Karl Deeter, of Irish Mortgage Brokers
You may recall how, back in April 2012, Karl Deeter, of Irish Mortgage Brokers, claimed that 25 per cent of people who were in mortgage arrears were lying or ‘strategically defaulting’.
This morning Mr Deeter joined Ruth Coppinger, Socialist Party TD for Dublin West, on Today with Seán O’Rourke this morning on RTÉ Radio One, to talk about social housing.
Grab a tay…
Karl Deeter: “The idea of social housing I agree with, I agree with helping poor people. I think that when people are down on their luck they should receive assistance. What I’d be saying is that the underlying performance of it matters. So, in the same way that we say we should have hospitals, that the hospital performance matters, I’m saying we need to do the same on housing and not just see more of the same as being a solution. And really the point I would be making is that people who are not well-off are not a static group. You don’t necessarily become poor and then stay that way for life. But the tenancy right to a social house stays with you for life, once you get one. And effectively it becomes a brand of middle class welfare because in many instances you’ve got people who aren’t well off who can’t access social housing but you’ve got people who are moderately well-off who are earning above average wage, living in these social houses, receiving what is effectively a very subsidised rent.
Sean O’Rourke: “But is there not, for many years, a differential rent scheme whereby people pay according to their means?”
Deeter: “Of course it has and when you look at the figures though, let’s just examine them, look at the two-bed houses – average rent on those is €62 a week. The average rent overall is about €59 a week. The highest rent being charged in all of Dublin city and lmost likely for a five or six-bed house is €228 a week which is about €990 per month. Now what I would say then, is when you look at the five-bedroom houses and six-bedroom houses on average, it’s €80 a week or €117 a week. Which is a price so good that you simply, it can’t be matched anywhere.
If you were to charge these rents, and look at it from an investment perspective, in other words that we want to see people to be getting good value for money and be sustainable and build more, you’d have to build these houses for about €40,000 which is just not achievable.”
O’Rourke: “So is it your belief then that the rent charged to people who are there, who maybe moved in initially on the basis of need and inability to buy their own houses that, if they become well-off or if they become better off shall we say, that they should be charged the market rate?”
Deeter: “I don’t see an argument for middle class welfare and that is very distinctly the point I’m making. I don’t believe you should take people who can afford to pay more for something and give them subsidies. Now people say ‘oh but they are means tested and there’s differentiations, etc’ but that, to me, still doesn’t get to the root nub of the issue.”
O’Rourke: “So would you..”
Deeter: “There’s a lot of people who are well able to afford more than the rent because, let’s not forget, and this is where the proof of it all lies. Many people in social houses get mortgages and buy those homes, ok? And they end up paying more on that mortgage than they were paying on that rent. So a) I already know from having done hundreds of these types of loans, there’s a greater affordability there…”
O’Rourke: “Should there be a threshold in which people are told, either buy or vacate?”
Deeter: “I’m not saying there should be because this is really more of a thought experiment. I’m saying that if we’re going to have a serious conversation about social housing that we should be wondering why we are basically accruing benefits to some people while there’s other people who are locked out. In a way you’ve got some people who are doing quite well and they’re almost like bed blockers in housing.”
O’Rourke: “We’ll come to Ruth Coppinger in a moment but are you saying or suggesting Karl Deeter that this might be a way of securing extra money to invest in the development or in the building of new social housing?”
Deeter: “I absolutely am saying that like the money has to come from somewhere and I think there’s a wider social housing conversation that needs to be had about increasing things like local property tax to fund social housing, rather than Part V which, in the last four years, in its best year it only delivered 16 homes. As well as that you could reduce perhaps, by having a better-run section, the numbers of evictions. Because there’s another thing that people don’t talk about. They come on and say ‘oh look at the market, there’s loads of people being evicted.’ The actual eviction figures for Dublin City Council, ok, show that within Dublin City, the city council evict more people in the banks or building societies in 2011, in 2012, in 2013 and I’m talking two or three times more. Other than 2015, it was the first time the banks evicted more people than Dublin City Council so there’s a lot of things in it that we never discuss. I’m saying we need to have this conversation.”
Listen back here
Previously: Karl Deeter: Up To 25% Of Those In Mortgage Arrears Are Lying
He’s spot on. Glad someone finally brought this to greater attention.
