said:


> Considering the housing shortage and the circumstances upon which we find ourselves rearing two kids, should it not be a case of my wifes mother moving out and leaving us with the accommodation?



Does your mother-in-law own her house ? She certainly shouldn't be obliged to move out to accomodate yourselves. But it would be nice if there was an alternative available within the broader vicinity that she could consider and which may suit her better as she ages.

What happens otherwise? You and your wife purchase a family house somewhere far away(maybe Carlow or Longford would suit?) and commute to work. All your time is taken up, so your wife and her mother hardly get to see each other and you are both unavailable to give her supports if she needs it down the road. Her house may need adaptations as she get older. Without supports she may eventually (and prematurely) have to enter a nursing home.

However, we have to stick with things as they are now because to offer alternatives would be outrageous and would, of course, open the door to property confiscation (well you never know what might happen!)


----------



## AlbacoreA

Early Riser said:


> Perhaps and perhaps not. ...consider downsizing if good options were available.....that building more and more three and 4 bed semis...



There is no stock of good options. Come back when you have that sorted.


----------



## Folsom

Early Riser said:


> Does your mother-in-law own her house ?



She does yes, but im not sure what that has got to do with anything. She will be living on her own in a three bed, while we will be lucky to afford a 3-bed, rented or otherwise. 
If the issue is a shortage of suitable accommodation then she should be the one to move out.
Im not suggesting forcing her out, but an incentive for her to move could be for the state to forgo property tax on her down-sized accommodation?


----------



## Saavy99

Folsom said:


> If the issue is a shortage of suitable accommodation then she should be the one to move out.



Gosh, the sense of entitlement is astonishing.


----------



## RETIRED2017

Folsom said:


> She does yes, but im not sure what that has got to do with anything. She will be living on her own in a three bed, while we will be lucky to afford a 3-bed, rented or otherwise.
> If the issue is a shortage of suitable accommodation then she should be the one to move out.
> Im not suggesting forcing her out, but an incentive for her to move could be for the state to forgo property tax on her down-sized accommodation?


With an attitude like that I would not be surprised if one will be moving out ,I suspect it will not be the mother in law,
Are you expecting our right wing government and the mother in law to support you,


----------



## PGF2016

Folsom said:


> Hi
> 
> I and my wife and two kids currently live with my mother in law. We were renting in Dublin but my wife lost her job and rents got too high. My wife started working again last Summer and we are staying in the three bed terrace and are close to saving a deposit of our own.
> 
> Whilst reading about mortgages on this site I came across this topic and the interesting views expressed.
> It also became apparent to me that if we move out we will leave my mother in law in a three bed terrace by herself. Considering the housing shortage and the circumstances upon which we find ourselves rearing two kids, should it not be a case of my wifes mother moving out and leaving us with the accommodation?
> We would gladly pay her rent and pay towards a deposit if she wanted to buy elsewhere.


You can do all that without government intervention. Have you suggested this to you mother in law?


----------



## Early Riser

Folsom said:


> She does yes, but im not sure what that has got to do with anything.



If she owns her own house , you or no one else has the right (or should I say "entitlement") to expect her to move out to accommodate you and your wife (or anyone else). But, yes, it would seem that separate accomodation is warranted. 

However, if she thought her house no longer suited her it would be good if something more age appropriate were available and/or she had an incentive to move. As it is her house she could sell it to whoever she likes.


----------



## Saavy99

Folsom said:


> We would gladly pay her rent and *pay towards a deposit if she wanted to buy elsewhere.*



The mind boggles


----------



## Gordon Gekko

Crazy stuff


----------



## Deiseblue

Surely you must have a few free cells Folsom


----------



## RETIRED2017

Deiseblue said:


> Surely you must have a few free cells Folsom


Whatever extra can be squeezed/milked out of the back two quarters belongs to others I am afraid non for you Folsom,


----------



## Folsom

I dont understand the criticism here. There is a housing shortage. Me and my family are looking for suitable accommodation. We are competing with others in similar situations.
If we find suitable accommodation we move out, but blocking another family from finding a suitable home and leaving my mother in law with a three bed house to herself. A three bed is suitable for us, not for her.
If she found a one or two bed, it would suit everyone.
I think something similar was advocated at the start of the topic?


----------



## Early Riser

Folsom said:


> she should be the one to move out.





Folsom said:


> I dont understand the criticism here



You seem to be suggesting that your mother in law should be obliged (or at least feel obliged) to move elsewhere in order to accomodate you. I am not aware of this being suggested in this thread elsewhere. It is her house. She is under no obligation to you or your family. She should stay if this is what suits her.

On the other hand, she might of her own accord think that her house is no longer suitable to her needs but is unable to find somewhere more suitable - or finds the moving costs prohibitive. The suggestion is that it might be useful to support this in some way, thus freeing up a family home. The starting point would be her own needs and free choice. If she moved she could sell her house to whoever she wanted at the best price she could get. This may not be to you. 



Folsom said:


> A three bed is suitable for us, not for her.



Who has decided that - you or her? Your posts suggest that you think you are somehow entitled to her house because of your needs.


----------



## PMU

Folsom said:


> Considering the housing shortage


Is there? The CSO says thath the number of housing transactions increased from 20,680 in 2012 to 44,449 in 2018. This doesn't appear to indicate any major supply problem. https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-rppi/residentialpropertypriceindexdecember2018/ 



Folsom said:


> If the issue is a shortage of suitable accommodation then she should be the one to move out.  Im not suggesting forcing her out, but an incentive for her to move could be for the state to forgo property tax on her down-sized accommodation?


