# Brian cowen still facing hostility over large pension, unfair



## joe sod (3 May 2018)

I saw a post on facebook basically jeering at brian cowen over his large monthly pension. Interesting that former presidents Mary Mcaleese and Mary Robinson earn even larger pensions yet do not face any criticism. Whatever you think about Brian Cowen and his handling of economy he had the very difficult job of steering the country through the financial crisis and faced horrendous abuse. In other words he had alot of responsibiity therefore his pension at least reflects this. However the role of president has no real responsibility its basically travelling the world representing ireland, being polite to people who come to tea at the aras and thats basically it. Why is there no publicity and hostility to the former presidents over this very large pension after a job with no responsibility or difficulty. These people assumed the presidency at a relatively young age so we are going to be paying these large pensions for a long time.


----------



## odyssey06 (3 May 2018)

Cowen destroyed the economy. He cost us billions. He destroyed lives with his incompetence and cowardice.
McAleese and Robinson just cost us their salaries and pensions.
The hostility towards Cowen is that he caused everyone else financial pain, yet he is cushioned from the consequences of his actions by the generous pension. So society responds in the only way it can, shaming him with its hostility and contempt.


----------



## Purple (4 May 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> Cowen destroyed the economy. He cost us billions. He destroyed lives with his incompetence and cowardice.
> McAleese and Robinson just cost us their salaries and pensions.
> The hostility towards Cowen is that he caused everyone else financial pain, yet he is cushioned from the consequences of his actions by the generous pension. So society responds in the only way it can, shaming him with its hostility and contempt.


The best solution to incompetence and mismanagement is a pay increase. 
That seems to be the solution in the Health Sector and elsewhere in the Public Sector and in Banking. If that doesn't work then let them retire on a full pension. Did the Financial Regulator get his pension? Did all the people in the Central Bank? Did all the people in the Private Banks? Why should politicians be held to any higher standards than anyone else in this country?


----------



## joe sod (4 May 2018)

Purple said:


> The best solution to incompetence and mismanagement is a pay increase.
> That seems to be the solution in the Health Sector and elsewhere in the Public Sector and in Banking. If that doesn't work then let them retire on a full pension. Did the Financial Regulator get his pension? Did all the people in the Central Bank? Did all the people in the Private Banks? Why should politicians be held to any higher standards than anyone else in this country?



thats why I think its unfair that Brian Cowen gets all the abuse for this policy , as you pointed out there were many incompetent people in the central bank, department of finance , financial regulator all retired on large pensions. I actually think taoiseachs deserve the large pensions because of the responsibilty and media scrutiny they face throughout their career . But there are many other people that dont and former presidents definitely do not deserve large pensions when their job was merely a ceremonial role with no responsibilty or difficult unpopular decisions to be made


----------



## TheBigShort (5 May 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> Cowen destroyed the economy. He cost us billions. He destroyed lives with his incompetence and cowardice.



This is simply not true. In case it has past your attention, the period in question relates to a global economic recession.
It was going to happen anyway as a consequence of adopting economic policies that put market price discovery to the fore of social policy.
I was watching BBC Question Time on Thursday, the issue was housing, unaffordability, homelessness etc.
It is not coincidence that our social ills mirror that of the UK, it is policy.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2018/0504/960183-irish-net-worth-at-record-level-central-bank/

The 'good' news is our net wealth is at record highs. Spurred on by increases of 69% in property since 2012.


----------



## odyssey06 (5 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> This is simply not true. In case it has past your attention, the period in question relates to a global economic recession.



Lots of things passed Cowen's attention. Such as balancing the books. Standing up to the EU. Having a spine. Not taking the easy course. Showing a bit of moral courage. I have nothing but contempt for the man.
Instead of taking steps to prepare us against the next recession he set a course which assumed fair weather sailing.

And it may be true that all of the above are equally true about many other politicians and others in area of responsibility in the run up to the crash... but he was the man at the top and it is human nature that his role is focused on.

But really it's irrelevent in some ways whether is is true or not. I think it is why Cowen is viewed the way he is. I think rightly so - you think wrongly so, but I stand by it as the reason *why *he is viewed the way he is.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 May 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> but he was the man at the top and it is human nature that his role is focused on.



He only got there from the votes of his peers. The policies that enabled an economic collapse were adopted long before he took the helm, albeit he was a significant player in garnering support for those policies. 
My point is, it is futile to identifying one person as primarily responsible, albeit understandable to do so. 
Instead it is the policies that engineered an over reliance on construction and taxes from stamp duty that should be abhorred. 
Policies that continue today that tell us our net wealth is at record highs, boosted by property prices once again.


----------



## joe sod (5 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> My point is, it is futile to identifying one person as primarily responsible, albeit understandable to do so.



great point, I think it is too easy to focus on a personality like Brian Cowen especially given that he was not particularly media friendly and truculent and would show it. In other words he is an easy hate figure, i actually think the campaign to focus on Cowen so much meant that fundamental changes to the irish political system and estabishment did not happen. The collapse of the irish economy was brian cowen's fault therefore everything is ok because he is not in power any longer and we dont need to change anything, especially if those changes removed power from the real movers and shakers in ireland. 
We are making the exact same mistakes again , populist policies, government borrowing continuing even in booming economy. The government is going to cave in to the public sector unions again on pay and increasing social welfare spending (albeit per person, what happens when unemployment goes back up, 2008 crisis again?)


----------



## Delboy (5 May 2018)

I always had TBS down as a PBP voter, a champagne socialist Labourite at a push. But an FF supporter....I'm stunned so I am


----------



## TheBigShort (6 May 2018)

Delboy said:


> I always had TBS down as a PBP voter, a champagne socialist Labourite at a push. But an FF supporter....I'm stunned so I am



Thats ok, you can rest assure im no FF supporter. I think I voted once for them back in early nineties.
I dont actually have any political party preferences anymore. Precisely for the reasons I have mentioned above. The global economic system is too big for a tiny country like ourselves to be able to influence or direct.


----------



## Purple (8 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> The policies that enabled an economic collapse were adopted long before he took the helm, albeit he was a significant player in garnering support for those policies.


I take it you are referring to pseudo-socialist populism?


----------



## TheBigShort (8 May 2018)

Purple said:


> I take it you are referring to pseudo-socialist populism?



Im referring to policies that ceded monetary policy to banking cartels and then the zero policies to deflate an obvious property bubble, instead allowing it free reign to get out of control.


----------



## Purple (9 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Im referring to policies that ceded monetary policy to banking cartels and then the zero policies to deflate an obvious property bubble, instead allowing it free reign to get out of control.


Monetary and budgetary policy was set by the Social Partners without any input from the Department of Finance with massive long term spending commitments made without any notion of how they would be paid for or what impact they would have on the broader economy and society. If you are blaming our woes on bankers and quantitative easing them you are ignoring most of the picture and confusing the treatment of the illness with its cause.


----------



## Firefly (9 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Im referring to policies that ceded monetary policy to banking cartels


Which policies exactly?


----------



## TheBigShort (9 May 2018)

Purple said:


> Monetary and budgetary policy was set by the Social Partners without any input from the Department of Finance with massive long term spending commitments made without any notion of how they would be paid for or what impact they would have on the broader economy and society. If you are blaming our woes on bankers and quantitative easing them you are ignoring most of the picture and confusing the treatment of the illness with its cause.



This is pure fantasy. Here is the link to the first benchmarking report back in 2002. You can search for yourself, a lot of the analysis was based on detail from the Department of Finance, one of the board members of the benchmarking body was from the Department of Finance, and on page 153 you can see clearly that the Department of Finance made its own submission to the benchmarking body.




As for QE, of course im not blaming QE for our woes as QE came _after _the economic crash. As for bankers, they did what they were allowed to get away with – namely build an economy that designs itself on a credit expansion and perpetual debt.

The economic crash was not a consequence of social partnership. It was a consequence of a global money market credit freeze starting in the US when the house of cards that is the ever-expanding debt based system requires that debt to be paid back at some point. The ‘trickle-down’ effect was to saddle people with unsustainable debt.
Credit froze, economic activity froze - this is well documented.

In the end, I think its unfair to lay blame on any single individual.



Firefly said:


> Which policies exactly?



The policies that ceded our monetary sovereignty to Europe, namely the ECB and the Euro. I cant remember which treaty it was, Maastricht?


----------



## Firefly (9 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> The economic crash was not a consequence of social partnership. It was a consequence of a global money market credit freeze starting in the US when the house of cards that is the ever-expanding debt based system requires that debt to be paid back at some point.


Why were we so badly affected then? How come ourselves and the other PIIGS countries were affected with the other, more prudent countries not so badly affected?



TheBigShort said:


> The policies that ceded our monetary sovereignty to Europe, namely the ECB and the Euro. I cant remember which treaty it was, Maastricht?



Well the other option was to remain outside of the Euro with our own currency, the Punt. Do you think that have been better?


----------



## TheBigShort (9 May 2018)

Firefly said:


> Why were we so badly affected then? How come ourselves and the other PIIGS countries were affected with the other, more prudent countries not so badly affected?



