"We are the only OECD state where some get back more than they pay in income tax"

[Purple]

Sorry, just seeing this now.
This is somewhat simplistic with respect. The homeless crisis will not be resolved without understanding what has made them homeless in the first place. Homelessness is an age-old problem, with a variety of reasons of why people become homeless in the first place. The current crisis is worse insofar that a relatively new demographic has emerged in the statistics, that is families, sometimes working families are now adding to list. People who, in most other times, through their earned incomes would afford a mortgage or pay rent.
Using your own source, the 102,711 mortgages in arrears is a frightening statistic. The 2,335 repossessed homes is also shocking. So in the middle of a housing crisis, repossessions are at all time high!
I cant see any evidence that any freeze on wages would result in the homeless crisis being resolved. In fact, this crisis has emerged after a period of pay cuts and freezes.

The solution is more public housing (provided by the State or privately built and rented by the State). More money chasing the same number of houses will result in higher rents but the same number of homeless people.
In simple terms; take 10 people, eight of whom have €10 and 2 of whom have €5, who all want 8 apples the 8 people with €10 will get the apples. If every one of them get an extra €10 then the same people will get the apples, they will just end up paying more for them. It's basic supply and demand.

 

[Firefly]

Sorry, just seeing this now.
This is somewhat simplistic with respect. The homeless crisis will not be resolved without understanding what has made them homeless in the first place. Homelessness is an age-old problem, with a variety of reasons of why people become homeless in the first place. The current crisis is worse insofar that a relatively new demographic has emerged in the statistics, that is families, sometimes working families are now adding to list. People who, in most other times, through their earned incomes would afford a mortgage or pay rent.
Using your own source, the 102,711 mortgages in arrears is a frightening statistic. The 2,335 repossessed homes is also shocking. So in the middle of a housing crisis, repossessions are at all time high!
I cant see any evidence that any freeze on wages would result in the homeless crisis being resolved. In fact, this crisis has emerged after a period of pay cuts and freezes.

I agree with all the first bit and it would take a very detailed and sobering study to ascertain the root causes of homelessness. The point I am making is that instead of pay rises the same money could easily provide every man, woman and child who are currently homeless with accommodation.

 

[Purple]

The point I am making is that instead of pay rises the same money could easily provide every man, woman and child who are currently homeless with accommodation.

Only if there was accommodation for them to rent. In reality it would just push up rent prices.

 

[Firefly]

Perhaps, but you need to propose how you intend to fix them first. For instance, one such proposal for homeless families living in hostels is to understand what put them there in the first place.

This would take a long time to figure out I would imagine and would probably result in another report gathering dust on a shelf somewhere. In the meantime we have homeless families living in hostels. I am not saying it's important to understand the root causes of homelessness but as a starting point we could easily house those who are homeless until we figure out why they are homeless.

Nevertheless, your proposals to fix our social ills would be welcome.

I'd be the first to admit this wouldn't be my forte but I think we have more than enough money to fix the issues we have. An example is the "shortage" of nurses we always hear about, yet we have more nurses than France and Canada per head of population.

 

[Firefly]

Only if there was accommodation for them to rent. In reality it would just push up rent prices.

True, but even allowing 2k per month for every homeless person (many are kids and would obviously live with their parents) that would still be 350 million cheaper over 4 years than giving those pay rises.

 

[Purple]

True, but even allowing 2k per month for every homeless person (many are kids and would obviously live with their parents) that would still be 350 million cheaper over 4 years than giving those pay rises.

I'd rather see the money being spent building houses, preferably sourced from a factory on the mainland, somewhere like Holland or Germany, and assembled on site here.

 

[Firefly]

I'd rather see the money being spent building houses, preferably sourced from a factory on the mainland, somewhere like Holland or Germany, and assembled on site here.

That could work too, even with a long-term rental agreement or something to keep the Cap-Ex down.

 

[TheBigShort]

True, but even allowing 2k per month for every homeless person (many are kids and would obviously live with their parents) that would still be 350 million cheaper over 4 years than giving those pay rises.

But is the assumption here is that no houses are being built? The program for government has factored in 25,000 a home a year until 2020.

Whether that is achieved will remain to be seen, whether it alleviates the homeless crisis will remain to be seen. That will be down to planning. But nevertheless, it is factored into the program for government already. This will create jobs, stimulate economic activity etc.

 

[Purple]

But is the assumption here is that no houses are being built? The program for government has factored in 25,000 a home a year until 2020.

Whether that is achieved will remain to be seen, whether it alleviates the homeless crisis will remain to be seen. That will be down to planning. But nevertheless, it is factored into the program for government already. This will create jobs, stimulate economic activity etc.

The cost of private rental accommodation, as well as the lack of homes to buy, is pushing up all housing costs. That is the reason for the new homelessness we are seeing.

