# Who speaks for the taxpayer?



## Brendan Burgess

I got really annoyed watching the farmers yet again for criticising the government for doing nothing about the fodder crisis. I heard one commentator saying that they had been warning the government since last September.  But why should the tax payer be subsidising this? If the farmers and their co-ops and their representatives had known since last September, they should have been buying in feedstuffs to prepare for this. 

And the teachers who are already very highly paid want more money.  If they want equality, then let the existing teachers take a pay cut. Dan O'Brien had a great article on it yesterday in the Indo, although it does not appear to be online. The gist of it was that teachers are paid more per hour than any other profession.  This is overstating the case a bit, as some of them do preparation which is not paid. But he also pointed out that there is no shortage of applications at the current salary levels. 

But both of these issues are portrayed as "the teachers vs. the government" or "the farmers vs. the government". 

It's not. It's the teachers vs. the taxpayers and the farmers vs. the taxpayers.

Likewise with putting homeless people up in hotels.  The taxpayers are paying for this. 

And it's not just the top 20% who pay the majority of income taxes. It's everyone who pays the high rates of VAT and excise duties on drink and fuel. 

But there is no one to speak for these taxpayers and so the vocal pressure groups push the government into high taxation and high borrowing.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Dan O'Brien's article


----------



## TheBigShort

Aren't farmers and teachers taxpayers too?

[broken link removed]

Some facts about the Irish agri/food industry and its contribution to the Irish economy in employment and trade.

If some farmers are genuinely struggling due to adverse weather conditions, I'm quite happy (as a taxpayer) to bail (no pun intended) them out within reason.
I don't think what is being asked for is unduly unreasonable.


----------



## Romulan

I'd be interested in knowing how many of the farmers that are struggling are dairy farmers.
And did they increase their stocks in anticipation of making loads of money through increased milk production.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

TheBigShort said:


> Aren't farmers and teachers taxpayers too?



Yes, but so what? 

Brendan


----------



## odyssey06

TheBigShort said:


> Aren't farmers and teachers taxpayers too?
> 
> [broken link removed]
> 
> Some facts about the Irish agri/food industry and its contribution to the Irish economy in employment and trade.
> 
> If some farmers are genuinely struggling due to adverse weather conditions, I'm quite happy (as a taxpayer) to bail (no pun intended) them out within reason.
> I don't think what is being asked for is unduly unreasonable.



Should we bail out hotels and restaurants and airlines if they have cancellations due to bad weather events?

This sort of bailout to farmers just encourages them to over extend.


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> Yes, but so what?
> 
> Brendan



I just got the impression from your opening post that you believe that no-one speaks for the taxpayer



Brendan Burgess said:


> But there is no one to speak for these taxpayers and so the vocal pressure groups push the government into high taxation and high borrowing.



clearly the IFA speak for the taxpayer farmers?
the teacher unions speak for the taxpaying teachers?

What you appear to be asking is that there is no-one to speak for the taxpayers who disagree with the way the government spends its taxes for groups that have someone to speak for those taxpayers!
In other words, when a group of taxpayers (e.g. farmers and teachers) have someone to speak on their behalf on how taxes should be spent, you are not happy about it, while simultaneously you are not happy if other groups of taxpayers (e.g. the group not happy about spending more taxes on farmers and teachers) have no-one to speak on their behalf.


----------



## TheBigShort

odyssey06 said:


> Should we bail out hotels and restaurants and airlines if they have cancellations due to bad weather events?
> 
> This sort of bailout to farmers just encourages them to over extend.



We bailed out lots of hotels during the economic crisis.

I'm not sure if they are still looking for help, or if the restaurants (9% VAT rate, down from 13%) are asking for more?

As for the airlines, if the airline is economically viable, and if a business case can exist to extend taxes to it while it is on verge of an operating emergency, then I would have no issue with affording a taxpayer intervention in order to sustain the business, industry if over the longer-term its value to economy outstrips the costs of any bailout.

I think the issue with farm holdings is that if animals stocks are not fed sufficiently they are liable to outbreaks of disease and death pretty quickly, in turn, threatening the industry even further.
Don't think of it as a bailout, think of it as an investment in industry.


----------



## rob oyle

(Warning: generalisations in the following text... I am providing these just as examples for the overall point being made!)

I know this issue has come up before here on the forum and in short: no one speaks for the taxpayer because 'the taxpayer' is not a homogenous group. It effectively extends to the general population, even if the tax is weighted heavily in terms of earnings and spending. We all see ourselves as having an equally valid input into how the State acts and what it should do (or limit itself in doing).

Different taxpayers at different stages of their life would like to see certain things prioritised - young adults today would like to know they have somewhere to live, parents would like to know they have schools to send their kids to and retirees would like that the State is prioritising health spending and free healthcare. No one wants taxpayers' collective funds to be wasted but what is wastage for one person is investment by another's eyes. Urban dwellers might wonder why every hole in the hedge across the country is entitled to utility supply and rural dwellers might wonder why all the big investment projects seem to be in city areas.

As such, we vote periodically on the faint hope that our vote translates into politicians acting according to our expectations of their fiscal views.


----------



## odyssey06

TheBigShort said:


> We bailed out lots of hotels during the economic crisis.



Did we? I understand NAMA acquired hotels. Will we end up owning these farmers lands and assets?

Having a lower VAT rate to make an industry more competitive internationally is not a bailout, especially if the lower VAT rate in fact leads to increased VAT revenues due to more visitors. If a similar case is argued for airlines or farmers, that is not a bailout.



> As for the airlines, if the airline is economically viable, and if a business case can exist to extend taxes to it while it is on verge of an operating emergency, then I would have no issue with affording a taxpayer intervention in order to sustain the business, industry if over the longer-term its value to economy outstrips the costs of any bailout.



This is not an operating emergency. This was entirely forseeable and given all the predictions of climate change, something that may occur with more frequency in future.

If it's once off event, that is a different scenario. But this does not appear to be so?



> I think the issue with farm holdings is that if animals stocks are not fed sufficiently they are liable to outbreaks of disease and death pretty quickly, in turn, threatening the industry even further.
> Don't think of it as a bailout, think of it as an investment in industry.



How is it an investment if we'll have to bail them out in 3 years if this happens again? It just encourages them to over extend animal stock to levels that can't be supported sustainably.


----------



## TheBigShort

odyssey06 said:


> Did we? I understand NAMA acquired hotels. Will we end up owning these farmers lands and assets?
> 
> Having a lower VAT rate to make an industry more competitive internationally is not a bailout, especially if the lower VAT rate in fact leads to increased VAT revenues due to more visitors. If a similar case is argued for airlines or farmers, that is not a bailout.




You are being disingenuous. NAMA acquired hotels that were facing bankruptcy at huge cost to the taxpayer. NAMA will dispose of these hotels, ‘we’ – I assume you mean the taxpayer, wont owe any of them. In any reasonable parlance, it was a bailout.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business...o-place-eight-more-hotels-on-market-1.1947112


According to this report the VAT rate reduction for the hotel and restaurant sector may have cost the State €600m. If this is true, that is a bailout.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0324/689253-hotel-industry-vat/





odyssey06 said:


> This is not an operating emergency. This was entirely forseeable and given all the predictions of climate change, something that may occur with more frequency in future.
> 
> If it's once off event, that is a different scenario. But this does not appear to be so?




Its not entirely ‘forseeable’. Despite the predictions of climate change no-one can predict the weather forecast six months ahead. 

But you don’t know, no-one does, if is once-off or to recur again and again. Its possible we are in a cycle of weather patterns that will result the same problem for the next decade. Farmers should stock up for the next decade – On the other hand its possible that weather conditions will improve immensely over the next decade, meaning farmers could be sitting on fodder stock with no requirement for it. Its not really a viable way to run an efficient business, particularly, given the fact that live animals are at concern here (as opposed to say fairground attractions or ice-cream parlours which are also weather dependent).

Animals that are not sufficiently fed can result in an outbreak of disease that can affect all of the stock, including stock that are not short of food, leading to a potential collapse of the industry.
Considering what is at stake, considering the IFA have made efforts to resolve this issue themselves;

https://www.independent.ie/business...-farmers-take-action-themselves-36429839.html

_"It comes as IFA President Joe Healy has announced an emergency fodder initiative, where IFA will mobilise its national county and branch network to support those farmers in most difficulty.  

Counties have been twinned with a view to identifying farmers who are in a position to contribute feed, to be transported to areas in need." _

I my opinion, as a taxpayer, what is being asked for is chicken-feed.


----------



## odyssey06

TheBigShort said:


> You are being disingenuous. NAMA acquired hotels that were facing bankruptcy at huge cost to the taxpayer. NAMA will dispose of these hotels, ‘we’ – I assume you mean the taxpayer, wont owe any of them. In any reasonable parlance, it was a bailout.
> According to this report the VAT rate reduction for the hotel and restaurant sector may have cost the State €600m. If this is true, that is a bailout.
> https://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0324/689253-hotel-industry-vat/



You are being disingenuous. The state owned the hotels, at least for a period. Will the state own any cows as a result of feeding them?

As for the tourism VAT rate, the RTE article even admits "It is not possible to tell how much of those returns only exist because the rate was reduced." So basically, it's a non article.

How many "fodder crisis" events have there been in the last 20 years?
There was a fodder crisis in 1985, 1998, 1999 and 2013 and now 2018 - I may have missed some.

It's entirely forseeable that a fodder crisis will occur. We can't say what year. But it will occur. It is an expected event. If a farm cannot cope with a fodder crisis, it should not be in operation.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I my opinion, as a taxpayer, what is being asked for is chicken-feed


No, they are looking for fodder 

I don't have a major problem with this, as long as the farmers themselves are doing most of the heavy lifting then they should be supported.
The broader question is the sustainability of the industry as it is currently structured. The vast majority of farm incomes comes from welfare payments from the EU taxpayer. When two thirds of your income comes from welfare and you still can't make a living you really have to look at doing something else. The reality is that many Irish farms are too small to be sustainable, grossly inefficient and lack the resources to invest in what is an increasingly capital intensive business.


----------



## odyssey06

TheBigShort said:


> Farmers should stock up for the next decade – On the other hand its possible that weather conditions will improve immensely over the next decade, meaning farmers could be sitting on fodder stock with no requirement for it. Its not really a viable way to run an efficient business, particularly, given the fact that live animals are at concern here (as opposed to say fairground attractions or ice-cream parlours which are also weather dependent).



A viable way to run an efficient business is to set aside cash reserve to deal with these sort of possible scenarios. If you don't have money to pay for insurance, or to pay for medicines for the animals, or to buy in feed after a bad winter, then you shouldn't be in business.


----------



## qwerty5

TheBigShort said:


> If some farmers are genuinely struggling due to adverse weather conditions, I'm quite happy (as a taxpayer) to bail (no pun intended) them out within reason.
> I don't think what is being asked for is unduly unreasonable.



If they have to bailed out next year, and the year after that is that not just state aid?
Should the costs not be integrated as part of the cost of doing business. If it's not that common, I have to get insurance against adverse events in my business. Do farmers not have the same requirements.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

TheBigShort said:


> You are being disingenuous.





odyssey06 said:


> You are being disingenuous.



Guys - please stop insulting each other. 

It would be much better manners and much more accurate to say "Shortie, you don't understand how NAMA worked."


----------



## Brendan Burgess

TheBigShort said:


> According to this report the VAT rate reduction for the hotel and restaurant sector may have cost the State €600m. If this is true, that is a bailout.



And I would argue that the hotel and restaurant sector should not have received this special treatment either. 

The fact that spend money unwisely in some area does not mean that we should subsidise farmers. 

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort

odyssey06 said:


> The state owned the hotels, at least for a period. Will the state own any cows as a result of feeding them?




Probably not, whats your point? You are not seriously suggesting that by taking ownership of bankrupt hotels to prop them up with taxpayers funds that therefore, that was not a bailout?



odyssey06 said:


> As for the tourism VAT rate, the RTE article even admits "It is not possible to tell how much of those returns only exist because the rate was reduced." So basically, it's a non article.




Really? A non-article? You mean you didn’t read the part where prices rose by 5.2% while the industry availed of a 4% VAT reduction on food and drink? Or where wages were effectively stagnant over the period? Or where the Minister warned the industry of a reversal if prices were to rise?

Either or, it doesn’t matter, we can argue the toss over whether or not it was a 'bailout' or not, the important thing is that the taxpayers in question have someone to speak for them. The Irish Hotels Federation speak for the taxpayers who own the hotels, the unions speak for their members who work in the hotels and are taxpayers, the consumer speaks the for taxpayer through increased spending in hotels and restaurants etc…etc…



odyssey06 said:


> How many "fodder crisis" events have there been in the last 20 years?
> 
> There was a fodder crisis in 1985, 1998, 1999 and 2013 and now 2018.
> 
> It's entirely forseeable that a fodder crisis will occur. We can't say what year. But it will occur. It is an expected event. If a farm cannot cope with a fodder crisis, it should not be in operation.




How much fodder should a farmer keep on stock for a 20 animals in stock? What normally happens is that they keep, in their available barn capacity to do so, more than enough fodder to feed cattle through the winter. Depending on the winter, it remains to be seen if they have kept enough or not. More often that not, they do.

Sometimes, they have not kept enough and typically what they do is buy surplus stocks from other farms who have kept enough fodder. The IFA assists its members as much as it can in this regard.

Sometimes, a particularly bad winter occurs that delays the growth of grass as it apparently did last year, and is doing again this year. You do appreciate that a shortage of fodder in one year is hard to replenish stocks if similar whether patterns affecting growth occur again the following year?
In these circumstances, not only has the farmer used up his available capacity of stored stock of fodder, he is discovering that surplus supplies to be bought elsewhere are scarce also – this is the crisis.

This is where animal welfare is now in danger. This is where animal disease outbreaks are possible, where farmers who have managed to hold sufficient stock of fodder are in risk of having their herds affected with disease as it spreads. This is the underlying crisis. The potential cost to the economy, to employment, to trade far outstrips the cost of assisting financially with fodder imports.

So these taxpaying farmers, are calling for government intervention, through there representatives that speak for them. The taxpayers have someone to speak for them.


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> And I would argue that the hotel and restaurant sector should not have received this special treatment either.
> 
> The fact that spend money unwisely in some area does not mean that we should subsidise farmers.
> 
> Brendan



It would be interesting to know what you think taxes should be used for at all? The only thing that you ever seem to promote is the notion of not spending taxes - ever!
I wasn't opposed to the reduced VAT rate to 9%. If the industry was suffering, as it apparently was, then I think this is a useful government intervention to support an industry that is worth billions to Ireland.


----------



## Sophrosyne

One of the main reasons for farming subsidies is our expectation of low food costs.
Farmers cannot sell their products for an economically viable price.


----------



## TheBigShort

qwerty5 said:


> If they have to bailed out next year, and the year after that is that not just state aid?
> Should the costs not be integrated as part of the cost of doing business. If it's not that common, I have to get insurance against adverse events in my business. Do farmers not have the same requirements.



Taking out insurance does not protect against stock dying or becoming diseased, this is the underlying threat to the sector.


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> One of the main reasons for farming subsidies is our expectation of low food costs.
> Farmers cannot sell their products for an economically viable price.



No, Farmers cannot produce their products for an economically viable price.
The solution to that it to make their sector more efficient.
It is not to continue to funnel vast amounts of money into the sector so that we can produce food at artificially deflated prices and depress world market, causing widespread suffering, hunger and death in other parts of the world.


----------



## qwerty5

TheBigShort said:


> Taking out insurance does not protect against stock dying or becoming diseased, this is the underlying threat to the sector.




The threat materialises in a financial loss which can be quantified. This is what insurance is for.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

I have no idea whether farmers can insure against such events. 

But the underlying principle is that all businesses should anticipate recurring problems and bad years and plan accordingly. 

They should not run their business on the grounds that they make money when things go well but get bailed out by the taxpayer when things go badly for them.

Brendan


----------



## Firefly

Brendan Burgess said:


> But the underlying principle is that all businesses should anticipate recurring problems and bad years and plan accordingly.
> 
> They should not run their business on the grounds that they make money when things go well but get bailed out by the taxpayer when things go badly for them.



Amen to that. Otherwise, where draw the line?


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> But the underlying principle is that all businesses should anticipate recurring problems and bad years and plan accordingly.



Yes they should, and in general that is what they do.



Brendan Burgess said:


> They should not run their business on the grounds that they make money when things go well but get bailed out by the taxpayer when things go badly for them.



Its not a case of 'things going badly' for them. The sector is being affected by adverse weather conditions that no-one can predict from one to the next the extent of the impact on the industry.
If Temple Bar is washed out with severe flooding tomorrow that puts retailers out of business for three months, do you think the retailers should stand or fall on there own two feet, or do you think that there could be scope for emergency funding, first through financial assistance and then secondly, through financing flood defenses? Who would pay for the flood defenses? The same people who are paying for the emergency supplies of fodder I would imagine? Or would that be wrong?


----------



## Sophrosyne

Purple said:


> No, Farmers cannot produce their products for an economically viable price.
> The solution to that it to make their sector more efficient.
> It is not to continue to funnel vast amounts of money into the sector so that we can produce food at artificially deflated prices and depress world market, causing widespread suffering, hunger and death in other parts of the world.



I agree that this is a global problem.
But you cannot assume that that the entire farming sector is run inefficiently.


----------



## TheBigShort

[


Purple said:


> No, Farmers cannot produce their products for an economically viable price.
> The solution to that it to make their sector more efficient.
> It is not to continue to funnel vast amounts of money into the sector so that we can produce food at artificially deflated prices and depress world market, causing widespread suffering, hunger and death in other parts of the world.



Is the problem with that however, that effectively we will be reliant on food imports? In which case, a national strategically important sector will be outsourced to other countries which could then, as some point, hold undue leverage over our other interests?
In a trade war, I wouldn't fancy our chances if we placed tariffs on Ryanair flights to Ireland over tariffs being imposed on our food imports.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Its not a case of 'things going badly' for them. The sector is being affected by adverse weather conditions that no-one can predict from one to the next the extent of the impact on the industry.
> If Temple Bar is washed out with severe flooding tomorrow that puts retailers out of business for three months, do you think the retailers should stand or fall on there own two feet, or do you think that there could be scope for emergency funding, first through financial assistance and then secondly, through financing flood defenses? Who would pay for the flood defenses? The same people who are paying for the emergency supplies of fodder I would imagine? Or would that be wrong?


If that happened to a manufacturing company in the export sector it would probably be against the law to support them. The downturn in the oil sector took a lot of people by surprise and hit many Irish manufacturing companies hard. Not one cent was available to support them or help them maintain employment. The double standard is hard to take. I think that if farmers put as much energy into sorting out their sector as they do whinging and begging they might be better off in the long run.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> If that happened to a manufacturing company in the export sector it would probably be against the law to support them. The downturn in the oil sector took a lot of people by surprise and hit many Irish manufacturing companies hard. Not one cent was available to support them or help them maintain employment. The double standard is hard to take. I think that if farmers put as much energy into sorting out their sector as they do whinging and begging they might be better off in the long run.



I think the fundamental difference is that food is essential. Without it we will all die. Without manufacturing we can still survive with food.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> [
> 
> 
> Is the problem with that however, that effectively we will be reliant on food imports? In which case, a national strategically important sector will be outsourced to other countries which could then, as some point, hold undue leverage over our other interests?
> In a trade war, I wouldn't fancy our chances if we placed tariffs on Ryanair flights to Ireland over tariffs being imposed on our food imports.


Are you saying that every country in the world would gang up on us and stop selling us food?
We import feed and fertilizer and tractors and fuel and trucks for transport and plastic and glass for greenhouses etc. Without all of that we couldn't produce much food either.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I think the fundamental difference is that food is essential. Without it we will all die. Without manufacturing we can still survive with food.


Without fuel and trucks etc we couldn't farm on a commercial basis. Without EU subsidies we'd have no farming either. The notion that we are somehow food independent is fanciful.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Without fuel and trucks etc we couldn't farm on a commercial basis. Without EU subsidies we'd have no farming either. The notion that we are somehow food independent is fanciful.



That's true. We would be back to pre-Industrial age - where food kept people alive.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

TheBigShort said:


> The sector is being affected by adverse weather conditions that no-one can predict from one to the next the extent of the impact on the industry.



Apparently, they have known about it since last September. 
And bad weather is a feature of farming, just as good weather is.
In times of plenty, they should put something aside for the bad times. 

These guys have very valuable assets in their farms, and taxpayers, most of whom are much poorer, are subsidising them. 




TheBigShort said:


> do you think that there could be scope for emergency funding, first through financial assistance and then secondly, through financing flood defenses? Who would pay for the flood defenses?



I don't think that people who bought houses in housing estates with a name like "River view" should get any government assistance when their homes inevitably flood.

Not sure about Temple Bar. If it gets flooded regularly, then, no they should not get emergency funding. If they or anyone else is hit by a once in a 100 year event, which was not insurable against, then I would not have a problem contributing to the cost.

Flood defences are part of the infrastructure just as the roads are. They should be paid for through central funding. But we should not be building flood defences to protect the residents of "Wet meadowlands Drive".

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> Apparently, they have known about it since last September.
> And bad weather is a feature of farming, just as good weather is.
> In times of plenty, they should put something aside for the bad times.




Yes, and as has been explained above, knowing about it last September was a consequence of weather conditions _last year_ that utilised the previous stock of fodder. And as the weather conditions resulted in slow growth of grass last year, farmers could not replenish the fodder stocks for this year, if the growth was slow again this year, which it is, then they would be facing into hardship.

Imagine if we had had a searing hot summer last year followed by a dry winter conditions resulting in water shortgages – by September, Irish Water could rightly warn the government that if the same searing hot Summer occurs again, water supplies will be cut. This will put businesses that use water under pressure right?

So, should we say “well they should have kept stocks of bottled water in a barn”, or would it be more prudent for the government to intervene, spending taxes on necessary water repairs, building new resevoirs etc?



Brendan Burgess said:


> These guys have very valuable assets in their farms, and taxpayers, most of whom are much poorer, are subsidising them.



Farmers are taxpayers too. There are rich farmers and poor farmers, like any other sector.



Brendan Burgess said:


> I don't think that people who bought houses in housing estates with a name like "River view" should get any government assistance when their homes inevitably flood.



Why on earth not? Because of the name? Or because it is built beside a river?



Brendan Burgess said:


> Not sure about Temple Bar.



Why? Because of the name? Obviously not because it is built beside a river then!



Brendan Burgess said:


> If it gets flooded regularly, then, no they should not get emergency funding. If they or anyone else is hit by a once in a 100 year event, which was not insurable against, then I would not have a problem contributing to the cost.



Why on earth not? If it gets flooded regularly, shouldn’t that be the place that taxes are spent on flood defences? Instead you seem to prioritise freak once-in-a-blue-moon for emergency funding?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Shortie

If someone builds a house or buys a house in a flood plain, I should not have to pay for them.  They should make their home flood-resistant or move.

I am not prepared to pay for a predictable and common occurrence.

The same principle should apply to Temple Bar. If there is a predicable, common occurrence, the occupiers should provide for it. The taxpayer should not pay for it.

If a very rare event causes great hardship to families, and they can't pay for it themselves, then the taxpayer should help through, subsidies or maybe a loan.  A rule of thumb might be that the first time flooding occurs in an area, the taxpayer would help.  But it would not help a second time. 

But the key point here is that Irish farmers can expect droughts and bad growth every few years and should build up reserves to tide them over.   If they see a problem coming down the line, then they should buy in supplies from abroad early on. 

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort

That makes no practical sense to me.
Im no expert, but I would imagine adequate flood defenses would involve one-time capital expenditure.
I think it would make more sense to put adequate flood defenses in areas where there is regular flooding first before putting them in where there is once-in-a lifetime floods.

As for fodder, I dont think it is reasonable to expect farmers to have unlimited capacity to store fodder every year. They will typically store adequate amounts for the winter and replenish those amounts in the summer.
Im no expert, but I would imagine there is a timeframe for storing fodder before it starts to rot?
The issue today is not because farmers didnt store adequate amounts, it is because the weather conditions prevented them from being able to replenish their stocks from last year. They may have had the option of importing stock earlier, but if the Spring had arrived and grass started to grow, they would be left with rotting fodder and unnecessary expense. In which case they would most likely be calling for payments to compensate.
Either or, the system as we have it is designed to secure farmers incomes in order to keep enough farmers on the land. This ensures that there is always adequate food supplies at stable affordable prices for the population.
Its by no means a perfect system. But the principle of having surplus food at stable prices is, in my opinion, more desirable than having food shortages with fluctuating prices.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

Brendan,

Just going back to your point about the teachers, their sense of entitlement amazes me.

Plenty of people in the private sector sit beside other people who are better paid than they are for doing exactly the same thing. The only difference being that the better paid person negotiated his/her contract during the period up to 2008.

Gordon


----------



## TheBigShort

Gordon Gekko said:


> Plenty of people in the private sector sit beside other people who are better paid than they are for doing exactly the same thing. The only difference being that the better paid person negotiated his/her contract during the period up to 2008.



Doesnt make it right though does it? If two people are doing the same job, with the same output, and one is getting €30,000 the other €35,000 then fair play to one who has negotiated €35,000. But realistically all that means is that the €30,000 employee is feasibly worth an extra €5,000. Through no fault of their own (they may be good at the jobs, but just poor at negotiation) they are on the loss for €5,000 a year, which is what they could reasonably expect to be paid to them for their efforts.

Im not arguing that teachers pay is too high or too low, but if the unions are protesting about it, I doubt if it is being led by new recruits. More likely, out of a point of principle, the unions are agitating for a minority of their members.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

TheBigShort said:


> If two people are doing the same job, with the same output, and one is getting €30,000 the other €35,000 then fair play to one who has negotiated €35,000. But realistically all that means is that the €30,000 employee is feasibly worth an extra €5,000.



Or, as with the teachers, the existing staff are on salaries which are way above the market level and the €35k guy should be reduced to €30k.

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> Or, as with the teachers, the existing staff are on salaries which are way above the market level and the €35k guy should be reduced to €30k.
> 
> Brendan



That is an option for sure. 
But who is arguing for that? The teachers are well within their rights to make their case for more (or equal pay in this case). Their employer is entitled to argue for pay cuts - I havent heard it yet.
It should be minded that pay increases are not always a bad thing, in fact more often that not they are a good thing.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

TheBigShort said:


> Their employer is entitled to argue for pay cuts - I havent heard it yet.



Which is the point of the thread.

Why is there nobody campaigning on behalf of their employers for a bit of common sense here? Reduce the teachers' pay to what the market values them at. 

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> Which is the point of the thread.
> 
> Why is there nobody campaigning on behalf of their employers for a bit of common sense here? Reduce the teachers' pay to what the market values them at.
> 
> Brendan



Perhaps the market value is for higher pay?


----------



## Gordon Gekko

Sometimes I wonder whether you’re just taking the proverbial, Big Short.

The salary offered to an employee of a company or country when its profits/fiscal budget are healthy isn’t the same as the salary offered to an employee of a loss-making company or a country that’s in hock.


----------



## odyssey06

Do teachers still receive incrememts and long service allowances?
If so, wouldn't that make a nonsense of the equal pay for equal work argument?
https://www.tui.ie/conditions-of-service/salaries-and-increments-.161.html


----------



## cremeegg

Yes they and I completely agree. 

When the teacher unions talk about equal pay for equal work they don’t mean anything if the sort. 

They mean the same long service distorted pay scale for all teachers.


----------



## TheBigShort

Gordon Gekko said:


> Sometimes I wonder whether you’re just taking the proverbial, Big Short.
> 
> The salary offered to an employee of a company or country when its profits/fiscal budget are healthy isn’t the same as the salary offered to an employee of a loss-making company or a country that’s in hock.



The very notion that you could ever compare the profit and loss account of a company with that of a sovereign nation is farcical. This topic was raised in the "Economic Issues" not the "Accounting Issues" section.


----------



## Chelseablue

So why should any one paid tax???

I agree with some of the points raised, but that is the tax system, there is plenty of more ways taxes are spent that we don’t agree with, but that is the system.

Yes the farmer should be more prepared for bad weather, it use to be the that a farmer would set aside 20% feed more that he needed

As for the teachers which my wife is one, I can only say that she works longer hours that I do and her whole Easter was taken up preparing work and visiting to school nearly every day, meeting tradesmen and getting work done around the school, so they earn every penny.

Brendan, why should my taxes pay for your water & waste water system, when I have to paid for mine, I recently had to replace my pump & filter costing €2500 the tax payer didn’t pay for my water !!!

Why should my taxes pay for free child care & free per school, when my children where younger I pay for this myself.

The list goes on & on


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Chelseablue said:


> why should my taxes pay for your water & waste water system, when I have to paid for mine, I recently had to replace my pump & filter costing €2500 the tax payer didn’t pay for my water !!!
> 
> Why should my taxes pay for free child care & free per school, when my children where younger I pay for this myself.



Agree fully.  Everyone should pay for their own water. 

I don't have children but I am happy enough to contribute taxes to raising the nation's children.  But I don't know where that should stop. 

Brendan


----------



## Woodsman

Brendan Burgess said:


> I got really annoyed watching the farmers yet again for criticising the government for doing nothing about the fodder crisis. I heard one commentator saying that they had been warning the government since last September. But why should the tax payer be subsidising this? If the farmers and their co-ops and their representatives had known since last September, they should have been buying in feedstuffs to prepare for this.