I work with a guy who has a household income of over 70k and yet he pays 80 quid a week for a 3 bedroom apartment in Grand Canal Dock. What’s the market value of that ? Probably 2,000-2,500?
And he openly admits that he’s on the pigs back. And the rest of us paying for it.
This country is unreal and not for the reasons that the meeja keep banging on about. But because we subsidise people who do not need it.
That’s not true. Either he’s lying about his rent or you making it up. My mother earns no where near that she pays €115 a week for a 3 bed in Dublin 8.
“But because we subsidise people who do not need it.”
Oh like the bailed out banks?
Yes, them too.
I’d be against that too.
But it doesn’t change the argument that we subsidise people on higher income levels than millions who get nought or close to nought.
And that’s wrong.
Where’s your evidence for that statement?
Where’s my evidence for what statement? The bit about social housing being provided to people regardless of current means? It’s so factual that it’s not even contested by Ruth Coppinger so I don’t really feel the need to post a link to it…
All perfectly reasonable points but broadsheet try and paint him as some psychopathic financier because they disagree.
I totally agree as well
That is all in your head.
hes a mortgage broker who gets a hell of a lot of free publicity on RTE.
and Renua’s ethics officer, no?
…with such luminaries as Eddie Hobbs and Karl…where did it all go wrong for Renua?
I thought you were taken the pish for a sec… :)
…you couldn’t make it up…maybe Lucinda thought they were the Illuminati
There used to be a lot of social housing stock, but when the government (rightly or wrongly) allowed people to buy out their council homes, they were not replaced at the same rate. There will always be a certain % of the population who will require social housing due to a number of factors. But if tenants in a council house reach a point where they can afford to rent/buy in the open market, should they not be encouraged to do so? It would free up the housing stock for exactly what it is required for…social tenants. However this is clearly not suitable for the highly dysfunctional market we currently have in Ireland but should there come a time where the market does stabilise in the future, could it be an option to be explored?
His agenda is to privatise the social housing sector in Ireland. It has nothing to do with helping people who can’t afford to buy.
Its already privatised…
Do, go on…. any link on that or is it just a throw away comment?
If he means privatised in that the majority of social provision is now via rent supplement to private landlords, he’s spot on isn’t he?
Its not privatized. Its sub-contracted out to the private sector.
Social provision is now covered by private interests – that’s privatisation of a once-public function.
as ahjayzis says, its mostly provided by the private sector via rent supplements, when was the last time you saw the public sector build a house or buy a private house for social housing use? its it more then 50 in the past 12 months I’d be mighty surprised
Thanks all…. I get ya now.
He’s bang on the mark here. It is a little ridiculous people who earn €30,000+ are in social housing.
It’s really not that simple.
Should it then follow that all people who rent be forced to purchase a home?
That’s not even close to being the same thing.
what rent do you think someone on 30k can afford in this market?
Same as everyone else i know who’s renting.
I’m on less than 30k currently and rent in the centre of Dublin. No rent supplement or any other discounts and no assistance from anyone else either, before you try and bring that into it. Why should someone who makes more than me be entitled to keep paying a fraction of what I pay in rent?
Wah Wah Wah some people are doing better than me
Maybe if you were a little smarter, more educated or hard working you could earn more
I’m a trainee in a profession and I will hopefully do well in the future. I’m quite happy with my current lot and I’m not complaining at all. Way to turn my point on its head. Now, how about you address my actual question?
By the time someone may have reached an income level which supports a mortgage, they would probably be too old to qualify for an affordable mortgage.
This greedy, divisive and threatening ideology towards social housing has it’s roots in Tory policy in Britain where they are trying to free up social housing blocks for sale to private investors.
That’s what this is all about. Moving public wealth into private hands.
They may be too old to qualify for a mortgage, but they’re not too old to pay market rent.
I don’t object to them paying a more realistic rent. I do object to their housing being taken from them. That’s the same as taking a home from a private renter.
I’d wager you have a vested interest here.
No Jungleman. I actually own three properties, one of them is my home. I’m just not a c***t.
He supports developers who got out of their social housing responsibilities by paying off the local authorities, rather than building social houses in their “exclusive” poorly built fire trap estates. the man is a parasite like the rest of his ilk.
Didn’t mention “Blueshirts” once there Dav, making real progress :’)
My god I’m shocked……. No blueshirt reference, there is hope for you.
blushirts din’t have the brains to get i on the property scams, they just clean up the mess and set the stage up for more scams, like good little serfs.