Was it because we were more exposed to the credit expansion/perpetual debt based system by any chance?
Im sure you recall the housing boom? This was based on ever expanding credit was it not? 110% mortgages? Mortgages 5, 6 times income?
You can find these traits in the economies of the PIIGS too. Or was our social partnership model, was our public sector bench-marking responsible for their economic woes too?



Firefly said:


> Well the other option was to remain outside of the Euro with our own currency, the Punt. Do you think that have been better?




Hindsight is wonderful thing, but yes is the answer to that. Don’t get me wrong, I voted for all EU Treaties up until Nice II when I voted against.

I support the concept of single currency, but clearly there are fundamental flaws with the Euro that make it unsustainable in the long-term. It is a one-glove-fits-all currency applied to 18 economies, some of which are pulling in different directions. As a consequence, we have had 7/8 years of boom followed by the biggest economic crash in our recorded history, followed by projections of rapidly increasing economic growth once more – the Euro does not provide for stable economic conditions.


----------



## Firefly (9 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Was it because we were more exposed to the credit expansion/perpetual debt based system by any chance?
> You can find these traits in the economies of the PIIGS too.


How come other prudent countries did not experience the problems we in the PIIGS countries did? We all had the same opportunities to borrow at extremely low rates? Blaming the system doesn't cut it I'm afraid. Too many people borrowed too much to pay for things they could not afford, at the individual level right up to the government level. Nobody made them.



TheBigShort said:


> Hindsight is wonderful thing, but yes is the answer to that.



If you can cast your mind back to Ireland pre joining the Euro and tell me we would have been better off staying with the Punt then you really are just trolling!


----------



## TheBigShort (9 May 2018)

Firefly said:


> How come other prudent countries did not experience the problems we in the PIIGS countries did? We all had the same opportunities to borrow at extremely low rates? Blaming the system doesn't cut it I'm afraid. Too many people borrowed too much to pay for things they could not afford, at the individual level right up to the government level. Nobody made them.



I really don't know what you are talking about. I'll ask again,



TheBigShort said:


> Was it because we were more exposed to the credit expansion/perpetual debt based system by any chance?
> Im sure you recall the housing boom? This was based on ever expanding credit was it not? 110% mortgages? Mortgages 5, 6 times income?
> You can find these traits in the economies of the PIIGS too. Or was our social partnership model, was our public sector bench-marking responsible for their economic woes too?






Firefly said:


> If you can cast your mind back to Ireland pre joining the Euro and tell me we would have been better off staying with the Punt then you really are just trolling!



I don't really don't know what you are talking about here either other than you appear to believe that we are better off in the euro? I don't believe we are for the reasons of economic instability that we have experienced.


----------



## Purple (9 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> This is pure fantasy. Here is the link to the first benchmarking report back in 2002. You can search for yourself, a lot of the analysis was based on detail from the Department of Finance, one of the board members of the benchmarking body was from the Department of Finance, and on page 153 you can see clearly that the Department of Finance made its own submission to the benchmarking body.


There were many factors which fed into the crash and how badly it impacted on us. 
The ones which we controlled were credit availability (the Central Bank, the Financial Regulator and the Government all failed to do their job there) and pro-cyclical economic policies such as massive increases in spending and cuts in taxation.
The Social Partnership model locked in many of those massive spending increases.


----------



## Firefly (9 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I really don't know what you are talking about. I'll ask again,


You are blaming the conditions that led to us over borrowing. I am pointing out that people in other countries had the same opportunity but didn't over indulge. Blaming the system doesn't cut it. Nobody forced us to live beyond our means..we made our own mess.



TheBigShort said:


> I don't really don't know what you are talking about here either other than you appear to believe that we are better off in the euro? I don't believe we are for the reasons of economic instability that we have experienced.


I remember the time before we joined and strongly believe we are much better of in the euro. We are a tiny, open economy. Look at all the angst facing the UK at the moment and they're a lot bigger than us.


----------



## TheBigShort (9 May 2018)

https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/government-debt-to-gdp

Here is our historic debt to GDP ratio. Clearly in 2002 (at the time of benchmarking) our national debt was relatively low compared to most countries.

Some would say that having such low levels of debt is a good thing. Certainly it allows flexibility for governments to invest infrastructure and to borrow to invest in public services where there is a deficit of such services.

It also allows for a low(er)-tax environment, for workers and for business. Meaning the cost of doing business is competitive, inducing foreign investment and creating employment.

Circa 2007 something happened that changed all that, dramatically.

Was it the public sector benchmarking of 2002? Or did something else, more profound, occur? Here is a link to perhaps indicate that it was indeed something else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932008

Is it odd that all of these countries experienced rapidly increasing debt to GDP ratios from around 2006-2008? Even the ‘prudent’ ones? Did our benchmarking cause of all of this?

Iceland
https://tradingeconomics.com/iceland/government-debt-to-gdp

Italy
https://tradingeconomics.com/italy/government-debt-to-gdp

US
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp

UK
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/government-debt-to-gdp

Germany
https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/government-debt-to-gdp

Netherlands
https://tradingeconomics.com/netherlands/government-debt-to-gdp

France
https://tradingeconomics.com/france/government-debt-to-gdp

The reality is the economic system that we have bought into. Monetary policy is dictated by the ECB. It is independent of State interference. The State has ceded monetary control to the ECB whose objective is to maintain price stability in the eurozone. It uses private institutions, namely banks, to compete with each other as tools to achieve this. It has its benefits, fluidity, liquidity, of capital invokes economic activity. It has its drawbacks, one-glove does not fit all economies.

Credit expansion was allowed to go unchecked for too long in a low interest rate environment - across the globe.

Here is our historic government budget

https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/government-budget

Clearly, up to 2007 we were experiencing a series of budget surpluses, with _national debt levels at all time lows_  as per above.
The economic crisis exposed the failings in the credit expansion/perpetual debt based system _across the globe. _
For Ireland and countries over reliant on construction and property, the effects were magnified greatly over countries that also suffered deficits but were not reliant on construction like Germany and Netherlands

https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/government-budget

https://tradingeconomics.com/netherlands/government-budget

In no way shape or form, can social partnership in Ireland be considered anyway near the primary cause of our economic collapse. To do so, and being consistent in your views, you would then have to credit public sector pay cuts since the crash as the primary cause of our economic recovery and public finances - somehow I dont think I should hold my breath in that regard?



Firefly said:


> I remember the time before we joined and strongly believe we are much better of in the euro. We are a tiny, open economy. Look at all the angst facing the UK at the moment and they're a lot bigger than us.



Here is the history of the UK and the euro

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_and_the_euro

_"The United Kingdom entered the __European Exchange Rate Mechanism__, a prerequisite for adopting the euro, in October 1990. The UK spent over £6 billion trying to keep its currency, the __pound sterling__, within the narrow limits prescribed by ERM, but was forced to exit the programme within two years after the __pound sterling__ came under major pressure from currency __speculators__. The ensuing crash of 16 September 1992 was subsequently dubbed "__Black Wednesday__". During the negotiations of the __Maastricht Treaty__ of 1992 the UK secured an __opt-out__ from adopting the euro.__[2]_"

You will note that the UK debt to gdp ratio rose rapidly in 1992 from the graph above.
And in the immediate years from the time it joined the ERM in 1990, its budget deficit went to nearly -7%.
Around the same time unemployment in the UK from 7% to 11%
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/unemployment-rate

The euro did nothing for the UK but bring instability.


----------



## Purple (9 May 2018)

Why do you keep talking about Benchmarking as if it was the only outcome of social partnership?

Why do you ignore the tax breaks and subsidies for the construction sector, agree in social partnership talks, for the construction bubble?
Why do you ignore the fact that the Irish Central Bank could, at any time, have introduced the rules on lending which are in place now?
The annual cost of public services increased from €8 billion in 2002 to €17 billion in 2008. Are you seriously suggesting that pumping an extra €9 billion a year into the economy through wages had no impact on the crash?

Oh and yes, Public Sector pay moderation has been a big factor in our economic recovery.


----------



## Firefly (9 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> In no way shape or form, can social partnership in Ireland be considered anyway near the primary cause of our economic collapse. To do so, and being consistent in your views, you would then have to credit public sector pay cuts since the crash as the primary cause of our economic recovery and public finances



No doubt about it, public sector pay cuts have certainly helped us balance the books.


----------



## Purple (9 May 2018)

Firefly said:


> No doubt about it, public sector pay cuts have certainly helped us balance the books.


"Cuts" might be pushing it. Moderation is a better word.


----------



## TheBigShort (9 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Instead it is the policies that engineered an over reliance on construction and taxes from stamp duty that should be abhorred.
> Policies that continue today that tell us our net wealth is at record highs, boosted by property prices once again.





Purple said:


> Why do you keep talking about Benchmarking as if it was the only outcome of social partnership?



Fair point, I just use as an example of what it is regularly identified as a prime example of over-spending. I don't disagree, but it was not the _cause_ of the crash, but did, as you correctly point out, feed into the impact of the crash as all public sector spending would. But on its own, considering the sums involved its impact was was on lower end of scale



Purple said:


> Why do you ignore the tax breaks and subsidies for the construction sector, agree in social partnership talks, for the construction bubble?
> Why do you ignore the fact that the Irish Central Bank could, at any time, have introduced the rules on lending which are in place now?



I'm not ignoring it. Clearly I referred to that in earlier comments above?