As a farmer, I couldnt agree more. Curiously, the farmers in Leitrim, which is probably one of the hardest hit counties for shortages of fodder, is the one county where they are out protesting about forestry taking up the land in competition with livestock farming.  This is the same land that is marginal for conventional agriculture but the best for growing trees in Europe. Trees love rain and dont need to be foddered, ever. And forestry pays considerably more than mainstream farming and allows the farmer the freedom to get an off farm job if he wishes. Returning to shortages of fodder, I always remember my father insisting we had two years supply of hay in store in case of a late spring. Something I queried at the time but later realised the wisdom of it. 

Woodsman


----------



## Gordon Gekko

Hi Woodsman,

Forgive my ignorance, does hay perish or can it be kept for years?

Many thanks.

Gordon


----------



## elacsaplau

TheBigShort said:


> The very notion that you could ever compare the profit and loss account of a company with that of a sovereign nation is farcical. This topic was raised in the "Economic Issues" not the "Accounting Issues" section.



Agreed.

I guess it depends on what value society places on goods and services. To me, the food and educational sectors should be valued highly and conversely, there are other sectors / occupations that society rewards highly which have very dubious societal merits.

For example, moving from the general to the personal, for a period, I was involved in academia - very rewarding, worthwhile and not great pay. Now I do a job with very marginal societal benefit - if any - that's highly rewarded.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

So if a country is in hock and bankrupt, with the grippers coming up the garden path, the pay and conditions of new entrants to the public service shouldn’t be affected?


----------



## Woodsman

Hay can be kept for three years provided it is properly protected from the weather. In my fathers time it was made in to cocks in the field and then built in to large ricks which were weatherproof and often covered with canvas. In the present time hay is generally made in to bales and stored in barns where it will keep perfectly for at least three years provided of course it was properly dry when being stacked. 

Silage, which nowadays is the more popular option, will also keep for at least two years once it is kept airtight in those round black bales you see all over the country or in large concrete pits where it is covered with plastic. A further option is haylage which is, as the name suggests, a semi dry cross between hay and silage. It is very palatable and stores well, again when it is kept in airtight bales and is often fed to horses as well as cattle and sheep. Straw is also a good substitute for hay or silage if fed with some additional meal and again keeps for years.

And a final word of wisdom from my father who always said "May can be a very hungry month"
Why have all these old practices been abandoned? Surely a prudent livestock farmer would see it as an essential part of his business to ensure he NEVER ran out of fodder. If he complains that his land was too wet to make either hay or silage during a wet summer then perhaps he should be using at least some of it for another purpose such as forestry.


----------



## Early Riser

Woodsman said:


> As a farmer, I couldnt agree more. Curiously, the farmers in Leitrim, which is probably one of the hardest hit counties for shortages of fodder, is the one county where they are out protesting about forestry taking up the land in competition with livestock farming.



There are many other issues related to the forestry controversy, but regarding this thread title specifically, are the "farmers" involved not fairly high dependent on the taxpayer - both in terms of grants and, also, tax reliefs and exemptions?


----------



## elacsaplau

Gordon Gekko said:


> So if a country is in hock and bankrupt....



"So" seems to imply here "it follows" - when what you wrote doesn't follow at all - or at all at all. I would suggest a complete _non sequitur_, if you will.

My point was simple and clear. I was simply stating what I believe to be true that there can be a misalignment between the value to society of certain goods and services and the monetary rewards given by that self-same society. Do you agree with this?


----------



## RETIRED2017

Early Riser said:


> There are many other issues related to the forestry controversy, but regarding this thread title specifically, are the "farmers" involved not fairly high dependent on the taxpayer - both in terms of grants and, also, tax reliefs and exemptions?


You are correct and this goes out over the heads of some posters  you look at there postings they think the know a lot when in fact they know very little on the subject they are posting about ,They are useless when it comes to speaking for the taxpayer,Most are overpaid when it comes to giving back to there own Country,


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> I don't have children but I am happy enough to contribute taxes to raising the nation's children. But I don't know where that should stop.



That's very noble of you Brendan to want to contribute to the welfare of the next generation. Of course, the mere existance of the next generation assists in making sure that your mortgage repayments, pension contributions, stock market investments are, hopefully not in vain. Without the next generation on toe to replace us, all those assets would quickly turn to zero. 
I would say that contribution counts for quite a lot. The phrase "we owe it all to the next generation" springs to mind.


----------



## TheBigShort

Woodsman said:


> Surely a prudent livestock farmer would see it as an essential part of his business to ensure he NEVER ran out of fodder.



How can this be achieved? I'm sure you are aware that a farmer has limited capacity to store fodder? Never ending supplies would be wonderful for all our demands, but reality has a way of popping those willy wonka gobstopper bubbles!


----------



## Woodsman

A farmer doesnt need large expensive sheds to store plastic wrapped round silage bales. You can see stacks of them all around rural Ireland. It isnt that difficult to plan ahead and use the surplus from the previous year before you start on the more recent fodder crop. Farmers did this with hay in the past but perhaps they are gambling nowadays on getting by and if the worst happens, the tax payer will pay for imported fodder for them. Which takes us back to Brendans original post.


----------



## MrEarl

Gordon Gekko said:


> So if a country is in hock and bankrupt, with the grippers coming up the garden path, the pay and conditions of new entrants to the public service shouldn’t be affected?



Nope, new entrants should be paid the same rate, then all civil servants molly-coddled, allowed slack off all they want, permitted to ramp up the sick days, perhaps throw in a bit of work to rule or the odd strike, then given some concessions to appease them ... well, that's what quite a few civil servants seem to think anyway 

Ireland desperately needs to unite it's private sector employees under one lobby group and show some real muscle, to help counteract the influence that public servants have over government.  Until this is done, the madness will sadly continue imho.


----------



## RETIRED2017

MrEarl said:


> Nope, new entrants should be paid the same rate, then all civil servants molly-coddled, allowed slack off all they want, permitted to ramp up the sick days, perhaps throw in a bit of work to rule or the odd strike, then given some concessions to appease them ... well, that's what quite a few civil servants seem to think anyway
> 
> Ireland desperately needs to unite it's private sector employees under one lobby group and show some real muscle, to help counteract the influence that public servants have over government.  Until this is done, the madness will sadly continue imho.


I Agree the problem is the Lobby Group would be seen as left wing don't think any group setting up should be anti public service one there first job should be to require the Government to put a flood under pension entitlements linked to Grade 3 public servants ,
If you are looking For a lobby group to copy look no further than the farming lobby group they speak for all farmers big and small , Lots of  posters would not get away with speaking for taxpayers because they already have shown there own self interest over the common good of all taxpayers,
You will find the people who agree with you will be the same people who will make sure it will never happen Reason self Interest,


----------



## RETIRED2017

Brendan Burgess said:


> And I would argue that the hotel and restaurant sector should not have received this special treatment either.
> 
> The fact that spend money unwisely in some area does not mean that we should subsidise farmers.
> 
> Brendan


It is easier to keep/grow the jobs we already had than create new jobs ,Who speaks for the people who would rather go out to Work on low wages rather than live off the taxpayer in a downturn,


----------



## TheBigShort

Woodsman said:


> A farmer doesnt need large expensive sheds to store plastic wrapped round silage bales. You can see stacks of them all around rural Ireland.



Yes I see them every year.
I dont think these will provide for never-ending supplies either?
I think you would appreciate that every farmer has limited capacity to store these bales on their land also?



Woodsman said:


> Farmers did this with hay in the past but perhaps they are gambling nowadays on getting by and if the worst happens, the tax payer will pay for imported fodder for them. Which takes us back to Brendans original post.



You are contradicting yourself somewhat. If plastic silage bales are to be seen all around rural Ireland then it hardly suggests that farmers are taking a gamble on getting by?
It would suggest to me that farmers are actively preparing for the winter as normal.
In fact, considering the machinery used by farmers nowadays, I would suggest that farmers are generally better prepared than in the past.
Which brings us back to the issue of a fodder crisis. If there is slow growth in plantation, then it is hard to replenish existing stocks for the following year.
I do notice that yesterday and today appear to be milder, good for growth. If Spring has arrived, this issue will subside very quickly, leaving only the whingers to mope about 'their' taxes.


----------



## Deiseblue

A particularly disingenuous article by Mr. O’Brien on teachers which totally ignores the fact that although 5000 new teachers have been recruited thousands more have retired ( apparently up to 80% of those who retired availed of early retirement )or opted out for employment elsewhere ,the fact that the number of applicants for teacher training courses continue to fall year on year , the fact that he bases teacher’s earnings solely on contact hours simply defies belief - he makes no reference whatsoever to preparatory work , correcting papers or extra curricular activities - lazy journalism or just nuancing the article to support his assertion ?

The reality is however that I feel the battle on equality of pay throughout the public sector is won , Minister Bruton has conceded that teachers have a “ justifiable “ demand for pay equality - FF & the Independent Alliance are firmly of the view that equality of pay must be restored so yes I do feel that it’s inevitable particularly as the money required is available.

What really must put the fear of God into Government is the fact that two teachers with the backing of the INTO have brought a case to the European Court of Justice on the issue of pay equality ( this issue was referred to the ECJ by the Labour   Court ).

If the ECJ find in favour of the teachers is it feasible that we could be looking at the question of backdating pay ?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Deiseblue said:


> I do feel that it’s inevitable particularly as the money required is available.



But that is the whole point.

The money is not available. 

You just want to tax people more to pay even higher salaries to teachers or to pay for fodder for farmers who haven't bothered to prepare for their own needs in advance. 

We have €200 billion of borrowing which was used primarily to live well beyond our means. We can't do that forever.

Brendan


----------



## Deiseblue

I would suggest that in order to meet this “ justifiable “ demand the 200 million euro required will be funded from the monies available from the next budget .
The same argument that funds were not available did not wash when the Gardai situation was resolved .
As I previously stated the fact that the Labour Court have referred the equality of pay matter to the European Court of Justice must be of huge concern to this Government particularly when they require the support of parties that have come out strongly in favour of such equality.
The negotiations on a new contract for GP’s is also going to be very interesting.


----------



## Purple

It is amazing that so many people still don't realise that the current State pension system is unsustainable.

It is amazing that so many people still don't realise that most of the current level of State debt is due to paying for salaries and services which we can’t afford.

It is amazing that so many people still don't realise that the State or the Government (as opposed to just “Government”) doesn’t have any money; it just spends our money.

It is amazing that so many people still don't realise that increases in pay means increases in taxes for other people or a reduction in services somewhere else.


The last time teachers got a pay increase it was paid for by cutting supports for children with special needs (or it coincidentally coincided with it). What should we cut to pay for this pay rise?


Trade Unions are a malignant cancer on this country. They represent the worst type of myopic selfishness. Thankfully there are those who reject that selfishness and put the greater good of society, including the needs of the poor vulnerable and marginalised, first.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Brendan Burgess said:


> Which is the point of the thread.
> 
> Why is there nobody campaigning on behalf of their employers for a bit of common sense here? Reduce the teachers' pay to what the market values them at.
> 
> Brendan


Brendan I'm sure you know the answer to this already. Unions lobby the government on behalf of their paying members (the employees in your example above). We the people elect the employers. If you can think of a way to organise enough of "the people" who are of a like mind with yourself and also if you can get them to fund your lobbying then you might be on to a solution here.
So we have farmers who pay for a farming lobby group, hoteliers who pay for a hotel lobby group, teachers who pay for a teaching lobby group, etc.
What you are really asking is why is there no opposing lobby group. What you need to ask yourself is, who is going to fund this, who is going to organise it and what will their remit be. How will they decide which lobby groups to take on and why. Until/unless you can up with an answer to that we're stuck with the politicians trying to fill the gap.


----------



## Firefly

Brendan Burgess said:


> The money is not available.



Because



Brendan Burgess said:


> We have €200 billion of borrowing which was used primarily to live well beyond our means.



6,000 million spent servicing the national debt in 2016. That's just paying the interest...not even reducing the balance. 

[broken link removed]

That's the price of living beyond our means and it's coming home to roost now. Imagine what we could do with even a quarter of that money!!


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> Because
> 
> 
> 
> 6,000 million spent servicing the national debt in 2016. That's just paying the interest...not even reducing the balance.
> 
> [broken link removed]
> 
> That's the price of living beyond our means and it's coming home to roost now. Imagine what we could do with even a quarter of that money!!


Yea, but if we hasn't borrowed that money our economy would have shrunk more and the various issues we now face, including housing, would be far worse. Therefore we should have borrowed some of it but by no means all of it.


----------



## Deiseblue

Ceist Beag said:


> Brendan I'm sure you know the answer to this already. Unions lobby the government on behalf of their paying members (the employees in your example above). We the people elect the employers. If you can think of a way to organise enough of "the people" who are of a like mind with yourself and also if you can get them to fund your lobbying then you might be on to a solution here.
> So we have farmers who pay for a farming lobby group, hoteliers who pay for a hotel lobby group, teachers who pay for a teaching lobby group, etc.
> What you are really asking is why is there no opposing lobby group. What you need to ask yourself is, who is going to fund this, who is going to organise it and what will their remit be. How will they decide which lobby groups to take on and why. Until/unless you can up with an answer to that we're stuck with the politicians trying to fill the gap.



There’s always Renua


----------



## RETIRED2017

Deiseblue said:


> There’s always Renua


We could also stop supporting FF and get the same result


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Ceist Beag said:


> What you are really asking is why is there no opposing lobby group. What you need to ask yourself is, who is going to fund this, who is going to organise it and what will their remit be. How will they decide which lobby groups to take on and why. Until/unless you can up with an answer to that we're stuck with the politicians trying to fill the gap.



A good summary of the problem ok. 



Brendan


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> Yea, but if we hasn't borrowed that money our economy would have shrunk more and the various issues we now face, including housing, would be far worse. Therefore we should have borrowed some of it but by no means all of it.



I agree. But when so many big ticket items were left largely untouched, we probably borrowed far more than we should have.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

It is perfectly reasonable not to pay new entrants the same as existing employees.

The terms and conditions of the latter date from a time when the State was awash with money.

That is no longer the case.


----------



## Purple

Gordon Gekko said:


> It is perfectly reasonable not to pay new entrants the same as existing employees.
> 
> The terms and conditions of the latter date from a time when the State was awash with money.
> 
> That is no longer the case.


Maybe guarantee that pay will be increased in relative terms to 2006 levels when the National Debt is down to 2006 levels again?


----------



## Gordon Gekko

Purple said:


> Maybe guarantee that pay will be increased in relative terms to 2006 levels when the National Debt is down to 2006 levels again?



I don’t agree. Pay was at unsustainable levels in 2006; the post crisis levels of pay should be the norm, not an anomaly.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

What’s required is real courage to deal with the systemic issues in the economy.

For example, use the current low interest rate environment to borrow at close to 0% with a view to offering existing public servants transfer values; this could form part of a broader plan to end the current defined benefit schemes. All public service defined benefit schemes should be shut down and converted to DC schemes with the State making generous employer contributions.


----------



## elacsaplau

Gordon Gekko said:


> For example, use the current low interest rate environment to borrow at close to 0% with a view to offering existing public servants transfer values....



Flawed logic. Firstly, the current low interest rate environment would mean that such transfer value payments would need to be particularly high (i.e. inverse relationship between the current capital value of a future income stream and interest rates) and secondly the interest rate environment could well change.


----------



## TheBigShort

I think perhaps part of the problem here is that the topic title is a loaded question. Implied in the title is that there is cohort of taxpayers who are effectively disenfranchised from the system by virtue that they have no apparent influence on how taxes are spent, and, in some cases they being the largest contributors of tax (in monetary terms at least) that this is wholly unjust.

Firstly, it should be noted, that according to the Dan O’Brien article upon which this topic is based, teachers appear to be the highest paid category of worker in the country. It therefore stands to reason, that in individual monetary terms, teachers pay more tax than all the other workers listed in the other sectors.

Teachers have the right, either individually or collectively, to have whoever they choose and is willingly to do so represent their views on the issues that are affecting them.

That is all that is going on here, high earning (and high paying taxpayers) its no different for any other individual or collection of individuals, who choose to, or not, to have their view represented.

We can argue the toss until the cows come home about whether one particular decision is right or wrong (cutting teachers pay or cutting VAT rates for restaurants who are citing the shortage of chefs in the industry)…

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/state-relaxes-rules-on-work-permits-for-foreign-chefs-1.3428432

(_is it odd, that from the whole of the EU, restaurants cannot source good chefs? Or is this simply a subsidy to restaurant owners still availing and benefitting of the 4% reduction in VAT but not willing to transfer those benefits to good chefs via better wages?_)

…but there is no argument as far as I am concerned with taxpayers having their views represented by whomever they choose.

Secondly, it is inferred or implied all too frequently that increasing wages always means increasing taxes (or increasing debt through borrowing). This is only through if the productivity or output levels fall short of the increases in the cost of delivering those outputs or increased productivity. So then we go into the nitty-gritty of examining outputs, cross-referencing pay rates, examining teaching methods, hours of teaching, curriculum’s, class sizes, SNA’s, etc and it becomes a complex business with arguments for and against the quality of teaching and results and arguments against.

But a point should be made that regardless of our position on the education 'league tables', a distinction should be made between the application of the most appropriate methodologies and curriculums etc against whether or not teachers themselves are fulfilling their obligations under those methodologies.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Firstly, it should be noted, that according to the Dan O’Brien article upon which this topic is based, teachers appear to be the highest paid category of worker in the country. It therefore stands to reason, that in individual monetary terms, teachers pay more tax than all the other workers listed in the other sectors.


That's incorrect and you know it is. Teachers are very well paid for the hours they work. It's just that they work far fewer hours than just about every other full time employee in the country. I accept that they prepare classes, correct homework etc but they get 17 to 19 weeks holidays a year. In the private sector most people get 4 weeks.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> That's incorrect and you know it is. Teachers are very well paid for the hours they work. It's just that they work far fewer hours than just about every other full time employee in the country. I accept that they prepare classes, correct homework etc but they get 17 to 19 weeks holidays a year. In the private sector most people get 4 weeks.



No I didn't know Dan O'Briens article was incorrect. Are you saying that that article, upon which this topic is based, is a waste of all our time?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> No I didn't know Dan O'Briens article was incorrect. Are you saying that that article, upon which this topic is based, is a waste of all our time?


I have to assume you are being deliberately obtuse.


----------



## RETIRED2017

Gordon Gekko said:


> What’s required is real courage to deal with the systemic issues in the economy.
> 
> For example, use the current low interest rate environment to borrow at close to 0% with a view to offering existing public servants transfer values; this could form part of a broader plan to end the current defined benefit schemes. All public service defined benefit schemes should be shut down and converted to DC schemes with the State making generous employer contributions.


Gordon
I think what you are proposing in mad,
Since 1995 which is 23 year ago public servants pensions are made up off the state pension which is close to 13000 euro per year when you take this from the average public service pension  it is not the biggest problem we have when it comes to pensions
The bigger Problem is the government is not putting away any of the money it takes in PRSI they should be putting away the 10.75% employer payroll  contributions paid on behalf of there employees,


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I have to assume you are being deliberately obtuse.



I'm not. What is your issue?
Here is a quote from the OP



Brendan Burgess said:


> Dan O'Brien had a great article on it yesterday in the Indo,



What part of the first two posts am I not understanding? It implies that teachers are already highly paid? Are you saying that they are not?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I'm not. What is your issue?
> Here is a quote from the OP
> 
> 
> 
> What part of the first two posts am I not understanding? It implies that teachers are already highly paid? Are you saying that they are not?



You said;


TheBigShort said:


> It therefore stands to reason, that in individual monetary terms, teachers pay more tax than all the other workers listed in the other sectors.


I pointed out that while teachers enjoy a very high hourly rate of pay (though not as high as Dan suggested given that they have lots of non-classroom work to do such as setting and correcting work) they also enjoy exceptionally long holidays so their overall income doesn't place them into an income bracket where they "pay more tax than all the other workers listed in the other sectors" because employees in those other sectors work 45% more weeks a year.
You already know that but went ahead and constructed a post on the completely false premise that they paid very high rates of income tax.

If I work 5 hours a week and get €50 per hour am I a low paid worker?
If you work 48 hours a week and get €20 an hour are you a high paid worker?
Should some of your income be taken and given to me because I choose to work much fewer hours than you?


----------



## TheBigShort

This is what I said, which you have already quoted;



TheBigShort said:


> Firstly, it should be noted, _that *according* to the Dan O’Brien_ article upon which this topic is based, _teachers *appear* to be the highest paid category of worker in the country_. It therefore stands to reason, that in individual monetary terms, teachers pay more tax than all the other workers listed in the other sectors.



I have not claimed that teachers are overpaid or underpaid. I am merely referencing an article upon which this topic is based that _implies _that teachers are better paid, on average per hour, that working people in all the other sectors listed.

The article is also lead by a headline "_If teachers are so badly paid, why are more youngsters signing up_?" The underlying assumption to me is that they are in fact very well paid.

I can only go with what is put in front of me. If you are saying that DOB has his figures wrong (which it _appears_ you are) then there is no point in referencing his article is there?


----------



## TheBigShort

Here are some secondary teacher pay scales

https://www.tui.ie/welcome-to-our-website/common-basic-scale-wef-1110.5776.html

Starting at €34,000 up to €62,000.

Third level

https://www.tui.ie/welcome-to-our-website/third-level-salary-scales-.2167.html


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> This is what I said, which you have already quoted;
> 
> 
> 
> I have not claimed that teachers are overpaid or underpaid. I am merely referencing an article upon which this topic is based that _implies _that teachers are better paid, on average per hour, that working people in all the other sectors listed.
> 
> The article is also lead by a headline "_If teachers are so badly paid, why are more youngsters signing up_?" The underlying assumption to me is that they are in fact very well paid.
> 
> I can only go with what is put in front of me. If you are saying that DOB has his figures wrong (which it _appears_ you are) then there is no point in referencing his article is there?


You suggested that as they were so well paid per hour that it followed that they also paid high levels of income tax;


TheBigShort said:


> It therefore stands to reason, that in individual monetary terms, teachers pay more tax than all the other workers listed in the other sectors.


How does it stand to reason that someone on a very high hourly rate who works short hours would pay high taxes?

Your assertion is incorrect and you know it. It was disingenuous of you to suggest it. You are now doing the same thing in your replies to me.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Here are some secondary teacher pay scales
> 
> https://www.tui.ie/welcome-to-our-website/common-basic-scale-wef-1110.5776.html
> 
> Starting at €34,000 up to €62,000.
> 
> Third level
> 
> https://www.tui.ie/welcome-to-our-website/third-level-salary-scales-.2167.html


So if they worked the same amount of weeks as most people (50% more than they do now) then their pro rata rates would be €51,000 up to €93,000.
Of course nobody stays on their basic rate; they get positions of responsibility, assistant principleships etc so in reality the rates are higher.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> You suggested that as they were so well paid per hour that it followed that they also paid high levels of income tax;



I didn't suggest they were so well paid, Dan O'Brien is suggesting they are so well paid. How else do you read into the headline of his article? Or to the general tone of the opening posts, based on that article?

Clearly I have even pointed out to you using underline and *bold *and _italic _what it is I posted. Its not hard to understand.

I didn't make any reference to how that €40ph was calculated or to the number of hours they work. I made reference as to what the article infers.  

The topic is about "Who speaks for Taxpayers"...teachers are taxpayers. Their actual annual rates of pay are included above. For someone who claims that the marginal rate of tax starts at too low a base (which I agree), then you will admit that teachers pay taxes on their incomes like everyone else....and are therefore as _entitled_ to air their views and opinions as much as anybody else, and are entitled to have whoever they wish to represent those views for them. That is the general gist of the point I made from which you quoted me.



Purple said:


> Of course nobody stays on their basic rate; they get positions of responsibility, assistant principleships etc so in reality the rates are higher



So which is it? Are they high paid or not?
If they are high paid, they pay high taxes, right?
If they are not high paid, how are they paid? Are they paid fairly? Are they underpaid? 
Is there any justification for them seeking better pay for new recruits on the basis of equality?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> If they are high paid, they pay high taxes, right?






Purple said:


> If I work 5 hours a week and get €50 per hour am I a low paid worker?
> If you work 48 hours a week and get €20 an hour are you a high paid worker?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Is there any justification for them seeking better pay for new recruits on the basis of equality?


Yes, they should do it by suspending increments for all teachers on the higher rates and using that money to increase pay levels for those on lower rates until everyone is on the same rate. Then, and only then, should increments be re-introduced.


----------



## TheBigShort

You are being obtuse now, and not even deliberately so.

Perhaps best you try answer the OP question "Who speaks for the taxpayer?" rather than bringing the topic down a rabbit hole about how teachers increments are to be paid and structured, which has nothing to do with the topic.


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> I would suggest that in order to meet this “ justifiable “ demand the 200 million euro required will be funded from the monies available from the next budget .
> The same argument that funds were not available did not wash when the Gardai situation was resolved .
> As I previously stated the fact that the Labour Court have referred the equality of pay matter to the European Court of Justice must be of huge concern to this Government particularly when they require the support of parties that have come out strongly in favour of such equality.
> The negotiations on a new contract for GP’s is also going to be very interesting.


Yep, just give everyone everything they ask for. Sure Bertie did that and everything worked out just fine!
It's not as if we have a massive national debt at the same time as living in a period of historically low interest rates, our biggest neighbour is leaving the EU and there is massive global political uncertainty.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> You are being obtuse now, and not even deliberately so.
> 
> Perhaps best you try answer the OP question "Who speaks for the taxpayer?" rather than bringing the topic down a rabbit hole about how teachers increments are to be paid and structured, which has nothing to do with the topic.


You asked me a specific question and I gave you a specific answer with a method of funding that pay increase. How is that being obtuse? 
If teachers unions were really interested in lower paid young teachers they wouldn't have sold them down the river to start with. If older teachers were really interested in their younger colleagues they would give a tiny amount in order to level the pitch, content in the knowledge that they will still get a pension they never came close to paying for that their younger colleagues, and everyone else their age, will never enjoy.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> You asked me a specific question and I gave you a specific answer with a method of funding that pay increase. How is that being obtuse?



I accept in normal discourse you can of course provide your views on related matters that are not necessarily central to the discussion. You weren't asked to provide your preferred method of funding that pay increase, but seeing as you have I neither agree nor disagree. Nor is the topic about the TUI's preferred method of funding that pay increase to which I neither agree nor disagree with - because the topic is supposed to be about the purported lack of representation that taxpayers have with regard to decisions relating to topics such as teachers demands for pay rises or farmers looking for fodder imports.
From the start, I have argued that that notion to be somewhat a fallacy.

Perhaps you would like to contribute in that regard?




Purple said:


> If teachers unions were really interested in lower paid young teachers they wouldn't have sold them down the river to start with. If older teachers were really interested in their younger colleagues they would give a tiny amount in order to level the pitch, content in the knowledge that they will still get a pension they never came close to paying for that their younger colleagues, and everyone else their age, will never enjoy.



All very well and good to have your opinion in that regard, but perhaps you could address the OP for once? It's hard to understand why you are hung up about my inference from DOBriens article that teachers are highly paid when from the OP...



Brendan Burgess said:


> And the teachers who are already very highly paid want more money.



...you have had no comment to make? Either you are deliberately trying to provoke or you can't grasp the topic discussion?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Yep, just give everyone everything they ask for



Another example of how you fail to grasp the point made in the post you quoted. If the ECJ finds in favour of the equality claim by INTO the Irish government will be legally obliged to pay, not "just give everyone everything they ask for".
The only way that INTO will be successful in their claim is if they manage to argue successfully that their rights under various equality legislation, European Directives and ECJ judgements have been contravened. 
Do you think that if a government is found to have contravened the rights of the person, or persons, that an appropriate redress should be administered, regardless of whether or not you agree with the judgement of the court?


----------



## elacsaplau

OP,

Please edit title of thread to better reflect what you are trying to say. Something like:

"Government policy nowhere near right wing enough and I'm not happy."


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I accept in normal discourse you can of course provide your views on related matters that are not necessarily central to the discussion. You weren't asked to provide your preferred method of funding that pay increase, but seeing as you have I neither agree nor disagree. Nor is the topic about the TUI's preferred method of funding that pay increase to which I neither agree nor disagree with - because the topic is supposed to be about the purported lack of representation that taxpayers have with regard to decisions relating to topics such as teachers demands for pay rises or farmers looking for fodder imports.
> From the start, I have argued that that notion to be somewhat a fallacy.
> 
> Perhaps you would like to contribute in that regard?


I didn't realise that you were the topic police. In general I disagree with the idea of the State funding businesses and I disagree with the State increasing the pay of those who enjoy the highest hourly rate in the Public sector while we have so many other real problems to deal with. So, specifically, farmers should make their own provision for things that they know will happen and teachers are more than capable of leveling the pay gap (almost) painlessly without yet again putting their hands into the pockets of people who get paid far less than them for each hour they work. 






TheBigShort said:


> All very well and good to have your opinion in that regard, but perhaps you could address the OP for once? It's hard to understand why you are hung up about my inference from DOBriens article that teachers are highly paid when from the OP...
> 
> 
> 
> ...you have had no comment to make? Either you are deliberately trying to provoke or you can't grasp the topic discussion?