Good that you can now see they cleaned up the mess.
yes, didn’t catch or punish anybody who made the mess, just cleaned it away, lumped the debt on the people, and gave all the white collar criminals the green light to continue on – good work blushirts – Almost like caretakers in a way
Perfectly said, you’re learning.
and you are proud of your support of white collar criminals, wow, at least ff are corrupt for their own ends, blushirts are corrupt for their “betters” ends, they take the uncle tom complex to the next level.
I thank God FF got turfed out and now the idiot people have given them a chance to get back in. But I’m also realistic and I know whoever is in power will basically not effect my lifestyle so it’s really irrelevant.
“I know whoever is in power will basically not effect my lifestyle so it’s really irrelevant.”
ah, you’re one of the elite who don’t pay taxes, PRSI, USC, insurance levies, health insurance etc… Crikey that election loss has shaken ye blushirts to the point of delusion..
I pay all them bar health insurance, I never get sick think god but I work fucking hard for money. I don’t sit around moaning about this government done this, last government done that blah blah I didn’t realise until the recession ended how much of a country of moaning whingers we are, people didn’t mean this much when the bloody recession was in full swing.
Also you assume Im a “blueshirt”, that’s your delusional brains way of thinking everyone who has a different opinion is against you. Face facts the last government is probably the best we’ve ever had, the cuts made were awful but they got made unlike under governments who put staying in power above doing the things that to be done
but does he like Phil Collins?
…..he could p-p-put them all in s-s-s-Sussudio apartments
Karl makes a valid point and highlights the complexity of the housing market.
The housing market is a quagmire of multiple quick fixes and long term plans many with cross purposes. The whole housing area needs a complete overhaul with a long term view.
As an aside, just to note, DCC lost €9m in funding due to unpaid rents last year, a mix of the usual won’t pay, and the growing numbers who can’t… and both numbers are growing….
I won’t name the flats but they are just up the road from where I live and I have family living there. The next door neighbour in the flats openly tells everyone she won’t pay rent, I quote “fook them, il be dead before they even get me to court” this from a women who’s 83. I’m sure this happens all the time yet if she was turfed out you would get the bleeding hearts out moaning.
The reason we need scum villages, decent law abiding good citizens shouldn’t have to live next or near negative nasty greedy chunns like that not sweet 83 year old beeatch
The funny thing is, she was right. She died owing them money.
Lot of people in Dublin south Central Ballyfermot/Crumlin/Drimnagh were in social housing that they bought out at 50% discount over the years.
They had social housing, bought their house relatively cheaply are exactly the same ones screaming blue murder about property tax and in the same breadth giving out yards about homelessness.
They don’t seem to realise they breaks they got and don’t want to pay it on it the next generation.
…lots of people in Dublin have seen their loans or rentals taken over by vulture funds who bought them at a discount of 90% from so-called state owned agencies…but hey, them’s the breaks…
A discount of 90%? Really? It would be fascinating to see any evidence of this.
Here’s your pal Stephen Donelly who you were praising earlier for covering this –
90% he says. McWilliams is saying discounts of 80%.
Around min 20
“Take another one, which I thought was outrageous, that Fine Gael drove through, was the sale of the IRBC mortgages book .
Now, I know people who went in to, it’s called the ‘Data room’, where you can go and see how each individual mortgage is being sold for and you add them all up at the end and you say right, the full mortgage book is whatever it is, a 1 billion/2 billion… and they were being sold for 10 cents in the euro.
So take a family, a family might be in mortgage arrears..and they lost their job or whatever.. let’s say they bought the property for 300 grand, and they could service 200 grand. Fine Gael refused to allow that family to bid on their own mortgage.. So what happened, what they did allow, was these funds to come in and buy that 300 grand (interruption from the zzzope Marian).. So what happened instead was vulture funds came in, specialised debt collectors, and bought this 300 grand mortgage for 30 grand and they’re now going back to the family and saying, we’re going to evict you and sell your home for whatever it’s worth, and we’re off ”
30k seems about right for a low-cost, mass-produced semi-D in D15 West.
Sure it only takes you two hours to get to work.
“Cerberus bids £1.241bn and Fortress bids £1.1bn. Cerberus wins Project Eagle. The official figures emerge much later. Cerberus has paid a discounted price of €1.6bn for the loans worth €5.7bn at face value.”