If you want 'suitable' (whatever that is) accommodation then save up and buy it. Again, according to the CSO, property prices today are 80.7% of their 2007 peak.https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-rppi/residentialpropertypriceindexdecember2018/.  So you can now buy an asset that should appreciate in value and will provide you with shelter for a fifth less that it did eleven years ago. That's not a bad deal by any standard.  Also, according to the IT, the ratio of average house prices to average income is 6. https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/average-house-price-is-now-six-times-the-average-income-1.3035168. That's its historic average. But if you throw in the earnings of the spouse, it's cheaper. So, there is no reason to believe that house prices are currently either absolutely or relatively expensive.



Folsom said:


> We are competing with others in similar situations. .


That's life. You are always in competition with others.​


Folsom said:


> If we find suitable accommodation we move out, but blocking another family from finding a suitable home and leaving my mother in law with a three bed house to herself.
> ​


 So what? Neither your mother in law nor yourself has any responsibility to random house purchasers. They can always buy a different house.


Folsom said:


> . A three bed is suitable for us, not for her.


Apart from the fact that luckily for you your mother in law had a three bedroom house and was generous enough to offer you accommodation, in a free society at least, ​neither you or anybody else can make that decision. We have to assume that your mother-in-law like everybody else is making a rational housing choice that gives her the optimal level of utility.


----------



## Saavy99

I would harbour a guess that the vast majority of the older population would want to stay in their own homes. Given the lack of suitable alternative accommodation like retirement villages etc it's a non runner for years to come. Some housing associations like Cluid offer sheltered or assisted-living type accommodation to the elderly  who are without homes of their own and to those with long term disabilities etc. For the rest of us who do own our own homes and may want to downsize at some time, unfortunately  we are a long way off the Californian type independent living model of elder care.


----------



## Early Riser

Saavy99 said:


> Given the lack of suitable alternative accommodation like retirement villages etc it's a non runner for years to come........... For the rest of us who do own our own homes and may want to downsize at some time, unfortunately we are a long way off the Californian type independent living model of elder care.



But isn't that the point - that we should be moving towards developing suitable alternative accomodation? Suitable, including retirement villages but not limited to that. People can't downsize if there are not suitable (and desirabe) alternatives. There may need to be some incentives to get this going. How are our aging population to be supported in years to come ? Is the only real alternative to be the nursing home - and stick it out somehow until you get that dependent to need it?

Noone wants to make anyone downsize (well maybe there is someone) but I believe there are plenty who would like to if they could see an attractive/suitable option. They benefit - and people who need family homes closer to their work also benefit.


----------



## RETIRED2017

Folsom said:


> I dont understand the criticism here. There is a housing shortage. Me and my family are looking for suitable accommodation. We are competing with others in similar situations.
> If we find suitable accommodation we move out, but blocking another family from finding a suitable home and leaving my mother in law with a three bed house to herself. A three bed is suitable for us, not for her.
> If she found a one or two bed, it would suit everyone.
> I think something similar was advocated at the start of the topic?


Just shows you if the topic gets traction it will have the direct opposite effect to the one intended once again,

The people who come up with ideas like this finish up blaming left-wing politics,when it was right-wing action that caused it in the first case,


----------



## RETIRED2017

Early Riser said:


> But isn't that the point - that we should be moving towards developing suitable alternative accomodation? Suitable, including retirement villages but not limited to that. People can't downsize if there are not suitable (and desirabe) alternatives. There may need to be some incentives to get this going. How are our aging population to be supported in years to come ? Is the only real alternative to be the nursing home - and stick it out somehow until you get that dependent to need it?
> 
> Noone wants to make anyone downsize (well maybe there is someone) but I believe there are plenty who would like to if they could see an attractive/suitable option. They benefit - and people who need family homes closer to their work also benefit.


I think we need to spend  money building new units and keep away from wasting/squandering money on incentives to people who own existing buildings,


----------



## Superstitious

As someone said why dosen't he do it privately himself with loads of incentives. Rent, property tax and maybe ultities. I'm guessing to him its a house to fit his needs and her a home. I'd be interested if the suggestion was made to her what the outcome would be. 
I had a two bed duplex very near my family home that got too small when kids came along.  We moved out to rent a bigger place and save for a place of our own. Once my mother did joke that her and my dad would move into my place and we would move into her three bed. For a split second we had a serious conversation about it but it didn't feel right. My parents would of only be doing it to help us out, not out of want.  It was a struggle but we bought our family home last year near my parents.


----------



## Folsom

Just to clarify, under no circumstances am I suggesting my mother in law be obliged to move out or sell her property to me. Nor do I think I have any entitlement to her property. 
Im simply suggesting that in the context of housing requirements the incentive should be for occupiers of properties too big (as a consequence of family flying the nest) to sell up and downsize.
Instead it is generally accepted that homes are vacated by children as they set out in life to start a family. 
Btw, I mentioned this to my wife and she was appalled that I could even consider asking someone to move out of their home that they have built over the years and with her ties to local community, her friends and neighbors. 
I had to stress that I wasn't asking anybody to do anything they didn't want to do. I certainly wouldn't consider moving people out of their homes and communities against their will. I was merely suggesting that conditions to incentive down-sizing be introduced, such as the state forgoing property tax and other incentives that can be thought of.
I hope this clarifies my point somewhat?