You (deliberately?) misrepresented one of the substantial points made in the article and then constructed a false argument based on it. I called you out on it. You have still failed to respond.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Another example of how you fail to grasp the point made in the post you quoted. If the ECJ finds in favour of the equality claim by INTO the Irish government will be legally obliged to pay, not "just give everyone everything they ask for".
> The only way that INTO will be successful in their claim is if they manage to argue successfully that their rights under various equality legislation, European Directives and ECJ judgements have been contravened.
> Do you think that if a government is found to have contravened the rights of the person, or persons, that an appropriate redress should be administered, regardless of whether or not you agree with the judgement of the court?


If the teachers get their back pay what State services should be cut to pay for it?
If you don't want to cut State services then who should pay the extra tax to fund it?


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> Yes, they should do it by suspending increments for all teachers on the higher rates and using that money to increase pay levels for those on lower rates until everyone is on the same rate. Then, and only then, should increments be re-introduced.



I was thinking about this drive for higher pay for the newer teachers last night. I was thinking it was noble that the older teachers were fighting for this and was thinking, well fair play, their conscience finally caught up with them. Then however I had another thought.....the older teachers couldn't possibly expect a pay rise until those newer teachers got "equal" pay first


----------



## qwerty5

I was thinking similarly devious.
This came in nearly a decade ago. So I'm sure there have been X amount of new teachers and Y amount of older teachers retiring.
So the percentage affected has probably risen to a large enough number for the unions to care about them. When it was very few, they were happy to shaft them for the majority. Now in a few years they will be the majority.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I didn't realise that you were the topic police.



No policing about it all, it would just nice to get your views on the issue raised of "Who speaks for taxpayers" in the OP before branching off.



Purple said:


> In general I disagree with the idea of the State funding businesses and I disagree with the State increasing the pay of those who enjoy the highest hourly rate in the Public sector while we have so many other real problems to deal with. So, specifically, farmers should make their own provision for things that they know will happen and teachers are more than capable of leveling the pay gap (almost) painlessly without yet again putting their hands into the pockets of people who get paid far less than them for each hour they work.



That’s lovely to know, any chance you could address the OP issue raised, and the points raised within? Like the inferred claim that taxpayers (or at least some unidentified cohort) are voiceless? Or that teachers are already very highly paid?



Purple said:


> You (deliberately?) misrepresented one of the substantial points made in the article and then constructed a false argument based on it. I called you out on it. You have still failed to respond.



If you feel I deliberately misrespresented then you are incorrect. My comment that you quoted was derived at an inference from the article and subsequent post.

Im happy to accept that teachers are not the highest paid workers in the country, this is evident from the pay scales that I subsequently posted, responding to your point raised.
The underlying point however, which reverts back to the topic discussion, is that teachers (and farmers) are taxpayers. In the case of teachers, those earning the salaries listed on the payscale pay tax at the marginal rates like everyone else on those rates of pay. They are taxpayers, they are entitled to be heard, they are entitled to have whomever they choose speak for them.

They are taxpayers who have a voice. Do you agree?



Purple said:


> If the teachers get their back pay what State services should be cut to pay for it?
> If you don't want to cut State services then who should pay the extra tax to fund it?



You are jumping way, way ahead of yourself. There has been no judgement, as yet. But if there was, today, Im sure there is a myriad of ways to raise taxes without (almost) any pain for those affected.

For instance, you have suggested that teachers on older higher pay scales could (without almost any pain) could level that pay gap by themselves. This may, or may not be true, but if it is, then to reduce that bit of pain even further, to almost negligible pain, everyone on marginal rates of tax shared the burden between them. If teachers on pay rates between €34,500 and €61,500 can (without almost any pain) endure a reduced income, then surely everyone on pay rates from €34,500 upwards could endure an even tinier proportion of pain between them?

After all, as the article says “…_international comparisons show Irish educational outcomes are in the top 20 or better. This success can be attributed in large measure to the quality of Irish teachers and their commitment to the children in their charge…”._

I'm not advocating that, as there has been no judgement as yet, I'm just showing you how such a pay rise could be paid for little (if any) pain.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> No policing about it all, it would just nice to get your views on the issue raised of "Who speaks for taxpayers" in the OP before branching off.


The taxpayers, in the context of this thread, are those tax paying members of the public who are not represented by a vested interest with its snout in the trough. In that context they are voiceless, burdened under the yoke of parasitic self interest groups intent on, and content to, bleed them dry.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Im happy to accept that teachers are not the highest paid workers in the country, this is evident from the pay scales that I subsequently posted, responding to your point raised.


Excellent. I take it that you are also happy to accept that they enjoy a very high hourly wage, as outlined in article in question, although in my opinion it was overstated. 


TheBigShort said:


> This may, or may not be true, but if it is, then to reduce that bit of pain even further, to almost negligible pain, everyone on marginal rates of tax shared the burden between them


Can you distinguish between not getting a pay increase and taking a pay cut? Do you see the difference?


TheBigShort said:


> I'm not advocating that, as there has been no judgement as yet, I'm just showing you how such a pay rise could be paid for little (if any) pain.


And then the nurses, then the doctors, then the civil service unions, then the gardai again, then the semi-states etc etc etc... sure just give everyone what they want, what harm could come of it?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> The taxpayers, in the context of this thread, are those tax paying members of the public who are not represented by a vested interest with its snout in the trough. In that context they are voiceless, burdened under the yoke of parasitic self interest groups intent on, and content to, bleed them dry.



Can you identify them? I'm guessing that would be you, Brendan, and perhaps a motley crew of AAM posters? You guys should organize!


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Can you identify them? I'm guessing that would be you, Brendan, and perhaps a motley crew of AAM posters? You guys should organize!


Yea, people not represented by vested interest groups.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Excellent. I take it that you are also happy to accept that they enjoy a very high hourly wage, as outlined in article in question, although in my opinion it was overstated.



From the get-go, from the article and from the OP, it was inferred that teachers are very highly paid and enjoy a high hourly rate of pay. I have never disputed this. Merely pointing out that those teachers on those salaries pay taxes.



Purple said:


> Can you distinguish between not getting a pay increase and taking a pay cut? Do you see the difference?



You are deliberately ignoring the issue of the pay claim. It is a claim based on one of equality. Everyone of us could forgoe pay rises and help reduce the cost of living in the State, we could all pay more taxes - but in reality, working people generally tend to look for pay increases where they can, they tend to look at ways to minimize tax liabilities. You seem to think that teachers, and public servants in general, should be different?

I'm not advocating for or against a pay rise - the teachers are advocating for a pay rise on the basis of equality. Yourself, Brendan and the motley crew of AAM posters are advocating against such a pay rise on the basis of equality. You should organize.
If not, the decision to award, or not, a pay rise to teachers on the basis of equality could be decided by the ECJ - not government!



Purple said:


> And then the nurses, then the doctors, then the civil service unions, then the gardai again, then the semi-states etc etc etc... sure just give everyone what they want, what harm could come of it?



And true to form, you are lumping all public servants in together even though the pay claim at hand is an issue for teachers only.
Typically, you bemoan the lack of representation of "_those tax paying members of the public who are not represented by a vested interest_",  but when tax paying members of the public are represented you bemoan that too.

Some people just want their views to be represented at the top table of government, but they are too scabby to pay anyone to represent their views for them. That is it basically in a nutshell, pay less tax, pay no fees, and to have the final say on everything.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Yea, people not represented by vested interest groups.



You mean scabs.


----------



## elacsaplau

TheBigShort said:


> Can you identify them? I'm guessing that would be you, Brendan, and perhaps a motley crew of AAM posters? You guys should organize!



Well - allow me to have a go please TBS.

It has been said in these parts and elsewhere that a very high percentage of (income) tax is paid by a small percentage of the taxpayers. So when we talk about the "taxpayer" let's consider those who really pay a lot of tax. This cohort of disproportionate contributors is, by definition, made up of the high earners - who as has been pointed out to you - are not represented by a vested interest group with its snout in the trough. These unfortunate bearers of such unfair tax burdens are indeed the voiceless in all of this.

"For example" may indeed not be proof - nonetheless let me give you one or two examples of very high earners and it should be obvious how poorly represented, almost marginalised, such people are. Think senior counsel, medical consultants, etc.

Brendan is right......there's no one speaking for these downtrodden folk and it's got to stop.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Typically, you bemoan the lack of representation of "_those tax paying members of the public who are not represented by a vested interest_",


I didn't bemoan it. I just point it out. I'm a democrat and so believe that the country should be run by the government with each citizen having an equal voice in the formation of that government and how it acts. I don't like rich media moguls, farmers groups, employers groups, property developers, unions (trade or professional), or any other vested interest group having the informal or formal ear of our leaders. I see no difference between SIPTU and the Construction Industry Federation or anyone else in that context. They are all just vested interest groups who are willing to damage the national interest for narrow sectoral and personal gain and they undermine the integrity of democracy.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Some people just want their views to be represented at the top table of government, but they are too scabby to pay anyone to represent their views for them. That is it basically in a nutshell, pay less tax, pay no fees, and to have the final say on everything.


Some people want an even playing field because they are democrats and aren't looking for leverage in order to gain an advantage at the expense of their fellow citizens. I believe in quality and a just society which doesn't exploit the poor and marginalised. That's why I could never join a trade union or a socialist party.


----------



## TheBigShort

Here is a list of statistics showing the number of representations various lobbying groups have made to government over a set period.

https://www.lobbying.ie/app/home/se...byistId=&dpo=&publicBodys=&jobTitles=&client=

IBEC tops the list with 903. Followed by IFA with 681 representations. ICTU made 148.

Regardless of all that, the list is extremely broad ranging and diverse, representing at some point practically ever sector of society, including Birdwatch Ireland, Foróige, Google Ireland Ltd, Friends of the Earth, Pieta Hse, Down Syndrome Ireland, Diageo Ireland, Coillte, Dublin City Bus Improvement, Sky Ireland, Toyota Ireland, Childhood Development Initiative, GOAL, Marie Keating Foundation, Community Law & Meditation, Philip Morris Ltd, Irish Girl Guides etc....etc...etc...

The list is almost endless.

But what all of these organizations have in common is that they have organized themselves in order to have their views represented at government level. For many of these organisations, they will have paid representation that requires its members to put their hand in their pocket.

My suggestion here is that for those who feel aggrieved about a lack of representation to organise themselves, either individually or into a grouping with their collective self-interests and register themselves as a lobby group. I don’t think it costs any money but it may cost some money if you want paid representation.

But either way or or, this is the system that we are all beholden too. If people feel their views are not represented, who are perfectly capable of presenting those views, then that is what they should do instead of constantly moaning on the sidelines.


----------



## elacsaplau

Exactly TBS - it's a big jungle out there and there's quite a bit of natural selection!


----------



## qwerty5

TheBigShort said:


> You mean scabs.



With this and the genius post from elacsaplau where if you're not represented you're obviously a high earner this thread has jumped the shark.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> But what all of these organizations have in common is that they have organized themselves in order to have their views represented at government level.


 Sure, but only the unions can put a gun to the governments head in the form of threatening strike action.


TheBigShort said:


> My suggestion here is that for those who feel aggrieved about a lack of representation to organise themselves, either individually or into a grouping with their collective self-interests and register themselves as a lobby group. I don’t think it costs any money but it may cost some money if you want paid representation.


I agree. That's not an option for those who feel such bodied undermine the democratic process, especially those bodies who are in a position to hold the people of Ireland to ransom, thereby being able to he heard loudest and effectively vetoing government policy


TheBigShort said:


> But either way or or, this is the system that we are all beholden too. If people feel their views are not represented, who are perfectly capable of presenting those views, then that is what they should do instead of constantly moaning on the sidelines.


 So if you don't like other people engaging in intimidation, bullying and blackmail you should just go ahead and do the same thing yourself?

.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I'm a democrat and so believe that the country should be run by the government with each citizen having an equal voice in the formation of that government and how it acts.




This is just some airy-fairy ideological nonsense that is devoid of any real practical reality of how the world actually works.

How on earth, are views supposed to presented to government if each and everyone of us has to have the right to be heard by the government minister or at least the decision makers at the top of government departments? How on earth could this concept feasibly work? It couldn’t, that is why we have the system we have now.




Purple said:


> They are all just vested interest groups who are willing to damage the national interest for narrow sectoral and personal gain and they undermine the integrity of democracy.



That is just your opinion. To show how useless and devoid of any reality it is I will offer an alternative opinion;

"_I see no difference between SIPTU and the Construction Industry Federation or anyone else in that context. They are all just vested interest groups who are willing to promote the national interest for broad sectoral interests and they enhance the integrity of democracy_."

So between your opinion and the opinion above, if in a democracy the are the only two opinions offered, which carries more weight?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Sure, but only the unions can put a gun to the governments head in the form of threatening strike action.



Here we go again, this is just your opinion - I disagree entirely, it is devoid of reality . Whose opinion should count most, in a democracy, between both our opinions?



Purple said:


> That's not an option for those _*who feel*_ such bodied undermine the democratic process, especially those bodies who are in a position to hold the people of Ireland to ransom, thereby being able to he heard loudest and effectively vetoing government policy



Just to emphasis the point, having a particular feeling about something does not make you right. Its an opinion, no greater or less than everybody else's opinion.



Purple said:


> So if you don't like other people engaging in intimidation, bullying and blackmail you should just go ahead and do the same thing yourself?



I do, I am member of a trade union that I pay to have my views represented. I also cast a vote at election times, I am also a member of a sports club that holds an AGM each year in which I am able to cast my view by way of a vote with regard to the issues concerning that club. I am also a member of a local residential organistion and ditto I can attend an AGM to have my views represented.
 I'm capable of understanding that my views are not always represented, that there are other people with other interests and views, and that it is up to me to persuade others , if I can, to support my views. I also appreciate that I will not achieve any of this by being a hurler in the ditch.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> This is just some airy-fairy ideological nonsense that is devoid of any real practical reality of how the world actually works.


That's a really good description of socialism. 


TheBigShort said:


> How on earth, are views supposed to presented to government if each and everyone of us has to have the right to be heard by the government minister or at least the decision makers at the top of government departments? How on earth could this concept feasibly work? It couldn’t, that is why we have the system we have now.


Maybe we could elect a local member of a parliament whom we could communicate with and that person could speak for us in that parliament. We could call it something like representative democracy. 

No system will ever be perfect but we should always strive for equality so it is not just reasonable to ask who speaks for the voiceless, it is our civic duty. There is nothing wrong will lobbying the government but when it comes to wielding influence there is no moral difference between bribery and coercion; at a political level threatening strike action in order to get you way is the moral equivalent of a brown paper envelope stuffed with cash.   


Let me ask you this; Are you happy that a small number of very rich people control so much of the media and if not how is that much different from a large Union which can threaten the government with major unrest if their demands are not met?


----------



## TheBigShort

qwerty5 said:


> With this and the genius post from elacsaplau where if you're not represented you're obviously a high earner this thread has jumped the shark.



Why don't you organize yourself, with others (there are a few of you knocking around here) to have your views represented then?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Whose opinion should count most, in a democracy, between both our opinions?


They should be equal. Do you not understand that?


TheBigShort said:


> I do, I am member of a trade union that I pay to have my views represented. I also cast a vote at election times, I am also a member of a sports club that holds an AGM each year in which I am able to cast my view by way of a vote with regard to the issues concerning that club.


Of those three bodies which ones can cause strife and disruption to the general public and damage the government?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Why don't you organize yourself, with others (there are a few of you knocking around here) to have your views represented then?


Sure, become part of the problem, that's the solution!


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> No system will ever be perfect but we should always strive for equality



 And of course, you have a monopoly of what that equality entails? Is not possible that others take a different view of what equality entails? Is it possible that we may need a final arbitrator in the form of the ECJ to decide for us what is, or what is not equal in this instance?



Purple said:


> so it is not just reasonable to ask who speaks for the voiceless



Again, who are the voiceless? You?



Purple said:


> Let me ask you this; Are you happy that a small number of very rich people control so much of the media and if not how is that much different from a large Union which can threaten the government with major unrest if their demands are not met?



No I'm not happy that a small number of very rich people control the media. So what?

The purported 'major unrest' if their demands are not met are here;

_"Congress notes the report presented to the Oireachtas on 16th March, in accordance with Section 11 of the Public Service Pay and Pensions Act 2017.

Congress further notes that the Report
restates the terms of the PSSA_

_contains a global costing for the removal of the two additional points that were added to new entrant salary scales_
_shows that this costing amounts to less than 2% of the public service pay bill for 2018_
_neither constitutes a commitment by government to pay equality nor addresses the additional, disproportionate layers of pay cuts that were applied to new entrant teachers_
_provides no guidance towards a fair and sustainable resolution of the injustice of pay inequality_
_anticipates “further engagement over the coming months” _
_Accordingly, Congress demands that the proposed engagement must
commence in April 2018 and conclude by early May 2018 and_

_have the capacity to achieve a resolution of all aspects of pay inequality_
_Congress agrees that any proposals that may emerge in respect of a resolution of the issues relating to pay inequality will be put to members in a ballot at the earliest practicable time.

Congress requires that, in the event of continuing failure by government fully to engage to resolve the issues or in the event of failure to resolve the issues in the engagement, a campaign of industrial action, up to and including strike action, as mandated by members will be pursued, where possible in conjunction with the other teacher unions."

_
The only demands are that a proposed engagement commences in April 2018 and conclude by early May 2018 and that the engagement has _the capacity_ _to achieve_ _a resolution_ of all aspects of pay inequality.

In other words, there has to be effective negotiation. Industrial action will only commence if the government fails to engage, or there is a failure to resolve the issues in the engagement.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> There is nothing wrong will lobbying the government





TheBigShort said:


> Why don't you organize yourself, with others (there are a few of you knocking around here) to have your views represented then?





Purple said:


> Sure, become part of the problem, that's the solution!


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> In other words, there has to be effective negotiation. Industrial action will only commence if the government fails to engage, or there is a failure to resolve the issues in the engagement.


In other words if the government doff their cap and tug their forelock.
I love how the Irish Congress of Trade Unions refer to themselves as just "Congress".


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> In other words if the government doff their cap and tug their forelock.



No, in accordance with section 11 of the Public Service Pay and Pensions Act 2017, as stated.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/34/section/11/enacted/en/html#sec11


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> No, in accordance with section 11 of the Public Service Pay and Pensions Act 2017, as stated.
> 
> http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/34/section/11/enacted/en/html#sec11


Yea, that's what I said.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Yea, that's what I said.



No you didn't, you said "_In other words if the government doff their cap and tug their forelock." 
_
What I am pointing out to you is the law. Are you suggesting that the government, by complying with the law, is somehow being subservient to vested interests?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> What I am pointing out to you is the law. Are you suggesting that the government, by complying with the law, is somehow being subservient to vested interests?


That's what the output looks like.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> That's what the output looks like.



Wow! You believe the government is subservient to vested interests? So what type of government do we have? A fascist government?

Lest anyone be minded to wonder what exactly we are talking about, here is the 'offending' section of legislation;

*"*_Equal pay for new entrants

*11.* The Minister shall, within three months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before the Oireachtas a report on the cost of and a plan in dealing with pay equalisation for new entrants to the public service."
_

The government, in fulfilling its obligations as directed by legislation, passed in the Houses of the Oireachtas, by members democratically elected, signed into law by the democratically elected President, produced a report on the cost of and a plan in dealing with pay equalization for new entrants to the public services.

The dispute arises from trade unions representing their members that believe (as is their right to do so) that the report, amongst other things;


_neither constitutes a commitment by government to pay equality nor addresses the additional, disproportionate layers of pay cuts that were applied to new entrant teachers_

_provides no guidance towards a fair and sustainable resolution of the injustice of pay inequality _
Far from being subservient to the vested interests, the government, according to the teachers union, is failing in their legal obligation in providing a plan in dealing with pay equalization for new entrants to the public services.

I am neither judging the government or the unions here, if there is a dispute, persons or groups of persons are entitled, as taxpayers to have their views heard. If no resolution is found, if no compromise in negotiation is found, then it is likely the issue will go to the ECJ for arbitration.
Industrial action will only occur if the government fails to engage in negotiation, or if that engagement fails to have the capacity to achieve a resolution.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Industrial action will only occur if the government fails to engage in negotiation, or if that engagement fails to have the capacity to achieve a resolution.


Translate; industrial action will only occur if the government fails to do what they are told by the powerful Public Sector Unions.
I agree.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Translate; industrial action will only occur if the government fails to do what they are told by the powerful Public Sector Unions.
> I agree.



What you are witnessing, observing, is the democratic process at work. 
The government have entered into an agreement, parties to any agreement should be willing to engage with other parties of the agreement to resolve any issues, or difficulties, perceived or real, don't you think?
In other words, citizens, taxpayers, have a right to represent their views to government. In this instance, they are taxpayers who have someone to speak for them - they pay for that representation through their union fees.

What you appear to be saying is that the government has lost its authority to govern? That they are subservient to vested interests? On the basis that taxpayers are excercising their rights!


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> What you appear to be saying is that the government has lost its authority to govern? That they are subservient to vested interests? On the basis that taxpayers are excercising their rights!


No, on the basis that powerful vested interest groups can put a gun to the head of the Irish people and damage the national interest to further their own ends.
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
The Brethren in the Unions are the pigs, the rest of us are Boxer.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> No, on the basis that powerful vested interest groups can put a gun to the head of the Irish people and damage the national interest to further their own ends.



And all this time I thought the issue was that there was no-one to speak for the taxpayers. Clearly you have anointed yourself as spokesperson "of the Irish people" (aren't teachers Irish people too?) and you know what is best for us all. 
Personally, I think a policy of pay equality is very much in the national interest.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Clearly you have anointed yourself as spokesperson "of the Irish people"


And there I was thinking that this was just a discussion forum. 


TheBigShort said:


> Personally, I think a policy of pay equality is very much in the national interest.


Have you anointed yourself as spokesperson for the national interest? (If you need me to anoint you just let me know.)


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> And there I was thinking that this was just a discussion forum.
> 
> Have you anointed yourself as spokesperson for the national interest? (If you need me to anoint you just let me know.)



No, just giving my personal opinion, others give theirs, sometimes individually or collectively. None have brought a gun to any table, none other than the government are mandated to speak for the Irish people. 
The government, representing Irish people (including teachers), are obligated to take on board the views and concerns of the Irish people (including teachers) and to find satisfactory resolutions on behalf of the Irish people (including teachers). This usually occurs in the form of discussion and negotiation as taxpayers (including teachers) should expect it to occur.

That is what you are witnessing, a democratic process, where the government is being held to account to its legal obligation to report to the people, and engage in its duty to respond to the people, via recorded documentation that sets out the parameters of that engagement. 

All open and above board. 

There has been no outcome to this issue yet, you appear to not to be in favour of taxpayers (in this instance, teachers) having a say at all.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> There has been no outcome to this issue yet, you appear to not to be in favour of taxpayers (in this instance, teachers) having a say at all.


I would like all of the people, including tax payers (including teachers) to have an equal voice. At the moment I see Public Sector unions as having undue influence. It's not as bad as during the socialist partnership years when they effectively ran the country with the developers and other vested interest groups (think the pigs and other farmers at the table at the end of animal farm) and the rest of us were left outside looking in, wondering what they were saying and how they were carving up the cake, hoping that a few crumbs would be left when they had gorged themselves. 
Now things are different, though I'm not sure how different.


----------



## TheBigShort

Animal Farm is not an appropriate analogy. As I recall, not everything was open and above board on Jones Farm, not everything was quite as it seemed.

You are reading paper headlines that dramatise and exaggerate greatly what is actually occurring. The €200m figure as per the government report on equal pay is already being contested for its validity. Reading between the lines of the union 'demands' it is clear to me that they are prepared to enter a negotiation that would significantly reduce that figure and, or, subsume it into the overall payroll bill over a number of years and not to be paid in one big fat cheque. But admittedly, that is speculation.

As it stands, I can only go with what is written down officially. That is, industrial action will only occur if the government fail to engage, or any engagement fails to have the capacity to reach a resolution. In other words, (my interpretation) the teachers are taxpayers, they have a right to have a say, and they choose their trade union to represent their views. If those views are ignored then they will take what they perceive to be appropriate measures.

Wanting everyone to have an equal voice is desirable. But what do you mean in practical terms? Do you mean every decision of government should go back to the people for a vote? I'm sure you can see how impractical that would be?
I have already shown you how you lobby the government for own views and interests to be considered by government. This is open to everyone who is capable of doing so.
People who choose not to engage, refuse to engage, choose not, or refuse, to have representation for their views, that is their entitlement - but it is a bit rich that they then complain about those who do choose to have representation.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Animal Farm is not an appropriate analogy. As I recall, not everything was open and above board on Jones Farm, not everything was quite as it seemed.


 That's what makes it an appropriate analogy. There is a controversy at the moment where a lobbyist had the personal phone number of a government minister and contacted him directly rather than going through his civil service contacts. It is totally correct to criticise the minister for that. I would be very surprised if some trade union leaders didn't have the phone numbers of government ministers and didn't contact them directly. Trade unions are lobby groups who represent the interests of their members and only the interests of their members, the national interest be damned. They should have no more access, influence or power than any other lobbyist from any other lobby group, be it Communicorp, the tobacco industry, the CIF, the IFA, IBEC or anyone else. Unfortunately they are presented by their media outlet (RTE) as morally and ethically superior to other lobby groups and their motives are never questioned. 


TheBigShort said:


> You are reading paper headlines that dramatise and exaggerate greatly what is actually occurring. The €200m figure as per the government report on equal pay is already being contested for its validity. Reading between the lines of the union 'demands' it is clear to me that they are prepared to enter a negotiation that would significantly reduce that figure and, or, subsume it into the overall payroll bill over a number of years and not to be paid in one big fat cheque. But admittedly, that is speculation.
> As it stands, I can only go with what is written down officially. That is, industrial action will only occur if the government fail to engage, or any engagement fails to have the capacity to reach a resolution. In other words, (my interpretation) the teachers are taxpayers, they have a right to have a say, and they choose their trade union to represent their views. If those views are ignored then they will take what they perceive to be appropriate measures.


Fair enough, I hope you are right.



TheBigShort said:


> Wanting everyone to have an equal voice is desirable. But what do you mean in practical terms? Do you mean every decision of government should go back to the people for a vote? I'm sure you can see how impractical that would be?


No, of course not. I'm looking for representative democracy to be front and center rather than lobbyists and politicians or lobbyists and civil servants effectively making decisions away from the people and their elected representatives. 


TheBigShort said:


> I have already shown you how you lobby the government for own views and interests to be considered by government. This is open to everyone who is capable of doing so.
> People who choose not to engage, refuse to engage, choose not, or refuse, to have representation for their views, that is their entitlement - but it is a bit rich that they then complain about those who do choose to have representation.


 The same argument can be made for tax evasion and the black economy; sure we could all do it so don't criticise those who do. 
When I vote I choose to have representation and that's the only representation I should need.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I would be very surprised if some trade union leaders didn't have the phone numbers of government ministers and didn't contact them directly.



I would be very surprised if the representatives of any lobby group did not have direct contact or access with the Minister with regard to dealing with issues pertaining directly to their interests, _as long as _all such contact or access, and the details of that contact, is recorded and open to public scrutiny lest the interests of one lobby group unduly impinges, encroaches, interferes etc on the interests of any other lobby group or on the national interest.



Purple said:


> Trade unions are lobby groups who represent the interests of their members and only the interests of their members, the national interest be damned.



That is just your opinion. It is easily countered with saying equality of pay is in the national interest.



Purple said:


> I'm looking for representative democracy to be front and center rather than lobbyists and politicians or lobbyists and civil servants effectively making decisions away from the people and their elected representatives.



We have representative democracy, it is called the Dáil. Unless you have some other format then don't keep it a secret, let's hear it.



Purple said:


> When I vote I choose to have representation and that's the only representation I should need.



But that is the same for all voters! Even ones who have polar oppposite views to your own!! So how do you square that circle?
Are the people you voted for in power? Did they say at election time that they would restore pay equality for teachers, or did they say they would freeze or cut teachers pay?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I would be very surprised if the representatives of any lobby group did not have direct contact or access with the Minister with regard to dealing with issues pertaining directly to their interests, _as long as _all such contact or access, and the details of that contact, is recorded and open to public scrutiny lest the interests of one lobby group unduly impinges, encroaches, interferes etc on the interests of any other lobby group or on the national interest.


I'd be very surprised if there's a record of every call ever minister takes from a union official or any other lobbyist.  


TheBigShort said:


> That is just your opinion. It is easily countered with saying equality of pay is in the national interest.


 It's easy to say anything but it's harder to convince everyone its true, unless you have your own TV channel. The Republicans in America have Fox News, the trade unions in Ireland have RTE.


TheBigShort said:


> We have representative democracy, it is called the Dáil.


That's my point. Any vested interest group which inserts itself between the people and their Dáil is, in my opinion, undermining democracy.  


TheBigShort said:


> But that is the same for all voters! Even ones who have polar oppposite views to your own!! So how do you square that circle?


 What circle?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I'd be very surprised if there's a record of every call ever minister takes from a union official or any other lobbyist.



There is. Just like there is a record of all phone calls you make.



