Who speaks for the taxpayer?


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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
I don't remember Rousseau going into that sort of detail in his book.
What alternative do you propose? Should the State provide housing for everyone?
 
Purple said:
What alternative do you propose? Should the State provide housing for everyone?
Click to expand...

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:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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
 
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.
 

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!!!!!
 
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!!!
 
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
 
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.
 

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Last edited:

I read the article, but I cant find their report on their website?

http://www.communityfoundation.ie/
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
runningrecord said:
Selling house to tenants was nota good move
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
 

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?
 

Didn't that couple live in Dalkey ? Dont they have social housing in those areas already?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register