----------



## PaddyBloggit

Folsom said:


> Btw, I mentioned this to my wife


 oooops ... bad move Folsom. At least on here you are anonymous!



Folsom said:


> I had to stress ...


You are on a hiding to nothing.


----------



## Delboy

I haven't enjoyed a thread this much in a long time. There's some priceless material in here.
Thread of the year so far


----------



## RETIRED2017

Folsom said ,I mentioned this to my wife and she was appalled that I could even consider asking 


someone to move out of their home that they have built over the years and with her ties to local community, her friends and neighbors.
I had to stress that I wasn't asking anybody to do anything they didn't want to do. I certainly wouldn't consider moving people out of their homes and communities against their will.

There are people who have no problem moving people if they had the power to do so,


----------



## Early Riser

RETIRED2017 said:


> There are people who have no problem moving people if they had the power to do so,


Don't tell me - the left wing, the right wing, the left of the right wing, the right of the left wing, the right wing who think they are left wing and the left wing who think they are right  wing ?
By the way, which wing of which wing do you reckon you are ?


----------



## Folsom

Early Riser said:


> Noone wants to make anyone downsize (well maybe there is someone)



Au contraire, the premise of your comments is in fact to develop the conditions that would induce the 'middle-aged-house-too-big-for-two' to _want _to downsize.


----------



## Early Riser

Folsom said:


> Au contraire, the premise of your comments is in fact to develop the conditions that would induce the 'middle-aged-house-too-big-for-two' to _want _to downsize.



Au contraire, the premise is to create more age-attractive options for the aging house for one/two _who wants to downsize in principle_ but for whom the options are currently poor and/or inappropriate!

Anyway, lets see what the report proposes.


----------



## Folsom

Yes, exactly my point. You want to create conditions and options for aging households should they want to downsize too.
That is my point. In my personal circumstances,  the ideal situation would be that my mother in law would _want _to downsize, facilitating a family with two kids to occupy the three-bed. 
But the options are not there in any real meaningful form.


----------



## Laramie

Early Riser said:


> Noone wants to make anyone downsize (well maybe there is someone) but I believe there are plenty who would like to if they could see an attractive/suitable option.



So all this goes ahead. Indirect pressure is put on people by others to downsize. They downsize because they feel obliged to.
Ten years later, lots of houses being built, no longer any need to downsize, incentives withdrawn. The person who downsized ten years ago and let a large family in to their loved home is walking past their old home. The children of the large family have moved on and the buyers of 10 years ago are living there as a couple. The house is worth a small fortune now. No pressure being put on the new owners to downsize...

The person who downsized feels shafted.


----------



## Folsom

Thats all a bit doom and gloom. The purpose for downsizing should not be on the basis of facilitating younger couples with families - that would be the consequence of downsizing.
The purpose for downsizing should be to save money on energy bills, less work in house maintenance, convenience to local facilitates, less or zero property tax, and anything else you can think of.
Downsizing should be financially, economically, environmentally, physiologically and psychologically beneficial to the person or couple downsizing. Tick these boxes and chances of resentment later down the road would be a minimum.


----------



## Early Riser

Laramie said:


> So all this goes ahead. Indirect pressure is put on people by others to downsize. They downsize because they feel obliged to.
> Ten years later, lots of houses being built, no longer any need to downsize, incentives withdrawn. The person who downsized ten years ago and let a large family in to their loved home is walking past their old home. The children of the large family have moved on and the buyers of 10 years ago are living there as a couple. The house is worth a small fortune now. No pressure being put on the new owners to downsize...
> 
> The person who downsized feels shafted.



There are a lack of options for older people who want to downsize in some way that is future-proofed and suitable for what they see as there needs. I happen to think that increasing such options is a good idea. If it helps them live longer in their own homes in the community with perhaps some supports, that is good in my opinion.

If someone wants to stay in their 4 bed and look after their big garden then fine - its their choice. Do you think there are good options available at the moment for the aging person who may wish to downsize?

You seem threatened by the idea of future options. Going down your reasoning above, someone might say that the availability of nursing homes pressurises people to become dependent and get admitted, while the availability of undertakers and graveyards pressurises them to die. Are inappropriate pressures sometimes put on older people by family members? Yes, always has been and will be again unfortunately, no matter what options are there or are not. We see it in the courts re wills. Should we do away with wills so ? Inappropriate pressure is an issue that needs to be tackled seperately.


----------



## Early Riser

Laramie said:


> If the sun stays I will crack open a bottle of wine that I bought before Christmas for a few Euro when the supermarkets were killing each other to offer me discounts



These discounts need to be abolished. They are pressurising older people to ruin their livers and die! I hope none of your visitors comes bearing such gifts - you do know what they are after?


----------



## Laramie

Early Riser said:


> Do you think there are good options available at the moment for the aging person who may wish to downsize?



Other than not being able to get a bridging loan. If they don't need a bridging loan they can put their house on the open market like everybody else, then look around for whatever suits them.


----------



## Firefly

Early Riser said:


> If she owns her own house , you or no one else has the right (or should I say "entitlement") to expect her to move out to accommodate you and your wife (or anyone else).


Exactly. The day we start infringing on private property rights will be a dangerous day indeed!



Early Riser said:


> However, if she thought her house no longer suited her it would be good if something more age appropriate were available and/or she had an incentive to move. As it is her house she could sell it to whoever she likes.


