Participants in the Fair Deal Scheme should be obliged to rent out their houses

I think the folk memory of Ernest Blythe would deter Fine Gael (or any other party) from considering the punitive approach:


From The Irish Times, 2008, An Irishman's Diary

Blythe was the Cumann na nGaedhael finance minister who, in 1924, cut a shilling off the old-age pension - a move that haunted his party and its Fine Gael successor for a generation.

The cut in the old age pension undermined the popularity of Cosgrave's government and contributed in no small measure to the success at the polls of the newly formed Fianna Fáil party when it contested its first election in June 1927. De Valera's new party won 26 per cent of the vote, just a couple of percentage points less than Cumann na nGaedhael.

(BY 1932) the by now notorious cut in the old-age pension, a deteriorating economic situation and the government's continued reliance on emergency security legislation only served to alienate voters as the election approached.

In a desperate attempt to hold on to power, Cumann na nGaedhael ran probably the most vicious negative advertising campaign seen in Irish politics during the 1932 election. Newspaper adverts declared that the "communists and gunmen" were voting for Fianna Fáil and claimed that the choice before the people was one of "sanity or suicide". The strategy failed. When the devil you know was notorious for cutting a shilling off the old-age pension, many voters decided to take a chance with the devil they didn't know, or at least didn't know that well.

Fianna Fáil won 44 per cent of the vote and de Valera was elected president of the executive council with Labour support, marking the start of 16 years of uninterrupted power.

In 2004, eighty years after the 1924 budget, Enda Kenny told the Dáil: "the late Ernest Blythe took a shilling from old-age pensioners and the repercussions, in political terms, against Cumann na Gaedhael and the Fine Gael Party lasted for 60 years".

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/an-irishman-s-diary-1.899488
 
Hi Tommy and Early Riser

I have not seen any suggestions here which meet any reasonable definition of "barbarity"? Could you maybe clarify these comments?

Brendan
 
Early Riser said:
I don't believe I have used that term, Brendan. Could you point to the post ?
Click to expand...
You didn't. The quote was from the letter you linked, hence I quoted that link in my post.

The idea of forcing a vulnerable elderly person to clear their home of their assorted belongings before they enter nursing care, and then to rent their home to strangers thus blocking their subsequent access to the property for their own enjoyment is barbarous.

An elderly relative of my own entered nursing home care last year, didn't like it and after a period of several months there made alternative arrangements and is now living once again at home - at least for the moment.

She was never expected to do so and no-one knows how long it will last but at least she has some autonomy over her life choices.

She's living in a rent pressure zone.

The idea of forcing a family on social welfare who have lost a child to illness or suicide to rent out that child's room to a stranger or face losing their welfare entitlements is equally barbarous.
 
Last edited:
T McGibney said:
You didn't.
Click to expand...


Tommy, I don't know if you have been following the thread but I am absolutely opposed to Brendan' s proposal for a "stick" approach to getting Fair Deal properties onto the rental market. I do not have an objection in principle to incentives, which individuals can opt into as they wish - provided they are incentives and not disguised sticks.

The letter I linked (the author's sentiments, not mine) seem to suggest hostility to any approach, carrot or stick.

Your elderly relative's example illustrates the reality very well and I have no doubt that variations of this theme are widespread. It involves people rather than economics.
 
I agree and I'm with you 100% on this, but in an environment where a State body has set up a website to rat on your neighbour if their house appears empty, the line between incentives and disguised sticks has already been crossed with fanfare.

The letter you linked exposed the whole thing very succinctly.
 
T McGibney said:
The idea of forcing a family on social welfare who have lost a child to illness or suicide to rent out that child's room to a stranger or face losing their welfare entitlements is equally barbarous.
Click to expand...

I think 'callous' would be more the thing than 'barbarous' ... I think the barbarians went in for collective living...

Sometimes we have to be callous e.g. in conducting the cost benefit analysis of a new medicine or procedure... I don't think this is one of those times however.
 
Early Riser said:
I don't believe I have used that term, Brendan. Could you point to the post ?
Click to expand...

Apologies

Tommy quoted you in this post so I had assumed it was you who had used the word.

In fact, it seems to have been the Irish Times.

Early Riser said:
Imagine if a government were to propose a punitive, impractical and unimplementable "solution".
Click to expand...