Wages were not pumped up by €9bn a year. They increased by €8bn over 6yrs, or €1.5bn a year. Not insignificant, but a lot different to €9bn a year.
Of course, our debt to gdp ratio fell from 30% to 20% over the same period, while sustaining budget surplus for all but one year during that period.

On the other hand, private sector lending effectively _quadrupled _in the same period. The period in which our monetary sovereignty was ceded to the ECB. An institution that is independent of government interference.

https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/loans-to-private-sector

Is it any wonder employment figures went through the roof in the same period? And of course, such employment prospects attracts immigrants and increases populations. Should the increase in population expect to have somewhere to live? To be able to use public services such as schools and hospitals? What about extra demands on water infrastructure, libraries, immigration controls, public parks, pollution, transport, etc..etc...Would extra personnel in public sector need to be hired to deal with increased demands on services by any chance? In turn increasing public sector wage bill through wages increases and more personnel. Or should public sector workers work extra, for free?

The economic crash has it roots in economic policy of credit expansion and the perpetual debt system. Everything else after that is a consequence of that policy. Despite apparent new lending rules from the central bank, house prices have increased by 69% since 2012. The same policies are still in place because the ECB is what dictates our monetary policy and the ECB is controlled by credit expansion/perpetual debt bankers.


----------



## Purple (9 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Wages were not pumped up by €9bn a year. They increased by €8bn over 6yrs, or €1.5bn a year. Not insignificant, but a lot different to €9bn a year.


 Yea, I stand corrected. The main point is that the exchequer had to come up with an €9 billion more to pay wages in 2008 than it did in 2000. 
This is a good report on the period. By 2013 we had reduced that back down to €6.5 billion but it was still a massive increase.
During that period the rate in increase in the number of people working in the Public Service was twice the rate of population increase.
So, the banking collapse accounts for €40-€60 billion of our current (and increasing) national debt but I would suggest that a net €6.5 a year extra in Public Sector wages to 2013 (and increasing rapidly now)has been a significant contributor to our national debt.


----------



## TheBigShort (9 May 2018)

Purple said:


> The main point is that the exchequer had to come up with an €9 billion more to pay wages in 2008 than it did in 2000



Yes, but it didn't borrow for that. Or more accurately the debt to GDP ratio fell significantly in that period, and for the most part the government ran budget surpluses.
Thanks to credit expansion, money was on tap.



Purple said:


> During that period the rate in increase in the number of people working in the Public Service was twice the rate of population increase.



Perhaps, but that is only an issue if there was no deficit in public services in the first place? As far as I recall classroom over-crowding was issue, numbers of gardai was also an issue. So, for the first time ever, given the state of the national accounts, we had money to spend to finally bring our public services up to international standards (whether we would achieve that is another matter).



Purple said:


> So, the banking collapse accounts for €40-€60 billion of our current (and increasing) national debt but I would suggest that a net €6.5 a year extra in Public Sector wages to 2013 (and increasing rapidly now)has been a significant contributor to our national debt.



I don't think you can compare the two. What did we get in return for the €40-€60bn bailout? At least with wages, somebody is actually providing a service in return. Whether that service is affordable or provides good value, again, is another matter for debate, but at least there is something being provided in return.
And it's not just €40-€60bn that needs to be costed, it is the opportunity lost where that money could have provided essential services for a lot of people for a very long time.


----------



## Purple (9 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, but it didn't borrow for that. Or more accurately the debt to GDP ratio fell significantly in that period, and for the most part the government ran budget surpluses.
> Thanks to credit expansion, money was on tap.


Thanks to receipts from capital taxes (Stamp Duty and VAT on construction). We made long term current expenditure commitments based on short term windfall tax receipts. The only politician who spoke out against it was Richard Bruton. Everyone else, from all parties, only complained that the government weren't spending enough. 



TheBigShort said:


> Perhaps, but that is only an issue if there was no deficit in public services in the first place? As far as I recall classroom over-crowding was issue, numbers of gardai was also an issue. So, for the first time ever, given the state of the national accounts, we had money to spend to finally bring our public services up to international standards (whether we would achieve that is another matter).


We were already spending about average amounts on Public Services per capita so maybe the solution to finally bring our public services up to international standards wasn't just pay increases and more people in grossly inefficient organisations. 


TheBigShort said:


> I don't think you can compare the two. What did we get in return for the €40-€60bn bailout? At least with wages, somebody is actually providing a service in return. Whether that service is affordable or provides good value, again, is another matter for debate, but at least there is something being provided in return.


 I agree but it was still unsustainable and grossly wasteful and it still added to out debt and the impact of the crisis. 


TheBigShort said:


> And it's not just €40-€60bn that needs to be costed, it is the opportunity lost where that money could have provided essential services for a lot of people for a very long time.


 The same can be said for pay increases which didn't yield improvements in outcomes.


----------



## TheBigShort (9 May 2018)

Purple said:


> Thanks to receipts from capital taxes (Stamp Duty and VAT on construction)



Exposing the nature of the credit expansion monetary policy.



Purple said:


> We made long term current expenditure commitments based on short term windfall tax receipts.



I don't disagree. And, regrettably, if it all started again today the same thing would happen I'm sure. This is the concept of the 'trickle-down' effect. Create wealth effect (credit based property boom in our case), private investment spurred on by obtaining profits will seep into every crevice of the economy raising standards for all. 
If anyone gets left behind government taxes can intervene.

It works, but only to a point. It is unsustainable long-term.



Purple said:


> We were already spending about average amounts on Public Services



Average amounts lead to average results. Perhaps we should aim higher?



Purple said:


> it was still unsustainable and grossly wasteful and it still added to out debt and the impact of the crisis.



I agree it was unsustainable and that there was/is waste. I would disagree that it was grossly wasteful. There are a lot of good things in this country, they may not make the headlines but I can think of a lot worse places to live.



Purple said:


> The same can be said for pay increases which didn't yield improvements in outcomes.



Of course, but the inferred point here is that public services haven't yielded any improvements? 
Public services are a broad brush and measuring improvements can be complex. I don't think it is reasonable to infer that public services did not yield improvements. 
Whether those improvements provide value for money is another thing altogether.


----------



## Purple (10 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Average amounts lead to average results.


If only. Maybe we should set realistic targets and aspire to mediocrity.


----------



## TheBigShort (10 May 2018)

Purple said:


> If only. Maybe we should set realistic targets and aspire to mediocrity.



That would suggest that you feel public services in this country are poorly delivered?


----------



## Purple (10 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> That would suggest that you feel public services in this country are poorly delivered?


Mismanagement of our social housing stock resulting in homeless families.

Third highest spend per head in the world on health services but massive waiting lists and relatively poor outcomes.

High spend on education but poor outcomes at third level and high levels of functional illiteracy and numeracy.

Endemic corruption, incompetence, financial malpractice and waste in out police force.

Byzantine levels of bureaucracy in many departments.

Massive duplication of processes.

Far too many different contract and wage structures which makes HR and Payroll costs far higher than they need to be.


We could all add to that list.


----------



## TheBigShort (10 May 2018)

[QUOTE="Purple, post: 1567986, member: 

We could all add to that list.[/QUOTE]

Yes of course we could, but that reads like a collection of newspaper headlines typically devoid of a full and accurate picture of quite often complex issues.
.
Im sure you have a simplified solution for all these matters, lots of people do - including those that still blame Brian Cowen!


----------



## Firefly (10 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Im sure you have a simplified solution for all these matters, lots of people do - including those that still blame Brian Cowen!



Sadly I think the problem is a cultural one. Even with massive increases in spending on public services during the Celtic Tiger, we've seen shambolic services like those listed by _purple _above. It doesn't seem to matter how many public sector workers we employ or how much they are paid, so I guess we shouldn't entertain any increases in numbers or pay without concrete cost/benefit analysis and we should also take a much closer look at privatising where feasible.


----------



## Purple (10 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Yes of course we could, but that reads like a collection of newspaper headlines typically devoid of a full and accurate picture of quite often complex issues.


It is usual for headlines to be devoid of full and accurate picture of issues.

That's why they are called headlines.




You don't have to be so defensive; you asked for examples and I gave them. Are you of the view that people should only be entitled to voice their opinion about a problem if they can also offer a detailed solution to that problem. If so then should we all keep quiet about Syria, Climate change, Inequality, the Global Financial Crisis and just about everything else?
Should the citizens of this country just stay quite and stop questioning their betters?




TheBigShort said:


> Im sure you have a simplified solution for all these matters, lots of people do - including those that still blame Brian Cowen!


 I won't justify that comment with an answer.


----------



## TheBigShort (10 May 2018)

Firefly said:


> Sadly I think the problem is a cultural one



Thinking it is a cultural problem, and _knowing_ it is a cultural problem are two different things. The problems listed above are not a million miles away from the problems being experienced in other countries.
Take the increase in homelessness for instance, is it just a coincidence that most countries in the EU are experiencing increasing levels of homelessness now in their capital cities, at the same time?

https://www.theguardian.com/housing...-crisis-point-all-eu-countries-except-finland

To be clear, if the policy is to outsource the housing stock to the private sector, and that is what has happened, then that is effective management, not mismanagement. If the consequences are 200,000 empty homes, with underoccupancy in 40% in occupied homes, and we have no money to build houses for homeless families - then that is just bad _policy, _not bad management.