Most elderly people in large houses are mortgage-free. The 0% capital gains on principal private residences is a fantastic benefit for those wishing to downsize. Often you'll find smaller, doer-uppers near these larger homes that could easily be bought, done up and a few bob left over for a nest-egg. It will probably be our plan to be honest


----------



## Sarenco

Firefly said:


> Often you'll find smaller, doer-uppers near these larger homes that could easily be bought, done up and a few bob left over for a nest-egg. It will probably be our plan to be honest


In my experience, seniors rarely have any interest in taking on a "doer-upper" - too much hassle, stress.  What I think they most often want is an easily maintained property, in walk in condition, with a high energy rating and no big garden to maintain.  Proximity to family and friends is usually very important.


----------



## Early Riser

Laramie said:


> Other than not being able to get a bridging loan. If they don't need a bridging loan they can put their house on the open market like everybody else, then look around for whatever suits them.



Yes, but what is available to them? A 3 bed semi miles away and miles from anywhere that still needs adaptation?  Not very appealing for most and certainly not future proofed re support needs. Best to stay put in a large but familiar house, even if unsuitable.


----------



## RETIRED2017

Early Riser said:


> Yes, but what is available to them? A 3 bed semi miles away and miles from anywhere that still needs adaptation?  Not very appealing for most and certainly not future proofed re support needs. Best to stay put in a large but familiar house, even if unsuitable.



My wife comes from a farming  background, I always remember her years ago telling me about a old unmarried neighbour of hers ,who sold his land and started Enjoying spending some of the money ,he used to joke his Nephew and niece used to call him Uncle John before selling now the call him Jack,

Never say you know a man or Woman until you have divided an Inheritance with them,


----------



## RETIRED2017

Brendan Burgess said:


> *Immediate action is required *
> 
> ·People living on their own should be told to find someone else in the same position and share with them.
> If the 2,258 people living in 3 and 4 bed houses moved into the spare room in the 2 bed houses, then we would immediately have 2,064 three bed houses and 194 four bed houses immediately available to house people.
> 
> We should not build any more social housing in Dublin other than one bed units and gradually move everyone living on their own into these.
> 
> We should immediately stop the sale of any social housing at a discount
> 
> We should ban successor tenancies – where a child inherits their parent’s social housing.
> 
> *Long term action *
> 
> Housing needs should be reviewed every 5 years and people should be moved to more appropriate housing whether that is larger or smaller.


We are not able to collect rent or build a Hospital without costing several times what is should be ,
It is already out of control I suspect If the followed your advice they will finish up Bloated with Data,


----------



## Laramie

RETIRED2017. In several posts you keep writing "the" instead of "they". ?


----------



## Delboy

John Moran on Sean O'Rourke now discussing his recent comments on older people downsizing


----------



## Delboy

'It was the right thing to do' - former soldier gives up three-bedroom home to help young family
'I've downsized now and I'm very happy and happy to see they're happy'
https://www.independent.ie/breaking...droom-home-to-help-young-family-37860154.html


> He moved out of the house he called home for 12 years in January and is now living in a one-bedroom maisonette, which he described as "damn comfortable."
> Mr Phelan gave up his social housing home to Kieran Ritchie and fiancee Lauren, who were in a two-bedroom property where their ten-year-old son and eight-year-old daughter had to share a room.
> The family were on the waiting list for a bigger house for seven years.


----------



## Folsom

This is fantastic, first he serves his country as a soldier then does a genuinely nice act like this. 
I don't think it should be limited to people in social housing however to lead by example. People who own their own homes should also consider downsizing, by selling up or renting out their properties that are now too big for them. 
This would go along way to resolving the housing crisis, and all done willingly.


----------



## PGF2016

Folsom said:


> This is fantastic, first he serves his country as a soldier then does a genuinely nice act like this.
> I don't think it should be limited to people in social housing however to lead by example. People who own their own homes should also consider downsizing, by selling up or renting out their properties that are now too big for them.
> This would go along way to resolving the housing crisis, and all done willingly.


There are many owners who have already downsized. As has already been stated in this thread a lack of suitable properties to downsize to is a big impediment to others considering this.


----------



## Saavy99

Folsom said:


> This would go along way to resolving the housing crisis, and all done willingly.



Sorry Folsom, it's not the job of existing homeowners to solve the housing crisis. Go canvass your elective representative for that or consider saving  a little longer to purchase the large home of your dreams as we all had to do in the past.


----------



## Folsom

I dont disagree with the above. Lack of suitable properties is a problem and neither is the job of homeowners (or tenants for that matter) to solve the housing crisis. 

But I never said otherwise. 

I merely applauded the example of the soldier in what he did. If more people did the same then this would be great. Notably, he informs us, that his one bed house is suitable for his needs. This is the key, suitable alternative accommodation.


----------



## Peanuts20

My elderly mother lives in a 3 bedroom house (she owns it, not rented) and would be the logical type of person to move into a one-bed apartement somewhere to free up the house for use by a bigger family. However


Neither me or my only sister live close by and one of us is normally staying over 2-3 nights a week to take her from everything like mass to the hairdressers to a medical appointment
It is far easier for grand-children to stay over with their granny then for granny to come and visit us
She is surrounded by good neighbours who keep an eye out for each other. That won't happen in an annoymous apartment block
So the idea of moving to a downsized property makes no sense what so ever. If she was forced to do that, then the only option would be a nursing home which would cost the state €40-€50k pa in the fair deal scheme.  And if the state wants us to stay in a hotel when we are down taking her to a doctor- fine, pay for it. 

