Who speaks for the taxpayer?

[TheBigShort]

When you are presented with reasoned arguments

You haven't presented any reasoned argument.

I can assure you I am well capable of understanding business and events that happen in peoples lives,

Then you will understand that the cost build of a house in the 1960 will have been paid back in full plus extra, wont you.

 

[The Horseman]

I did, I quoted his post. It's not all about you you know.

But it is all about TheBigShort

Did nobody tell you that!

 

[Purple]

You haven't presented any reasoned argument.

I disagree.

Then you will understand that the cost build of a house in the 1960 will have been paid back in full plus extra, wont you.

An asset is an asset and it has a value. In the case of social housing it has a commercial value and a social value. If the State provides rental accomodation to people at a rate which they can afford which is less than the market rate then there is an opportunity cost to the State; it is not getting the market rate for the asset and so income is not being generated which the State could use to provide more social housing. Therefore that opportunity cost is both economic and social.
In that context talking about rents being set based on the build cost of the property as if that justifies the social cost is just nonsense.

 

[Leo]

The build costs now are at least €150k for a standard three bed semi in Dublin due to the current building regs.

Actually Horseman, just to expand on that, the average cost per unit of one of the larger social housing developments in Dublin in recent times was €330k per unit. Half the units in that development were 1-bed apartments, the larger 3-bed duplexes accounted for 20% of the units. That 330k figure didn't include the cost of the land involved, or the ongoing maintenance costs which are borne by the Council.

The 2016 SCSI report claimed the development cost of a 3-bed semi in Dublin was €330k, a figure that included the land and the developer's margin.

 

[TheBigShort]

I did, I quoted his post. It's not all about you you know.

I give you that one in fairness

 

[Firefly]

Actually Horseman, just to expand on that, the average cost per unit of one of the larger social housing developments in Dublin in recent times was €330k per unit. Half the units in that development were 1-bed apartments, the larger 3-bed duplexes accounted for 20% of the units. That 330k figure didn't include the cost of the land involved, or the ongoing maintenance costs which are borne by the Council.

I expect this was a major reason behind the outsourcing to the private sector. The cost and also the hassle....

 

[TheBigShort]

An asset is an asset and it has a value. In the case of social housing it has a commercial value and a social value. If the State provides rental accomodation to people at a rate which they can afford which is less than the market rate then there is an opportunity cost to the State; it is not getting the market rate for the asset and so income is not being generated which the State could use to provide more social housing. Therefore that opportunity cost is both economic and social.
In that context talking about rents being set based on the build cost of the property as if that justifies the social cost is just nonsense.

You need to talk to Horseman (this time )

Perhaps if the State treated housing as a business whereby the income covered the costs then we would not be in this situation.

I did not suggest a free market for profit business you did. I simply suggested the costs of providing the accommodation should be reflected in the rent. if the State already own the land then there is no land cost and only the only initial cost is the build cost.

I am well aware of the requirements of setting up an running a company. A company is there to make profit, why do you think it will provide quality accommodation at affordable prices.

 

[Leo]

I expect this was a major reason behind the outsourcing to the private sector. The cost and also the hassle....

That's what I think too, they thought outsourcing to the private sector would fully service the need while also costing them less. In the meantime increased overheads and more onerous requirements on landlords along with the rise of AirBnB resulted in plummeting supply in the private rental market, and they haven't been willing or able to adjust course.

 

[TheBigShort]

You can use all the little faces you like

Gee, thanks

It doesn't change the fact that you spend your time coming up with simple cases that you then complicate and you then complicate even more.

Exactly the point. To demonstrate the futility of trying to implement a policy that centres on eviction and coercion.
At every opportunity, at every turn, regardless of what you, or I think 'should' or 'shouldn't be', regardless of what you or I think is fair or unfair, if you try to move people out of their homes ( that is what they are, regardless if they own the house or not) against their will, then expect every excuse, every obstacle, every protest, every legal tool to stand in the way.

If you cant get your head around that then there is no point in any further discussion.

My proposal for tax rebates, grants, etc for downsizing is based on a concept of affording the final decision to move to citizens and prompting owners and tenants to seriously consider what they never would if compelled to move.
According to CSO, 40% of private owned houses are under-occupied. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that some financial incentives, assurances such as the State foregoing stamp duty, reductions in property tax on qualifying applicants to downsize could be the prompt they need to actually downsize, rather than simply considering it.

My proposal for long-term property loans is based on a concept of offering a real alternative to home ownership market. Using the traditional State owned model of long-term ownership but managed by professional landlords intent on providing quality accommodation at affordable prices, and not homes geared solely for their own private pension fund.

Whether either or none are viable, I do not know. Im quite happy to accept they are not, if reasoned and fundamental flaws are highlighted.
To date, none have. Instead, when faced with reasoned and fundamental flaws in other posters proposals, they typically resort to personal attacks - "stupid examples", diversion - "its all about the Big Short" , and "rabbit holes".

Nobody has the guts as yet to admit that policies of eviction and coercion will not work to resolve the housing and homeless crisis.
But dont take my word for it, see if you can find a similar system anywhere in Western societies.

 

[joe sod]

What alternative do you propose? Should the State provide housing for everyone?

That's the real question, then we are onto the Soviet union solutions, mass building of ugly badly built apartments by forced unwilling labour. I think the shortage of building skills and the unwillingness of young guys today to work on building sites is not really discussed but it is a huge factor. I think a generational shift has now happened especially with the arrival of smart phones and social media. There is also not the big pool of migrant Labour like we got from eastern Europe 15 years ago, none of the migration coming in today will work on building sites. I think they will have to introduce lower tax breaks for workers to get them to do this work.

 

[Seagull]

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?

You are. I'm not suggesting they should be allowed to buy the council house. My comment about "buying there" was in reference to the area, not the particular property. I'm suggesting that they should be moving out of the council house once they can afford to.