Purple said:


> The Republicans in America have Fox News, the trade unions in Ireland have RTE.



More assumptions, trade unions dont own RTE. That may be your perception but you need to back it up with facts, otherwise its just bluster.



Purple said:


> That's my point. Any vested interest group which inserts itself between the people and their Dáil is, in my opinion, undermining democracy.



What are you talking about? The Dail empowers the Taoiseach to elect cabinet ministers to enact policies. It is the Dail that authorises the system you are complaining about!



Purple said:


> What circle?



The voters on the exact opposite side to your views - how can an elected government decide between policies that some people agree with and others who dont, but are equally entitled to representation?
Think about it, its not hard to figure out!


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> There is. Just like there is a record of all phone calls you make.


 Really? You think there's a record of the subject and content of every phone call I make, from any phone to anyone which can be accessed and interrogated? Don't be silly.


TheBigShort said:


> More assumptions, trade unions dont own RTE. That may be your perception but you need to back it up with facts, otherwise its just bluster.


 I'm bading it on their unionised workforce and their biased treatment of industrial relations issues.


TheBigShort said:


> What are you talking about? The Dail empowers the Taoiseach to elect cabinet ministers to enact policies. It is the Dail that authorises the system you are complaining about!


I don't know what point you are making here. 


TheBigShort said:


> The voters on the exact opposite side to your views - how can an elected government decide between policies that some people agree with and others who dont, but are equally entitled to representation?
> Think about it, its not hard to figure out!


I don't know what point you are making here either.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> You think there's a record of the subject and content of every phone call I make, from any phone to anyone which can be accessed and interrogated?.



No of course not. But there is a record of every phone call. Its no big deal if a trade union official calls a Minister on New Years Eve and wishes him/her HNY! 
But if there is an industrial relations dispute occuring at the time then the Minister will need to account for the content of that phone call. Its not hard to figure. The current controversy is a prime example of how such access to a Minister can lead to alleged distortions of fact and alleged corruption.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I'm bading it on their unionised workforce and their biased treatment of industrial relations issues.



I think their treatment of industrial relations issues is generally impartial. If there is any bias, or rather perceived bias, I tend to think it is favour of the employers. 
Simply giving all sides of an industrial relations dispute a platform to air their grievances is what you should expect from a public broadcaster. This is in marked difference to private sector media organisations that monopolise media content in favour of their own self interest.



Purple said:


> I don't know what point you are making here.



You point to the Dail as the only body that should represent the views of the people that elected it. The same Dail elects a Taoiseach who in turn appoints Ministers to enact policies that are typically shaped and formed from listening to the interests of lobby groups, through Dail committees, through international best practice, through EU Directives etc...etc...All with the approval of the Dail, to which you accept is representative of the people.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I think their treatment of industrial relations issues is generally impartial. If there is any bias, or rather perceived bias, I tend to think it is favour of the employers.


 Given you have strongly left-wing views and are a die-hard trade union supporter if you think they are generally impartial then they probably aren't.
I an an atheist and have a strong dislike of traditional RC church structures. I agree with most of RTE's coverage of those topics so I have to conclude that they have an anti Church bias. 




TheBigShort said:


> You point to the Dail as the only body that should represent the views of the people that elected it. The same Dail elects a Taoiseach who in turn appoints Ministers to enact policies that are typically shaped and formed from listening to the interests of lobby groups, through Dail committees, through international best practice, through EU Directives etc...etc...All with the approval of the Dail, to which you accept is representative of the people.


 When one guy in the room is holding a hand grenade with the pin pulled out and/ or a loaded gun they tend to get the lions share of attention. The unions have the hardware and the willingness to use it.


----------



## Leo

TheBigShort said:


> No of course not. But there is a record of every phone call.



I'm sure you know those records are privately held by the telcos and are not available to the general public or the authorities in the absence of a court order / search warrant. So they're not as you suggested 'recorded and open to public scrutiny lest the interests of one lobby group unduly impinges, encroaches, interferes etc on the interests of any other lobby group or on the national interest.'


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Given you have strongly left-wing views and are a die-hard trade union supporter if you think they are generally impartial then they probably aren't.



Given you have die-hard anti-trade union views (I think you referred them as a cancer) then its unlikely that anything you say about them is unlikely to be in anyway fair, particularly if it is not fact based and relies on language more suited to a demagogue.



Purple said:


> When one guy in the room is holding a hand grenade with the pin pulled out and/ or a loaded gun they tend to get the lions share of attention. The unions have the hardware and the willingness to use it.



Say no more!


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Given you have die-hard anti-trade union views (I think you referred them as a cancer) then its unlikely that anything you say about them is unlikely to be in anyway fair, particularly if it is not fact based and relies on language more suited to a demagogue.


Double negative there BS... Anyway, I fully accept that I don't like them though I did support their stance recently with Dunnes Stores. 


TheBigShort said:


> Say no more!


I'm glad we agree on something.


----------



## TheBigShort

Leo said:


> I'm sure you know those records are privately held by the telcos and are not available to the general public or the authorities in the absence of a court order / search warrant. So they're not as you suggested 'recorded and open to public scrutiny lest the interests of one lobby group unduly impinges, encroaches, interferes etc on the interests of any other lobby group or on the national interest.'



The phone of the Minister will typically be the property of the Dept s/he is in charge of. If there is an allegation of crime or corruption or other malpractice it is within the power of that Dept to deny or release information that such phone calls took place. 
But you are missing the whole point. If a Minister is saying one thing privately to a lobbyist, and another thing publicly, the Minister is now beholden to that lobbyist as there will be nothing to stop the lobbyist releasing his personal phone records into the public. 
So if there is any substantive difference in between what is being said privately, regarding the teachers dispute, and what is being said publicly, it will come to the fore if the teachers union feel what has been agreed 'privately' is not being honoured. 
But that is not the case, the details of the teachers dispute are up front and open for all to see.


----------



## Leo

TheBigShort said:


> The phone of the Minister will typically be the property of the Dept s/he is in charge of. If there is an allegation of crime or corruption or other malpractice it is within the power of that Dept to deny or release information that such phone calls took place.



They won't have access to the records to be in a position to do that. They may have access to the phone bills, and with that, numbers dialed. But the only way to get accurate and comprehensive logs of calls received is from the telco records which are protected.



TheBigShort said:


> But you are missing the whole point. If a Minister is saying one thing privately to a lobbyist, and another thing publicly, the Minister is now beholden to that lobbyist as there will be nothing to stop the lobbyist releasing his personal phone records into the public.



Any lobbyist ever considering that as an option would need to start looking for a new career.


----------



## TheBigShort

Leo said:


> They may have access to the phone bills, and with that, numbers dialed. But the only way to get accurate and comprehensive logs of calls received is from the telco records which are protected.



Granted.  



Leo said:


> Any lobbyist ever considering that as an option would need to start looking for a new career.



Which is exactly the point. The allegation is made that the State is open to corruption through the lobbying of vested interests that have the ear of Ministers and their departments and put ‘guns to their heads’ and agree deals behind closed doors.

This is the realm of deep corruption on the scale of the mafia etc, these are allegations being made by Purple with regard to trade unions.

This is deep criminal corruption akin to what may be in a fascist government or some banana republic.

With regard to the teachers dispute, the evidence is to the contrary. The details of the dispute and the positions held by the parties involved are officially recorded and open to public scrutiny.

There is not one shred of evidence to suggest otherwise, doesn’t stop the colourful dramatic language of ‘gun-pointing’ and ‘ransoms’ etc. It makes for great dramatics, for what is actually quite a dull process.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> This is the realm of deep corruption on the scale of the mafia etc, these are allegations being made by Purple with regard to trade unions.


 No it's not. The gun to the head of the Irish people is that the union will stop children being educated or sick people being treated in hospitals etc unless they get what they want. That means that their interests carry more weight than those of the public at large or the poor and vulnerable in particular. The rhetoric from unions, supported by RTE by never questioning that rhetoric, is that the unions represent that greater good and are also representing the interests of the poor and vulnerable. That is of course patently untrue and union leadership presenting themselves in that way is deeply disingenuous. That all brings us back to the original question; who speaks for the tax payer, or the public at large, since the interests of vested interest groups seeking to take a larger and larger share of the national cake are by their nature at odds with the broader interest of the country. 

Maybe it's the dishonesty, maybe it's the greed or maybe it's the sanctimonious moral superiority of unions that makes me dislike them so much but I think the real reason is their betrayal of those they were really set up to help and their willingness to hurt the most vulnerable in society without even the slightest moral pause.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> No it's not. The gun to the head of the Irish people is that the union will stop children being educated or sick people being treated in hospitals etc unless they get what they want. That means that their interests carry more weight than those of the public at large or the poor and vulnerable in particular. The rhetoric from unions, supported by RTE by never questioning that rhetoric, is that the unions represent that greater good and are also representing the interests of the poor and vulnerable. That is of course patently untrue and union leadership presenting themselves in that way is deeply disingenuous. That all brings us back to the original question; who speaks for the tax payer, or the public at large, since the interests of vested interest groups seeking to take a larger and larger share of the national cake are by their nature at odds with the broader interest of the country.
> 
> Maybe it's the dishonesty, maybe it's the greed or maybe it's the sanctimonious moral superiority of unions that makes me dislike them so much but I think the real reason is their betrayal of those they were really set up to help and their willingness to hurt the most vulnerable in society without even the slightest moral pause.



More bogus accusations backed up by absolutely nothing.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> More bogus accusations backed up by absolutely nothing.


It's an opinion. This is an discussion forum.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> It's an opinion. This is an discussion forum.



I know, I'm merely pointing out that it is an opinion that carries no substantive weight without actually backing it up with factual material.


----------



## Itchy

Purple said:


> ...dishonesty... greed ....sanctimonious moral superiority .... betrayal of those they were really set up to help.... their willingness to hurt the most vulnerable in society....



Of all the bad elements of Irish society reflecting these traits, its unions that stand out?  I hope you dont ever need help from someone in a union, if this is what you feel when you look at them.


----------



## LS400

Good phrase and very true, without the question Mark!!

Of all the bad elements of Irish society reflecting these traits, its the Unions that stand out.

Very interesting discussion, and not a mention of Bit coin.


----------



## Purple

Itchy said:


> I hope you dont ever need help from someone in a union, if this is what you feel when you look at them.


I hope I don't either because other than pushing the government around unions are just about useless when it comes to helping people who really need it. They used to represent the working poor but after seeing them close down so many businesses the working poor generally avoid them so as not to become the unemployed poor. Now they are almost totally the sole preserve of the middle-class employee in the protected sector.
I'm a tradesman. My family were founding members of SIPTU. I was at a book launch in the ironically named Liberty Hall which was written about one of them. The person who wrote it said that they would be ashamed as how unions behave today.


----------



## Leo

TheBigShort said:


> But you are missing the whole point.



I'm not really, you're just deflecting again.


----------



## llgon

Brendan Burgess said:


> I got really annoyed watching the farmers yet again for criticising the government for doing nothing about the fodder crisis. I heard one commentator saying that they had been warning the government since last September. But why should the tax payer be subsidising this?



Hello Brendan,

I don't want to annoy you any more but some county councillors are predicting another fodder crisis for 2019. And guess what? It's solely the Minister for Agriculture's responsibility to sort it out!

https://www.leitrimobserver.ie/news...is-in-2019-say-north-leitrim-councillors.html


----------



## TheBigShort

Leo said:


> I'm not really, you're just deflecting again.



How so?


----------



## Itchy

Purple said:


> I hope I don't either because other than pushing the government around unions are just about useless when it comes to helping people who really need it.



Unions help people who are members of unions. Who are the people who really need it in your view? Are they members of a union? They should raise the issues they need help with, with the union. If they have an issue that a union can help with, they should join it. 

I cant see any merit in you argument that every member of a union is in it for themselves? The substance of your comments are founded in stereotypes and prejudice and you seem to have a jaundiced view that because these bodies (that anyone could join and influence) are not doing things the way you like them, you get to throw the toys out of the pram.



Purple said:


> They used to represent the working poor but after seeing them close down so many businesses the working poor generally avoid them so as not to become the unemployed poor. Now they are almost totally the sole preserve of the middle-class employee in the protected sector.



Doesn't seem like sustainable strategy for a union to pursue, it would be farcical in fact. 




Purple said:


> I'm a tradesman. My family were founding members of SIPTU. I was at a book launch in the ironically named Liberty Hall which was written about one of them. The person who wrote it said that they would be ashamed as how unions behave today.



You just seem to be hurling from the ditch here Purple. Do members not have an opportunity to have their voice heard, put themselves up for election etc. The unions actions are a reflection of the collective.

As your family were founding members of SIPTU, perhaps you understand how and why unions were formed in the first place? You would swear from your statements that unions are operating in a vacuum ("pushing the government around", closing businesses willy nilly), agitating the ethical and moral business executives of the land (some of whom are definitely not in it for themselves)!  

This is not to say that there are not problems with how society functions as a whole, singling out one cog in a machine is a folly.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

It's getting worse and worse. 

The ESRI is now attacking pension reliefs and the Minister has said that they are generous, which suggests that they might be cut in the next Budget: 

*ESRI recommending cutting tax relief on pensions to 20%*

And it appears that house buyers are being squeezed out of the market by the state's social housing policy: 

*Is the State competing against homebuyers?*

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort

Agree with the sentiment re house buying. 

The problem as I see it is that the policy on housing is to treat it like a commodity to be bought and sold for profit or loss. 
As the state competes with taxpaying citizens who want to own their own home, the price increases, inducing private developers to return to the market. 
The State is building more social housing, but not of a policy of social need, but market forces have dictated the policy to start building social housing. These take time to come on stream, in the meantime taxpayer v state pushing up house prices to once again, unsustainable levels.

This is not just an Irish problem, it is an economic and housing policy adopted across the Western world. It is manifesting itself in increasing numbers of homeless in capital and major cities of nation states. 
The tech editor in the Irish Independent got a sense of it recently.

https://www.independent.ie/business...tant-adrian-weckler-in-san-jose-36993520.html

Until we return to recognising that housing is first and foremost a social need fundamental to the establishment and development of civil society, then this problem will continue to ebb and flow, exacerbating the problem. 

As for "who speaks for the taxpayer". Im a taxpayer, and I consider it in all our interests to end a housing policy that operates on market prices.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

TheBigShort said:


> market forces have dictated the policy to start building social housing.



Social housing leases should be for 5 years and not for life. 

If someone is living in a three bed social  house on their own, they should either give it up or take in at least two other people from the social housing list.

We should not be building any social housing in Dublin or other congested areas. 

Low paid workers should be prioritised for social housing close to where they work.

New social housing should be built in villages and towns outside the congested areas. 

Anyone in social housing in a congested area who is not working should have their lease terminated and they should be allocated social housing in a less congested area.

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> Social housing leases should be for 5 years and not for life.



Whats with the magic figure of 5yrs? What happens within, and after 5yrs? 



Brendan Burgess said:


> If someone is living in a three bed social house on their own, they should either give it up or take in at least two other people from the social housing list.



What happens if the two people on the social housing list refuse to live with strangers? If your housing policy is to coerce strangers to live with other strangers then perhaps an expansion of the policy of housing homeless in hostels would be preferable?



Brendan Burgess said:


> We should not be building any social housing in Dublin or other congested areas.



Why not? Is it not working people in Dublin and congested areas that are finding it difficult to buy a home?



Brendan Burgess said:


> Low paid workers should be prioritised for social housing close to where they work.



Are there no low paid workers in Dublin or congested areas?



Brendan Burgess said:


> New social housing should be built in villages and towns outside the congested areas.



On what basis? How can you advocate this? 
How can you advocate on the one hand that social housing should be provided for low paid working people near where they work, whilst simultaneously suggest that the very houses they need should be built away from the areas where they work?



Brendan Burgess said:


> Anyone in social housing in a congested area who is not working should have their lease terminated and they should be allocated social housing in a less congested area.



This has been done to death. It doesn't, and cannot work. Probably why such a policy in the Western world does not exist.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

I am not sure which bit you are missing. 

People who are not working should be relocated out of congested areas. 

Then those who are working would be allocated their housing. 

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort

The bit where the working person quits their job upon winning "the national lottery" of a social house in Dublin city centre and the relocated tenant takes up employment in Dublin city centre.
What happens then, a game of musical chairs?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

You are dead right. Just let single people continue living on their own in the city centre in three bed houses paying no rent and leave the families in hotels. Sure it doesn't matter as we can just continuously squeeze the rich and bring in builders from abroad to  build social housing on every plot of land in the centre of Dublin.

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> Just let single people continue living on their own in the city centre in three bed houses paying no rent and leave the families in hotels.



Brendan, are you talking about swapping single people who work with families in hostels where the parents are out of work?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

I am suggesting a number of things

Single people should not be allowed to retain three bed houses for life - whether they work or not.  

People who are not working should not be allowed to retain social housing in congested areas, whether they are single or families.

Brendan


----------



## Purple

Part of the reason we could build so many houses at the start of the boom was that we were one of the few countries in the EU 15 which let in immigrants from the new Eastern European EU member states straight away. That gave us a large pool of skilled and semi-skilled labour for our last construction boom. That resource isn't there any more. 
Not withstanding the "but what if" scenarios presented by The BS I am in broad agreement with Brendan on social housing. An endless list of "but what if" scenarios means nothing is done and the poverty industry continues to bleat and mewl about homelessness without ever actually grasping the reality of the situation and dealing with the facts. They rather ideological pontifications to realistic solutions. Change nothing structurally but just get "the rich" to pay for it.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> the poverty industry continues to bleat and mewl about homelessness without ever actually grasping the reality of the situation and dealing with the facts.



The “poverty industry” is who exactly? The working people who pay taxes but cannot afford to rent or buy their own home? Or if they can, they are drowning in high rents and mortgage repayments?

The proposal to move tenants of social housing around in a game of musical chairs, on the apparently sole criteria of whether they are at work or not is simply ridiculous, unworkable, and will probably cost the State millions in administration and legal fee’s.

As for the “but what if” scenarios, I would have thought that at this point that if a handful of simple, straightforward “what if” scenarios cannot be answered, then what chance the more complex “what if” scenarios ever being resolved? It would appear that this penny is taking a long time to drop with some folk.

Is there any similar type social housing model as is being proposed here, being implemented in practice anywhere in Europe? And if there is, how is it fairing? Perhaps then there would be something of substance to discuss.

In the meantime, the economic policies that have transformed housing from a social need into commodities to be bought and sold for profit continue unabated.

Aside from the San Jose homeless article I attached earlier, here is the headlines from The Independent in the UK today;

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-housing-crisis-theresa-may-policy-challenge-young-voters-support-a8400766.html

Here is a report from France 24

http://www.france24.com/en/20150214-down-out-paris-homeless-france-poverty-sdf-housing/

Another one about homelessness in the EU

https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2017/mar/21/homelessness-housing-problems-crisis-point-all-eu-countries-except-finland

I could go on, New York, Toronto, Sydney, Tokyo etc…etc….housing and rent is becoming more unaffordable, meaning that even if someone is out of work for a short period they could be facing into a situation of homelessness quite quickly.

It could all of course be a coincidence, but I think I'm detecting a pattern here? Games of musical chairs wont solve anything.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> The “poverty industry” is who exactly? The working people who pay taxes but cannot afford to rent or buy their own home? Or if they can, they are drowning in high rents and mortgage repayments?


 No, none of them. The people who make a living out of homelessness, the organisations which exist because of homelessness, the businesses which exist because of homelessness; they are the homeless industry. They are part of the broader charity industry.  



TheBigShort said:


> The proposal to move tenants of social housing around in a game of musical chairs, on the apparently sole criteria of whether they are at work or not is simply ridiculous, unworkable, and will probably cost the State millions in administration and legal fee’s.


 Yea, that's exactly what's being proposed alright.  



TheBigShort said:


> As for the “but what if” scenarios, I would have thought that at this point that if a handful of simple, straightforward “what if” scenarios cannot be answered, then what chance the more complex “what if” scenarios ever being resolved? It would appear that this penny is taking a long time to drop with some folk.


They can and have been answered. We are not in a position to set the bar for every scenario and a tiresome series of follow on questions which just drill into more detail but require the same answer add nothing to the discussion. 
If you think it is fair and just that a single person can inherit a family home from their parents when neither they nor their parents owned the house while a family is homeless in the same locality then shame on you. If you think the solution is to leave that person there but take tax payers money to build another family home then shame on you again.
When faced with something which is utterly unjust and causes human suffering crumbling because a solution is difficult is also shameful.



TheBigShort said:


> In the meantime, the economic policies that have transformed housing from a social need into commodities to be bought and sold for profit continue unabated.


 What does that mean? How do you separate social housing from private housing when they will always compete with each other for physical and financial resources? 
Since when is spending money on a social problem not also an economic decision? 
All private houses are bought and sold for profit. Do they not form part of the social need?
Are you against private housing ownership? If not then why not?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> No, none of them. The people who make a living out of homelessness, the organisations which exist because of homelessness, the businesses which exist because of homelessness; they are the homeless industry. They are part of the broader charity industry.



So put them out of business then and build more houses and stop prancing about with half-baked notions of moving people about because of whether they are at work or not.



Purple said:


> Yea, that's exactly what's being proposed alright



I know, its insane isn’t it?

Just to recap;



Brendan Burgess said:


> People who are not working should be relocated out of congested areas.
> 
> Then those who are working would be allocated their housing.






Purple said:


> They can and have been answered.




Your kidding right? Im still waiting for you answer as to why you think some welfare dependent drug addict alcoholic should be moved to Lucan from Rathmines. What have the good people of Lucan done to you that they deserve to live with drug addicts from Rathmines?

And therein lies the crux, with a supply of housing that falls short of the demands of a growing population, re-locating anybody, anywhere, will probably put someone else’s nose, undeservedly so, out of joint – so the whole concept is pointless. 



Purple said:


> If you think it is fair and just that a single person can inherit a family home from their parents when neither they nor their parents owned the house while a family is homeless in the same locality then shame on you. If you think the solution is to leave that person there but take tax payers money to build another family home then shame on you again.
> When faced with something which is utterly unjust and causes human suffering crumbling because a solution is difficult is also shameful.




I never said the system was fair, far from it. Im simply opposed to making matters worse.

It really is limited thinking on your part. Even the language of “leave that person there” suggests mere begrudgery on your part being the prime motivator of all this nonsense.

There is almost this sense that there are swathes of under-occupied social houses to begin with. Are there? Im sure there are incidences of such but again, the complexities of moving prospective tenants in and out of housing under a policy that ties the employment status of prospective tenants is wholly unfeasible.
All of this has been pointed out to you, but you want to persist with convincing yourself...go ahead.

Speaking as a taxpayer, I would not want my taxes wasted further on barmy notions such as this. Thankfully, such notions have gained no traction anywhere.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> So put them out of business then and build more houses and stop prancing about with half-baked notions of moving people about because of whether they are at work or not.


 How obtuse can you get?



TheBigShort said:


> I know, its insane isn’t it?


 What's insane is doing nothing other than proposing throwing more and more money at the problem.



TheBigShort said:


> Your kidding right? Im still waiting for you answer as to why you think some welfare dependent drug addict alcoholic should be moved to Lucan from Rathmines. What have the good people of Lucan done to you that they deserve to live with drug addicts from Rathmines?


 When did you ask that question? Do you think it's fair that your welfare dependent drug addict alcoholic should be given a family home in Rathmines because his parents were given that same home 30 years ago when there are homeless families in the area?




TheBigShort said:


> And therein lies the crux, with a supply of housing that falls short of the demands of a growing population, re-locating anybody, anywhere, will probably put someone else’s nose, undeservedly so, out of joint – so the whole concept is pointless.


 Okay, so any policy that puts someones nose out of joint is pointless, is that what you are saying?  Do you think we should build more social housing in expensive areas where there is little available building land rather than build far more houses for the same money elsewhere, just so that people can live where they want?



TheBigShort said:


> I never said the system was fair, far from it. Im simply opposed to making matters worse.


 So how do you propose we make it better (try to keep within the bounds of reality now)? 



TheBigShort said:


> It really is limited thinking on your part.


 Yes, doing nothing is far more imaginative. 



TheBigShort said:


> Even the language of “leave that person there” suggests mere begrudgery on your part being the prime motivator of all this nonsense.


 Indeed, anyone who disagrees with you is morally inferior. Sorry, I forgot. 
Maybe your opposition to such a change suggests a bias on your part because it's a bit close to the bone?



TheBigShort said:


> There is almost this sense that there are swathes of under-occupied social houses to begin with. Are there? Im sure there are incidences of such but again, the complexities of moving prospective tenants in and out of housing under a policy that ties the employment status of prospective tenants is wholly unfeasible.


 That's a great strawman argument you came up with there. 



TheBigShort said:


> Speaking as a taxpayer, I would not want my taxes wasted further on barmy notions such as this.


 But you are cool with inter-generational tenancies and single people being given new tenancies in family homes just because their parents lived there... but that's not barmy. You're a gas man!


----------



## Deiseblue

Brendan Burgess said:


> You are dead right. Just let single people continue living on their own in the city centre in three bed houses paying no rent and leave the families in hotels. Sure it doesn't matter as we can just continuously squeeze the rich and bring in builders from abroad to  build social housing on every plot of land in the centre of Dublin.
> 
> Brendan


“ paying no rent “ - really Brendan ?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> What's insane is doing nothing other than proposing throwing more and more money at the problem.



So the proposal to assess and move people on will be administered how? By some voluntary organization? And the inevitable legal fees when the challenges arrive in court will be waived by the barristers and solicitors?
Instead, money is wasted on administration and legal fees - no thank you.



Purple said:


> Do you think it's fair that your welfare dependent drug addict alcoholic should be given a family home in Rathmines because his parents were given that same home 30 years ago when there are homeless families in the area?



No I don't think its fair, I never said it was - merely pointing out that your solution to move the aforementioned to Lucan is not fair either, is it?



Purple said:


> Okay, so any policy that puts someones nose out of joint is pointless, is that what you are saying?



Now who is being obtuse!
If you cannot figure out that moving a drug addict from one area, Rathmines, to another, Lucan, will not lead to more perceptions of social injustice from the honest working people of Lucan, who pay their taxes and pay their mortgages etc, then there is no hope.

https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threa...for-social-housing.204999/page-4#post-1529495

Post #78



Purple said:


> So how do you propose we make it better (try to keep within the bounds of reality now)?



Already answered that in previous thread
- build more houses,
- incentivize mobility by offering tax allowances or grants to downsize where applicable,
- include the cost of houses (and asset prices in general) to inflation calculations.


----------



## Leo

Deiseblue said:


> “ paying no rent “ - really Brendan ?



As of [broken link removed]. last year:



> Local Authority rent arrears amount to €73 million, of which €37 million are in Dublin.



And poeple wonder why the LAs are outsourcing social housing to the private sector.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> - build more houses,
> - incentivize mobility by offering tax allowances or grants to downsize where applicable,
> - include the cost of houses (and asset prices in general) to inflation calculations.


Who is going to pay for the extra houses?
Where will be build the "more houses", since they shouldn't be in Lucan or other areas in the outer suburbs? 
Your guy in Rathmines; the place has no building land. Should we buy a small plot and build him a house for three quarters of a million or a million or should we house him and two other families in Lucan? Why does he get a house in Rathmines when working people from the area, even those on good incomes, can't afford to buy there? They have to move to places like Lucan! (And what have you got against Lucan anyway?)
When you find the money to pay for the houses you'll then have to find someone to build them. All of this will increase the cost of private housing as there will be even higher rates of labour cost inflation.
Should single people on social housing get 3 bedroom houses as well, just in case they might have a family in the future? If not should we build family homes in the same area in case they want to move into them later? Should we have banks of land in prime locations instead?

Your proposal is barmy as it doesn't take into account human nature and the problem that it will lead to more and more social housing which, to the economically literate, is unsustainable.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Who is going to pay for the extra houses?



We can start with using the money that was to be used for administering the musical chair scheme.
After that, either raise taxes or borrow or a bit of both. 




Purple said:


> Where will be build the "more houses", since they shouldn't be in Lucan or other areas in the outer suburbs?
> Your guy in Rathmines; the place has no building land. Should we buy a small plot and build him a house for three quarters of a million or a million or should we house him and two other families in Lucan? Why does he get a house in Rathmines when working people from the area, even those on good incomes, can't afford to buy there? They have to move to places like Lucan! (And what have you got against Lucan anyway?)



The Rathmines/Lucan example is yours, from the previous thread. And still you wont answer this one question – why should the good people of Lucan, who work hard and pay taxes, have to put up with a drug addict from Rathmines? That is what you suggested in you example. If you cant answer this one question on the suggestion you made, what hope answering anything else?



Purple said:


> When you find the money to pay for the houses you'll then have to find someone to build them. All of this will increase the cost of private housing as there will be even higher rates of labour cost inflation.
> Should single people on social housing get 3 bedroom houses as well, just in case they might have a family in the future? If not should we build family homes in the same area in case they want to move into them later? Should we have banks of land in prime locations instead?



I can only fathom from all of this is that you are opposed to building more social housing? Instead, you think our housing policy should rely on the private sector, market forces, etc to sustain our housing stock?

That’s worked out really well over the last 20yrs hasn’t it?