You also have to consider that the headlines listed above need to be taken with a pinch of salt - using terms like "massive duplication", when the reality is probably "some duplication", ditto for corruption etc....


----------



## TheBigShort (10 May 2018)

Purple said:


> You don't have to be so defensive; you asked for examples and I gave them. Are you of the view that people should only be entitled to voice their opinion about a problem if they can also offer a detailed solution to that problem. If so then should we all keep quiet about Syria, Climate change, Inequality, the Global Financial Crisis and just about everything else?
> Should the citizens of this country just stay quite and stop questioning their betters?



I'm not sure what you are talking about here?
The public service is a broad church, of course there are problems as you have outlined, and need to be rectified. But you have a tendency to exaggerate somewhat the cause and effects. For instance, you have stated that homeless families is as a result of mismanagement of our housing stock...this is clearly an absurd statement.
That there is a homeless crisis - true - that the cause is simplified into a mismanagement of social housing - false.

That is all, I totally accept everyone has the right to voice their opinions, but in doing so it would help if there was a modicum of factual evidence to substantiate it.
As much as everyone is entitled to their opinion, the entitlement to scrutinize that opinion is fair game also.


----------



## Purple (10 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> To be clear, if the policy is to outsource the housing stock to the private sector, and that is what has happened, then that is effective management, not mismanagement. If the consequences are 200,000 empty homes, with underoccupancy in 40% in occupied homes, and we have no money to build houses for homeless families - then that is just bad _policy, _not bad management.


We have 107000 social houses and another 30,000 or so private homes rented by the State. We have 1700 homeless families. If we improved the utilisation of our existing social housing stock by 1.25% we would solve the problem of homeless families. Is that a policy issue or a management issue or both?


----------



## Purple (10 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> That there is a homeless crisis - true - that the cause is simplified into a mismanagement of social housing - false.


 Where did I say that mismanagement was the cause?



TheBigShort said:


> That is all, I totally accept everyone has the right to voice their opinions, but in doing so it would help if there was a modicum of factual evidence to substantiate it.


 It does help, but don't let that stop you.



TheBigShort said:


> As much as everyone is entitled to their opinion, the entitlement to scrutinize that opinion is fair game also.


 Agreed.


----------



## TheBigShort (10 May 2018)

Purple said:


> Where did I say that mismanagement was the cause?



here



Purple said:


> Mismanagement of our social housing stock resulting in homeless families.




Or at least that is how I interpreted your comment.


----------



## Purple (14 May 2018)

Purple said:


> Are you of the view that people should only be entitled to voice their opinion about a problem if they can also offer a detailed solution to that problem. If so then should we all keep quiet about Syria, Climate change, Inequality, the Global Financial Crisis and just about everything else?





TheBigShort said:


> I'm not sure what you are talking about here?


Really?
You continuously insisted that anyone voicing their concerns about an issue must come up with a solution to the problem at the same time. I was pointing out how silly that is. 



TheBigShort said:


> For instance, you have stated that homeless families is as a result of mismanagement of our housing stock...this is clearly an absurd statement.


 No, I've pointed out that if we improve the management of our housing stock by less than 1.5% we will be able to house all the homeless families we have. Of course then we'll just end up with more homeless families as people game the system to jump the housing list. Eventually the State will provide houses for all the "wurkers", paid for by taxing "the Rich" and everything will be fine. 



TheBigShort said:


> That is all, I totally accept everyone has the right to voice their opinions, but in doing so it would help if there was a modicum of factual evidence to substantiate it.


 I agree. Try it.



TheBigShort said:


> Or at least that is how I interpreted your comment.


 I think you should think again.


----------



## TheBigShort (14 May 2018)

Purple said:


> You continuously insisted that anyone voicing their concerns about an issue must come up with a solution to the problem at the same time.



No I don’t.
Anyone voicing their concerns are fully entitled to do so. Its when they outline their proposed solutions to those concerns I merely point out how, from the get-go, those proposed solutions wont work.



Purple said:


> I've pointed out that if we improve the management of our housing stock by less than 1.5% we will be able to house all the homeless families we have.



What proposals do you have to ‘improve’ the management of housing stock by 1.5%? Bearing in mind, according to this article, its not just Ireland that is in a crisis with housing

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ort-exposes-europes-escalating-housing-crisis

(btw that’s not insisting you come up with a solution, that’s just asking a simple follow on question to the comment you made. Its quite possible that when you give your proposal that I may disagree with it.)


----------



## TheBigShort (14 May 2018)

Purple said:


> I think you should think again.



I have, same conclusion – according to you, the housing crisis is due to the mismanagement of our housing stock. I disagree.


----------



## Purple (14 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> No I don’t.
> Anyone voicing their concerns are fully entitled to do so. Its when they outline their proposed solutions to those concerns I merely point out how, from the get-go, those proposed solutions wont work.
> 
> 
> ...


Ha! 
You just can't resist, can you?


----------



## Purple (14 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I have, same conclusion – according to you, the housing crisis is due to the mismanagement of our housing stock. I disagree.


No, you are incorrect. Try again. Slowly this time. Maybe take off the pinko-tinted glasses.


----------



## TheBigShort (14 May 2018)

Purple said:


> You just can't resist, can you?



Absolutely.

A housing crisis is being reported in capital and major cities across the developed world, from Dublin, London, Edinburgh, Paris, Toronto, Sydney, Melbourne, Munich, New York, Los Angeles, Tokyo and more….with knock on effects of increasing homelessness and/or house price bubbles excluding working people from owning their own homes.

Along you come with a notion, that has something to do with managing 1.5% of our housing stock better, that according to you, will “be able to house all of the homelessness”.

I have to say I find this intriguing. Could the answer to the housing crisis be at the tips of your fingers? Perhaps your proposal could be used internationally to resolve the crisis abroad in other major cities?

Please, please don’t keep this magic formula all to yourself. Please share.


----------



## Purple (14 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Along you come with a notion, that has something to do with managing 1.5% of our housing stock better, that according to you, will “be able to house all of the homelessness”.


I never said that it would “be able to house all of the homelessness” but freeing up under 1.5% of the social housing stock would house every family on the housing list. That's just maths. We've been through this in detail on another thread. I'm not sure what you don't understand about that and I'm sure other posters are finding it boring by now. Why not just re-read the other thread?


----------



## Purple (14 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> with knock on effects of increasing homelessness and/or house price bubbles excluding working people from owning their own homes.


Do you mean "excluding *some *working people from owning their own homes *in area in which they want to live*?

I'm can't afford to buy in the area I want to live. I certainly don't expect the Government to take money from my fellow citizens in order to provide me with a house in that area.


----------



## TheBigShort (14 May 2018)

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ire...fusing-social-housing-were-homeless-1.3414714



Purple said:


> I'm sure other posters are finding it boring by now



I agree.


----------



## Purple (14 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ire...fusing-social-housing-were-homeless-1.3414714


What's that got to do with anything?


----------



## TheBigShort (14 May 2018)

Purple said:


> What's that got to do with anything?



I just threw it in there for the craic! Perhaps it shows somewhat that the complexities of housing homeless families extends beyond mere freeing up of property.


----------



## Firefly (14 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Anyone voicing their concerns are fully entitled to do so. Its when they outline their proposed solutions to those concerns I merely point out how, from the get-go, those proposed solutions wont work.



Fair play to you for admitting this!


----------



## TheBigShort (14 May 2018)

Firefly said:


> Fair play to you for admitting this!



BOOM! You got me there Firefly, well done! 

Your tendancy to de-contextualize comments to suit your agenda continus to plod along


----------



## Purple (14 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I just threw it in there for the craic! Perhaps it shows somewhat that the complexities of housing homeless families extends beyond mere freeing up of property.


Of course it does. I don't think there's any need to state the obvious (not quite so much anyway). 
I know you don't think people who disagree with you are as smart as you but just for the sake of argument work on the basis that they are. Try assuming that they are also just as moral and ethic as you and are just as interested in creating a just and fair society but have a different opinion on how we get there.


----------



## Purple (14 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Your tendancy to de-contextualize comments to suit your agenda continus to plod along


That's a bit rich.


----------



## Firefly (14 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Your tendancy to de-contextualize comments to suit your agenda continus to plod along



Not really...you just love the status quo and your union must love you for it!


----------



## TheBigShort (14 May 2018)

Purple said:


> I know you don't think people who disagree with you are as smart as you but just for the sake of argument work on the basis that they are.



Not at all. I know you are a smart intelligent person. Why you persist with defunct notions of ‘freeing up’ housing in the midst of a housing shortage is a bit of a conundrum.




Firefly said:


> Not really...you just love the status quo and your union must love you for it!




Here are two suggestions I made on the housing crisis. In no way are they panaceas for the issue but I think they will go someway to addressing the issue.


Where there is a shortage of housing – build more housing, that’s just maths!


Offer tax credits or refunds to people who move, voluntarily, out of their homes into smaller homes where their current home has existing capacity over and above what they need.


