losttheplot
Registered User
- Messages
- 630
If only Ryanair would get into constructing the houses, bound to make it more efficient and cheaper
If only Ryanair would get into constructing the houses, bound to make it more efficient and cheaper‘It should not be allowed to happen’ – Anger as Ryanair buys bulk of Swords housing estate to accommodate staff
Local representatives have voiced anger after Ryanair bought almost an entire housing estate in Swords, close to its headquarters at Dublin Airport, to house staff.www.independent.ie
There is a history of businesses providing housing for staff.
I think the Quakers (Cadbury) and Guinness did it?
And now Ryanair.
Nothing stops us from changing migration rules in relation to social housing provision. We can tighten it up like Australia and Canada if we so wish.Also with large migration inflows into Ireland and other European countries, not a largely static population with relatively small internal population flows like we used to have in 70s and 80s, providing social housing like beforehand is no longer sustainable. For example the bar for an Irish immigrant to Australia or Canada to get social housing is very high, you can't get into Australia as a permanent resident unless you already have a skill that commands high income therefore automatically disqualified from social housing
That's the system we have right now. So you would be in agreement that we need to reform the system?I would respectfully submit that the lifetime provision of public housing to an individual or family at an initial build cost of €200k-€400k and God knows what maintenance/upkeep, in return for minuscule to zero rents, is a subsidy benefit akin to winning the Lotto.
Rather than drastically boost wages to very high levels they would have to be to afford to rent a one bed in Dublin, €110k year a gross to afford €2000 rent at the 35% of net pay, they've decided to pay staff through subsidised housing. A form of corporate welfare. It can work, it's essentially what's done with healthcare in the USA. The question is if it is what we want. It still removes home ownership. It's a world were you either rent from subsidised social housing or from subsidised corporate housing.There is a history of businesses providing housing for staff.
I think the Quakers (Cadbury) and Guinness did it?
And now Ryanair.
I don't think it can work. Or it depends what you mean by it can work.It can work, it's essentially what's done with healthcare in the USA.
Oh yes, most definitely. The current model is a kind of ponzi scheme where workers with crippling housing costs pay 52% taxes to house non-workers with no housing costs.That's the system we have right now. So you would be in agreement that we need to reform the system?
the difference is you have to work in a job for subsidised corporate housing, you don't have to work for subsidised social housing, in fact working is a disadvantage as you might get disqualified for earning too muchIt's a world were you either rent from subsidised social housing or from subsidised corporate housing
In addition the recipient of subsidised corporate housing will pay BIK on the value of the subsidy.the difference is you have to work in a job for subsidised corporate housing, you don't have to work for subsidised social housing, in fact working is a disadvantage as you might get disqualified for earning too much
The State provides is a strong economic incentive for familial and social dysfunction across the entirety of the services it provides and the goodies it hands out.Oh yes, most definitely. The current model is a kind of ponzi scheme where workers with crippling housing costs pay 52% taxes to house non-workers with no housing costs.
Not only that but a masters degree seems to be becoming the new standard to get into company grad programmes, adding 20-30k plus accommodation costs etc. to the bill of starting out. So you potentially start off with bigger loans than before too.The inventive to get a higher education is falling. You can spend years getting educated to then spend years working full time with still little hope of owning "capital". As this whole thread is discussing, the incentive to be "middle class" is falling. As some of my examples show, after housing is accounted for, you'd often be in a similar money situation regardless.
That cohort is getting bigger. A single person in Dublin on €40,000 a year qualifies for social housing. The median wage is around €42,000. We are treating a symptom without addressing the root cause.the state and tax payers are subsidising an expensive lifestyle for one group selected based on lower income.
It's a good idea but it doesn't really work with mixed tenure/income or community integration due to the disparity in cost of identical housing between tenants. When there were a lot of social homes it worked better because a lot of people who lived in these homes worked. Then came the era of deindustrialisation and removal of the manufacturing jobs. Along with it the neo liberal idea of selling all the social homes and not providing anymore. So social homes became tightened up and reserved only for the unemployed and those considered worst off. There are papers out there arguing that this is what helped create the ghettos, not simply the fact they were all social homes. To fix this they simply sprinkle the homes throughout private housing, without giving it much more thought and consider it a job well done.I think a good starting point is to work on the basis that the need to provide social housing to working people is a symptom of a policy failure and economic and social dysfunction as in a proper functioning society working people should be able to provide their own homes.
That's €40,000 net of tax. So €52,200 gross.That cohort is getting bigger. A single person in Dublin on €40,000 a year qualifies for social housing. The median wage is around €42,000. We are treating a symptom without addressing the root cause.
Prior to 2011 (I think) there was a PRSI ceiling above which you stopped paying PRSI. The marginal rate was 40% or 41% and there was no USC.Have you worked this out?
So if it not to build social housing, what is the solution?
I think a good starting point is to work on the basis that the need to provide social housing to working people is a symptom of a policy failure and economic and social dysfunction as in a proper functioning society working people should be able to provide their own homes.
30 years ago - 1994, the marginal rates were much higher.Prior to 2011 (I think) there was a PRSI ceiling above which you stopped paying PRSI. The marginal rate was 40% or 41% and there was no USC.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?