----------



## TheBigShort

Leo said:


> As of [broken link removed]. last year:



These is a very useful website, thanks for posting it. Also the other link http://localauthorityfinances.com/ is also very useful.

I'll have a look through more of the detail before commenting, but lots of useful information here.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> The Rathmines/Lucan example is yours, from the previous thread. And still you wont answer this one question – why should the good people of Lucan, who work hard and pay taxes, have to put up with a drug addict from Rathmines? That is what you suggested in you example. If you cant answer this one question on the suggestion you made, what hope answering anything else?


 You're doing it again. You need to let things go. You are dragging a silly point you made in a different thread into this one. I give out to my 8 year old when she does that sort of thing, telling her she's too old to go on like that now.




TheBigShort said:


> I can only fathom from all of this is that you are opposed to building more social housing? Instead, you think our housing policy should rely on the private sector, market forces, etc to sustain our housing stock?


Is that the only thing you can conclude from all of this? If so it explains a lot. 

If we go with your idea of borrowing and taxing more, in an already overheating economy and in an already overheated construction sector, can you see that we will just end up with more and more social housing competing more and more with private housing at the construction phase? I'm in favour of social housing; I think we need lots more of it but I am not in favour of the way it is currently allocated and managed. I think the State's resources should be targeted at those who need them most. I think that the State should provide for those who cannot provide for themselves and I think they should provide what they need, not what they would like.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> You need to let things go



How convenient that is for you.
You claimed that my questions around the social housing question were answered. Clearly not, and obviously not to be....that's fine, I'll 'let it go' then, unanswered.



Purple said:


> If we go with your idea of borrowing and taxing more, in an already overheating economy and in an already overheated construction sector, can you see that we will just end up with more and more social housing competing more and more with private housing at the construction phase?



Not without merit, granted. The growth in the construction sector is in part due to the government building more social housing. That obviously takes time to come on stream.
So the State has opted for the option of building more social houses and not house re-allocation and/or assessments.



Purple said:


> I'm in favour of social housing; I think we need lots more of it but I am not in favour of the way it is currently allocated and managed.



I don't necessarily disagree with this. What I disagree with are the proposals put here to 'improve' allocation and management, that is, 5yr assessments, employment status, occupancy rates etc.
My argument is that all of that will be a futile, cumbersome, costly and ultimately self-defeating exercise for a host of reasons.
I have never suggested that the system is 'fair' and certainly I have every sympathy for FTB's and working people in private rental who are being screwed. I have never offered or suggested that I have a panacea for the housing crisis. In fact I have stated many, many times that the issue is a complex one.

In the absence of feasible and realistic solutions to the housing crisis I would propose the following to go some way to reliving the crisis

-build more houses,
- incentivize mobility by offering tax allowances or grants to downsize where applicable,
 - include the cost of houses (and asset prices in general) to inflation calculations.


----------



## Deiseblue

Rent arrears ran from a low of approx 4% in Laois to a high of approx 29% in Louth.
Arrears approximated 20% in our cities which reflects the fact that although a sizable minority are in arrears the vast majority aren’t.
Brendan as usual when issues of social housing or welfare paints the blackest picture


----------



## TheBigShort

Agreed, couldn't help notice how the arrears of €73m was zoomed in upon. No mention of the actul €435m being collected, or 85% of LA rents. 
Considering the majority of LA housing is occupied by low-income families trying to make ends meet, this is quite a substantial contribution toward the cost of providing housing in the first place.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Agreed, couldn't help notice how the arrears of €73m was zoomed in upon. No mention of the actul €435m being collected, or 85% of LA rents.
> Considering the majority of LA housing is occupied by low-income families trying to make ends meet, this is quite a substantial contribution toward the cost of providing housing in the first place.




You seem to think the fact that 85% of people who are actually paying their rent is something we should be somehow happy with. People in LA housing are charged a differential rate based on income into to the household. A rate which the state has calculated as being fair and achievable and one which changes as your income changes.

With such a fair system of rent levels there should be no arrears or at least only a small amount of arrears. Based on the figs quoted 1 in 6 of LA tenants are in arrears.

Where is the incentive for those in arrears to bring their arrears up to date. Because we have this bizarre notion that people should be given accommodation where they want no matter what and there is an onus on the state to house people who may or may not pay their rent. At what point are the tenants held responsible and told they have make up the arrears or they will be evicted.

We have a problem with evictions both in the public and private sector where people can't or wont pay what's owed. Until this matter is resolved the housing problem wont be fixed. Council wont build properties because they can't evict and private landlords are leaving the sector in their droves because of the treatment they are receiving. The only landlords remaining are the institutional ones.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

TheBigShort said:


> Agreed, couldn't help notice how the arrears of €73m was zoomed in upon. No mention of the actul €435m being collected, or 85% of LA rents.



Hi Shortie and Deise.  I was shocked by the very high arrears in local authorities and admit I did lose sight of the fact that the majority of people do pay their rent.   My position would be consistent though on mortgage arrears and rent arrears - those who consistently don't pay should be evicted. 


And of course, this overall point remains valid. 



Brendan Burgess said:


> You are dead right. Just let single people continue living on their own in the city centre in three bed houses paying no rent and leave the families in hotels. Sure it doesn't matter as we can just continuously squeeze the rich and bring in builders from abroad to build social housing on every plot of land in the centre of Dublin.



Shortie does not want any change. Keep providing cheap (not free! )  social housing to people in their own community  while forcing those who provide their own accommodation to live far removed from their community and work. 

It should be the opposite. Those who are working, especially on low pay, should be give priority for social housing. And those who pay for their own housing should not be squeezed out by state.

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> Shortie does not want any change. Keep providing cheap (not free! ) social housing to people in their own community while forcing those who provide their own accommodation to live far removed from their community and work.
> 
> It should be the opposite. Those who are working, especially on low pay, should be give priority for social housing. And those who pay for their own housing should not be squeezed out by state.



Far from it Brendan, I want to see fundamental change where as a society we strive to provide affordable housing for all, as far as is practicable. I just think you are over simplifying a very complex issue.
I dont agree that mass evictions in the private ownership/rental/LA sectors are the solution.
I will say that where someone is capable of paying but refuses to then fair enough, force an order to evict.
But I suspect that the vast majority of arrears in all of those sectors are a consequence of not being able to pay. The reasons for this can be numerous - failed business, over-borrowing, loss of regular work, pay cuts, addiction, depression, illness, brought about by loss of work, business closure etc.
It complicates when there are young families involved who could not possibly be responsible for the arrears, but would suffer the consequences.

After that, and assuming you are not proposing they walk the streets (I think Horseman has advocated this) then you face the issue of where to house the evicted. Im assuming you agree that hostels and hotels are wholly inadequate to house families on a long-term basis (cheaper for the State to keep them where they are, not to mention the stress and the cost of dealing with subsequent mental health issues later on).

You are proposing to move people and families around based on their employment status and the number of vacant bedrooms. Such a proposal will meet so many hurdles and obstacles in terms of protest, appeals,  legal challenges, that it would ultimately cost more and end in failure.
Simple example, if I lived in a LA three-bed and my kids have flown the nest, I would resent the idea that I could be moved (to anywhere apparently) despite having paid my rent and paid taxes and having worked all my life (except for a 9 month spell when the company I worked for went bust after the crash. Im now retired) and raised a family. My family, themselves are educated and also working and paying taxes and have bought their own properties.

The other point is that people who are not working are supposed to be moved to less 'congested areas'.
The assumption is that LA's in less congested areas have the budgets and resources to house these people. Thats without even considering what employment opportunities there might be, educational opportunities etc.

Instead, the State needs to provide a stream of two and three bed apartments and townhouses suitable to meet the accommodation demands of the population. It can outsource this building program. The houses are to made available to low and middle income working people, this is good for business owners to have a ready supply of labour.
The private rental market needs to be reformed by requiring all landlords to register as corporate entities. Mortgages for such entities can be stretched over 100-150yrs, allowing for the landlord to provide affordable private rent, in quality accommodation, for those who it is not suitable to buy.
A real competitive rental market can be established against the private ownership market providing real options.
A tax rebate or grant to incentive mobility in both private and society housing where there is under occupancy.
These are some measures that can be undertaken that I think will relieve some of the pressure points in the housing sector.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> After that, and assuming you are not proposing they walk the streets (I think Horseman has advocated this) then you face the issue of where to house the evicted. Im assuming you agree that hostels and hotels are wholly inadequate to house families on a long-term basis (cheaper for the State to keep them where they are, not to mention the stress and the cost of dealing with subsequent mental health issues later on).



So what do you propose for those who don't pay their rent and are in properties that others need and would be only to happy to pay the rent!


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> So what do you propose for those who don't pay their rent and are in properties that others need and would be only to happy to pay the rent!



Like I said, if some are able to pay rent but choose not to, then invoke an eviction (taking into account also the legitimate refusal to pay rent due to dire need of renovation).  
If they are not able to pay rent, then reasons as to why they cant and all the other circumstances of family, schooling, employment prospects, re-housing or relocation options (hostel or hotel even?),  would have to be factored before any decision could be made here. 
Just to point out, if there are prospective tenants out there who are 'only too happy to pay' then I assume you are talking about people who already have accommodation  with the means to pay, and not people who are housed in hostels or hotels without the means to pay? 
In such circumstances, evicting a person or family for others who already have accommodation will only exacerbate the homeless crisis.


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> taking into account also the legitimate refusal to pay rent due to dire need of renovation


Sorry but the law does not recognise "dire need of renovation" as a legitimate ground for non-payment of rent.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> Sorry but the law does not recognise "dire need of renovation" as a legitimate ground for non-payment of rent.



Admittedly im not too au fait with the law concerning the grounds upon which not to pay rent.
But _refusal to pay _can be a likely prospect where a landlord is failing to provide adequate repairs. So if a bedroom window is cracked, posing a danger to children, or if there is faulty plumbing etc a tenant may take it upon themselves to refuse to pay (to the benefit of prospective future tenants too I would say) until the property is fixed.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irelands-social-housing-in-breach-of-european-law-461411.html


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> So if a bedroom window is cracked, posing a danger to children, or if there is faulty plumbing etc a tenant may take it upon themselves to refuse to pay (to the benefit of prospective future tenants too I would say) until the property is fixed.


Nope.  The tenant can lodge a complaint with the RTB but they must continue to pay their rent.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> Nope.  The tenant can lodge a complaint with the RTB but they must continue to pay their rent.



Yeh, great, I get legal obligation to continue to pay...but that may not stop some tenants taking it upon themselves to refuse to pay. 
As the link attests, Ireland is in breach with its provision of social housing. 
The scenario was put about what to do with social housing tenants who dont pay while others would only be "too happy to pay" for;

_Some of the conditions described regarding sewage invasions, contaminated water, dampness, persistent mould etc, go to the core of adequate housing, raising serious concerns from the perspective of both habitability and access to services, in particular, the high number of residents in certain estates in Dublin complaining of sewage invasions_

The point being, evicting people who dont pay, or because they are unfortunate to be out of work, or because they have a spare bedroom or two is a simplified proposal to resolve a complex issue. 
Its the point I keep trying to hammer home. Housing is not commodity to be simply bought and sold for profit alone, rented or leased to whoever will pay and then those who cant pay will simply have to do without.
It is a fundamental societal need to develop a civilised society which requires planning and resources that go far beyond someones employment status or vacancy rates or even ability to pay.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Admittedly im not too au fait with the law concerning the grounds upon which not to pay rent.
> But _refusal to pay _can be a likely prospect where a landlord is failing to provide adequate repairs. So if a bedroom window is cracked, posing a danger to children, or if there is faulty plumbing etc a tenant may take it upon themselves to refuse to pay (to the benefit of prospective future tenants too I would say) until the property is fixed.
> 
> https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irelands-social-housing-in-breach-of-european-law-461411.html



My home, which I rent, had mold problems. I bought some spray and made sure the kids opened the windows frequently; Problem solved.
We also had a rat problem. The landlord called in Rentokill; problem solved. 
When the back door wouldn't close properly I fixed it. 
When one of the kids broke a pane of glass in the back door I replaced it.
When the fridge broke my landlord replaced it. 
When my daughter's bedroom needed painting I painted it.
When the curtain rail fell down I put it back up.
When the back garden was overgrown I fixed it. I put in a deck and my landlord paid for the materials.
I work fulltime and so if I was unemployed there's lots more I could do around the house.

People need to get up off their arses and take just a tiny little bit of responsibility for their own home (even if they don't own it) and stop going to the RTB for issues that a home owner would just fix themselves. I don't think my landlord should have to replace a kettle or a toaster or a microwave. He's renting me a house, not becoming my mammy.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> My home, which I rent, had mold problems. I bought some spray and made sure the kids opened the windows frequently; Problem solved.



Persistent mould was the problem listed above, not always as easy as spray and ventilate, particularly if it gets into brickwork.



Purple said:


> We also had a rat problem. The landlord called in Rentokill; problem solved.



What happens if the landlord doesn't call im Rentokill? 



Purple said:


> When one of the kids broke a pane of glass in the back door I replaced it.



Too right. 
But if I was moving into a property, or offered social housing with cracked windows, I would respectfully ask the landlord or LA to replace them first. I dont think that would be unreasonable.



Purple said:


> When the fridge broke my landlord replaced it



Lucky you, the point is about landlords not fixing or replacing things


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I work fulltime and so if I was unemployed there's lots more I could do around the house.



As long as it didnt cost anything or too much, right? Like paint, paint brushes, lawnmower, petrol for lawnmower, garden tools, window panes.
Can be a bit tricky sometimes on low-income or unemployment benefits.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Lucky you, the point is about landlords not fixing or replacing things


The point is that both parties need to engage.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> As long as it didnt cost anything or too much, right? Like paint, paint brushes, lawnmower, petrol for lawnmower, garden tools, window panes.
> Can be a bit tricky sometimes on low-income or unemployment benefits.


Do you really think that the landlord should provide the petrol for the lawnmower?!!

Brushed as cheap. Paint can be expensive but generally the landlord should pay for materials used in the house. I don't see why the tenant can't spend a bit of time looking after their own home though.



TheBigShort said:


> Can be a bit tricky sometimes on low-income or unemployment benefits.


 That's what the Vinnie DePaul are for.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> The point is that both parties need to engage.



Exactly, given the list of problems, some of them being quite chronic it would appear, and given the fact that the tenants had to go all the way to the EU for a judgement.
It would suggest that there was little, or inadequate engagement by the landlords for the issues to go all that way.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Like I said, if some are able to pay rent but choose not to, then invoke an eviction (taking into account also the legitimate refusal to pay rent due to dire need of renovation).
> If they are not able to pay rent, then reasons as to why they cant and all the other circumstances of family, schooling, employment prospects, re-housing or relocation options (hostel or hotel even?),  would have to be factored before any decision could be made here.
> Just to point out, if there are prospective tenants out there who are 'only too happy to pay' then I assume you are talking about people who already have accommodation  with the means to pay, and not people who are housed in hostels or hotels without the means to pay?
> In such circumstances, evicting a person or family for others who already have accommodation will only exacerbate the homeless crisis.




My response was solely in respect of LA tenants. If their circumstances have changed and they have informed the LA then their rent would be changed accordingly. In respect of those who are willing to pay I am referring to those in hotels or hostels who are in a position to pay the differential rate.

To avoid any misunderstanding I am referring specifically to those LA tenants who are on a differential rate who refuse to either pay the rent or make up the outstanding arrears.


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> Yeh, great, I get legal obligation to continue to pay...but that may not stop some tenants taking it upon themselves to refuse to pay.


Sorry BS but you still seem to be missing the point.

If a tenant does not pay their rent, their landlord has a valid ground to terminate their tenancy and ultimately evict them from the property.  The fact that renovations may be required to the property is quite beside the point.

You are obviously entitled to your own personal opinions (however ridiculous I might find them) but you are not entitled to your own personal facts.  The fact that renovations may be required to a property is not a legitimate ground for non-payment of rent.  That's the law.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> To avoid any misunderstanding I am referring specifically to those LA tenants who are on a differential rate who refuse to either pay the rent or make up the outstanding arrears.



Yes, and as I said.



TheBigShort said:


> that where someone is capable of paying but refuses to then fair enough, force an order to evict.



Why do you want to go around in circles?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Why do you want to go around in circles?


Who's worse; the fella going around in circles or us fools following him?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Exactly, given the list of problems, some of them being quite chronic it would appear, and given the fact that the tenants had to go all the way to the EU for a judgement.
> It would suggest that there was little, or inadequate engagement by the landlords for the issues to go all that way.


Absolutely, there are some really bad landlords out there who don't fulfill their legal requirements. They should be fined and/or imprisoned if they are putting lives are risk. 
There are also some really bad tenants out there who should be evicted. If they have kids they should of course not be left on the street, they can be taken into care.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> If a tenant does not pay their rent, their landlord has a valid ground to terminate their tenancy and ultimately evict them from the property. The fact that renovations may be required to the property is quite beside the point.
> 
> You are obviously entitled to your own personal opinions (however ridiculous I might find them) but you are not entitled to your own personal facts. The fact that renovations may be required to a property is not a legitimate ground for non-payment of rent. That's the law.



Yeh, thanks for all that (again), but perhaps take your head out of the legal text for a moment and open your eyes to some realities.

Tenants of a LA housing estates are experiencing a bad dose of 'sewerage invasion, water contamination, persistent mould'. The contact the LA for help and assistance but whatever efforts are made, the problems persist.
As a form of protest, they refuse to pay their rent to the LA.
In your world, this is a straightforward case of eviction as per the law - I dont disagree, thus allowing the property to be let to tenants "only too happy to pay"!  as suggested earlier.
But for the umpteenth time, matters are a little more complex than that. Because back in the real world, by evicting people from this home you are exacerbating the homeless problem - where will they go? How much will that cost?

On the other hand, if there is another homeless family "only too happy to pay" we have a straight swap - neutral effect on the homeless count.
However, even getting homeless families to occupy substandard accommodation is not as straightforward as you all would like to make out.
Because even homeless families can aspire to hold a modicum of dignity and not allow their children to endure a life of living with rat infestations and water contamination, cant they?


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> Tenants of a LA housing estates are experiencing a bad dose of 'sewerage invasion, water contamination, persistent mould'.


None of which constitute a legitimate ground for non-payment of rent.  Your suggested "form of protest" leaves the tenants in question liable to be evicted.

Incidentally, evictions for non-payment of rent do not exacerbate homelessness as you have suggested - they simply free up housing units for other tenants that are willing and able to pay their rent. 

It's about the fair and efficient allocation of scarce resources.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Tenants of a LA housing estates are experiencing a bad dose of 'sewerage invasion, water contamination, persistent mould'. The contact the LA for help and assistance but whatever efforts are made, the problems persist.
> As a form of protest, they refuse to pay their rent to the LA.


Are you suggesting that 'sewerage invasion, water contamination, persistent mould' is the reason why 15% of rents are not paid by LA tenants?


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> Your suggested "form of protest" leaves the tenants in question liable to be evicted.



I didn't suggest that they _should _protest by not paying their rent, I implied that reasons beyond your simplistic black and white world of legal text may be cause for the non-payment of rent. For instance, a dispute with a landlord may give cause for a tenant to refuse to pay rent - regardless of the legal implications.
Considering the findings of the EU Committee on Social Justice with regard to Irelands social housing stock, and the obvious determination of the tenants to fight that case. It is hardly beyond the realms of your understanding to factor in a possible rent protest, is it?
Certainly if I lived in LA with rats and water contamination, without any resolution in the offing, I would certainly consider that an option.




Sarenco said:


> Incidentally, evictions for non-payment of rent do not exacerbate homelessness as you have suggested - they simply free up housing units for other tenants that are willing and able to pay their rent.



Where do the evicted tenants go?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Are you suggesting that 'sewerage invasion, water contamination, persistent mould' is the reason why 15% of rents are not paid by LA tenants?



No.


----------



## Sarenco

BS

It really is black and white - if you don't pay your rent you are liable to be evicted.


TheBigShort said:


> Where do the evicted tenants go?


Wherever they can afford.  That may well be similar accommodation to wherever their replacement tenants came from.  

Unless the property is razed, an eviction doesn't result in a loss of a housing unit.  It simply results in the replacement of a non-paying tenant with a tenant that is willing and able to pay the rent.  Allocation of a scarce resource according to willingness and ability to pay.

I know law and economics aren't your strong suits but this is really very basic stuff.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> It really is black and white - if you don't pay your rent you are liable to be evicted.



Where have I said otherwise 




Sarenco said:


> Wherever they can afford. That may well be similar accommodation to wherever their replacement tenants came from.



Theoretically you are correct, but _realistically_ we are talking about LA tenants. Typically they are low-income families (hence their accommodation in LA housing in the first instance).
Why on earth would they refuse to pay, only to be evicted and subsequently placed on LA waiting list again, when all along they were able to pay?
Think about it awhile, see if anything stirs



Sarenco said:


> an eviction doesn't result in a loss of a housing unit



I never said it did 

Clutching at straws, certainly a strength of yours.



Sarenco said:


> It simply results in the replacement of a non-paying tenant with a tenant that is willing and able to pay the rent



Where do non-paying LA tenants go to live when evicted???
Wake up to the real world!


----------



## Sarenco

Sorry BS but I really have zero interest in dropping into one of your ridiculous rabbit holes.

As you well know, the rent charged to LA authority tenants is adjusted according to their means.  Any non-paying LA tenant is, by definition, in the "won't pay", rather than the "can't pay" category.

So if they won't pay their (means-adjusted) rent, then give somebody that will pay the rent an opportunity to live in that home.  God knows the waiting lists are long enough - where do you think the people on the housing lists are living?

Again, evicting non-paying LA tenants will not exacerbate the housing crisis.  It would neither create nor destroy any housing units - the insufficiency of which is at the core of the problem.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco, stop with the jibberish and stop pretending all is black and white, just because you read it in a school text book.

If, by your definition, a rent adjusted LA tenant is automatically "wont pay", I have already stated that an eviction should be invoked in such circumstances. Let me know if you can understand this much;



TheBigShort said:


> I will say that where someone is capable of paying but refuses to then fair enough, force an order to evict.



If you get past that, then perhaps you can join reality for a while. Because what you are saying is that a LA tenant who "wont pay" will face eviction, possibly homelessness if they have nowhere else to go, and go back on the waiting list for a...LA house!!!

How many of the 15% LA tenants in arrears are we talking about here - 1, maybe 2? Is this how you envisage the housing crisis might be resolved?

On the other hand, despite the rent differential applicable, is it possible that substandard, unrepaired properties, unresolved landlord/tenant disputes are contributing to the arrears?
Perhaps there are households with young families but daddy (or mammy) has taken to the drink or has wracked up gambling debts, that has put that household in arrears? Perhaps LA's take real life complications such as that into account before evicting anyone as that may only cement the poverty trap for the children?
Perhaps you could take time to wonder why 50% of homeless families in Cork refuse accommodation? Drug-dealing in the chosen area is apparently a regularly cited deterrent to taking up accommodation.
Perhaps you could take time to read BB new thread on a RTE report citing homeless families refusing to take accommodation?

Why you keep bleating on about housing units being destroyed or erased is beyond me.


----------



## Sarenco

BS

As I already said, I have zero interest in dropping into one of your ridiculous rabbit holes, where logic never sees the light of day.

All the best.


----------



## TheBigShort

https://www.irishexaminer.com/irela...ers-turned-down-in-past-two-years-450651.html

Imagine, homeless families refusing accommodation over seemingly innocuous reasons as interior decoration.
What hope getting them into rat infested, water contaminated houses? 
What would be the point in evicting someone from such dire properties over arrears? You would clearly have trouble trying to get others to take up the accommodation. Instead, you would end up with another family to rehouse.


----------



## RETIRED2017

Brendan Burgess said:


> I got really annoyed watching the farmers yet again for criticising the government for doing nothing about the fodder crisis. I heard one commentator saying that they had been warning the government since last September.  But why should the tax payer be subsidising this? If the farmers and their co-ops and their representatives had known since last September, they should have been buying in feedstuffs to prepare for this.
> 
> And the teachers who are already very highly paid want more money.  If they want equality, then let the existing teachers take a pay cut. Dan O'Brien had a great article on it yesterday in the Indo, although it does not appear to be online. The gist of it was that teachers are paid more per hour than any other profession.  This is overstating the case a bit, as some of them do preparation which is not paid. But he also pointed out that there is no shortage of applications at the current salary levels.
> 
> But both of these issues are portrayed as "the teachers vs. the government" or "the farmers vs. the government".
> 
> It's not. It's the teachers vs. the taxpayers and the farmers vs. the taxpayers.
> 
> Likewise with putting homeless people up in hotels.  The taxpayers are paying for this.
> 
> And it's not just the top 20% who pay the majority of income taxes. It's everyone who pays the high rates of VAT and excise duties on drink and fuel.
> 
> But there is no one to speak for these taxpayers and so the vocal pressure groups push the government into high taxation and high borrowing.
> 
> Brendan


I wonder has any poster  made a submission before closing date on contributory pensions PAYE employees and there employers are getting a very raw deal seeing they were paying away more through payroll than other groups for the same contributory pension and employees also had to pay a USC type surcharge up until the USC came in for other groups,


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Sarenco, stop with the jibberish and stop pretending all is black and white, just because you read it in a school text book.
> 
> If, by your definition, a rent adjusted LA tenant is automatically "wont pay", I have already stated that an eviction should be invoked in such circumstances. Let me know if you can understand this much;
> 
> 
> 
> If you get past that, then perhaps you can join reality for a while. Because what you are saying is that a LA tenant who "wont pay" will face eviction, possibly homelessness if they have nowhere else to go, and go back on the waiting list for a...LA house!!!
> 
> How many of the 15% LA tenants in arrears are we talking about here - 1, maybe 2? Is this how you envisage the housing crisis might be resolved?
> 
> On the other hand, despite the rent differential applicable, is it possible that substandard, unrepaired properties, unresolved landlord/tenant disputes are contributing to the arrears?
> Perhaps there are households with young families but daddy (or mammy) has taken to the drink or has wracked up gambling debts, that has put that household in arrears? Perhaps LA's take real life complications such as that into account before evicting anyone as that may only cement the poverty trap for the children?
> Perhaps you could take time to wonder why 50% of homeless families in Cork refuse accommodation? Drug-dealing in the chosen area is apparently a regularly cited deterrent to taking up accommodation.
> Perhaps you could take time to read BB new thread on a RTE report citing homeless families refusing to take accommodation?
> 
> Why you keep bleating on about housing units being destroyed or erased is beyond me.




I am amazed by your approach to this whole issue we have 26% of all social housing tenants in rent arrears across the four Dublin LA. [broken link removed] are you saying that 26% of the social housing stock in Dublin suffers from mold, damp, rodent infestation?


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> I am amazed by your approach to this whole issue we have 26% of all social housing tenants in rent arrears across the four Dublin LA. [broken link removed] are you saying that 26% of the social housing stock in Dublin suffers from mold, damp, rodent infestation?



No, im not. 
Im simply trying to add a bit realism to the situation that identifies complex factors outside the simplistic views of long-term arrears should equal automatic eviction. 

One such factor may be unresolved landlord/tenant disputes. Other factors may be to do with social disorders such as drug addiction, alcoholism, gambling debt typically associated with socially deprived areas where, it just so happens, a large portion of LA housing is located.

I dont know, perhaps they are all just 'gaming' the system. In such case then, yes, they should be evicted. 
But if you evict them, where do they live? 
And once you have evicted them, there is still no gaurantee that homeless tenants in emergency accommodation will take up the newly vacated LA house, in a socially deprived area, with a reputation for drug-dealing, is there? 
And if a homeless family in emergency accommodation is refusing to take up the accommodation, what hope hard-working, career-building, taxpaying, family aspiring John & Mary FTB? 
So in the end, instead of taking measures to resolve the housing crisis, you end up taking measures to exacerbate the homeless crisis.


----------



## Leo

TheBigShort said:


> What hope getting them into rat infested, water contaminated houses?
> What would be the point in evicting someone from such dire properties over arrears?



Why the obsession with rat infested water contaminated houses? Are you suggesting all vacant LA housing is in such a state? As has been pointed out above and many other times, it's just more deflection and rabbit holes... 

If you've ever seen the works carried out on turning over a social housing unit is handed over you'd realise how ridiculous that statement is.


----------



## TheBigShort

What are you talking about?
Im merely pointing out to you rhe reality that of what is reported.
Ireland has been found in breach of sub standard social housing.
Homeless people in emergency accommodation ARE refusing housing, for a multitude of reasons from rat infestations, water contamination, drug dealing, locality and even interior decoration!!!

So if homeless families are refusing accommodation, preferring to stay in emergency accommodation, what makes you think FTB's who are trying to build careers and families and who pay taxes would take up accommodation in socially deprived areas?


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> No, im not.
> Im simply trying to add a bit realism to the situation that identifies complex factors outside the simplistic views of long-term arrears should equal automatic eviction.
> 
> One such factor may be unresolved landlord/tenant disputes. Other factors may be to do with social disorders such as drug addiction, alcoholism, gambling debt typically associated with socially deprived areas where, it just so happens, a large portion of LA housing is located.
> 
> I dont know, perhaps they are all just 'gaming' the system. In such case then, yes, they should be evicted.
> But if you evict them, where do they live?
> And once you have evicted them, there is still no gaurantee that homeless tenants in emergency accommodation will take up the newly vacated LA house, in a socially deprived area, with a reputation for drug-dealing, is there?
> And if a homeless family in emergency accommodation is refusing to take up the accommodation, what hope hard-working, career-building, taxpaying, family aspiring John & Mary FTB?
> So in the end, instead of taking measures to resolve the housing crisis, you end up taking measures to exacerbate the homeless crisis.