Here is the ICTU charter for housing plan that is funded by trade union subscribers, like me, to raise awareness and address the issue of housing. I don’t know if it will solve the problem, but again, I think it will go someway in doing so if the measures advocated are implemented. I particularly like point 4 (it would put an end to your Stalinist 5yr plan to move people around where the State see's fit)


https://www.ictu.ie/download/pdf/charter_for_housing_rights.pdf

This is the same union umbrella btw that negotiated and agreed pay cuts for its members in the public service that you yourself credit for assisting the public finances getting back on track.



Firefly said:


> No doubt about it, public sector pay cuts have certainly helped us balance the books.



So far from loving the status quo, I am actively involved,  in trying to resolve the issue of housing and other social, economic and international issues.
By no means do I, or my trade union, have all the answers. But at least I've figured out that these and many other issues will not be resolved by any individual by themselves but that it will take a collective effort on the part of many. I pay to be part of that collective effort. It doesn't always succeed, but at least it beats shouting from the sidelines with your hands in your pockets.


----------



## Purple (14 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Offer tax credits or refunds to people who move, voluntarily, out of their homes into smaller homes where their current home has existing capacity over and above what they need.


I good example of how we could better manage our housing stock in order to free up capacity and house homeless families.
And yet you seem to be against my suggestion that we should try to better manage our housing stock in order to free up capacity. I genuinely don't understand what your problem is with that idea. Given the number of social houses we have and the number of homeless families if such measures could improve our yield by just 1.5% we'd house all of the homeless families we currently have. That doesn't mean it's the cause of the crisis or anything else; it's just a good policy to have. Call it a goal or a mission statement or a policy or don't call it anything but just look to use what we have better instead of just looking for more of the same.


----------



## Purple (14 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> So far from loving the status quo, I am actively involved, in trying to resolve the issue of housing and other social, economic and international issues.
> By no means do I, or my trade union, have all the answers. But at least I've figured out that these and many other issues will not be resolved by any individual by themselves but that it will take a collective effort on the part of many. I pay to be part of that collective effort. It doesn't always succeed, but at least it beats shouting from the sidelines with your hands in your pockets.


Why do Trade Unions get involved in this issue?
That's not what they are for and it'snot what their members are paying them for. In fact there is a clear conflict between the need to spend more State money on housing and the function of a Trade Union which is to get the most money for the least work for its members.


----------



## TheBigShort (14 May 2018)

Purple said:


> And yet you seem to be against my suggestion that we should try to better manage our housing stock in order to free up capacity. I genuinely don't understand what your problem is with that idea.



I'm not against better management of housing stock, I was against your proposal to introduce a 'market rate'. I don't think it would provide for better management at all. Charging market rates on all tenants, when those rates are in part causing the housing crisis makes no sense. Particularly as the vast majority of social housing tenants could not afford market rates in the first instance. 

I was also against the 5yr assessment plan.

You asked instead that I give proposals. You seem to be somewhat agreeable that a tax refund for those who do move, freeing up spare capacity is a good idea. I think it could extend to the private sector where the greatest bulk of under-capacity exists. My parents next door neighbor lives by himself in a 3 bed terrace. He owns the property and has lived there for 55yrs. He is 80yrs old and still independent. If he moved to a one-bed ground floor apt it would free up capacity for a young family or prospective family.
But he may also not want to move. 55yrs is a long time to spend in a community and at 80yrs moving home may be a disturbance and disruption to his life that he would rather do without.
He could be offered a generous tax break. If he chooses to accept, all good. If he declines, that's his business. But the same disturbance and disruption that could affect him, could also affect an 80yr old social housing tenant living 55yrs in a community.
So to free-up capacity, the tenant needs to be willing to do it, not coerced or compelled to move.


----------



## TheBigShort (14 May 2018)

Purple said:


> Why do Trade Unions get involved in this issue?
> That's not what they are for and it'snot what their members are paying them for.



Who says? Trade Unions are for improving the terms & conditions of their members employment. This does not necessarily always have to be directly. It can happen indirectly through campaigns for an additional bank holiday for instance.  Or campaign for the abolition of zero hour contracts. Or campaigns to raise awareness about the housing crisis and propose solutions which affect many of its members.
There is no limitation put on trade union involvement in social and economic issues other that what its members dictate.


----------



## Purple (14 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> the same disturbance and disruption that could affect him, could also affect an 80yr old social housing tenant living 55yrs in a community.


Do you think that there is a difference between someone who owns their own home and someone who is being given one for free or at a large discount through a subsidy paid for by their neighbours?


----------



## Purple (14 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> There is no limitation put on trade union involvement in social and economic issues other that what its members dictate.


So they are, in effect, political organisations. Tell me again how social partnership didn't undermine the democratic process?


----------



## TheBigShort (14 May 2018)

Purple said:


> Do you think that there is a difference between someone who owns their own home and someone who is being given one for free or at a large discount through a subsidy paid for by their neighbours?



Insofar as there is any extra obligation on them to vacate their homes - then no, zero.


----------



## TheBigShort (14 May 2018)

Purple said:


> So they are, in effect, political organisations. Tell me again how social partnership didn't undermine the democratic process?



No. Its been explained to you before. If you cannot understand how the democratic process works, how the Dail elects a government to make policy decisions, and is accountable to the Dail in explaining how those decisions are determined and taken, then I cant help you.


----------



## Purple (15 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Insofar as there is any extra obligation on them to vacate their homes - then no, zero.


Wow.
What about people in private rental accommodation?


----------



## Purple (15 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> No. Its been explained to you before. If you cannot understand how the democratic process works, how the Dail elects a government to make policy decisions, and is accountable to the Dail in explaining how those decisions are determined and taken, then I cant help you.


That's very naive of you.


----------



## TheBigShort (15 May 2018)

Purple said:


> Wow.
> What about people in private rental accommodation?



What about people in private rental accommodation?


----------



## TheBigShort (15 May 2018)

Purple said:


> That's very naive of you.



How so? It has been explained to you before.


----------



## Firefly (15 May 2018)

Purple said:


> Why do Trade Unions get involved in this issue?



Maybe it's because....

_The programme should form part of a coherent national strategy of well-planned, mixed income and socially inclusive housing that includes public homes, affordable rental and affordable purchase homes. In addition, there should be some form of housing prioritisation for essential service workers – hospitals, transport etc – particularly in the major urban centres._

Now, who do you think makes up the lion's share of essential service workers?


----------



## Purple (15 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> What about people in private rental accommodation?


That's my question to you. Why are you repeating it?


----------



## Purple (15 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> How so? It has been explained to you before.


It's been explained to you as well.


----------



## Purple (15 May 2018)

Firefly said:


> Now, who do you think makes up the lion's share of essential service workers?


Of course; Unions twisting social policy designed to help the poor and vulnerable in order to get an unfair share for their members at the expense of society in general and the aforementioned poor and vulnerable in particular. In fairness that's their function. I just wish they would stop lying about their motives and stop pretending to be anything other than self-serving vested interest groups.


----------



## TheBigShort (15 May 2018)

Firefly said:


> Maybe it's because....
> 
> _The programme should form part of a coherent national strategy of well-planned, mixed income and socially inclusive housing that includes public homes, affordable rental and affordable purchase homes. In addition, there should be some form of housing prioritisation for essential service workers – hospitals, transport etc – particularly in the major urban centres._
> 
> Now, who do you think makes up the lion's share of essential service workers?





Purple said:


> Of course; Unions twisting social policy designed to help the poor and vulnerable in order to get an unfair share for their members at the expense of society in general and the aforementioned poor and vulnerable in particular. In fairness that's their function. I just wish they would stop lying about their motives and stop pretending to be anything other than self-serving vested interest groups.




Seriously, it is clear you guys have absolutely zero concept of the developing public policy.


Essential service workers _are members of society._


Having essential services workers living far distances from their headquarters may unduly inhibit, impede, detract, reduce, impinge on the provision of those essential services – in turn causing undue and unnecessary hardship for members of the public who rely on those services.

Having non-essential services workers living far distances from their headquarters may unduly inhibit, impede, detract, reduce, impinge on the provision of those non-essential services – in turn causing undue and unnecessary hardship for members of the public who want those services..


But between not having anyone to serve me a coffee and croissant on time on a Monday morning or not having the essential services to treat my heart attack or stroke, I know which one will make the headlines lambasting the inadequacy of services, and which would not, if both instances were to occur.
If we are reliant on a transport system that transports hundreds of thousands of workers to their work stations everyday then I don't think it is unreasonable to try and design a society that facilitates the smooth operation of that system, do you? If that means building social and affordable housing for working people on average incomes in city centre locations - that is a good thing for society, not a bad thing.

Advocating for the provision of adequate housing for essential service staff _is good for society_. I don’t want to live in a society where, because of the prohibitive cost of accommodation in major urban areas, we cannot attract enough people into nursing to look after the sick and elderly in those areas, do you? I can imagine the false outrage of the shambles of our health services if this were to occur.

You have taken a comment above and translated it into “self-serving vested interest groups”, when that very same comment says “_a coherent national strategy of well-planned, mixed income and socially inclusive housing that includes public homes, affordable rental and affordable purchase homes” – _this will include, working people unionised and non-unionised (both private sector and public sector), non-working people (unemployed, elderly, disabled). This includes private rental accommodation which for some reason you ask earlier “what about private rental accommodation?"