 

[Firefly]

But is the assumption here is that no houses are being built? The program for government has factored in 25,000 a home a year until 2020.

Whether that is achieved will remain to be seen, whether it alleviates the homeless crisis will remain to be seen. That will be down to planning. But nevertheless, it is factored into the program for government already. This will create jobs, stimulate economic activity etc.

That's a fair point, but as with anything promised by the government it will probably not be all delivered and most of it towards the end of 2020.

The government seems to be trying to do everything but nothing. Maybe we need a list of the top things the government should focus on fixing and move through the list adding new ones each time something is done!

 

[TheBigShort]

The cost of private rental accommodation, as well as the lack of homes to buy, is pushing up all housing costs. That is the reason for the new homelessness we are seeing.

Yes, and the government has promised to deliver 25,000 homes a year. I don't know if that will be adequate, but as you know, such a promise will take time to come on-stream. The point is, a plan to deal with the housing crisis has already been factored into the public spend. The proposed public sector pay deal does not effect this.

 

[TheBigShort]

That's a fair point, but as with anything promised by the government it will probably not be all delivered and most of it towards the end of 2020.

The government seems to be trying to do everything but nothing. Maybe we need a list of the top things the government should focus on fixing and move through the list adding new ones each time something is done!

The government has published its program for government. I'm not advocating it, but it sets out what it believes it can achieved within budgetary constraints.

http://www.merrionstreet.ie/MerrionStreet/en/ImageLibrary/Programme_for_Partnership_Government.pdf

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Trotskyite Fintan O'Toole makes an interesting point in today's IT. Society seems to take a much dimmer view of, say, an 18K SW fraud than it does of an 18K tax default. He goes on to argue that this is evidence of systemic discrimination of the WC culminating in throwing outrageous criminal charges at them for what he agrees was an unacceptable protest.

I hate to say it but I see his point. Is there an explanation for the double standard? Tax default is not giving of your pwn money what the State demands whilst SW fraud is clearly stealing from the State. Morally they seem to be in a different space, but I am not entirely convinced. Anyone able to help me on this?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Moved to LOS.

 

[TheBigShort]

Tax default is not giving of your pwn money what the State demands whilst SW fraud is clearly stealing from the State.

I think in the main the article speaks for itself. I notice how the media focus has been more on the apparent influence of social media on the jury, the underlying tone is that the protesters were guilty as charged but got away with it.
This only supports O'Tooles analysis.
As far tax owed to the State being what the State demands, so what? If it is owed to the State it is owed, simple. Non-declaration is theft, if not proven to be accidental.

It would appear that some keep back more than they contribute.

 

[Purple]

As far tax owed to the State being what the State demands, so what? If it is owed to the State it is owed, simple. Non-declaration is theft, if not proven to be accidental.

It would appear that some keep back more than they contribute.

I agree with that. Tax evasion is the same as social welfare fraud is the same as breaking into a house. It's all theft. At least the burglar doesn't pretend not to be a thief.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I agree with that. Tax evasion is the same as social welfare fraud is the same as breaking into a house. It's all theft. At least the burglar doesn't pretend not to be a thief.

I think that, at least in moral space, stealing from an individual is a lot worse than stealing from the State.

 

[Purple]

I think that, at least in moral space, stealing from an individual is a lot worse than stealing from the State.

I don't.

I'd buy the guy(s) who broke into my house a pint before I'd sit down with someone who scams their taxes or welfare or makes a false or inflated insurance claim.

If you are doing nixers or grinds and putting the cash in your pocket you have no moral right to criticise burglars or welfare scammers.

 

[Firefly]

Is there an explanation for the double standard?

I think in Ireland not paying your taxes are sometimes seen as "getting away with it" and it seems to be in our genes to "beat the system", as it were. Both tax evasion and SW fraud are stealing however, in the former case the government is not getting much it should (but may never have in the first place) where in the latter case the cash is actually being taken from the government's coffers. I don't condone either by the way, but it's a case of "wink-wink" for the former and scorn for the latter....

 

[TheBigShort]

I don't condone either by the way, but it's a case of "wink-wink" for the former and scorn for the latter....

Which is odd, because it is a natural inclination, I would have thought, to minimize your tax bill to the greatest extent as possible. All within the rules of course, but nevertheless tax deductible business costs can tend to be exaggerated somewhat.
Just as it would be a natural inclination to maximize welfare assistance, all within the rules of course.
Why anyone points the finger at anyone else when most people will always try to exploit their financial situation to the max.
Expect maybe for the PAYE worker, who doesn't even get the opportunity to touch their own income before it's whisked away to Revenue and Social Protection - where is the equality of opportunity for PAYE worker's there?