Why should the state be responsible to house somebody who does not have any addiction issues and is "gaming" the system. These people who are gaming the system have been offered low cost accommodation based on their ability to pay and still refuse to pay. Why should we still house them.

At what point do we say that they have to take responsibility for their actions?


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> Why should the state be responsible to house somebody who does not have any addiction issues and is "gaming" the system. These people who are gaming the system have been offered low cost accommodation based on their ability to pay and still refuse to pay. Why should we still house them.
> 
> At what point do we say that they have to take responsibility for their actions?



If someone is capable of paying rent but refuses they should be evicted. I have said this plenty of times. 
But we are talking about specifically tenants of LA housing, right? So, their rent is set in accordance with their income, right? So, without wanting to generalise, but in the interests of simplicity, we are talking about low-income families here, right? You have heard of housing crisis, where low and middle income families cannot afford to buy or rent, right? 
So a low-income family LA tenancy that can pay, but refuses to pay should be evicted right? 
Now im asking you, where will they go (bearing in my the housing crisis)? 
Once you have answered that, then perhaps you might consider why would they put themselves in that position im the first place? Perhaps you might figure that there may be other factors impeding on their ability to pay other than the automatic assumption that they are gaming the system?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> So, without wanting to generalise, but in the interests of simplicity, we are talking about low-income families here, right?


 No, not necessarily. They were probably low income when they got their house, unless they inherited the tenancy, but they could well be high income earners now. 

You seem to be concerned about the housing crisis but you don't think that people in LA housing who can afford to provide their own housing should be forced to do so and you don't think that people who don't pay their rent should be evicted as long as they can come up with some semi-plausible sob-story.
You have attempted to rubbish every suggestion that other posters have made but have failed to suggest any way in which we could manage out existing housing stock better. We have around 140,000 LA housing units in this country. If we improved the efficiency of how we manage that stock by 2% we'd have an  extra 2,800 units available. 
Your solution is to build more houses and apartments; great, we all agree with that. The cost of building that 2% worth of units will be over a half a billion Euro. I'd rather we didn't waste that money. If you agree than why not try to be constructive rather than assigning ideological motives to those who are trying to be constructive.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> If someone is capable of paying rent but refuses they should be evicted. I have said this plenty of times.
> But we are talking about specifically tenants of LA housing, right? So, their rent is set in accordance with their income, right? So, without wanting to generalise, but in the interests of simplicity, we are talking about low-income families here, right? You have heard of housing crisis, where low and middle income families cannot afford to buy or rent, right?
> So a low-income family LA tenancy that can pay, but refuses to pay should be evicted right?
> Now im asking you, where will they go (bearing in my the housing crisis)?
> Once you have answered that, then perhaps you might consider why would they put themselves in that position im the first place? Perhaps you might figure that there may be other factors impeding on their ability to pay other than the automatic assumption that they are gaming the system?



Are you therefore suggesting that somebody who refuses to pay their rent which has been means tested and they are not suffering from any addictions etc should still be housed by the State despite their refusal to pay rent?

Perhaps they put themselves in the position of not paying rent because they know there are no sanctions and they can get away with it.


----------



## Purple

The Horseman said:


> Perhaps they put themselves in the position of not paying rent because they know there are no sanctions and they can get away with it.


People in private houses who don't pay their rent get to stay there for months as well.
People don't pay their mortgage because they know that their house won't be repossessed.
It's not just LA tenants gaming the system and it all costs the taxpayer money.

We have a disconnect between what happens and what it costs us as a society. When we waste hundreds of millions because we don't manage our LA housing stock in the best possible way that means money is lost which could build primary care units or resource TUSLA properly or provide better homeless services for rough sleepers. Every cent we waste is a cent which can't be spent elsewhere. It builds a little bit more resentment in tax payers. It is a little bit more of a push to the extremes on the left and right. When a democratically elected government and the Public service which supports them is inefficient, incompetent or wasteful it undermines democracy and the social contract which binds us together. It undermines the legitimacy of the authority of the State.
The title of this thread is "Who speaks for the taxpayer?" but it could be "Who is ensuring the social contract is maintained?".


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> Are you therefore suggesting that somebody who refuses to pay their rent which has been means tested and they are not suffering from any addictions etc should still be housed by the State despite their refusal to pay rent?



Why do keep asking the same question but in different wording when  the question has already been answered and shown to you to have been answered?
Tenants who can afford to pay their rent but refuse to do so should face eviction.

Perhaps you can answer some of the questions I put to you earlier?



TheBigShort said:


> So a low-income family LA tenancy that can pay, but refuses to pay should be evicted right?
> Now im asking you, where will they go (bearing in my the housing crisis)?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> They were probably low income when they got their house, unless they inherited the tenancy, but they could well be high income earners now.



Speaking of rabbit holes! 
Thinking logically Purple, a LA tenant has occupancy of a Dublin city centre flat. They have educated, trained and progressed themselves to the point of earning a good imcome, contributing back to society in taxes etc. 
They are liable to pay the rent differential rate, wholly more favourable than the extortionate private sector rates that are crucifying other hard working people.

What % of the overall 15% of LA arrears do you think they make up? 
What is their incentive, having progressed in their careers is there for them to refuse to pay? 
Or is it more likely, more probable, that they account in part for the 85% who do pay the rent.
Think about logically now. And when you have, perhaps you can then consider that the 15% arrears are not solely down to refusing to pay, but that there are other factors that may be cause for those LA tenants not being able to pay (chronic social disorders like drug addiction, alcoholism, gambling debt etc) or if they are refusing to pay, perhaps rat infestations, water contamination and other unresolved landlord/tenant disputes?
Is it possible that any of these factors may be cause for the overall 15% LA authority arears, and not solely down to tenants gaming the system?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> if they are refusing to pay, perhaps rat infestations, water contamination and other unresolved landlord/tenant disputes?


 Out of one rabbit hole and into another...



TheBigShort said:


> Is it possible that any of these factors may be cause for the overall 15% LA authority arears, and not solely down to tenants gaming the system?


 Yep, nobody is suggesting otherwise although you are putting most emphasis on "rat infestations, water contamination and other unresolved landlord/tenant disputes". Think logically now; what proportion of that 15% do you think your posterboys make up?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> They are liable to pay the rent differential rate, wholly more favourable than the extortionate private sector rates that are crucifying other hard working people.



Yes, a subsidy paid to rich people while they occupy a home that could be given to someone who can't provide one for themselves. You solution is to take mone money from the people subsidising the rich guy to build another LA home. Sure with logic like that it's no wonder we have a housing crisis.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Out of one rabbit hole and into another...
> 
> Yep, nobody is suggesting otherwise although you are putting most emphasis on "rat infestations, water contamination and other unresolved landlord/tenant disputes". Think logically now; what proportion of that 15% do you think your posterboys make up?



Yep, so out of the 15% arrears in LA's you, me nor anyone else has come up with any breakdown of how many are actually gaming the system and how many are actually afflicted by other factors which give cause for the arrears in the first place. 
But its my inkling, just an inkling mind, that the breakdown of those 15% in arrears who can afford to pay but refuse to pay is on the very low side of the figures.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Why do keep asking the same question but in different wording when  the question has already been answered and shown to you to have been answered?
> Tenants who can afford to pay their rent but refuse to do so should face eviction.
> 
> Perhaps you can answer some of the questions I put to you earlier?




If they refuse to pay rent which the state has calculated they can afford based on the differential rates then the state has fulfilled its obligations and the tenant refuses to pay then they should be left to find their own accommodation. If they can't then its their own fault.

You appear to think we should provide accommodation to everyone and they should not take any responsibility for their situation even after being offered the differential rate and they still refuse to pay. With this logic nobody should bother pay any rent safe in the knowledge that the state will house them no matter what.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Out of one rabbit hole and into another...
> 
> Yep, nobody is suggesting otherwise although you are putting most emphasis on "rat infestations, water contamination and other unresolved landlord/tenant disputes". Think logically now; what proportion of that 15% do you think your posterboys make up?



You didn't read the article then? 

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irelands-social-housing-in-breach-of-european-law-461411.html

Unfortunately, another breach by Ireland was a failure to keep recorded stats on the housing stock, but the EU Committee on Social Justice found that a 'significant amount' of housing is of sub-standard accommodation. 
Kind of plays into my reasoning that there are factors, other than bare faced refusal to pay although affordable, coming into play for the overall 15% arrears in LA.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> If they refuse to pay rent which the state has calculated they can afford based on the differential rates then *the state has fulfilled its obligations*



Interesting, you ignored this finding also?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irelands-social-housing-in-breach-of-european-law-461411.html



The Horseman said:


> the tenant refuses to pay then they should be left to find their own accommodation. If they can't then its their own fault.



Again, some logic required here. Faced with the prospect of eviction for refusing to pay, faced with the prospect of being homeless, or living in emergency accommodation, and joining the waiting list for a LA house (hard to believe that this needs explaining!) and _having the capability to pay to keep a roof over their head and the heads of their children _what do you think the vast, vast, vast majority of people, throughout the world and throughout the history of humankind would opt to do? 
Put it another way, other than social disorders such as drug addiction,alcoholism, gambling debt, domestic violence, child abuse etc, or economic disorders such as unemployment, bankruptcy, deprivation etc, or health disorders such as depression, has anybody throughout the history of humankind _opted _to be evicted when they were capable of paying for their accommodation.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> You appear to think we should provide accommodation to everyone and they should not take any responsibility for their situation even after being offered the differential rate and they still refuse to pay.



You are constantly making the simplistic assumption that the 15% of arrears is nothing more than a bare faced refusal to pay where there is means to pay. 
You ignore all other possible factors despite repeated reports of substandard accommodation, homeless families refusing accommodation, social disorders and deprivation. 
Why?


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Interesting, you ignored this finding also?
> 
> https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irelands-social-housing-in-breach-of-european-law-461411.html
> 
> 
> 
> Again, some logic required here. Faced with the prospect of eviction for refusing to pay, faced with the prospect of being homeless, or living in emergency accommodation, and joining the waiting list for a LA house (hard to believe that this needs explaining!) and _having the capability to pay to keep a roof over their head and the heads of their children _what do you think the vast, vast, vast majority of people, throughout the world and throughout the history of humankind would opt to do?
> Put it another way, other than social disorders such as drug addiction,alcoholism, gambling debt, domestic violence, child abuse etc, or economic disorders such as unemployment, bankruptcy, deprivation etc, or health disorders such as depression, has anybody throughout the history of humankind _opted _to be evicted when they were capable of paying for their accommodation.



I read the article and the state has been found to have substandard housing this does not mean you just stop paying rent. Using your logic then two wrongs make a right! By the way if you think you need to explain the waiting lists please refrain from your high and mighty condescending tone. I am well schooled in life and am also well educated academically and have seen the LA areas first hand and I know exactly what goes on.

You seem to think people should be housed no matter what. I have repeatedly specially referred to those who can afford to pay and blatantly refuse to pay and you constantly refer to drug addiction, alcoholism etc. I have kept my comments specific to those who refuse to pay.

Why should we house people who are given the support of the state with differential rates and are not suffering any of the addictions you repeatedly refer to and refuse to pay and you suggest they can still join the housing list.

Perhaps you could offer some constructive suggestions rather than sitting and pontificating about what's wrong and that its everybody else's fault and never then tenants.


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> You didn't read the article then?
> 
> https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irelands-social-housing-in-breach-of-european-law-461411.html
> 
> Unfortunately, another breach by Ireland was a failure to keep recorded stats on the housing stock, but the EU Committee on Social Justice found that a 'significant amount' of housing is of sub-standard accommodation.
> Kind of plays into my reasoning that there are factors, other than bare faced refusal to pay although affordable, coming into play for the overall 15% arrears in LA.




You obviously didn't the actual report either. Nowhere does the actual verdict state that a 'significant amount' of housing is sub-standard accommodation.....


----------



## Leo

TheBigShort said:


> You are constantly making the simplistic assumption that the 15% of arrears is nothing more than a bare faced refusal to pay where there is means to pay.
> You ignore all other possible factors despite repeated reports of substandard accommodation, homeless families refusing accommodation, social disorders and deprivation.
> Why?



Perhaps because they're all just more of your diversions. What does a homeless family refusing an offer of housing have to do with someone else refusing to pay the rent that they have been assessed as being capable of paying? Homeless families make up a small portion of those refusing housing offers, and overall, the majority of refusals are due to the unit not being in a desirable area.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sunny said:


> You obviously didn't the actual report either. Nowhere does the actual verdict state that a 'significant amount' of housing is sub-standard accommodation.....




Here is some of the actual wording from the judgement as referenced to by the Irish Examiner article.

_"118. The Committee has repeatedly held that the right to housing for families encompasses housing of an adequate standard and access to essential services (see §106 above). In this respect the Committee takes into account General Comment No 4 of the UN Committee of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights Committee which provides that ”Adequate housing must be habitable, in terms of providing the inhabitants with adequate space and protecting them from cold, damp, heat, rain, wind or other threats to health, structural hazards, and disease vectors. The physical safety of occupants must be guaranteed as well”and that “An adequate house must contain certain facilities essential for health, security, comfort and nutrition. All beneficiaries of the right to adequate housing should have sustainable access to natural and common resources, safe drinking water, energy for cooking, heating and lighting, sanitation and washing facilities , means of food storage, refuse disposal, site drainage and emergency services.”

The Committee considers that some of the conditions described above regarding sewage invasions, contaminated water, dampness, persistent mould etc. go to the core of adequate housing, raising serious concerns from the perspective of both habitability and access to services. It notes in particular the high number of residents in certain estates in Dublin complaining of sewage invasions (for example the Dolphin House complex) years after the problems were first identified._

_It also takes into consideration the fact that a significant number of regeneration programmes adopted by the Government for local authority estates in the last decade have not been completed with the effect that a number of local authority tenants remain living in substandard housing conditions."
_
If you are trying to be pedantic and waste time, you are doing a good job of it.


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> Here is some of the actual wording from the judgement as referenced to by the Irish Examiner article.
> 
> _"118. The Committee has repeatedly held that the right to housing for families encompasses housing of an adequate standard and access to essential services (see §106 above). In this respect the Committee takes into account General Comment No 4 of the UN Committee of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights Committee which provides that ”Adequate housing must be habitable, in terms of providing the inhabitants with adequate space and protecting them from cold, damp, heat, rain, wind or other threats to health, structural hazards, and disease vectors. The physical safety of occupants must be guaranteed as well”and that “An adequate house must contain certain facilities essential for health, security, comfort and nutrition. All beneficiaries of the right to adequate housing should have sustainable access to natural and common resources, safe drinking water, energy for cooking, heating and lighting, sanitation and washing facilities , means of food storage, refuse disposal, site drainage and emergency services.”
> 
> The Committee considers that some of the conditions described above regarding sewage invasions, contaminated water, dampness, persistent mould etc. go to the core of adequate housing, raising serious concerns from the perspective of both habitability and access to services. It notes in particular the high number of residents in certain estates in Dublin complaining of sewage invasions (for example the Dolphin House complex) years after the problems were first identified._
> 
> _It also takes into consideration the fact that a significant number of regeneration programmes adopted by the Government for local authority estates in the last decade have not been completed with the effect that a number of local authority tenants remain living in substandard housing conditions."
> _
> If you are trying to be pedantic and waste time, you are doing a good job of it.



You are the one wasting time. But since you just seem to interested in posting endless boring posts about rats, then I will give you the actual wording since you can't be bothered to look it up properly.

_In the light of the above the Committee finds that the Government has failed to take *sufficient and timely measures* to ensure the right to housing of an adequate standard for *not an insignificant number of families* living in local authority housing and therefore holds that there is a violation of Article 16 of the Charter in this respect.
_
You might think that is pedantic but that is not the same as saying a significant amount of LA housing is sub-standard as you state. Also this committee mainly looked at inner city Dublin LA developments like Dolphin house on which €25m is currently being spent on regenerating but the committee relied on a old report. 

Nobody is saying there aren't problems with some housing stock but unless you can define what you mean by 'significant amount' and back it up with evidence, I would suggest you stop quoting it.


----------



## TheBigShort

_The European Committee of Social Rights, in a decision published today, found that “a significant stock of local authority housing is of substandard quality”._

This is the quote from the Irish Examiner upon which I relied upon. If the reporting is not precise, I do beg your pardon. 
However, here is the judgement in full. Some would do well to read it

http://hudoc.esc.coe.int/eng/#{"ESCDcIdentifier":["cc-110-2014-dmerits-en"]}


----------



## TheBigShort

TheBigShort said:


> the fact that a *significant* *number* of regeneration programmes adopted by the Government for local authority estates in the last decade have not been completed *with the effect that a number of local authority tenants remain living in substandard housing conditions."*



Pedantic? I think so.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> I read the article and the state has been found to have substandard housing this does not mean you just stop paying rent.



I never said it does. Im suggesting that it is not beyond reason and common sense that a LA tenant may refuse to pay rent in dispute with the landlord on the basis of substandard accommodation, is it?
Im saying that this may account for some of the 15% of LA arrears, do you think that is a plausible scenario?
By all means, evict the tenant for refusing to pay rent in such circumstances. But I would add for what purpose? If the current tenants are prepared to go to Europe to fight, and win, over the conditions they live in, who in their right mind would be prepared to live there given the conditions of the property?
Do you think educated, hard working, taxpaying, family aspiring, squeezed out of private rental and ownership market John & Mary FTB are going to be "happy to pay the rent" on this one?
Think about it.

So all you will have done is increase the homeless rate and done nothing to resolve the housing crisis.



The Horseman said:


> By the way if you think you need to explain the waiting lists please refrain from your high and mighty condescending tone.



I apologize for any condescending tone, but repeating the same question again and again, and limiting the housing crisis to a simplistic formula of long-term arrears should = automatic eviction solves nothing.



The Horseman said:


> I am well schooled in life and am also well educated academically and have seen the LA areas first hand and I know exactly what goes on.



Well I would respectfully ask that you apply your considerable intelligence and life experience to the issue and stop limiting it to simplistic assumptions.



The Horseman said:


> You seem to think people should be housed no matter what.



People need to be housed. That you even consider there is an option here suggests you are over-egging the value of your education.
There is currently around 10,000 people classed as homeless or in emergency accommodation. Its a tiny fraction of the population. 700,000 are on hospital waiting lists, yet it is the homeless crisis that is forefront.
Without a secure tenancy all sorts of other social and economic disadvantages emerge, employment prospects, educational opportunities (how can someone go to college in Dublin if tomorrow they may be moved to some other unidentified location)?



The Horseman said:


> I have repeatedly specially referred to those who can afford to pay and blatantly refuse to pay



Yes, I have repeatedly said that if someone can pay and refuses, then they should face the prospect of being evicted.
You have identified a cohort of LA tenants that are 15% in arrears as tenants who "wont pay" as opposed to "cant pay" by virtue of the rent differential rate system.
Im simply refuting that assertion providing reasoning that extends beyond that, including scenarios that may give cause for somewhat more complex reasoning as to why some tenants may be in arrears (despite the rent differential rate system).



The Horseman said:


> I have kept my comments specific to those who refuse to pay.



Yes, because it suits your agenda and the agenda of others to present a complex problem in a simplistic manner.




The Horseman said:


> Perhaps you could offer some constructive suggestions rather than sitting and pontificating about what's wrong and that its everybody else's fault and never then tenants.



- The state should engage in (is engaging, in fairness) in a house building program to rectify in part the consequences of the housing market failure.
- A tax rebate or grant to be offered to both tenants of private and public housing to relocate to smaller dwellings where there is currently under occupancy. 40% of private dwellings are currently under occupied. A moving grant will increase mobility in housing market.
- Restructure the private rental market. All landlords to register as limited companies. Banks to provide mortgages of 150yrs + to the companies to buy-to-let properties. Landlords can concentrate on providing quality housing for affordable rates instead of the cowboy landlords who bought into the property boom hoping that others would pay off their mortgage just in time for retirement.
- Change inflation calculation measures to include increases and decreases in asset prices.


----------



## TheBigShort

Leo said:


> Perhaps because they're all just more of your diversions. What does a homeless family refusing an offer of housing have to do with someone else refusing to pay the rent that they have been assessed as being capable of paying? Homeless families make up a small portion of those refusing housing offers, and overall, the majority of refusals are due to the unit not being in a desirable area.



Another simplifier! 
The proposal is to evict people on four counts;

1. If they are not working - evict (to where? What if, like the homeless family, they dont like the new location?)

2. If they are working and earn a decent income - evict (to where? What if it adversely impacts on their employment prospects? Childcare arrangements, evening college classes?)

3. If they have spare rooms - evict, even if they worked all their lives, paying taxes, paying their rent, raising a family who are now working and paying taxes too. None of that matters, they have spare bedrooms in their 3 bed terrace - evict them! But to where? What if, like the homeless family, they dont like the new location?
What if the homeless family dont like the location of the evicted tenants?

4. If they are capable of paying, but refuse to pay - I agree, face them with the prospect of eviction. It usually does the trick where someone CAN pay.

A bit of a mess, isnt it? 
Hasnt really been thought through, has it?
A load of nonsense basically, isnt it?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> - Restructure the private rental market. All landlords to register as limited companies. Banks to provide mortgages of 150yrs + to the companies to buy-to-let properties. Landlords can concentrate on providing quality housing for affordable rates instead of the cowboy landlords who bought into the property boom hoping that others would pay off their mortgage just in time for retirement.


This would result in a massive exodus of small landlords and make the problem far worse in the short term (the next 5+ years).

You seem to accept that there are structural problems in the way in which the LA stock of homes is managed and allocated. Can you suggest any improvements?
Given that under the existing system I can put my kids on the LA housing list at 18 and they'll get a house before they are 30 as long as their income is low enough why would they bother trying to get their own place? Just say they are homeless and live with me and once they get their own place they can start developing their education and career. They should go and travel the world in their 20's, get their LA house in their early 30's and then work on growing their income knowing that they will never have to pay a mortgage, never have to pay for structural repairs, never have to pay mortgage protection insurance etc. They would probably be in their early 30's anyway before they had scrimped and saved to get a deposit and they'd struggle for the next 10 years to cope with their large mortgage. 
They'd be utterly mad to bother trying to stand on their own two feet. My oldest son is 20. I think I'll get him on the housing list.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Another simplifier!
> The proposal is to evict people on four counts;
> 
> 1. If they are not working - evict (to where? What if, like the homeless family, they dont like the new location?)
> 
> 2. If they are working and earn a decent income - evict (to where? What if it adversely impacts on their employment prospects? Childcare arrangements, evening college classes?)
> 
> 3. If they have spare rooms - evict, even if they worked all their lives, paying taxes, paying their rent, raising a family who are now working and paying taxes too. None of that matters, they have spare bedrooms in their 3 bed terrace - evict them! But to where? What if, like the homeless family, they dont like the new location?
> What if the homeless family dont like the location of the evicted tenants?
> 
> 4. If they are capable of paying, but refuse to pay - I agree, face them with the prospect of eviction. It usually does the trick where someone CAN pay.
> 
> A bit of a mess, isnt it?
> Hasnt really been thought through, has it?
> A load of nonsense basically, isnt it?


Are you seriously suggesting that we shouldn't evict people who won't pay their rent unless there is somewhere else to put them (that they like and want to move into?)
If you won't pay your rent and you end up sleeping in a doorway with your kids that's 100% your own fault. Your kids should be taken into care and you should be left there.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Are you seriously suggesting that we shouldn't evict people who won't pay their rent unless there is somewhere else to put them (that they like and want to move into?)
> If you won't pay your rent and you end up sleeping in a doorway with your kids that's 100% your own fault. Your kids should be taken into care and you should be left there





I have repeatedly said - if someone CAN pay, but REFUSES to pay, invoke an eviction order.

Please read 4. above for the most recent time that you can quote me saying that.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I have repeatedly said - if someone CAN pay, but REFUSES to pay, invoke an eviction order.
> 
> Please read 4. above for the most recent time that you can quote me saying that.


"The prospect of eviction" is different from eviction. Please edit 4 above for clarity, then it will be clear.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> "The prospect of eviction" is different from eviction. Please edit 4 above for clarity, then it will be clear.



Yes, the prospect of eviction is different to eviction. I can however assure you that number of people who, faced with the prospect of eviction, faced with the prospect of homelessness, faced with the prospect of their children being homeless, and refuse to pay when they CAN pay is next to zero. 
Not just in Dublin LA housing, but all around the world, since the beginning of civilization.

To emphasis the point, how many of current homeless do you think are homeless because they refused to pay, when they were able to pay?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, the prospect of eviction is different to eviction. I can however assure you that number of people who, faced with the prospect of eviction, faced with the prospect of homelessness, faced with the prospect of their children being homeless, and refuse to pay when they CAN pay is next to zero.
> Not just in Dublin LA housing, but all around the world, since the beginning of civilization.
> 
> To emphasis the point, how many of current homeless do you think are homeless because they refused to pay, when they were able to pay?


So in reality they will still not pay as they know there's no real prospect of actually being evicted. Thanks for clarifying. 

Plenty of people are officially homeless because they refused to pay market rents. Why would they? They can just go on the housing list knowing that they will be given a house. The only thing preventing more people doing the same thing is the waiting time. Once we build more houses we'll see more people on the housing list. They'd be mad not to.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Plenty of people are officially homeless because they refused to pay market rents. Why would they? They can just go on the housing list knowing that they will be given a house. The only thing preventing more people doing the same thing is the waiting time. Once we build more houses we'll see more people on the housing list. They'd be mad not to.



http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e...lying_for_local_authority_housing.html#l1f4da

Pure fantasy once more. You can only apply for social housing under set criteria, including but not exclusively, your income.
If you are low-income, you are not in a position to 'refuse' private rental market prices.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> So in reality they will still not pay as they know there's no real prospect of actually being evicted.



Why are you so gung-ho for eviction? 

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/local_authority_and_social_housing/rent_arrears.html


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, I have repeatedly said that if someone can pay and refuses, then they should face the prospect of being evicted.
> You have identified a cohort of LA tenants that are 15% in arrears as tenants who "wont pay" as opposed to "cant pay" by virtue of the rent differential rate system.
> Im simply refuting that assertion providing reasoning that extends beyond that, including scenarios that may give cause for somewhat more complex reasoning as to why some tenants may be in arrears (despite the rent differential rate system).
> 
> .



You only suggest that they should face the prospect of eviction. What if they still wont pay? should they then be evicted or is the threat just a veiled threat?

If they are evicted should they be let join the housing list and be housed by the state? if your answer is yes then why bother even charging them rent if they wont bother paying it knowing the state will always be there for them.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e...lying_for_local_authority_housing.html#l1f4da
> 
> Pure fantasy once more. You can only apply for social housing under set criteria, including but not exclusively, your income.


None of that would be a problem. I can have a falling out with my son, kick him out of the house; he's homeless!
Without getting into his personal details he'd have no problem qualifying. The fact that I can support him until he could provide for himself is an aside; why should he? If he doesn't bother trying he'll have it handed to him. He can even get it furnished under the Supplementary Allowance Welfare Scheme. Anything they don't provide sure he can just call the Vinnie DePaul. 
Then he can go out and develop a career and build his income, knowing that he will never have to pay market rents thereby being subsidised by his fellow citizens for the rest of his life. 



TheBigShort said:


> If you are low-income, you are not in a position to 'refuse' private rental market prices.


 Sure, you choose not to work so you have a low income and you get on the housing list.


----------



## Leo

TheBigShort said:


> Another simplifier!
> The proposal is to evict people on four counts;



You can't just answer the question then?


----------



## runningrecord

Why can't rent be taken from the social welfare or other income of the occupant when they refuse to pay - whatever the reason???  Make sure they are aware this will happen after even one non payment and the problem is solved.  People who don't pay do it as they know nothing will happen.


----------



## TheBigShort

TheBigShort said:


> I will say that where someone is capable of paying but refuses to then fair enough, force an order to evict





TheBigShort said:


> Like I said, if some are able to pay rent but choose not to, then invoke an eviction





TheBigShort said:


> As a form of protest, they refuse to pay their rent to the LA.
> In your world, this is a straightforward case of eviction as per the law - I dont disagree,





TheBigShort said:


> If, by your definition, a rent adjusted LA tenant is automatically "wont pay", I have already stated that an eviction should be invoked in such circumstances.





TheBigShort said:


> If someone is capable of paying rent but refuses they should be evicted. I have said this plenty of times.





TheBigShort said:


> Tenants who can afford to pay their rent but refuse to do so should face eviction.





TheBigShort said:


> I have repeatedly said - if someone CAN pay, but REFUSES to pay, invoke an eviction order.



After all that, this nonsense still continues 



Purple said:


> The prospect of eviction" is different from eviction. Please edit 4 above for clarity, then it





The Horseman said:


> You only suggest that they should face the prospect of eviction.


 



Leo said:


> You can't just answer the question then?



I did answer, and tried to elaborate somewhat on the idiocy of what is being proposed.
But you like to simplify complex issues, so I will simplify my answer for you.