So you take a comment that refers to society at large, but dismiss it to focus on the ‘self-serving’ element that, god forbid, essential service workers can be relied upon to get to their work stations on time, all the time, without undue or unnecessary impediment.

You continually mope about a fair and just society – but what exactly do you do to promote such a society? Can you even outline what such a society would look like? From what I’ve ever heard from either of you is that a just and fair society, in your eyes, is basically free-market economics – what a joke!


----------



## Purple (15 May 2018)

Okay, so we should give houses at discounted rates on rent (in effect a massive pay rise) to nurses and other State employees so that they can get into work on time. Those houses should be paid for by other working people who may earn less money. The notion that how you get in to work is your own business is no longer acceptable. That transfer of wealth from poor to middle income earners is your idea of social justice.

I've never heard your version of a just society, just a constant stream of self-righteous negativity whenever anyone dares to question the socialist establishment.

Without pay rises Unions would stop all of the things I would like to see as part of our journey to a society where the State serves the citizen and not the other way around (which is as it is now). 

I would; 

Focus on education and supports for young kids in school with an emphasis on teaching them what the social contract is and what their rights and responsibilities are as a citizen.
Invest massively in drug treatment and physiological supports for addicts, young and old, rather than just put them in prison. 
Restructure the entire Public Sector so that things like payroll can be standardised and processed from a shared services center and look for other cost saving measures which can and should result in head-count reductions. 
Slowly adjust our welfare system so that people who work and lose their job get significantly more support than those who have never worked or haven't worked in years.
Slowly adjust our welfare system so that long term unemployment supports are lower than short term unemployment supports.
Slowly remove all universal benefits and replace them with refundable tax credits.
Tax child benefit straight away.
Punish welfare fraudsters but punish tax cheats much more.
Introduce a constitutional amendment around what the Government can do around spending and borrowing.


----------



## TheBigShort (15 May 2018)

Purple said:


> so we should give houses at discounted rates on rent (in effect a massive pay rise) to nurses and other State employees so that they can get into work on time.



Where did anyone say that? What is your obsession with State employees?
Don't nurses work in the private sector too? In nursing homes for instance?
Don't teachers teach in the private sector?
Aren't transport workers such as LUAS drivers employed by a private company?

Why cant we estimate how many workers are required now and into future years and build a "_coherent national strategy of well-planned, mixed income and socially inclusive housing that includes public homes, affordable rental and affordable purchase homes", _particularly in the major urban areas?

Here is an idea for private rental accommodation;

That every landlord that buys a new build property registers as a company. The property can be designated as rental accommodation for 100yrs in a mixed development as described above. The banks facilitate such companies for 100yr mortgages on such properties. A €250,000 30yr mortgage costs about €800 per month today. Over 100yrs it would cost about  €240 pm.

The landlord can now offer private rental accommodation at affordable rates, while making a profit - a real alternative to private ownership can emerge, suitable for those who still cannot afford to but, or haven't saved enough as yet, or who are mobile in their jobs.
When the landlord ups and retires (say after 30yrs), he can sell his company (not the property) valued at _€x (_depending on cost of outstanding mortgage, value of property etc) to another willing buyer who prepared to invest time and money into providing quality accommodation for rent at prices that are competitive to the private ownership model.
Instead what we have is a glut of fly-by-night landlords who bought a second property thinking it would finance their pensions after 30yrs when the mortgage is paid off by charging extortionate rents on ordinary working people who can barely keep their heads above water.



Purple said:


> Those houses should be paid for by other working people who may earn less money



This is so devoid of reality. Why do you think that those who occupy social housing cannot pay rents for it? Why do you think that working people in those houses do not pay taxes that pay for those houses? How about the State, being the landlord, uses its prerogative to provide not-for-profit housing? Why should the State bow down to the 'market rate' when the market rate is extortionate and crippling the very people that need support?
The amount of tax you pay for the provision of social housing is miniscule, it wouldn't register a ripple in a lake. It is so minute, so inconsequential to the greater scheme of things it would barely pay for the supply of light bulbs for the year. Get off your high horse, take a look at how much tax you actually pay and stop pretending that it pays for so much.

As far as I recall, your own landlord reduced your rent at one point? Correct? Why is it ok for _your _landlord to charge less rent than the market rate _for you..._but tenants of social housing should be subject to the market rate?



Purple said:


> My landlord is charging me well below the market rate as he reduced to rent a few years back to keep me there and he's now stuck charging a low rate because of rent controls.



...where was your bleeding heart for a fair and just society then? Why didn't you object and allow for the market rate to force you out so that some other tenant could pay an even greater rate?


----------



## Purple (15 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> This is so devoid of reality. Why do you think that those who occupy social housing cannot pay rents for it?


Where did I say they didn't pay rent?
If the State provides housing at a discounted rate to people who can afford the market rate then there is an opportunity cost to the State. That is a subsidy. That subsidy is paid for by other citizens of the State including those on low incomes. I am against poor people subsidising those who are better off. You don't seem to have a problem with that. 


TheBigShort said:


> How about the State, being the landlord, uses its prerogative to provide not-for-profit housing?


 I've no problem with that. Where I disagree with you is that I think that the States resources should be targeted at those who need them most and those who do not need a subsidy should not get one. That way there is more money for those at the bottom. I know that goes against Trade Union thinking but in my unenlightened inferior mind that seems fairer. 



TheBigShort said:


> Why should the State bow down to the 'market rate' when the market rate is extortionate and crippling the very people that need support?


 Who's talking about "bowing down"? This isn't Saint Petersburg in 1910.



TheBigShort said:


> As far as I recall, your own landlord reduced your rent at one point? Correct? Why is it ok for _your _landlord to charge less rent than the market rate _for you..._but tenants of social housing should be subject to the market rate?


You're making this very personal, aren't you?
My Landlord thinks I'm an excellent tenant and wants to keep me. No one else is subsidising my lower rent. If there was a homeless family living in a hostel because I was paying below market rent, as is the case at the moment in the social housing sector, then that would be different. 

I do make sure I pay my taxes though and I don't draw the child benefit for my daughter who lives with me because I don't think I should be entitled to it.


----------



## Firefly (15 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Here are two suggestions I made on the housing crisis. In no way are they panaceas for the issue but I think they will go someway to addressing the issue.
> 
> 
> Where there is a shortage of housing – build more housing, that’s just maths!
> ...



I believe you have argued in the the past that most of those in social housing are earning low or very low incomes. If that is the case then tax credits or tax refunds aren't going to be much of an incentive are they?


----------



## TheBigShort (15 May 2018)

Firefly said:


> I believe you have argued in the the past that most of those in social housing are earning low or very low incomes. If that is the case then tax credits or tax refunds aren't going to be much of an incentive are they?





TheBigShort said:


> I think it could extend to the private sector where the greatest bulk of under-capacity exists



Where there is no benefit to a tax credit or tax refund, offer a grant equivalent to the tax refund...its not that hard to resolve, is it?


----------



## Firefly (15 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Instead what we have is a glut of fly-by-night landlords who bought a second property thinking it would finance their pensions after 30yrs when the mortgage is paid off by charging extortionate rents on ordinary working people who can barely keep their heads above water.



These "fly-by-night" landlords are leaving the market or renting out via airbnb

New, professional landlords are entering such as Irish Life:

_Irish Life Investment Managers (ILIM) has bought 262 apartments in south Dublin that were due to be put up for sale and the asset manager plans to rent them._

https://www.irishtimes.com/business...-south-dublin-apartments-for-rental-1.3492279

Given the small size of the Dublin market, I would comfortably expect a few large, professional landlords buying / building many blocks outright with the sole purpose of renting them out. These landlords will have all the resources they need to ensure the make the highest return...something the "fly-by-night" landlords do not enjoy. I would expect higher prices and less security for tenants.


----------



## Firefly (15 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Where there is no benefit to a tax credit or tax refund, offer a grant equivalent to the tax refund...its not that hard to resolve, is it?



So first of all you give someone a place at a vastly reduced price compared to what they would have to pay if they paid for it themselves and then in order to move them somewhere more suitable you give them even more money?

In case you haven't figured out by now, money doesn't grow on trees, so to fund this policy initiative would you mind outlining where resources would be taken from?


----------



## Purple (15 May 2018)

Firefly said:


> to fund this policy initiative would you mind outlining where resources would be taken from?


"The rich"; taxing them is the solution to everything. Pay attention!


----------



## Firefly (15 May 2018)

Purple said:


> "The rich"; taxing them is the solution to everything. Pay attention!



I keep forgetting!!


----------



## Purple (15 May 2018)

Firefly said:


> If that is the case then tax credits or tax refunds aren't going to be much of an incentive are they?


I'd like all welfare and benefits paid in the form of refundable tax credits. It is far simpler and more efficient and should reduce the administrative overhead on the State significantly over the medium term.


----------



## Purple (15 May 2018)

Firefly said:


> I keep forgetting!!


Good, and in case you are wondering who "the rich" are they are everyone who earns more than you.


----------



## Firefly (15 May 2018)

Purple said:


> Good, and in case you are wondering who "the rich" are they are everyone who earns more than you.



And there are far too many of them!!


----------



## Purple (15 May 2018)

Firefly said:


> And there are far too many of them!!