This report is unlikely to ever come into being. It's purely action for the sake of action, a way for TD's in the run in to an election to pretend they are doing something when the simple reality is what is needed in Ireland is more council housing, owned by the state/council with the private sector landlords taken out of the loop but unfortunately, that does not tie in with Leo's thinking


----------



## Firefly

Delboy said:


> 'It was the right thing to do' - former soldier gives up three-bedroom home to help young family
> 'I've downsized now and I'm very happy and happy to see they're happy'
> https://www.independent.ie/breaking...droom-home-to-help-young-family-37860154.html



Fair play to him, it's a nice story.

However, this sentence from the article stands out for me:

_The unpublished report says older people living in social housing will be offered financial incentives before the end of the year, ahead of extending the scheme to private homeowners._

So someone gets essentially free housing courtesy of their fellow taxpayers for life and now they are to get even more money to move somewhere else. Some country!!!


----------



## Folsom

I don't think it is fair to say social housing is free. There are rents to be paid on it and also the people living in social pay taxes too - like our soldier friend.


----------



## elcato

I agree that it was a great gesture by the man but this bit slightly bothers me. He's angling for a payout in good old Oirish style I believe.
_
"The amount of stuff and clutter I had to get rid of when moving though... When you have too many rooms you're cluttering up all the time and I had a fair amount of decluttering to do and there's a bit of a cost to it too. I didn't have any Christmas... but I'm happy to see that they're happy."_


----------



## Firefly

Folsom said:


> I don't think it is fair to say social housing is free. There are rents to be paid on it and also the people living in social pay taxes too - like our soldier friend.



I said essentially free. Which it is when you compare it too what one would pay on the open market


----------



## Folsom

Firefly said:


> I said essentially free. Which it is when you compare it too what one would pay on the open market



That is debatable. A search on Daft.ie for 1 bed properties in Co Laois returns a high price of €125,000 reducing to as low as €45,000 - but that is todays prices. Looking at our soldier outside his one bed in Abbeyleix, im guessing it was built pre-1990's? It would have cost less than equivalent €25,000 (estimate) back then.
Depending obviously on how much a person earned, but over 40yrs from 1979 to 2019 an elderly person could have easily contributed far more in taxes than the cost to build the property.


----------



## Delboy

Your new here Folsom but if you use the search function you'll see plenty of debates on the rents paid by those in social housing. They are negligible v's market rents even when the residents in the social house are working.
And then there's the issue of LA rent arrears- that'll make your eyes water.



> Depending obviously on how much a person earned, but over 40yrs from 1979 to 2019 an elderly person could have easily contributed far more in taxes than the cost to build the property.


A nothing point really. Everyone working pays taxes, whether in social housing or private. Bringing that into the discussion on LA rents doesn't wash


----------



## Delboy

Firefly said:


> Fair play to him, it's a nice story.
> 
> However, this sentence from the article stands out for me:
> 
> _The unpublished report says older people living in social housing will be offered financial incentives before the end of the year, ahead of extending the scheme to private homeowners._
> 
> So someone gets essentially free housing courtesy of their fellow taxpayers for life and now they are to get even more money to move somewhere else. Some country!!!


I had missed that point earlier ....it's stunning to actually think someone in a Govt Dept dreamt that up and brought it this far .
Surely it cannot be part of any final proposals!


----------



## RETIRED2017

Delboy said:


> I had missed that point earlier ....it's stunning to actually think someone in a Govt Dept dreamt that up and brought it this far .
> Surely it cannot be part of any final proposals!


Glad to see people are  beginning to cop on  TDs who claim to be right-wing tricking voters who are uninformed the don't realise the far-left would not get away with bringing in these kind of changes,
Time to start letting them know they are the far-left dressed up in right-wing clothes,


----------



## Saavy99

Firefly said:


> Fair play to him, it's a nice story.
> 
> However, this sentence from the article stands out for me:
> 
> _The unpublished report says older people living in social housing will be offered financial incentives before the end of the year, ahead of extending the scheme to private homeowners._
> 
> So someone gets essentially free housing courtesy of their fellow taxpayers for life and now they are to get even more money to move somewhere else. Some country!!!




Well spotted!

Only in Ireland


----------



## Leper

Yer Man in Co Laois to me appears (to me at least) to be the most stupid decision maker in the history of the state. He sold his best asset a 3 bedroom house to buy a 1 bedroom maisonette. He had to pay costs, legal fees etc not to mention his decluttering.

All he had to do is rent out his 3 bedroom house and rent a 1 bedroom maisonette himself. He would have had a decent income from the house and it would remain a good asset for him providing an income.

A 3 bedroom house can be let out anytime and an income gained. He would have been able to move to Spain for several months in retirement and had a greater income from his house than the rent he would pay in Spain.

. . . and he feels great about it . . .


----------



## Folsom

Delboy said:


> Everyone working pays taxes, whether in social housing or private. Bringing that into the discussion on LA rents doesn't wash



I didn't bring it into the discussion. I was responding to a previous comment by another poster that stated that people were afforded essentially free houses courtesy of taxpayers. 
I merely pointed out, as you have, that tenants of social housing work and pay taxes too. So not 'essentially free' houses then.