"punitive" is much less harsh. Although it's not remotely punitive. No one is being punished. If someone doesn't want to rent out their home, they are under no obligation to do so. But then I am under no obligation to pay the cost of their nursing home.

Brendan
 
T McGibney said:
An elderly relative of my own entered nursing home care last year, didn't like it and after a period of several months there made alternative arrangements and is now living once again at home
Click to expand...

Tommy

That is such a rare occurrence that it could be dealt with very easily.

And don't forget, they don't have to vacate their home at all. They don't have to rent their home at all. They can pay their nursing home care themselves.

T McGibney said:
The idea of forcing a family on social welfare who have lost a child to illness or suicide to rent out that child's room to a stranger
Click to expand...

Now you are really looking for crazy examples to make an argument.

The principle is clear. If someone can pay their own way, they should do so. If someone has a spare room in their house and they don't let it, then they should not be getting social welfare. If you want to come up with some exceptions to this principle, go right ahead. But you don't reject an idea you don't like, because you can come with a rare combination of events where it might be hard.

Brendan
 

It is indeed punitive if they lose a valuable entitlement by their exercise of that choice. And targetting the vulnerable elderly - or indeed bereaved families - in such a manner is indeed barbarous in my book.
 

It's not at all rare for families to lose children. Parents grieve for these lost children all their lives. You want them banned from claiming social welfare if they object to letting out their child's room to strangers. There's something disturbing about that.
 


Brendan Burgess said:
it should be an absolute requirement- if they choose not to rent out the house, then they should not get any assistance towards nursing home fees.
Click to expand...

Brendan Burgess said:
Maybe then impute a rent of 10% of the value of the house. So that if they choose not to rent it or can't get around to it, they don't lose the Fair Deal Scheme, but they just get less.
Click to expand...

Given the stressful circumstances that very many individuals and/or their families find themselves in around the Fair Deal circumstances (most broadly) then, even after further reflection, I will stick with "punitive". I cannot think of any lesser or milder description. I do not think it is your intention but I can understand that others may react more strongly in emotion and/or terminology.
 
Last edited:
Early Riser said:
Given the stressful circumstances that very many individuals and/or their families find themselves in around the Fair Deal circumstances
Click to expand...

Hi Early Riser

Lots of things are very stressful. Divorce, redundancy, poverty, unemployment.

We don't say to them: "look it's ok, you are going through a tough time, there is no need for you to pay your way although you have loads of money or assets"

Is it punitive to say to someone who has no home but €1m in investments, that they don't qualify for the Fair Deal Scheme because they happen to have cash rather than an empty home? We are not punishing people for going into a home. We are not forcing anyone to rent their home.

We are simply saying: The taxpayer will contribute to the cost of your nursing home care if you can't afford it yourself. If you can afford through renting out your home, then you should do so.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
We are simply saying.....................
Click to expand...

I don’t know about the ‘’We’’

Some here me included broadly agree with incentives to encourage those who want to and are able to rent their homes.

I don’t think anyone agrees with compelling the elderly to rent their homes.
 

Your thoughts on this subject seem to be coloured by that example and then you shot from the hip without thinking of the wider consequences or conducting a modicum of research.

It is all very fine expounding a principle, it is quite another if you’re the one who has to legislate for it and sell the principle to voters.

To account for different situations, some common and some rare, there would be so many ifs and ands and buts …
 
So let's suppose I have to put my mother in a nursing home and she if forced to rent out her house to pay for it. Let's get practical around this for a second
  • Who is going to manage the renting of the house as me and my sister live a number of hours away?
  • Where are we and her grand children meant to stay when we go to visit my mother, hotels? Will that be a tax-deductible expense in this new solution to the housing crisis?
  • What if my mother comes out of a nursing home, perhaps she gets better, can we evict the tenant and move her back into her own home?
  • What if the house can't be rented, out in the coutry or attached to the farm ran by the son. Does anyone have any faith that those circumstances are handled correctly by the state?
  • And when she passes away and we want to sell the house, are we entitled to evict the tenants or are we forced to become reluctant landlords like many in negative equity. if we evict, where do the tenants go? will this create a viscious cycle of short term lets for people
  • Where can we have the wake?
  • If we can't evict, the house can't be sold, does that not reduce supply and drive up prices?

This idea is like something out of 1980's communist Romania. What's next, force them to take in a lodger to pay for medical treatment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register