A homeless family refusing an offer of accommodation has nothing to do with a LA tenant refusing to pay rent when they have been assessed as being capable of doing so.
Why do you ask?


----------



## Purple

You get a Gold Star for effort BS, if nothing else


----------



## Leo

TheBigShort said:


> A homeless family refusing an offer of accommodation has nothing to do with a LA tenant refusing to pay rent when they have been assessed as being capable of doing so.
> Why do you ask?



I ask because you brought it up in the context of trying to justify why LA tennnts might be refusing to pay rent. Thanks for confirming it's just another rabbit hole.


----------



## TheBigShort

Leo said:


> I ask because you brought it up in the context of trying to justify why LA tennnts might be refusing to pay rent. Thanks for confirming it's just another rabbit hole.



There was me thinking Leo was someone who at least offered reasoned rationale for his views whether I agreed with them or not.
Turns out your every bit the joker like the rest of them.
Considering my very last post contains details of the numerous occasions where I say the complete opposite, how did you deduce that I try to justify refusal of rent payment?


----------



## Leo

TheBigShort said:


> There was me thinking Leo was someone who at least offered reasoned rationale for his views whether I agreed with them or not.
> Turns out your every bit the joker like the rest of them.



You can go down multiple rabbit holes at will when challenged, yet I'm a joker when I point out an argument you're putting forward makes no sense 

You'll note I didn't offer a view, just pointed out your flawed argument.


----------



## TheBigShort

Leo said:


> You can go down multiple rabbit holes at will when challenged, yet I'm a joker when I point out an argument you're putting forward makes no sense
> 
> You'll note I didn't offer a view, just pointed out your flawed argument.



I was referring to your views in general, not specifically in this topic (if any).

So using your own words,



Leo said:


> You can't just answer the question then?


----------



## Leo

TheBigShort said:


> I was referring to your views in general, not specifically in this topic (if any).



Firstly, I doubt you have a good understanding of my view in general. Secondly, any such speculation in this thread would be very much off topic and yet another rabbit hole.


----------



## RETIRED2017

TheBigShort said:


> I was referring to your views in general, not specifically in this topic (if any).
> 
> So using your own words,


I suspect you will be moving from the rabbit hole to the sin bin,

The biggest problem is people with plenty of money buying out there houses at a large discount I can never under stand why we do not have  the same system for local authority houses as we had in the land commission where there was a Land Purchase annuity which had to be paid,

Land could be Inherited transferred or sold and the annuity followed it untill it wes paid off ,

Banks did not have a problem giving you a loan for land with an annuity on it in the early years  of an annuity land would sell for less because of the annuty still owed to the government,


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> There was me thinking Leo was someone who at least offered reasoned rationale for his views whether I agreed with them or not.
> Turns out your every bit the joker like the rest of them.


Yep, anyone who disagrees with you is a joker, anyone who sees flaws in your logic is absurd.


----------



## TheBigShort

Leo said:


> Firstly, I doubt you have a good understanding of my view in general. Secondly, any such speculation in this thread would be very much off topic and yet another rabbit hole.



Fair enough.
So can you just answer the question I put to you then?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Yep, anyone who disagrees with you is a joker, anyone who sees flaws in your logic is absurd.



Not at all Purple, but anyone who accuses me of trying to _justify refusal of rent payment _when you know only too well that I have said on numerous occasions the opposite.
Anyone purporting to say otherwise, when my quotes are in front of them, and then has the arrogance not to answer a question put directly to them even though they themselves persisted with wanting a direct answer to _their _question is, to me,  a bare-faced joker.


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> anyone who accuses me of trying to _justify refusal of rent payment _when you know only too well that I have said on numerous occasions the opposite


You're joking right?


TheBigShort said:


> taking into account also *the legitimate refusal to pay rent* due to dire need of renovation


----------



## Leo

TheBigShort said:


> So can you just answer the question I put to you then?



OK, so I believe the pertinent question was:



TheBigShort said:


> how did you deduce that I try to justify refusal of rent payment?



Well, what I really said was 'you brought it up in the context of trying to justify why LA tenants might be refusing to pay rent.'  Just go back to the post I quoted:



TheBigShort said:


> You are constantly making the simplistic assumption that the 15% of arrears is nothing more than a bare faced refusal to pay where there is means to pay.
> You ignore all other possible factors despite repeated reports of substandard accommodation, homeless families refusing accommodation, social disorders and deprivation.
> Why?


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> You're joking right?



To which I replied what exactly, Sacrenco?

If you need a Lady bird, baby step clarification, here it is;

You are totally correct Sacrenco, the law (as I understand it) requires the contunued payment of rent regardless of any dispute the tenant may have with landlord.

I would have thought that much was clear when I replied to your subsequent comments with;



TheBigShort said:


> Admittedly im not too au fait with the law concerning the grounds upon which not to pay rent.
> But _refusal to pay _can be a _*likely prospect*_ where a landlord is failing to provide adequate repairs





TheBigShort said:


> *Yeh, great, I get legal obligation to continue to pay...*b



I then went on to point out to you that just because the law says one thing, it doesn't mean



TheBigShort said:


> that may not stop some tenants taking it upon themselves to refuse to pay.



Does it?

So where tenants feel they have a genuine grievance (and in the context of EU Social Committee findings, it would appear that some do have genuine grievances, dont you think?
In such circumstances, is it really beyond your comprehension to not figure that some LA arrears may refuse to pay rent because of unresolved landlord/tenant disputes (regardless of the legalities)

Clearly it is.

As I said later, by all means evict those tenants, but for what purpose? Who in their right mind would accept accommodation with contaminated water???
Did it ever dawn on you, that the only reason there are LA tenants living in such squalor in the first place is because they have nowhere else to go??
Has it ever occurred to you that such tenants may be victims of domestic violence? May be single mothers trying to put food on table for kids, trying to get them through school?

Or do you think, like Purple, that "they probably" have goods incomes and simply gaming the system?

I have asked you repeatedly, if you evict tenants from substandard accommodation, where will they live?
You refuse to answer, citing 'rabbit holes'! As if in a discussion about housing, wondering where a family might live after being evicted is a 'rabbit hole'!!
Dont make me laugh. Go back to your school books where everything is put out for you in black and white.


----------



## TheBigShort

Leo said:


> Well, what I really said was 'you brought it up in the context of trying to justify why LA tenants might be refusing to pay rent.' Just go back to the post I quoted:



You truly are a joker.
The quote of mine that you highlight, nowhere do I try to "justify" the refusal of non-payment of rent.
My comment merely points to on-going realities of life that may be contributory factors for the arrears of LA authority rents _and _the complexities of finding suitable accommodation for homeless families.

Are you denying that factors other than a straight refusal to pay are not contributing to the arrears?

All of these factors and many, many more, make the homeless and housing crisis a complex matter.
No of those complexities will ever be addressed by the half-baked, kindergarten proposals spouted out here.


----------



## Sarenco

So you appear to have changed you mind.  You no longer think that a tenant may legitimately refuse to pay their rent on the grounds that the property requires renovations.  Right?

In that case, what point exactly are you trying to make on this thread?  Please give us a succinct answer without any further deflection.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Or do you think, like Purple, that "they probably" have goods incomes and simply gaming the system?


Where did I say that?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> No of those complexities will ever be addressed by the half-baked, kindergarten proposals spouted out here.


I think that's the crux of the matter; the rest of us just aren't as smart as you. How could we be, otherwise we'd all be socialists, right?


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> So you appear to have changed you mind



I haven't changed my mind at all, I acknowledged your point as being in fact correct from 4 pages back 



TheBigShort said:


> Yeh, great, I get legal obligation to continue to pay...



And I have repeatedly asserted time and time again that if someone is capable of paying, and refuses to, then they should be subject to eviction. Im done repeating myself.



Sarenco said:


> In that case, what point exactly are you trying to make on this thread? Please give us a succinct answer without any further deflection.



Say the guy who is deflecting from the questions I have put to him, 




TheBigShort said:


> is it really beyond your comprehension to not figure that some LA arrears may refuse to pay rent because of unresolved landlord/tenant disputes (regardless of the legalities)


----------



## Sarenco

Thank you.  So you now agree that a tenant cannot legitimately refuse to pay their rent because a property may require renovations.

I still have no idea therefore what point you are trying to make on this thread, you're just going around in circles.

Good luck.


----------



## Leo

TheBigShort said:


> You truly are a joker.
> The quote of mine that you highlight, nowhere do I try to "justify" the refusal of non-payment of rent.



Maybe read it again, that's not what I said. 



TheBigShort said:


> My comment merely points to on-going realities of life that may be contributory factors for the arrears of LA authority rents _and _the complexities of finding suitable accommodation for homeless families.



And that's how I took it. My question simply related to how you thought homeless people refusing offers of housing was connected to arrears rates / refusal to pay. 



TheBigShort said:


> Are you denying that factors other than a straight refusal to pay are not contributing to the arrears?



I think it's clear that I haven't commented one way or the other.


----------



## TheBigShort

Leo said:


> And that's how I took it. My question simply related to how you thought homeless people refusing offers of housing was connected to arrears rates / refusal to pay.



And I answered that question. Why do keep repeating it? Is it because what you really said was



Leo said:


> 'you brought it up in the context of *trying to justify* why LA tenants might be refusing to pay rent.'





Leo said:


> I think it's clear that I haven't commented one way or the other.



How convenient that is for you.

But you  have commented,  you have accused me of diversion, 'rabbit holes' and have misrepresented my views, without offering a comment of your own on the points raised in the topic.
Your  arrogance is palpable.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> So you now agree that a tenant cannot legitimately refuse to pay their rent because a property may require renovations






TheBigShort said:


> I acknowledged your point as being in fact correct from 4 pages back


 

Last Tuesday to be precise! And at least half a dozen times since!

I always wondered what the sound of a large - but - very - very - slow - penny dropping would sound like. Now I know.




Sarenco said:


> I still have no idea therefore what point you are trying to make on this thread,



The fact that you are incapable of understanding the housing crisis and any of the complexities within comes as no surprise!


----------



## RETIRED2017

Purple said:


> I think that's the crux of the matter; the rest of us just aren't as smart as you. How could we be, otherwise we'd all be socialists, right?


I suspect  In Ireland it is the Capitalist gone wrong  you need to watch  there are no Socialist in Ireland worth talking about only Capitalist ripping off other not so smart Capitalist or smart people with no cop on,


----------



## Leo

TheBigShort said:


> How convenient that is for you.



It was actually by design rather than convenience. 



TheBigShort said:


> But you  have commented,  you have accused me of diversion, 'rabbit holes' and have misrepresented my views, without offering a comment of your own on the points raised in the topic.



I'm far from the only one who accuses you of that here and in other threads. Just because I haven't offered my own opinion on the subject matter does not preclude me from pointing out the flaws in your arguments. Indeed, it might  only serve as a diversion from the original point I made.



TheBigShort said:


> Your  arrogance is palpable.



I wouldn't call it arrogance, you may actually be the first person ever to accuse me of that. I'd call it pedantry if anything, I've a tendency to go down that road in threads like this.


----------



## TheBigShort

Leo said:


> I'm far from the only one who accuses you of that here and in other threads



Thats true, but accusing is one thing, backing it up with facts is another.

Take a look at my post last Sunday (page 10). I was re-acting to BB post that touched on another topic "Is the State competing against homebuyers?". 
I agreed with that sentiment. 
I then went on (without quoting or disagreeing with anyone) to make what I think to be a reasonable observation about housing and homeless crisis in other capital and major cities of the world ( I back this up with media reports). 
In my view it boils down to an economic policy that has, almost exclusively, outsourced the provision of housing to the market driven private sector.

The _immediate _reaction to my post was to quote it, but not to address anything substantive in the point I made, but to divert it back onto proposals of evicting social houses tenants on the basis of their employment status and the number of vacant bedrooms in the property.
These proposals are futile, in my opinion. 
I have asked a series of simple questions that have gone unanswered and pointed out obvious contradictions (for instance, prioritizing low-income households for social housing near where they work, but only building social housing outside congested areas).

For this I get accused of diversion and or 'rabbit holes'.

Im quite happy for anyone to point out the flaws in my substantive point that it is economic policies that are driving the housing crisis.

But the diversion, deflection lies elsewhere and is recorded.

As for pointing out the 'flaws' in my arguements, I did make a mistake in writing about the "legitimate refusal to pay rent".
That was, correctly pointed out to me as flawed. _Within my very next two posts _I acknowledged the legal requirement to continue to pay rent. I subsequently repeated on half a dozen occassions thereafter that those who can pay, but refuse to pay, should face eviction.
_Three days later_, and still I was being accused of saying something different! For that I get accused of diversion and deflection! 




Leo said:


> Just because I haven't offered my own opinion on the subject matter does not preclude me from pointing out the flaws in your arguments



But you haven't pointed out any flaws in my argument. By your own admission "you haven't commented one way or another".
All you have done is accuse me of having a flawed arguement, but have failed to substantiate that accusation.
Instead, not only did I answer directly the question you put to me, I exposed your false impression that I was



Leo said:


> trying to justify why LA tennnts might be refusing to pay rent.


----------



## Leo

TheBigShort said:


> But you haven't pointed out any flaws in my argument. By your admission "you haven't commented one way or another".



Ah, what about pointing out that homeless people refusing housing offers has no bearing on LA rent arrears?


----------



## TheBigShort

Leo said:


> Ah, what about pointing out that homeless people refusing housing offers has no bearing on LA rent arrears?



Yes, I agree. As I said in my direct answer to you - homeless people refusing housing offers has no bearing on LA rent arrears.
Why do you keep repeating what has already been answered, directly?

If you are still interpreting my quote (and accepting that in the discourse of forums such as this, interpretation can often be a broad brush) as meaning that I was trying to justify why LA might be refusing to pay rent, I have gone on further to explain that 



TheBigShort said:


> My comment merely points to on-going realities of life that may be contributory factors for the arrears of LA authority rents _and _the complexities of finding suitable accommodation for homeless families.



To which you then replied



Leo said:


> And that's how I took it.



Yet, you persist with repeating questions, in similar fashion to other posters, that I have already answered directly.
That is what I would call digging a 'rabbit-hole'.


----------



## Leo

TheBigShort said:


> Yet, you persist with repeating questions, in similar fashion to other posters, that I have already answered directly.
> That is what I would call digging a 'rabbit-hole'.



I'm not repeating questions, I'm just saying that was the only point I was making as you keep trying to drag me on other tangents.


----------



## TheBigShort

Leo said:


> You can't just answer the question then?





TheBigShort said:


> I did answer, and tried to elaborate somewhat on the idiocy of what is being proposed.
> But you like to simplify complex issues, so I will simplify my answer for you.
> 
> *A homeless family refusing an offer of accommodation has nothing to do with a LA tenant refusing to pay rent when they have been assessed as being capable of doing so*.
> Why do you ask?





Leo said:


> I ask because you brought it up in the context of trying to justify why LA tennnts might be refusing to pay rent.





TheBigShort said:


> Considering my very last post contains details of the numerous occasions where I say the complete opposite, how did you deduce that I try to justify refusal of rent payment?





Leo said:


> Well, what I really said was 'you brought it up in the context of trying to justify why LA tenants might be refusing to pay rent.'





TheBigShort said:


> My comment merely points to on-going realities of life that may be contributory factors for the arrears of LA authority rents _and _the complexities of finding suitable accommodation for homeless families.





Leo said:


> *And that's how I took it*. My question simply related to how you thought homeless people refusing offers of housing was connected to arrears rates / refusal to pay.





TheBigShort said:


> And I answered that question





Leo said:


> Ah, what about pointing out that homeless people refusing housing offers has no bearing on LA rent arrears?





Leo said:


> I'm not repeating questions



 Rabbit hole.


----------



## Leo

TheBigShort said:


> Rabbit hole.



More fool me for following you down.


----------



## TheBigShort

Leo said:


> More fool me for following you down.



I think its obvious from above its the other way around. 
Only a joker would try to convince otherwise.


----------



## TheBigShort

Philip Ryan has an interesting article on the housing and homeless crisis in the Indo from June 24.
It focuses on some of the complexities of the issue. Its still on line.

https://m.independent.ie/opinion/co...bare-in-stark-facts-and-figures-37042744.html


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Philip Ryan has an interesting article on the housing and homeless crisis in the Indo from June 24.
> It focuses on some of the complexities of the issue. Its still on line.
> 
> https://m.independent.ie/opinion/co...bare-in-stark-facts-and-figures-37042744.html


What's interesting from that article is that so many families would rather stay in a hotel or B&B than go into private rental accommodation. That tells me that the Local Authority Housing sector is far more favourable than the private rental sector. Why is the State providing better housing packages (taking location, cost and security of tenure into account) than is available to the majority of working families who rent?
In fairness to the author he nails is bias to the mast early on with the _"Both aimed to give Minister for Housing Eoghan Murphy a clearer picture (read: political cover)"_ comment. He tugs the emotional strings with his "Will someone PLEASE think about the children!" framing of the issue and then uses the statistics very selectively to further his position. All fair enough but it hardly lives up to the title of the article.


----------



## TheBigShort

I would interpret the article somewhat differently.
I cannot see the political bias as the author is both critical of the Minister and the Opposition.
And if it were true that the State is providing better housing packages than the private rental sector then probably best that private landlords who charge market prices but provide standards less favourable than LA move out of the market altogether.

This is the general jist of the article;

_First off, it is worth noting that homelessness is not an issue that can be fully evaluated using facts and figures. Each case involves a unique set of circumstances. Reducing people in vulnerable circumstances to a number demeans their situation._

God forbid, in a issue as crucial to sustaining a civil society, the plight of children be considered.

_Behind each number there is a face - in 3,689 cases it is currently a child's face, which in itself paints a vivid picture. Government agencies love to crunch numbers. There are office blocks of civil servants who spend their days writing reports and memos which reduce people to facts and figures._


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> if it were true that the State is providing better housing packages than the private rental sector then probably best that private landlords who charge market prices but provide standards less favourable than LA move out of the market altogether.


Do you think it is fundamentally fair that the people who work and pay income taxes at a sufficientkly high level to be deemed capable of renting their own homes should have their taxes spent providing rental accomodation at more favourable T's and C's to people who don't work/work as part or pay less tax? I'm all for a social safety net but not one suspended above those who provide it.  



TheBigShort said:


> _First off, it is worth noting that homelessness is not an issue that can be fully evaluated using facts and figures. Each case involves a unique set of circumstances. Reducing people in vulnerable circumstances to a number demeans their situation._


 We ignore facts as our peril; emotion is no way to set government policy. 



TheBigShort said:


> God forbid, in a issue as crucial to sustaining a civil society, the plight of children be considered.


 Of course it should be considered but it should be considered in a considered way. 



TheBigShort said:


> Behind each number there is a face - in 3,689 cases it is currently a child's face, which in itself paints a vivid picture.


 See that's just meaningless emotive clap-trap. It's the hand-wringing left wing equivalent of the Daily Mail nonsense about being overrun by immigrants.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Do you think it is fundamentally fair that the people who work and pay income taxes at a sufficientkly high level to be deemed capable of renting their own homes should have their taxes spent providing rental accomodation at more favourable T's and C's to people who don't work/work as part or pay less tax?



No I don't.
But you have made an assumption from the text of the article



Purple said:


> Local Authority Housing sector is far more favourable than the private rental sector



and turned it into fact.
All I'm saying is if that is true, then that represents to me nothing more than an absolute failure in the private rental market.

If the state can deliver better housing at more affordable rates (which it can, as it is not depending on the cost of that building that property to be repaid within 30-35yrs, instead it can stretch the cost over generations) then those private landlords fleecing their tenants with extortionate rates for lesser quality accommodation should be pushed out of the market.



Purple said:


> We ignore facts as our peril; emotion is no way to set government policy.



Nobody is saying to ignore the facts, the opposite in fact. However, the facts and figures are insufficient by themselves.



Purple said:


> See that's just meaningless emotive clap-trap. It's the hand-wringing left wing equivalent of the Daily Mail nonsense about being overrun by immigrants



It is emotive to some extent, and should be, it helps drive those who can and are willing to find solutions to do so.
It is only clap-trap if it is false (such as headlines of being over-run by immigrants).
If there are 3,689 children in homeless emergency accommodation then that is simply a fact. We ignore facts at our peril.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> If there are 3,689 children in homeless emergency accommodation then that is simply a fact. We ignore facts at our peril.


We do indeed. Maybe if the State provided social housing of the same level as provided in the private sector we wouldn't have all those people on the housing wasting lists.


----------



## TheBigShort

Who knows? Its a complex issue for sure.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Who knows? Its a complex issue for sure.


It is indeed but we've one of the best educated workforces in the world and amongst the best education system (just ask a teacher, they'll tell you) and we have absolutely brilliant, dedicated and hard working Civil and Public Servants (just ask one, they'll tell you) so, given that as a species we can land a spaceship on an asteroid, I'm sure that all those brilliant minds can improve the current system without spending any more money.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> It is indeed but we've one of the best educated workforces in the world and amongst the best education system (just ask a teacher, they'll tell you) and we have absolutely brilliant, dedicated and hard working Civil and Public Servants (just ask one, they'll tell you) so, given that as a species we can land a spaceship on an asteroid, I'm sure that all those brilliant minds can improve the current system without spending any more money.



Improve it yes, resolve it, probably not. One of the least complicated issues is knowing that if demand is greater than supply then money will have to be spent. 
But I wouldn't consider it a burden on the taxpayer. The opposite actually, more of an investment in a civilised society, building the foundations to allow the population grow and prosper for the future. 
The linkage between homelessness and other social disorders such as chronic mental health, chronic drug addiction, chronic alcoholism, violence, abuse etc....is all too obvious. 
That is why with only a tiny % of population affected, the issue is labeled a crisis. 

But aside from the chronic cases. The social contract that says if you educate yourself and work hard that you will prosper and be able to afford a home of suitable standard is broken.
Instead housing policy is outsourced as a commodity for profit rather than social need.
Its why hard working people are being screwed on rents or having to buy in distant areas to where they work. 
But they have been sold a free-market pup. Jumped on the price equity band wagon. Which is great when its in your favour. But as we know, wholly depressing when its not.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> The social contract that says if you educate yourself and work hard that you will prosper and be able to afford a home of suitable standard is broken.


I don't remember Rousseau going into that sort of detail in his book.


TheBigShort said:


> Instead housing policy is outsourced as a commodity for profit rather than social need.
> Its why hard working people are being screwed on rents or having to buy in distant areas to where they work.
> But they have been sold a free-market pup. Jumped on the price equity band wagon. Which is great when its in your favour. But as we know, wholly depressing when its not.


What alternative do you propose? Should the State provide housing for everyone?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> What alternative do you propose? Should the State provide housing for everyone?



Thats an option for sure, but I don't think politically it would fly. 
So here are some proposals that may go someway to moving towards a resolution not only for homeless, but for home owners and renters.



TheBigShort said:


> The state should engage in (is engaging, in fairness) in a house building program to rectify in part the consequences of the housing market failure.
> - A tax rebate or grant to be offered to both tenants of private and public housing to relocate to smaller dwellings where there is currently under occupancy. 40% of private dwellings are currently under occupied. A moving grant will increase mobility in housing market.
> - Restructure the private rental market. All landlords to register as limited companies. Banks to provide mortgages of 150yrs + to the companies to buy-to-let properties. Landlords can concentrate on providing quality housing for affordable rates instead of the cowboy landlords who bought into the property boom hoping that others would pay off their mortgage just in time for retirement.
> - Change inflation calculation measures to include increases and decreases in asset prices


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Thats an option for sure, but I don't think politically it would fly.
> So here are some proposals that may go someway to moving towards a resolution not only for homeless, but for home owners and renters.




So we give a grant/tax rebate to people who have been housed by the State at a subsidized rate as a thank you for downsizing. So not only have they received subsidized accommodation you suggest we give them a "golden handshake" to move. You suggest we give a grant/tax rebate to encourage private dwelling owners to downsize. Just curious how do you suggest we fund these measures?

You either don't appear or don't understand the complexities of setting up and running limited companies and the associated legislation and costs involved with same.

No financial institution would ever give a loan to a landlord company to cover 150+ years. Even countries would not get loans for this type of time period.

Perhaps if the State treated housing as a business whereby the income covered the costs then we would not be in this situation.


----------



## Purple

It looks like Prof Michelle Norris and Dr Aideen Hayden from the UCD School of Social Policy, Social Work and Social Justice agree with me in relation to inherited tenancies and the injustice of people on high incomes in social housing paying low rents (i.e. being subsidised by lower income people). Source


----------



## Seagull

When I read that article, my initial response was that those recommendations were pretty obvious. My only question was why it had to take a major housing crisis for someone to actually recommend them. The whole concept of someone "inheriting" a council house is bizarre.


----------



## Purple

Seagull said:


> When I read that article, my initial response was that those recommendations were pretty obvious. My only question was why it had to take a major housing crisis for someone to actually recommend them. The whole concept of someone "inheriting" a council house is bizarre.


Not to some people on this site. To them changing that is too complex and if you think it should be changed you aren't smart enough to understand the complexity of the situation.


----------



## Firefly

The Horseman said:


> Just curious how do you suggest we fund these measures?


Pay attention 007, we just..



TAX THE RICH


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> It looks like Prof Michelle Norris and Dr Aideen Hayden from the UCD School of Social Policy, Social Work and Social Justice agree with me in relation to inherited tenancies and the injustice of people on high incomes in social housing paying low rents (i.e. being subsidised by lower income people). Source



From the article:

_The report, commissioned by the philanthropic body [broken link removed], also calls for the removal of successor tenancies – which allow children of sitting tenants to inherit tenancies _

This is absolutely crazy, talking about facilitating inter-generational dependency!!!!!


----------



## Delboy

Woman on Joe Duffy now who bought a house off the council and sold it back to them 10 yrs later for 4 times the price. 
Her issue is not the big win she had, it's about the 'waste of resources' whereby the house is left empty for a year before the Council let it out!!!


----------



## runningrecord

I'm glad to see the piece in the indo today .  its high time rents are raised a little for social housing tenantd and high time  rent when not paid is taken automatically at source.   Selling house to tenants was nota good move . - no wonder there is no housing stock.  As to the woman on Joe duffey -  good for her she made a profit but on whose back?   The taxpayer. We are the ones who paid the subsidy to give her the house at cut price in the first place!!    There many more like her.    Why am I giving her a house at cut price so she can sell and make a profit a few years later??   It beggars belief


----------



## Seagull

Remember the argument that a couple on €70000 a year should be allowed to remain in their council house at nominal rent because they can't afford to buy there, and shouldn't be forced to move from the area they grew up? That's the mindset that needs changing.


----------



## Purple

Seagull said:


> Remember the argument that a couple on €70000 a year should be allowed to remain in their council house at nominal rent because they can't afford to buy there, and shouldn't be forced to move from the area they grew up? That's the mindset that needs changing.


I'm sure the same people arguing for that couple on €70,000 will support the council providing housing for those who grow up in Howth and Killiney and Dalkey and Blackrock and Foxrock and other areas like that and now find that they can't afford to live in those areas.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> So we give a grant/tax rebate to people who have been housed by the State at a subsidized rate as a thank you for downsizing. So not only have they received subsidized accommodation you suggest we give them a "golden handshake" to move. You suggest we give a grant/tax rebate to encourage private dwelling owners to downsize. Just curious how do you suggest we fund these measures?



Just some points.
Not all LA tenants are being subsidized. Some of them live in some of the most socially deprived areas and conditions that any rent they pay is in effect,  actually a subsidy back to the State.

Second point is, I never suggested a "golden handshake". 

Third point, while I have outlined a proposal to provide financial assistance by way of tax refund, grant etc, the nuts and bolts of such a proposal would need to be scrutinized and evaluated. So to elaborate somewhat on my thinking, it is my view that if people are to be enticed to downsize (to facilitate in part the failed housing market which cant provide for  sufficiently for working people) then one way to do it is for the State to intervene and perhaps, as a suggestion, to cover the cost of solicitors fees, forgoe stamp duty, property tax (say for 5yrs), and contribute to moving costs up to say, €1000, on _qualifying _properties.

Fourth point, all of the above could be financed, probably at a fraction of the cost that any other proposal to forcibly evict people out of properties that they dont want to leave,  in the vain hope that all those same properties will be occupied by homeless families or FTB's.
Admittedly that is just an asumption concerning costs. The numbers would need to be crunched, but I would judge that a system of _incentive_ and _enticement_ to be wholly more economically efficient and effective against a system of coercion and eviction, tied up as it would be in administrative and legal quagmire.



The Horseman said:


> You either don't appear or don't understand the complexities of setting up and running limited companies



Setting up a limited company is simple. Running a company is a task that requires business acutement. Good business people are what are needed to run a professional landlord service, providing quality accommodation at affordable prices to prospective tenants.
Instead a significant portion of housing, (that would be better off in the hands of FTB's) is in the hands of amateur landlords - intent solely on having someone else pay off the mortgage of their 'investment' property just in time for their retirement.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> No financial institution would ever give a loan to a landlord company to cover 150+ years. Even countries would not get loans for this type of time period.