----------



## Delboy

Leper said:


> Yer Man in Co Laois to me appears (to me at least) to be the most stupid decision maker in the history of the state. He sold his best asset a 3 bedroom house to buy a 1 bedroom maisonette. He had to pay costs, legal fees etc not to mention his decluttering.
> 
> All he had to do is rent out his 3 bedroom house and rent a 1 bedroom maisonette himself. He would have had a decent income from the house and it would remain a good asset for him providing an income.
> 
> A 3 bedroom house can be let out anytime and an income gained. He would have been able to move to Spain for several months in retirement and had a greater income from his house than the rent he would pay in Spain.
> 
> . . . and he feels great about it . . .


It was social housing so  don't think a sale was involved


----------



## Delboy

Folsom said:


> I didn't bring it into the discussion. I was responding to a previous comment by another poster that stated that people were afforded essentially free houses courtesy of taxpayers.
> I merely pointed out, as you have, that tenants of social housing work and pay taxes too. So not 'essentially free' houses then.


That makes no sense whatsoever


----------



## RETIRED2017

Leper said:


> Yer Man in Co Laois to me appears (to me at least) to be the most stupid decision maker in the history of the state. He sold his best asset a 3 bedroom house to buy a 1 bedroom maisonette. He had to pay costs, legal fees etc not to mention his decluttering.
> 
> All he had to do is rent out his 3 bedroom house and rent a 1 bedroom maisonette himself. He would have had a decent income from the house and it would remain a good asset for him providing an income.
> 
> A 3 bedroom house can be let out anytime and an income gained. He would have been able to move to Spain for several months in retirement and had a greater income from his house than the rent he would pay in Spain.
> 
> . . . and he feels great about it . . .


Most stupid decision makers are the people who vote in so many FF/FG far left-wing TDs,under false pretenses and fail to notice the out come of there actions,
The vibes I am getting expect more waste next time, There actions have forced the likes of paul Murphy and co to move to the right,


----------



## Folsom

Delboy said:


> That makes no sense whatsoever



???...social housing tenants pay taxes....thus contributing to the cost of social housing provision.


----------



## Early Riser

The Housing Options Policy Statement was published yesterday and is linked here: https://health.gov.ie/wp-content/up...nsforanAgeingPopulationEng_Web_compressed.pdf .

From a quick scan the action proposals are still quite vague and I wouldn't expect anything concrete very soon. They are establishing an "implementation group" so maybe  they will make the "actions" more concrete.

There is some interestion data  in the report to back the need for action, eg, 

_"These are based on new ESRI projections for population growth, the first projections to be published based on the 2016 Census. According to the report, titled Projections of Demand for Healthcare in Ireland, 2015-2030,


 Ireland’s population is set to increase by between 640,000 and 1.1 million people in the next decade-and-a-half. Those aged 65 and over will number one in six of the population by 2030 while the number of people aged over 85 will double. Demand for health and social care will jump across the board as a result. 

_
*The population of people aged 65 and over is expected to increase by a third over the next 8 years, and to double over the next 25 years. *
_

*Thus the demand for ageing in place services and the demand for appropriate housing, including housing with support, for older people can be expected to increase correspondingly.*" _


----------



## Folsom

Page 19 - Housing for Older People

"_Based on research findings that older people want to stay in their own homes or communities for as long as possible, the report shows that many older people can live satisfactorily in their own home."
_
I dont know how this fits with proposals to downsize? If people, understandably, want to stay in their own homes, then that is alot of underoccupied housing. 
Are there figures to the current extent of under-occupation in the country at the moment?


----------



## Early Riser

Folsom said:


> I dont know how this fits with proposals to downsize?



Folsom, you seem to be fixed on the proposals as some way to pressurise people to downsize. The proposals are in relation to housing and other* supports* for older people. Some people will want to downsize, some people may want to if there is something suitable/attractive to them locally, some people may consider downsizing if they get support to do so, some people will prefer to stay in place and adapt, as necessary.

If some people downsize and put their larger house on the market that is a bonus.


----------



## Folsom

Early Riser said:


> you seem to be fixed on the proposals as some way to pressurise people to downsize.



???...not at all. Im just commenting in a topic about downsizing. Using the report that you have linked, about housing and other supports, I noted a paragraph that suggests 'downsizing' for elderly people, if it is to be promoted or measures adopted to direct it, is more complicated than simply counting bedrooms and offering a few grand to move.
People, and elderly people in particular, need security and familiarity with locality and locals. Such ties will often hold more value to the person than the promise of €€€'s.



Early Riser said:


> Some people will want to downsize, some people may want to if there is something suitable/attractive to them locally, some people may consider downsizing if they get support to do so, some people will prefer to stay in place and adapt, as necessary.



All of that is true to an extent. But based on the paragraph I quoted from the report you uploaded, when it comes to elderly people it is a somewhat complex issue. 
If this topic is about downsizing to assist with the housing shortage, then this is a reasonable factor to consider.


----------



## Purple

Folsom said:


> ???...social housing tenants pay taxes....thus contributing to the cost of social housing provision.


I very much doubt that social housing tenants are net contributors to the exchequer, even before the cpst of the provision of their social housing is taken into account. I'm not saying that they shouldn't get them, far from it, but the idea that they are contributing to the house which is provided for them is suspect to say the least.


----------



## Folsom

Purple said:


> I very much doubt that social housing tenants are net contributors to the exchequer, even before the cpst of the provision of their social housing is taken into account. I'm not saying that they shouldn't get them, far from it, but the idea that they are contributing to the house which is provided for them is suspect to say the least.