Yep, and none of them ended up that way because they are smarter or work harder than you. It's all because of the capitalist system and the social injustice it produces. The Jews or the Lizard people are, in turn, probably behind that system.


----------



## TheBigShort (15 May 2018)

Firefly said:


> So first of all you give someone a place at a vastly reduced price compared to what they would have to pay if they paid for it themselves and then in order to move them somewhere more suitable you give them even more money?
> 
> In case you haven't figured out by now, money doesn't grow on trees, so to fund this policy initiative would you mind outlining where resources would be taken from?



The resources that would have otherwise been spent on your 5yr plan to assess housing, the staff, the legislation to support it, the cost of employing bouncers to enact the evictions, the court appeals  and the pay for the judges , barristers etc.

Here is a couple of headlines to show some of the difficulties being faced without having to pay for some Big Brother type scheme dictating where people can live.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/almost-one-third-of-families-refusing-social-housing-were-homeless-1.3414714


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/inadequate-council-houses-breach-rights-of-tenants-1.3265050

I think my system would be more efficient, cost -effective and satisfactory all round, especially if it extends to the private sector where the vast bulk of under-occupancy exists, don't you?


----------



## Purple (15 May 2018)

From your link; "Inadequate council houses ‘breach rights of tenants’".
See that's why people in the private rental sector get annoyed with the whinging nanny-state BS from Housing organisations. I've had problems with mould in my rented house. I bought mould-spray and cleared it up and made sure the kids opened their bedroom windows regularly.
I've had problems with rats, killings a few in traps in my kitchen. I told my landlord and he got Rentokill out. I did some work plugging holes and lined and plastered some old cupboards.


----------



## TheBigShort (15 May 2018)

Purple said:


> I've had problems with mould in my rented house. I bought mould-spray and cleared it up and made sure the kids opened their bedroom windows regularly.
> I've had problems with rats, killings a few in traps in my kitchen. I told my landlord and he got Rentokill out. I did some work plugging holes and lined and plastered some old cupboards.



Really? Is this the standard that can be expected in the private rental market? Is this the standard of the ‘market rate’? Rats and mould?
I know you are paying below market rate, but that explains it somewhat.


----------



## Firefly (15 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> The resources that would have otherwise been spent on your 5yr plan to assess housing, the staff, the legislation to support it, the cost of employing bouncers to *enact the evictions*, the court appeals  and the pay for the judges , barristers etc.


Not evictions in my book. Someone gets a house for a huge discount for a period of say 5 years and at the end of this they are assessed compared to others on the waiting list. If there is someone else more deserving the occupant vacates.




TheBigShort said:


> I think my system would be more efficient, cost -effective and satisfactory all round, especially if it extends to the private sector where the vast bulk of under-occupancy exists, don't you?


I honestly don't know regarding the cost, but the current model of getting a place for life instills a culture of dependency.


----------



## TheBigShort (15 May 2018)

Firefly said:


> Not evictions in my book. Someone gets a house for a huge discount for a period of say 5 years and at the end of this they are assessed compared to others on the waiting list. If there is someone else more deserving the occupant vacates.



Yeh, we have been through this before. How do you get the 'less deserving' occupant to vacate? What is the criteria for 'more' or 'less' deserving? Is it a simple calculation on the availability of rooms against the number of occupants? What if the homeless family refuse the accommodation?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ire...fusing-social-housing-were-homeless-1.3414714

Where does the evicted, sorry...'vacating' party go? Don't forget its a housing crisis we have? Into a hostel? Do they have a right to appeal? What if they are working and paying rent and taxes and have raised a family of their own? Is there any consideration for that? Is an unemployed single mother with two kids more or less deserving than a working single mother of one child? What mechanism will be in place to decide all of this?

These, and the dozens upon dozens of questions and scenarios that, for the umpteenth time I repeat, will simply get bogged down in an administrative, legal and subsequently political quagmire costing far more than it could possibly ever save and worse, getting nowhere to resolve the problem - its would be a waste of time and that is why no civilized country has any such measures in place.



Firefly said:


> I honestly don't know regarding the cost, but the current model of getting a place for life instills a culture of dependency.



You should back this up with facts at some point. People in social housing are no more dependent than you are. The amenities available to you, all of us, did not suddenly appear on foot of you starting to pay tax. There are layers, upon layers of generational graft and knowledge, learning and intellect, that provides us with the standard of living that we have. Your individual taxes (and mine) are inconsequential by themselves. People who work for low-incomes living in social housing are no more dependent on the State than are the employers who pay them low wages to remain competitive and stay in business.


----------



## Purple (15 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I know you are paying below market rate, but that explains it somewhat.


It does indeed; I fix things so it costs him less so he charges me less. Everyone's happy. I'd like a nicer house but I can't afford one and I don't expect anyone else to provide one for me as I'm an able bodied adult and so I'm responsible for providing for myself and I certainly don't expect others to subsidise my lifestyle. I know that's not an attitude you approve of but for me it comes down to self respect. 
I honestly don't know how people on good incomes living in subsidised housing can look at themselves in the mirror.


----------



## Purple (15 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> People who work for low-incomes living in social housing are no more dependent on the State than are the employers who pay them low wages to remain competitive and stay in business.


Rubbish.


----------



## Purple (15 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Yeh, we have been through this before. How do you get the 'less deserving' occupant to vacate? What is the criteria for 'more' or 'less' deserving? Is it a simple calculation on the availability of rooms against the number of occupants? What if the homeless family refuse the accommodation?


There you go again; you are attempting to invalidate a general point, a policy, by asking the poster to provide every minute detail of how it would be implemented. It's utterly childish to behave like that.


----------



## TheBigShort (15 May 2018)

Purple said:


> There you go again; you are attempting to invalidate a general point, a policy, by asking the poster to provide every minute detail of how it would be implemented. It's utterly childish to behave like that.



You are kidding right? Every minute detail?
It would be good if at least some detail...any detail...at all to the questions I have asked several times at this point.
One simple, obvious question, is where will the 'vacating' party go? It never gets answered. So from the get-go it is a bog-toilet notion of no value.
Perhaps, that no other developed nation on earth has such a scheme is probably the best indicator to its value?


----------



## TheBigShort (15 May 2018)

Purple said:


> I'd like a nicer house but I can't afford one and I don't expect anyone else to provide one for me as I'm an able bodied adult and so I'm responsible for providing for myself and I certainly don't expect others to subsidise my lifestyle.



That's an attitude I approve of.


----------



## TheBigShort (15 May 2018)

Purple said:


> Rubbish.



Well if someone living on minimum wage full-time is earning €20,000, they are contributing to the economy through VAT when they spend, typically, near 100% of that income. If they pay Rent Differential (say a further €500 pa). That's about €3,000 a year that returns out of €20,000 income back to the state each year.
Depending on who you listen to, the cost of a 3 bed house is €180-€330k to construct. Taking the €330k cost, and considering the property will plausibly last 100yrs (minimum), then that works out at a cost of €3,300 pa for the State.
So a social housing tenant that is working minimum wage is reliant on the state to the tune of about €300 a year, for housing. Between 2million tax payers that works out at the princely sum each to be about €0.00015c per year for you per year. With some 150,000 local authority housing that costs about €22.50 per year each to provide housing to thousands of people and families who need shelter.
Even if you were to double that to include maintenance and repairs over the 100yrs it is still a paltry amount.
Can you cope with that? Is this what gets you up on your high horse?

On the otherhand, someone earning €80,000k who can well afford to pay for their own place would be paying a lot more in income tax, USC, and Rent Differential. They would be paying far in excess of what it costs the State to provide the house. There is no subsidy here. For this they get to live in local authority housing, which one third of homeless refuse to live in (so high is the quality of the housing and standard of living) paying in excess of the cost of the house and they get nothing in return.


----------



## Purple (16 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> That's an attitude I approve of.


That contradicts just about everything else you've posted on this thread.


----------



## TheBigShort (16 May 2018)

Purple said:


> That contradicts just about everything else you've posted on this thread.



Dont be silly, of course it doesnt. 
The reason you cannot afford a nicer house is the same reason why someone in social housing cannot afford to rent privately or buy. 

If there are people living in social or local authority housing who can "well afford" to rent or buy privately, they are few and far between. 
They are paying income taxes that go toward the cost of that housing, they pay Rent Differential or pay in accordance with Affordable Housing scheme. There is no subsidy.
If they choose to continue in local authority housing instead of paying for a nicer house like you or I would do, then thats their loss.


----------



## Purple (16 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Well if someone living on minimum wage full-time is earning €20,000, they are contributing to the economy through VAT when they spend, typically, near 100% of that income. If they pay Rent Differential (say a further €500 pa). That's about €3,000 a year that returns out of €20,000 income back to the state each year.
> Depending on who you listen to, the cost of a 3 bed house is €180-€330k to construct. Taking the €330k cost, and considering the property will plausibly last 100yrs (minimum), then that works out at a cost of €3,300 pa for the State.
> So a social housing tenant that is working minimum wage is reliant on the state to the tune of about €300 a year, for housing. Between 2million tax payers that works out at the princely sum each to be about €0.00015c per year for you per year. With some 150,000 local authority housing that costs about €22.50 per year each to provide housing to thousands of people and families who need shelter.
> Even if you were to double that to include maintenance and repairs over the 100yrs it is still a paltry amount.
> ...