Have you uncovered a fundamental flaw in my cunning plan? 
Perhaps, perhaps not.
Here is the Irish State issuing 100yr bonds

https://www.irishtimes.com/business...rst-100-year-bond-set-to-raise-100m-1.2592250

So, again, admittedly the finer detail of my proposal would need to be ironed out. If it cant be done, then fine - thats the endof it. But if it is  possible to do, and I don't see why not,  then in my view it should be done. The Irish State would act as guarantor for a significant portion of the loan scheme, thus reducing the risk.
And again, we are talking about housing here. Between it and food, I can't see it going out of fashion anytime, or replaced by an alternative anytime soon, can you?
If it does, we will have all been cooked by then so no loss to anyone.



The Horseman said:


> Perhaps if the State treated housing as a business whereby the income covered the costs then we would not be in this situation.



And by that I can only assume you mean a free-market for profit business?
The notion that the State should act as a competitor in the housing market is simply laughable. For starters, it makes the laws! What hope the aspiring property entrepreneur competing against the resources of the State? As the law-maker the State would crush the competition.
No, better the State stays out of the private profiteering market and only intervenes to assist those who cannot provide for themselves.
The free-market for profit housing business will provide sufficient and sustainable housing for everyone else, wont it!


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> It looks like Prof Michelle Norris and Dr Aideen Hayden from the UCD School of Social Policy, Social Work and Social Justice agree with me in relation to inherited tenancies and the injustice of people on high incomes in social housing paying low rents (i.e. being subsidised by lower income people). Source



I read the article, but I cant find their report on their website?

http://www.communityfoundation.ie/


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Not to some people on this site. To them changing that is too complex and if you think it should be changed you aren't smart enough to understand the complexity of the situation.



Let me know who those posters are and I will put them straight.
I will say one thing however, after you have evicted a prospective tenant due for 'inheritance' where do they go?
Bearing in mind the housing crisis and all that stuff?
Where would you put a 19yr old third level student living all her life in a two-bed flat in D1, of a single mum who had recently passed away?
Just as a straight forward example, it would be helpful if for once a straight forward answer could be given? Never mind the complex ones.


----------



## TheBigShort

runningrecord said:


> Selling house to tenants was nota good move



Couldn't agree more. Right-wing Tatcherite policies of outsourcing the provision of housing to the for profit free-market has shown to be wholly inadequate in providing for a sustainable housing sector vital to the needs of the population.



runningrecord said:


> no wonder there is no housing stock



Selling social housing to private ownership has no effect on housing stock, the house is still in stock.
There is plenty of housing stock, just that the available stock was built in places where few want to live. This is the consequence of outsourcing the provision of housing to the free-market for profit sector.


----------



## TheBigShort

Seagull said:


> Remember the argument that a couple on €70000 a year should be allowed to remain in their council house at nominal rent because they can't afford to buy there, and shouldn't be forced to move from the area they grew up? That's the mindset that needs changing.



Im getting mixed messages from posters above.
One the one hand, selling off social housing to tenants is a bad thing. 
But you appear to advocate that if they can afford it?
Perhaps im misinterpreting?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I'm sure the same people arguing for that couple on €70,000 will support the council providing housing for those who grow up in Howth and Killiney and Dalkey and Blackrock and Foxrock and other areas like that and now find that they can't afford to live in those areas.



Didn't that couple live in Dalkey ? Dont they have social housing in those areas already?


----------



## TheBigShort

It would appear, from Dublin city council that housing succession between spouses and relatives will only occur if;


_In all cases of claims for succession to tenancy it will be necessary that the applicant(s) have been included in the family household details for rent assessment purposes for the requisite period(s) as outlined above. No application will be considered where this condition is not complied with._

*In all cases*_, there _*must be no alternative *_*suitable* accommodation available to the applicant(s) for succession of tenancy._

So in the absence of alternative suitable accommodation, where do the evicted go? Hostels, Hotels, the streets?


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Have you uncovered a fundamental flaw in my cunning plan?
> Perhaps, perhaps not.
> Here is the Irish State issuing 100yr bonds
> 
> https://www.irishtimes.com/business...rst-100-year-bond-set-to-raise-100m-1.2592250
> 
> So, again, admittedly the finer detail of my proposal would need to be ironed out. If it cant be done, then fine - thats the endof it. But if it is  possible to do, and I don't see why not,  then in my view it should be done. The Irish State would act as guarantor for a significant portion of the loan scheme, thus reducing the risk.
> And again, we are talking about housing here. Between it and food, I can't see it going out of fashion anytime, or replaced by an alternative anytime soon, can you?
> If it does, we will have all been cooked by then so no loss to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> And by that I can only assume you mean a free-market for profit business?
> The notion that the State should act as a competitor in the housing market is simply laughable. For starters, it makes the laws! What hope the aspiring property entrepreneur competing against the resources of the State? As the law-maker the State would crush the competition.
> No, better the State stays out of the private profiteering market and only intervenes to assist those who cannot provide for themselves.
> The free-market for profit housing business will provide sufficient and sustainable housing for everyone else, wont it!



I did not suggest a free market for profit business you did. I simply suggested the costs of providing the accommodation should be reflected in the rent. if the State already own the land then there is no land cost and only the only initial cost is the build cost. But sure hey lets give everybody a house for life charge them rent, below the build costs of the property and let somebody else pick up the tab.

Is this not the way the world should work, let somebody else pay?


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Just some points.
> Not all LA tenants are being subsidized. Some of them live in some of the most socially deprived areas and conditions that any rent they pay is in effect,  actually a subsidy back to the State.
> 
> Second point is, I never suggested a "golden handshake".
> 
> Third point, while I have outlined a proposal to provide financial assistance by way of tax refund, grant etc, the nuts and bolts of such a proposal would need to be scrutinized and evaluated. So to elaborate somewhat on my thinking, it is my view that if people are to be enticed to downsize (to facilitate in part the failed housing market which cant provide for  sufficiently for working people) then one way to do it is for the State to intervene and perhaps, as a suggestion, to cover the cost of solicitors fees, forgoe stamp duty, property tax (say for 5yrs), and contribute to moving costs up to say, €1000, on _qualifying _properties.
> 
> Fourth point, all of the above could be financed, probably at a fraction of the cost that any other proposal to forcibly evict people out of properties that they dont want to leave,  in the vain hope that all those same properties will be occupied by homeless families or FTB's.
> Admittedly that is just an asumption concerning costs. The numbers would need to be crunched, but I would judge that a system of _incentive_ and _enticement_ to be wholly more economically efficient and effective against a system of coercion and eviction, tied up as it would be in administrative and legal quagmire.
> 
> 
> 
> Setting up a limited company is simple. Running a company is a task that requires business acutement. Good business people are what are needed to run a professional landlord service, providing quality accommodation at affordable prices to prospective tenants.
> Instead a significant portion of housing, (that would be better off in the hands of FTB's) is in the hands of amateur landlords - intent solely on having someone else pay off the mortgage of their 'investment' property just in time for their retirement.




The reference to the "golden handshake" is the grant you want to give them. I would ask who is going to pay for this? oh hold on its the taxpayer again! so not only have people been subsidized by the tax payer with accommodation throughout their life you are suggesting we give them another subsidy. 

You suggest that the cost would be much lower than forcibly evicting people from their properties. So if people don't want to leave local authority housing even if the property is too big for them they should be allowed stay no matter what.

I am well aware of the requirements of setting up an running a company. A company is there to make profit, why do you think it will provide quality accommodation at affordable prices. You seem to think a company should have a social responsibility not to make a profit to meet your criteria. Why bother going into business then if you take all the risks and don't benefit on the returns.

Housing is in the hands of amateur landlords but this is changing as I see ex rental properties being sold on a daily basis. So yes these properties are being sold to FTB but what you fail to realize is that for every rental property sold you reduce the number of bed spaces available in the rental market. A lot of the properties would have more than two adults living in them when rented and they are now housing two adults when purchased. But sure hey make the landlords life a misery, remove bed spaces from the rental market there are plenty of available places to buy or rent (oh wait sorry there are not).


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> Let me know who those posters are and I will put them straight.
> I will say one thing however, after you have evicted a prospective tenant due for 'inheritance' where do they go?
> Bearing in mind the housing crisis and all that stuff?
> Where would you put a 19yr old third level student living all her life in a two-bed flat in D1, of a single mum who had recently passed away?
> Just as a straight forward example, it would be helpful if for once a straight forward answer could be given? Never mind the complex ones.



She would stay where she is until she has finished college, got a job and started earning money and then it would be re-assessed and if she didn't take advantage of being in third level to get employment because she knew she would lose the 'social house', she should lose the social housing and be put at the back of the housing list..If that means her going into emergency accommodation so another single mother with young children living in a hotel can take her two bed apartment in the centre of Dublin, then so be it. The State has already paid for her to go to college. It has provided her with social housing until she is an adult.  A 19 year old certainly shouldn't be told she has a property in D1 on hugely subsidised rent for life and will also probably even be given an opportunity to buy the property at a discount in the future. Just because her mother needed help at one stage of her life. What's so difficult about that?


----------



## TheBigShort

Sunny said:


> She would stay where she is until she has finished college,



And if she has to repeat a year or two? Or if she decides to change course mid-way to pursue a different career, and then finishes with a Masters degree and all in all is six or seven years on college, is that ok?



Sunny said:


> got a job and started earning money



What if, upon leaving college, say like in 2008, it coincides with the deepest economic recession where employers are virtually battening down the hatches and not taking on any or few graduates. How does that effect matters? Will she need to send copies of job applications to the Ministry of Housing Assessment? Copies of rejection letters?
Or should highly educated worker be compelled to take any work that is on offer? A job at the pizza parlour for instance? Would the pizza parlour owner have a say in who he employs?



Sunny said:


> then it would be re-assessed and if she didn't take advantage of being in third level to get employment because she knew she would lose the 'social house', she should lose the social housing and be put at the back of the housing list..



What does 'didn't take advantage' mean? Turn down high paying employment as her skills and qualifications could ordinarily command? Is that a real-life issue? Highly educated people turning down prospective careers with good pay - just to stay in a LA flat?



Sunny said:


> A 19 year old certainly shouldn't be told she has a property in D1 on hugely subsidised rent for life and will also probably even be given an opportunity to buy the property at a discount in the future. Just because her mother needed help at one stage of her life. What's so difficult about that?



Nothing, except in reality she will only succeed in staying in the housing if there is no alternative suitable accommodation.
If there is alternative suitable accommodation, she will move there as per the Dublin city council rules.
If she does progress in college to obtain a high level of skills, in all probability, she will most likely want to afford a place of her own and perhaps meet a partner and start a family. Exactly how many well-paid professionals like teachers, judges, barristers, doctors, chemists, engineers etc do you actually know that come from LA housing and continue to live in LA housing upon establishing well-paid careers?

Basically the point is, as its always been, that for every scenario of what 'should be' and 'should not be', a series of obstacles, conditions, exceptions will be found by those not _willing _to leave as to drag any such housing assessment policy into a costly administrative and legal quagmire.


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> And if she has to repeat a year or two? Or if she decides to change course mid-way to pursue a different career, and then finishes with a Masters degree and all in all is six or seven years on college, is that ok?



Yes. She is in full time education. Don't need to be clever to make that distinction



TheBigShort said:


> What if, upon leaving college, say like in 2008, it coincides with the deepest economic recession where employers are virtually battening down the hatches and not taking on any or few graduates. How does that effect matters? Will she need to send copies of job applications to the Ministry of Housing Assessment? Copies of rejection letters?
> Or should highly educated worker be compelled to take any work that is on offer? A job at the pizza parlour for instance? Would the pizza parlour owner have a say in who he employs?



She does what every other graduate needs to do. She tries to find a job. She emigrates. She gets assistance from the State. And no, she doesn't need to send letters to anyone. Surely one part of the civil service i.e. unemployment services can tall to another i.e. housing agency and confirm that this person has engaged with the agencies and is looking for employment. No issue with her staying put then. Again, not rocket science and you don't need a 1000 case workers. They could use blockchain! 

I lost my very decently paid job in the recession. I spent 6 months working with 20 year old kids doing work experience earning 12 euro a hour doing menial office work for a technology company rather than go on the dole before something came along. If I can do it, why can't she? What's special about her?



TheBigShort said:


> What does 'didn't take advantage' mean? Turn down high paying employment as her skills and qualifications could ordinarily command? Is that a real-life issue? Highly educated people turning down prospective careers with good pay - just to stay in a LA flat?



Yes. It happens. You do know there are whole studies on the dangers of barriers to return to work and dependency and fear of losing social welfare is one of them.



TheBigShort said:


> Nothing, except in reality she will only succeed in staying in the housing if there is no alternative suitable accommodation.
> If there is alternative suitable accommodation, she will move there as per the Dublin city council rules.
> If she does progress in college to obtain a high level of skills, in all probability, she will most likely want to afford a place of her own and perhaps meet a partner and start a family. Exactly how many well-paid professionals like teachers, judges, barristers, doctors, chemists, engineers etc do you actually know that come from LA housing and continue to live in LA housing upon establishing well-paid careers?



I have no idea how many there are. You are making the point so you tell us. My issue is that at the moment, a 19 year old would inherit a local authority house for life if she chooses. If someone handed me a house at 19 and said don't worry, you will always have this house no matter how much you earn or circumstances change, then I would probably not be as incentivised as I should be.




TheBigShort said:


> Basically the point is, as its always been, that for every scenario of what 'should be' and 'should not be', a series of obstacles, conditions, exceptions will be found by those not _willing _to leave as to drag any such housing assessment policy into a costly administrative and legal quagmire.



That's your view but you have done nothing but drag up stupid examples and then change them and then change them again and then change them again. There will always be some cases more complicated than others but the case of 19 year old girl whose single mother recently died does not represent the majority of cases in LA housing. Anyway, I am done with going down rabbit holes. You made so many posts in the past day on this, it is impossible to respond so will leave it to others.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> I did not suggest a free market for profit business you did. I simply suggested the costs of providing the accommodation should be reflected in the rent. if the State already own the land then there is no land cost and only the only initial cost is the build cost



Great, its a not-for-profit business. And all we are really talking about here is the build cost, thereafter the maintenance costs.
There are a considerable amount of social housing units that were built in '50s, '60's. The build cost of these houses would not have been anymore than €10,000. LA tenants are paying on average, circa €3,500 per annum.
The cost build of those houses have been paid for a multiple times over.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Great, its a not-for-profit business. And all we are really talking about here is the build cost, thereafter the maintenance costs.
> There are a considerable amount of social housing units that were built in '50s, '60's. The build cost of these houses would not have been anymore than €10,000. LA tenants are paying on average, circa €3,500 per annum.
> The cost build of those houses have been paid for a multiple times over.



The build costs now are at least €150k for a standard three bed semi in Dublin due to the current building regs. I can guarantee you nobody was paying €3500 on a house in the 50's and 60's as rent.

I will have to agree with Sunny that you are dragging up ridiculous justifications for your viewpoint and I too am finished going down your rabbit holes.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sunny said:


> Yes. She is in full time education. Don't need to be clever to make that distinction



Thats good to know.



Sunny said:


> She does what every other graduate needs to do. She tries to find a job.



Duh!



Sunny said:


> She emigrates.



Good God!
I don't think you have a basic concept of the issue at all.
I can only assume that you are not in favour of the State compelling its educated workforce to emigrate?
If so, then lets see if you can manage what to do in the 'stupid' instance of where someone of their own free will chooses not to emigrate?



Sunny said:


> If I can do it, why can't she? What's special about her?



You are totally devoid of understanding the basic point of compelling somebody to do something and allowing someone, of their own free will to choose to do something.
Nobody directly forced you to do menial work. You choose to do it because it was a better option to welfare dependency.



Sunny said:


> Yes. It happens. You do know there are whole studies on the dangers of barriers to return to work and dependency and fear of losing social welfare is one of them.





Sunny said:


> I have no idea how many there are. You are making the point so you tell us.



I don't know either, but im guessing its zero, or very close to it. In which case wasting valuable time and resources pursuing high income LA tenants to make way for those who need LA housing more is pretty futile and stupid isnt it?



Sunny said:


> My issue is that at the moment, a 19 year old would inherit a local authority house for life if she chooses.



Dont let the truth get in the way of your agenda. Their is no 'inheritance' as that requires the transfer of ownership.
There is a succession of occupancy, but in accordance with DCC, in order to qualify for a succession of occupancy;

_In all cases of claims for succession to tenancy it will be necessary that the applicant(s) have been included in the family household details for rent assessment purposes for the requisite period(s) as outlined above. No application will be considered where this condition is not complied with._

*In all cases*_, there _*must be no alternative *_*suitable accommodation* available to the applicant(s) for succession of tenancy._

If you cant understand what the above means then stop wasting my time.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> The build costs now are at least €150k for a standard three bed semi in Dublin due to the current building regs. I can guarantee you nobody was paying €3500 on a house in the 50's and 60's as rent.



Dont pretend that you understand business but cannot understand basic maths and english. 
Nobody was paying €3,500 in 50s or 60s. But they are paying it now...on properties of cost builds of no more than €10,000. 
The cost of new builds today of €150k (as per your post) and rents of €3,500 will be repaid after 45yrs, all things remaining equal. And most likely, a lot sooner. 

If you cant figure that much im done with the Ladybird lessons.


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> If you cant figure that much im done with the Ladybird lessons.



If you can't post anything without insulting people's intelligence which you have done in two successive posts, I would suggest you find a forum that better meets your needs as a person of superior intelligence. I for one have better things to do. I accused you of going down rabbit holes using stupid abstract examples that are constantly changing to suit your argument. I didn't accuse you of a lack of comprehension or understanding. I would reply to your post above but debate and discussion is not the same as insulting. If you want to engage in the latter, then you are on your own.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Dont pretend that you understand business but cannot understand basic maths and english.
> Nobody was paying €3,500 in 50s or 60s. But they are paying it now...on properties of cost builds of no more than €10,000.
> The cost of new builds today of €150k (as per your post) and rents of €3,500 will be repaid after 45yrs, all things remaining equal. And most likely, a lot sooner.
> 
> If you cant figure that much im done with the Ladybird lessons.



Having reviewed some of your posts when they are created and edited I can only deduce you are trolling just to get a rise out of people. When you are presented with reasoned arguments you divert the topic with obscure situations just to get a response and then when you don't like the response you get you resort to insults.

I can assure you I am well capable of understanding business and events that happen in peoples lives, the mistake I made was thinking I was engaging with somebody who was willing to have a reasoned discussion and respect others opinions.

All I would ask is that you never enter politics or have any power to make any decisions that impact on the wider society. if you do please let me know so I can leave Ireland because I would dread the idea of somebody with your attitude making policy decisions which would impact on me and my family.


----------



## Leo

The Horseman said:


> The build costs now are at least €150k for a standard three bed semi in Dublin due to the current building regs.



You can actually double that.


----------



## Firefly

Sunny said:


> She does what every other graduate needs to do. She tries to find a job.



What? Take personal responsibility? Have you gone mad?


----------



## TheBigShort

Sunny said:


> you have done nothing but drag up stupid examples





The Horseman said:


> you are dragging up ridiculous justifications






Sunny said:


> If you can't post anything without insulting people's intelligence





You didn't post an intelligent post. You posted a stupid example about emigration.
I didn't give stupid examples, I gave simple examples, of which there are innumerable amounts. That, for the purposes of demonstrating the absolute pointlessness of what you and others propose. 
If you dont get that much, there is little hope. 
Best I can offer is go find a similar system to what you want in the Western world.


----------



## TheBigShort

Leo said:


> You can actually double that.



Tell Horseman, the €150k is his figure.


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> You didn't post an intelligent post. You posted a stupid example about emigration.
> I didn't give stupid examples, I gave simple examples, of which there are innumerable amounts. That, for the purposes of demonstrating the absolute pointlessness of what you and others propose.
> If you dont get that much, there is little hope.
> Best I can offer is go find a similar system to what you want in the Western world.



You can use all the little faces you like. And you talk about other people and ladybird books.

It doesn't change the fact that you spend your time coming up with simple cases that you then complicate and you then complicate even more. Your 'simple' example of a 19 year old girl in third level education living in a 2 bed LA house with a single mother recently deceased' turned into a 19 year old girl going on complete 7 years of third level education before graduating at the same time as an massive economic crash that means no graduates can find work and this now 26 year old woman has no alternative accommodation because I am guessing that she was unfortunate to be born into a single parent family but also had no extended family were able to help her out or she hasn't met anyone. You then say that this really intelligent person shouldn't even think about taking any old job because she is better than that so she should be encouraged to wait until her opportunity to shine comes along. God forbid she would have to work in pizza shops paying over the minimum wage. (You have posted similar in other threads. I remember something about hairdressers or something. Really need to stop looking down your nose at where people work)

You then get your knickers in a twist about emigration like the suggestion is that she goes off in a famine ship instead of like thousands and thousands of young teachers, nurses, doctors, engineers, builders etc etc who chose to go and build a life for themselves if they couldn't get an opportunity in Ireland. God forbid that young people should have to do that. No, easier to start ranting about me making our young people leave the bosom of this amazing country. Give me a break.

Not one person here would suggest a 19 year old be kicked onto to the street so your example was stupid. Suggesting that the 26 year masters level graduate keep her two bed apartment while a single mother is living in a hotel with her two toddler children is equally as stupid. Oh and before you ask, we are in a huge recession remember. No jobs and the country is bankrupt. There is no money to build new social houses to house the woman and the two kids. (Hey, I can make up scenarios too)

You then post some ridiculous simplistic post about the State or so called professional landlord building a cost for X and getting the money back over 45 or 100 or 150 years at the average rent of €3000 per year or €250 per month. If you really need me to point out the flaws in why that might not be the most attractive use of either the professional landlords or the States money, then I can suggest a couple of ladybird books on investing that you might be interested in.


----------



## Leo

TheBigShort said:


> Tell Horseman, the €150k is his figure.



I did, I quoted his post. It's not all about you you know.


----------



## Purple

There is a considerable cost associated with providing social housing to people who need it. I am very much in favour of providing it to those people. I have an issue with providing social housing to people who don't need it, even if they did need it in the past. I also have an issue with providing social housing to people who could provide for themselves but choose not to.

Give that there is a significant cost associated with the provision of that social housing if we are to let people stay in their social housing beyond the point where they actually need it then we should be charging them open market rates of rent. We can then use that extra money to provide more social housing for people who cannot provide housing for themselves.

I simply don't understand how anyone could have a problem with that, how anyone could feel so entitled that they think it is right and just that their neighbours should subsidise their lifestyle by providing them with a home for which they are not paying a fair price. To me it is no different morally and ethically from welfare fraud or tax evasion.

The silly arguments about the minutiae are a distraction; the mission statement should be to provide social housing to those who need it when they need it, acknowledging that the State's scarce and precious resources must be used in a way which maximised the return for society generally. That should be the guiding principle which informs all other actions. Giving houses to people who can and should provide for themselves is socially unjust and morally bankrupt. No amount of "how many angles can dance on the head of a pin" type discussions changes that.

If you or your family live in a council house but could afford to provide their own suitable accommodation then you/they are scroungers and parasites and no better than tax cheats. It may well be legal but it isn't right. You/they are a large part of the reason there are families living in B&B's and hotels. Own that and live with it because no amount of moral squirming changes it.


----------



## Sunny

Leo said:


> I did, I quoted his post. It's not all about you you know.



That made me laugh.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> When you are presented with reasoned arguments



You haven't presented any reasoned argument.




The Horseman said:


> I can assure you I am well capable of understanding business and events that happen in peoples lives,



Then you will understand that the cost build of a house in the 1960 will have been paid back in full plus extra, wont you.


----------



## The Horseman

Leo said:


> I did, I quoted his post. It's not all about you you know.



But it is all about TheBigShort

Did nobody tell you that!


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> You haven't presented any reasoned argument.


I disagree.


TheBigShort said:


> Then you will understand that the cost build of a house in the 1960 will have been paid back in full plus extra, wont you.


An asset is an asset and it has a value. In the case of social housing it has a commercial value and a social value. If the State provides rental accomodation to people at a rate which they can afford which is less than the market rate then there is an opportunity cost to the State; it is not getting the market rate for the asset and so income is not being generated which the State could use to provide more social housing. Therefore that opportunity cost is both economic and social. 
In that context talking about rents being set based on the build cost of the property as if that justifies the social cost is just nonsense.


----------



## Leo

The Horseman said:


> The build costs now are at least €150k for a standard three bed semi in Dublin due to the current building regs.



Actually Horseman, just to expand on that, the average cost per unit of one of the larger social housing developments in Dublin in recent times was €330k per unit. Half the units in that development were 1-bed apartments, the larger 3-bed duplexes accounted for 20% of the units. That 330k figure didn't include the cost of the land involved, or the ongoing maintenance costs which are borne by the Council.

The 2016 SCSI report claimed the development cost of a 3-bed semi in Dublin was €330k, a figure that included the land and the developer's margin.


----------



## TheBigShort

Leo said:


> I did, I quoted his post. It's not all about you you know.



I give you that one in fairness


----------



## Firefly

Leo said:


> Actually Horseman, just to expand on that, the average cost per unit of one of the larger social housing developments in Dublin in recent times was €330k per unit. Half the units in that development were 1-bed apartments, the larger 3-bed duplexes accounted for 20% of the units. That 330k figure didn't include the cost of the land involved, or *the ongoing maintenance costs which are borne by the Council.*


I expect this was a major reason behind the outsourcing to the private sector. The cost and also the hassle....


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> An asset is an asset and it has a value. In the case of social housing it has a commercial value and a social value. If the State provides rental accomodation to people at a rate which they can afford which is less than the market rate then there is an opportunity cost to the State; it is not getting the market rate for the asset and so income is not being generated which the State could use to provide more social housing. Therefore that opportunity cost is both economic and social.
> In that context talking about rents being set based on the build cost of the property as if that justifies the social cost is just nonsense.



You need to talk to Horseman (this time )



The Horseman said:


> Perhaps _if the State treated housing as a business _whereby the income covered the costs then we would not be in this situation.





The Horseman said:


> I did not suggest a free market for profit business you did. I simply suggested the costs of providing the accommodation should be reflected in the rent. if the State already own the land then there is no land cost and only the only initial cost is the build cost.





The Horseman said:


> I am well aware of the requirements of setting up an running a company. A company is there to make profit, why do you think it will provide quality accommodation at affordable prices.


----------



## Leo

Firefly said:


> I expect this was a major reason behind the outsourcing to the private sector. The cost and also the hassle....



That's what I think too, they thought outsourcing to the private sector would fully service the need while also costing them less. In the meantime increased overheads and more onerous requirements on landlords along with the rise of AirBnB resulted in plummeting supply in the private rental market, and they haven't been willing or able to adjust course.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sunny said:


> You can use all the little faces you like



Gee, thanks 



Sunny said:


> It doesn't change the fact that you spend your time coming up with simple cases that you then complicate and you then complicate even more.



Exactly the point. To demonstrate the futility of trying to implement a policy that centres on eviction and coercion. 
At every opportunity, at every turn, regardless of what you, or I think 'should' or 'shouldn't be', regardless of what you or I think is fair or unfair, if you try to move people out of their _homes _( that is what they are, regardless if they own the house or not) against their will, then expect every excuse, every obstacle, every protest, every legal tool to stand in the way. 

If you cant get your head around that then there is no point in any further discussion.

My proposal for tax rebates, grants, etc for downsizing is based on a concept of affording the final decision to move to citizens and prompting owners and tenants to seriously consider what they never would if compelled to move.
According to CSO, 40% of private owned houses are under-occupied. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that some financial incentives, assurances such as the State foregoing stamp duty, reductions in property tax on qualifying applicants to downsize could be the prompt they need to actually downsize, rather than simply considering it.

My proposal for long-term property loans is based on a concept of offering a real alternative to home ownership market. Using the traditional State owned model of long-term ownership but managed by professional landlords intent on providing quality accommodation at affordable prices, and not homes geared solely for their own private pension fund.

Whether either or none are viable, I do not know. Im quite happy to accept they are not, if reasoned and fundamental flaws are highlighted. 
To date, none have. Instead, when faced with reasoned and fundamental flaws in other posters proposals, they typically resort to personal attacks - "stupid examples", diversion - "its all about the Big Short" , and "rabbit holes".

Nobody has the guts as yet to admit that policies of eviction and coercion will not work to resolve the housing and homeless crisis. 
But dont take my word for it, see if you can find a similar system anywhere in Western societies.


----------



## joe sod

Purple said:


> What alternative do you propose? Should the State provide housing for everyone?



That's the real question, then we are onto the Soviet union solutions, mass building of ugly badly built apartments by forced unwilling labour. I think the shortage of building skills and the unwillingness of young guys today to work on building sites is not really discussed but it is a huge factor. I think a generational shift has now happened especially with the arrival of smart phones and social media. There is also not the big pool of migrant Labour like we got from eastern Europe 15 years ago, none of the migration coming in today will work on building sites. I think they will have to introduce lower tax breaks for workers to get them to do this work.


----------



## Seagull

TheBigShort said:


> Im getting mixed messages from posters above.
> One the one hand, selling off social housing to tenants is a bad thing.
> But you appear to advocate that if they can afford it?
> Perhaps im misinterpreting?


You are. I'm not suggesting they should be allowed to buy the council house. My comment about "buying there" was in reference to the area, not the particular property. I'm suggesting that they should be moving out of the council house once they can afford to.


----------