If they are working and paying their share of taxes, then they are contributing no more, no less than any other taxpayers.


----------



## Folsom

What is a 'net contributor'?


----------



## RETIRED2017

Folsom said:


> What is a 'net contributor'?


It is when you get back more in benefit than you pay in income tax ,

It is better known By (Chip On Your Shoulder Tax)


----------



## Folsom

RETIRED2017 said:


> It is when you get back more in benefit than you pay in income tax ,
> 
> It is better known By (Chip On Your Shoulder Tax)



Ok, seems a bit of a blunt and limited way of measuring contributions to society and social needs.
We have a massive voluntary sector in this country without whom alot of public and social services would simply not get done.
How is their contribution measured?


----------



## Purple

RETIRED2017 said:


> It is when you get back more in benefit than you pay in income tax ,
> 
> It is better known By (Chip On Your Shoulder Tax)


No, it's the opposite of that.


----------



## Purple

Folsom said:


> Ok, seems a bit of a blunt and limited way of measuring contributions to society and social needs.
> We have a massive voluntary sector in this country without whom alot of public and social services would simply not get done.
> How is their contribution measured?


I agree. It's like using the "I/they pay taxes as a justification for the consumption of services or welfare or accomodation which someone doesn't need or is more than they need.
I'm a bit of a socialist so when it comes to welfare I'm a fan of the whole "to each according to their needs" thing. While there is so much which we should fund and don't I think it is morally reprehensible that so much welfare funding is given to people who don't need it so that the Government can buy their votes. The disgraceful funnelling of money and tax breaks to the richest demographic in the country, pensioners, is the most blatant example but allowing someone to keep a precious State asset which they don't need, but needed years before, while young families are living in a single hotel room is disgusting.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

Instead of guilt-tripping people about the alleged “homelessness” of young families, why not focus on people recklessly having children when they’re broke or social welfare fraud involving fathers purporting not to live with mothers?

The sad reality of this country is that we have three main cohorts of people: 1) People who work and keep the show on the road 2) Genuinely unfortunate people who need the help and support of the first cohort 3) Parasitic scum who are stealing from the first and second cohort

That Owen Keegan chap was pilloried recently for having the gall to suggest that certain groups are “choosing” homelessness. The sooner people wake up and smell the propaganda being spouted by the likes of Sinn Fein/IRA, the PPP/AAA clowns, and populist fools like Emmet Kirwan, the better.

Cohort 3 and their apologists should be the ones residing under a rock but it’s the normal people who we need to hear more of.


----------



## Purple

Gordon, you are now allowed to say that sort of thing. You are right of course but you will allow reality to pollute the populist narrative with that sort of talk.

I would add that working people who don't pay their taxes; solicitors and doctors taking cash and not declaring it, Tradespeople doing nixers, teachers doing grinds etc. They are all part of the third cohort as well. Then there are the criminals who don't pay insurance, engage in insurance fraud etc. Those people are as bad of worse than people on low income engaging in welfare fraud.

The thing is that when those in cohort 3 retire they become part of the "we built the country" cohort even if they never worked a day in their life.


----------



## Early Riser

Gordon Gekko said:


> The sooner people wake up and smell the propaganda being spouted by the likes of Sinn Fein/IRA, the PPP/AAA clowns, and populist fools like Emmet Kirwan, the better.



I wonder to people who indulge in pupulist rants recognise that they are indulging in populist rants? Whether that be left wing populist rants or right wong populist rants?


----------



## Gordon Gekko

Early Riser said:


> I wonder to people who indulge in pupulist rants recognise that they are indulging in populist rants? Whether that be left wing populist rants or right wong populist rants?



The populist stuff is left wing, just in case you hadn’t noticed.


----------



## RETIRED2017

Early Riser said:


> I wonder to people who indulge in pupulist rants recognise that they are indulging in populist rants? Whether that be left wing populist rants or right wong populist rants?


There is lots of populist Right-wing stuff going on across the water from us at present there are lots of the same kind north and south of Ireland ,
In the UK the right-wing don't notice the think populist stuff is all left-wing also.


----------



## Firefly

RETIRED2017 said:


> There is lots of populist *Right-wing* stuff going on across the water from us at present there are lots of the same kind north and south of Ireland ,
> In the UK the right-wing don't notice the think populist stuff is all left-wing .





RETIRED2017 said:


> If the *right wing* and there fellow travellers had not got there way in 1983/4 things would have being a lot better for the people who lost there jobs in 2008,





RETIRED2017 said:


> Hopefully yours in time, With a little help from the missguided right wing and there fellow travellers





RETIRED2017 said:


> The* right wing* always get there before them, *Left wing* only threaten, It is *Right Wing* who have taken 52% and still rising,





RETIRED2017 said:


> The *right wing* never get dizzy seeing they wear there blindfold all the time,





RETIRED2017 said:


> Are you expecting our *right wing* government and the mother in law to support you,




Hi RETIRED2017,

Just wondering...Which way are you hanging today?

Firefly.


----------



## Firefly

Gordon Gekko said:


> The sad reality of this country is that we have three main cohorts of people: 1) People who work and keep the show on the road 2) Genuinely unfortunate people who need the help and support of the first cohort 3) Parasitic scum who are stealing from the first and second cohort



I think cohort 3 needs to be further broken down into two: those breaking the law and those just on the take. The first group are those Purple mentioned, (often) professionals doing work off the books / for cash and not paying tax. I'm not condoning it, but we do have Revenue, the Gardai and the court system to prosecute these people. The first group though, those that "couldn't be bothered", are not breaking any law and are represented by the likes of SF and PBP. It's these people, who could have but didn't bother, that the government is now proposing to offer financial incentives to, after subsidising their housing costs for decades.