Okay, so you don't understand opportunity cost.


----------



## Purple (16 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> They are paying income taxes that go toward the cost of that housing, they pay Rent Differential or pay in accordance with Affordable Housing scheme. There is no subsidy.


Okay, so you don't understand opportunity cost.


----------



## Sunny (16 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Well if someone living on minimum wage full-time is earning €20,000, they are contributing to the economy through VAT when they spend, typically, near 100% of that income. If they pay Rent Differential (say a further €500 pa). That's about €3,000 a year that returns out of €20,000 income back to the state each year.
> Depending on who you listen to, the cost of a 3 bed house is €180-€330k to construct. Taking the €330k cost, and considering the property will plausibly last 100yrs (minimum), then that works out at a cost of €3,300 pa for the State.
> So a social housing tenant that is working minimum wage is reliant on the state to the tune of about €300 a year, for housing. Between 2million tax payers that works out at the princely sum each to be about €0.00015c per year for you per year. With some 150,000 local authority housing that costs about €22.50 per year each to provide housing to thousands of people and families who need shelter.
> Even if you were to double that to include maintenance and repairs over the 100yrs it is still a paltry amount.
> ...



Oh come on!! You are smarter than that economic argument.....Why doesn't the State just buy everyone a house if it only costs €3000 a year??  I would gladly give up my tax credits to pay for my three bedroom house...Thanks for that!


----------



## Purple (16 May 2018)

Sunny said:


> Oh come on!! You are smarter than that economic argument.....Why doesn't the State just buy everyone a house if it only costs €300 a year??  Seriously....


You're wasting your time, just as I'm wasting mine.
Maybe I should stop rising to such nonsensical arguments.


----------



## Firefly (16 May 2018)

Purple said:


> You're wasting your time, just as I'm wasting mine.
> Maybe I should stop rising to such nonsensical arguments.



I'm thinking the same thing myself. Never going to get that time back and all that.

At least we are living in a society where these views are firmly in the minority and history is littered with failed socialist and communist regimes!


----------



## TheBigShort (16 May 2018)

Purple said:


> Okay, so you don't understand opportunity cost.




I do. Typically in trade it refers to the financial difference between the course of action that generates the most revenue or profit against the course of action that was actually taken i.e not generating the most revenue or profit.

Which is fine when dealing with straightforward concepts of private enterprise for profit.

But we are not dealing with a for-profit private enterprise issue here. We are dealing with a social issue that requires a public policy. There is no opportunity cost if the public policy, formed through democratic structures, can provide for housing that will, over time, return the cost of that housing to the State.



Sunny said:


> Oh come on!! You are smarter than that economic argument.....Why doesn't the State just buy everyone a house if it only costs €3000 a year?? Seriously....



Seriously? An argument was made in the last thread that the ‘market rate’ of a 2 bed terrace in Crumlin was about €2,000pm rental.

I don’t have all the detail to hand here, but the type of house that was used in the example was typical of the type of social housing that was built in the 1930’s, 50’s, 60’s and 70’s.

The price of such a house in the 1970’s was no more than €30,000. Such a house would be approaching 50yrs old at this stage, if not more. The private market sale price today starts at about €250,000. Presumably anyone paying that amount today is reasonably expecting that the property will last another 50yrs, if not more.

The State, being here before I was born, and I expect that it will be here when Im gone, is in the luxurious position that any costs borne by it (or rather the citizens) can be accounted for far longer periods than the average lifetime of its citizens. That’s how the State can embark on massive capital programs such as building airports, introducing electricity to every home, http://ireland2050.ie/past/electricity/ which cannot be taken on by individual citizens nor offered by private enterprise.

So such a house, lasting 100yrs or more will cost the State nothing more than the equivalent of €300 per year – this is simple maths. You can add in maintenance and repairs, for arguments sake, lets say over those 100yrs, a cost of €300,000 – even at that, it still only costs the State €3,300 per year for the construct, maintenance and repair of that house.

The problem today is that we have, as a matter of public policy, outsourced the construction of housing to the private market. It has failed to provide a sustainable housing provision for the population – in boom times too many houses were built in the wrong locations, in austere times not enough houses were built.

Housing is a social necessity first and foremost for any civilised and developed country. Housing however is now considered as a commodity to be bought and sold for profit or loss. It is a failed policy.

By no means am I against anyone wanting to buy and sell their property for profit, that is their business. But the business interests of an individual, a landlord, or property company are not in the interests of society as a whole. The State needs to intervene to provide an adequate supply of housing for the population first and foremost, in turn, providing for a sustainable market that does not extort those in private rental accommodation or drown in mortgage debt those that buy privately.

Fintan O’Toole explains it better than I ever could;

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/...is-matter-of-ideology-not-economics-1.2397695




Firefly said:


> At least we are living in a society where these views are firmly in the minority and history is littered with failed socialist and communist regimes!



That's funny, since the only one advocating anything that has zero support across the developed world is yourself. The last time there was organized movement of people was when Hitler and Stalin were in charge.


----------



## Firefly (16 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> The last time there was organized movement of people was when Hitler and Stalin were in charge.


Organised movement of people? Are you for real? People move home all of the time in the rental sector. 

As for the references to Hitler and Stalin, you're getting a little desperate now!


----------



## Purple (16 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> There is no opportunity cost if the public policy, formed through democratic structures, can provide for housing that will, over time, return the cost of that housing to the State.


So there's no opportunity cost in spending money in one area instead of another, in spending money which would otherwise generate a return which could be spent helping the most vulnerable in society? 
As I said; you don't understand opportunity cost.


----------



## TheBigShort (16 May 2018)

Firefly said:


> People move home all of the time in the rental sector.



Yes, so what? Of their own volition, not because some bureaucrat arrives with a clipboard to 'assess' them and tell them to 'vacate'




Firefly said:


> Organised movement of people?



That is what you are proposing with your 5yr assessment plan. A bureaucrat from the Ministry of Housing Assessment arrives every 5yrs and determines whether or not the tenant should stay or 'vacate'. That is, in its most basic form, organizing the movement people by determining where they can or cannot, or should or should not live. That is what Hitler did, that is what Stalin did, albeit on far greater scales than you are perhaps proposing.


----------



## Purple (16 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Fintan O’Toole explains it better than I ever could;


Where does he say that people who can afford to provide their own home should be given a council house?
Where does he say that those who can afford to pay market rates should get subsidised rents from the State?

His article is nonsense, in it he laughably implies that the reduction in the numbers of social houses built was a cause of the property bubble. 
He also ignores the fact that it is desirable for people to provide their own homes if they can afford them and, due to that pesky free market capitalism, we are 3 to 4 times better off than in the 1950's and 60's so people can afford their own homes.

He's some neck talking about ideology blinding people.


----------



## Purple (16 May 2018)

I've been sucked in again; enough.


----------



## TheBigShort (16 May 2018)

Purple said:


> So there's no opportunity cost in spending money in one area instead of another, in spending money which would otherwise generate a return which could be spent helping the most vulnerable in society?



You can juggle the balls all you want but its all meaningless until you actually provide concrete figures. As much as you can say it is an opportunity lost not to charge social housing tenants market rates, I can say that such a policy would no doubt induce wage demands from those on low and average incomes who live in social housing, in turn, reducing business competitiveness and employment opportunities.
After all, if they are paying market rates, they deserve a standard of accommodation that is available in the private sector for those market rates.
Even if market rates are only applied to those "who can well afford to pay", your own view is that the rent should be capped at market rates - how much is the opportunity cost for someone earning €160K, paying €2,000 market capped market rent, as per your example?

All swings and roundabouts.

The best way to deal with the housing crisis is to build more social housing (to which you agree), offer tax breaks, incentives for tenants of under-occupied housing (both in private and public housing, to which you appear to agree) to stimulate mobility. Introduce new legislation and regulations for private landlords that induces the concept of providing quality rental accommodation for competitive prices instead of expecting someone else to pay off mortgage to supplement pension.

Market prices for social housing, 5yr assessments, is tinkering, costly, ineffective and bound for the political and legal quagmire.


----------



## TheBigShort (16 May 2018)

Purple said:


> Where does he say that people who can afford to provide their own home should be given a council house?
> Where does he say that those who can afford to pay market rates should get subsidised rents from the State?



He doesn't. Because in the real world, where occupants of social housing (like him) can afford to buy their own place, they go and buy, or rent their own place (like him). The amount of people living in 'subsidized' accommodation who can "well afford to pay for their own" is probably next to zero.


----------



## TheBigShort (16 May 2018)

Purple said:


> He also ignores the fact that it is desirable for people to provide their own homes if they can afford



That's the point, people cannot afford to buy or rent - or those who do are drowning in mortgage debt or extortionate rents. That is why we are having a housing crisis.



Purple said:


> we are 3 to 4 times better off than in the 1950's and 60's so people can afford their own homes



Good God, after everything, after all this discussion, after all the headlines, the news, etc...etc... you are still blind to recognizing that a growing number of people *CANNOT* afford their own homes. That is the housing crisis, the people who *CANNOT* afford their own homes _not _the people who can afford their homes!


----------

