Brian cowen still facing hostility over large pension, unfair

[TheBigShort]

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

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

I was also against the 5yr assessment plan.

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

 

[TheBigShort]

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

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

 

[Purple]

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

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

 

[Purple]

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

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

 

[TheBigShort]

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

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

 

[TheBigShort]

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

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

 

[Purple]

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

Wow.
What about people in private rental accommodation?

 

[Purple]

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

That's very naive of you.

 

[TheBigShort]

Wow.
What about people in private rental accommodation?

What about people in private rental accommodation?

 

[TheBigShort]

That's very naive of you.

How so? It has been explained to you before.

 

[Firefly]

Why do Trade Unions get involved in this issue?

Maybe it's because....

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

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

 

[Purple]

What about people in private rental accommodation?

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

 

[Purple]

How so? It has been explained to you before.

It's been explained to you as well.

 

[Purple]

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

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

 

[TheBigShort]

Maybe it's because....

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

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

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

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

1. Essential service workers are members of society.
   
   
2. Having essential services workers living far distances from their headquarters may unduly inhibit, impede, detract, reduce, impinge on the provision of those essential services – in turn causing undue and unnecessary hardship for members of the public who rely on those services.
   
   Having non-essential services workers living far distances from their headquarters may unduly inhibit, impede, detract, reduce, impinge on the provision of those non-essential services – in turn causing undue and unnecessary hardship for members of the public who want those services..
   
   
   But between not having anyone to serve me a coffee and croissant on time on a Monday morning or not having the essential services to treat my heart attack or stroke, I know which one will make the headlines lambasting the inadequacy of services, and which would not, if both instances were to occur.
3. If we are reliant on a transport system that transports hundreds of thousands of workers to their work stations everyday then I don't think it is unreasonable to try and design a society that facilitates the smooth operation of that system, do you? If that means building social and affordable housing for working people on average incomes in city centre locations - that is a good thing for society, not a bad thing.
   
   Advocating for the provision of adequate housing for essential service staff is good for society. I don’t want to live in a society where, because of the prohibitive cost of accommodation in major urban areas, we cannot attract enough people into nursing to look after the sick and elderly in those areas, do you? I can imagine the false outrage of the shambles of our health services if this were to occur.
   
4. You have taken a comment above and translated it into “self-serving vested interest groups”, when that very same comment says “a coherent national strategy of well-planned, mixed income and socially inclusive housing that includes public homes, affordable rental and affordable purchase homes” – this will include, working people unionised and non-unionised (both private sector and public sector), non-working people (unemployed, elderly, disabled). This includes private rental accommodation which for some reason you ask earlier “what about private rental accommodation?"
   
   So you take a comment that refers to society at large, but dismiss it to focus on the ‘self-serving’ element that, god forbid, essential service workers can be relied upon to get to their work stations on time, all the time, without undue or unnecessary impediment.
   
   You continually mope about a fair and just society – but what exactly do you do to promote such a society? Can you even outline what such a society would look like? From what I’ve ever heard from either of you is that a just and fair society, in your eyes, is basically free-market economics – what a joke!

 

[Purple]

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

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

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

I would;

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

 

[TheBigShort]

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

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

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

Here is an idea for private rental accommodation;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Purple]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Firefly]

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

1. Where there is a shortage of housing – build more housing, that’s just maths!
   
   
2. Offer tax credits or refunds to people who move, voluntarily, out of their homes into smaller homes where their current home has existing capacity over and above what they need.
   

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

 

[TheBigShort]

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

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

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