----------



## RETIRED2017

Firefly said:


> Hi RETIRED2017,
> 
> Just wondering...Which way are you hanging today?
> 
> Firefly.


Enjoying watching  right-wing voters/supporters beating themselves up and taken to the cleaners by there own,

While the people they support for free are putting there hands in there pockets and robbing them to buy a few left-wing votes ,

The Right-wing in Ireland are like the right-wing in the UK the blame everyone but themselves ,
In Ireland the right-wing vote for left-wing outcomes,
For all of my lifetime we had left-wing Government elected by right-wing whinging supporters who do not know any better and no sign of the penny dropping any time soon,


----------



## RETIRED2017

Firefly said:


> I think cohort 3 needs to be further broken down into two: those breaking the law and those just on the take. The first group are those Purple mentioned, (often) professionals doing work off the books / for cash and not paying tax. I'm not condoning it, but we do have Revenue, the Gardai and the court system to prosecute these people. The first group though, those that "couldn't be bothered", are not breaking any law and are represented by the likes of SF and PBP. It's these people, who could have but didn't bother, that the government is now proposing to offer financial incentives to, after subsidising their housing costs for decades.


They were spawned by FG/FF they still chasing this vote, SF and PBP are to the right of FG/FF when you look at the outcome of FG/FF actions,

The so called right-wing  Government are mortgaging there own right-wings supporters future the left-wing are enjoying the ride,

Paying people to down size is taking and transfer more hard earned wealth from there right-wing supporters to the left-wing without frightening the Horses,


----------



## Early Riser

Gordon Gekko said:


> The populist stuff is left wing, just in case you hadn’t noticed.





RETIRED2017 said:


> There is lots of populist Right-wing stuff going on across the water from us at present there are lots of the same kind north and south of Ireland ,
> In the UK the right-wing don't notice the think populist stuff is all left-wing also.



I don't think that its just in the UK that this applies to. Both sides don't seem to realise (or admit?) how much they mirror each other - and need each other to feed from.



Early Riser said:


> I wonder to people who indulge in pupulist rants recognise that they are indulging in populist rants? Whether that be left wing populist rants or right wing populist rants?



It would seem that the answer to my question is "No" !

_*"What is populism?*

That’s a vexed question. Populism is usually described as a strategic approach that frames politics as a battle between the virtuous, “ordinary” masses and a nefarious or corrupt elite.

 It can be used by politicians who are either left- or rightwing, and occasionally neither.

 It is not sustained by a single consistent ideology or issue position. In the words of the leading populism scholar Cas Mudde, it is “a thin-centred ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogenous and antagonistic camps, ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite’”.

 He also says that populists tend argue that politics should be an expression of the general will of the people, while others stress populists often have a “Manichean” world view, breaking politics into a binary view of good or evil."_
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/dec/03/what-is-populism-trump-farage-orban-bolsonaro

_"In the description of society and the problems of the welfare state, populists, especially right-wing populists and welfare chauvinists, use a line of argument based on two extremes in which citizens are divided into 'nourishing' and 'debilitating' groups. The nourishing group consists of those who are a part of society's welfare and the country's prosperity: community builders; "the people"; the ordinary honest working man. The second group as standing outside of "the people" are the debilitating group, believed to be promoting or utilizing welfare without adding any value to society."_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_populism


----------



## Folsom

Well this topic has taken on many facets!


----------



## RETIRED2017

RETIRED2017 said:


> They were spawned by FG/FF they still chasing this vote, SF and PBP are to the right of FG/FF when you look at the outcome of FG/FF actions,
> 
> The so called right-wing  Government are mortgaging there own right-wings supporters future the left-wing are enjoying the ride,
> 
> Paying people to down size is taking and transfer more hard earned wealth from there right-wing supporters to the left-wing without frightening the Horses,





Gordon Gekko said:


> Instead of guilt-tripping people about the alleged “homelessness” of young families, why not focus on people recklessly having children when they’re broke or social welfare fraud involving fathers purporting not to live with mothers?
> 
> The sad reality of this country is that we have three main cohorts of people: 1) People who work and keep the show on the road 2) Genuinely unfortunate people who need the help and support of the first cohort 3) Parasitic scum who are stealing from the first and second cohort
> 
> That Owen Keegan chap was pilloried recently for having the gall to suggest that certain groups are “choosing” homelessness. The sooner people wake up and smell the propaganda being spouted by the likes of Sinn Fein/IRA, the PPP/AAA clowns, and populist fools like Emmet Kirwan, the better.
> 
> Cohort 3 and their apologists should be the ones residing under a rock but it’s the normal people who we need to hear more of.



Gordon have you read , GOVERNMENT TO BEGIN PAYING OLDER PEOPLE TO DOWNSIZE,has the penny dropped,

The government who are proposing this is FG they are in power with the help of FF and right-wing Independents ,

The only TDs who do not support this Government are the likes of SF/ppp/AAA /LABOUR and a few Independents,how could you be hoodwinked into thinking SF/PPP/AAA are the Government,


----------



## Purple

I think Retired2017's issue is that the right wing in Ireland isn't right wing enough but is in fact just more left wing populism.
I'm not sure I agree with him.


----------