Discounted price of 1.6 billion on loans worth 5.7 billion.
Let’s see now.. that’s about a 72% discount.
6.25 billion for 800m. (that’d be an 88% discount)
50pc of Project Arrow is made up of Irish residential property.
There you go Owen C..
Massive generalisation there Dubloony.
I hear most objection to property tax coming from owners of multiple properties.
If someone in social housing has a right to buy their flat from the state, discounted at a loss to the state, how come I don’t have the right to compulsorily purchase my flat from my landlord for a big loss to that landlord?
Utter reverence shown to private property rights while anything state-owned is flogged off at the first opportunity.
All the hoarded land should be taken into state ownership for the common good. that’ll shake those developers from their slumber and let the banks know who governs this nation.
If they just implemented the Kenny Report from the 70’s all hoarded undeveloped land would be worth only a fraction above agricultural prices. Land banking would cease to be a thing.
Social housing should never ever be privatised nor sold off both of which has happened in Ireland. Social housing should be built by the state, remain in state ownership for the benefit of those who require it. It’s when someone potentially no longer requires state help to house themselves should the house not revert back to the state to allocate to someone in need? I grew up on a council estate that had ended up 50% in private ownership and nowadays is 100% in private ownership. Those properties are no longer available to the council. Those properties were not replaced by the private sector in their 10% allocation, nor were they replaced by the council building their own. It’s so wrong to see the waiting list extend to years while families are growing and living in temporary unsuitable accommodation.
I know one guy who has a council flat just off Capel Street. He inherited it from his granny. How can it be that a social housing unit can be passed down through generations?
I know another where a girl whose mother was dying of cancer was upgraded to a house from a two bed flat. Said girl ‘accidentally’ got pregnant and later, mother passed away. She is now sole tenant and father has moved in.
There is an absolute need for social housing but it is also being abused. On the other hand, people being able to but their homes is reasonable. The real problem is a political decision not to build new ones.
“On the other hand, people being able to but their homes is reasonable.”
How is it reasonable? No other renters have a ‘right’ to buy the place from under the landlord.
You can be in a council house, paying a comparatively low rent, and then are given an option to buy it for a discount. Or you can be on rent supplement in a privately rented flat, paying inflated rents with no option to buy and constant threat of being told to piss off so the landlord gets vacant possession.
Why is it only public property that’s for sale for a song? If you live in a rented flat, private or public, and can afford to buy, by all means go and buy. But why do we need to sell social houses for a loss to people who don’t need social housing to make a bank money in mortgage repayments?
You made the same point above and I think it’s the most interesting point so far in the thread. We wonder why there is a shortage of social housing, well, we sold it all.
I’m only asking now, so nobody jump down me throat, but if people who could afford to pay for housing on the open market over the years were not given the option to buy social housing at a discount, and had to compete like the rest of us in an open market, and were encouraged to do so by the council if financially viable to do so, how would this have effected the housing market in general, for everybody? Would the extra demand make prices rise, or would the fact that the demand would come from lower earners offering lower sums, reduce prices?
It is reasonable because the long term objective of social housing should be to encourage people to buy their homes. That is a principle which is accepted all over Europe and you cannot demand that if people are in a position to buy, they should leave their communities in order to so. The fact that the rest of the housing market is nuts does not mean this principle should be cast aside. Either you believe there is a need for social housing or there is not.
That is patently not a principle accepted all over Europe. Home ownership is 45% in Germany, 37%in Switzerland, where renting is secure, controlled and of very high quality.
The obsession with home ownership is an anglo-saxon fetish we’ve inherited and it’s brought us, like the UK, some of the most energy inefficient, poorly built, designed and planned housing stock in western Europe. They’re knocked up for a quick sale.
Social housing’s long term objective is to house people, not as a way to nursemaid poor people into the tender arms of a bank loan.
Social housing existed before Thatcher brainwashed a generation into thinking it’s a pitstop on the way to becoming a property magnate.
And percentage of those is Germany, Switzerland etc are publically owned? I was speaking about social housing ONLY, not private. I would think that as a proportion of social/ private housing goes, the UK is way higher.
But, as you raised the subject Those countries may have better tenancy rights but at it core is a statement of rich and poor. In plain English, if you don’t own your home then someone else does. That is not something we should aspire to.
More socialism is not the answer to someone on 30k in their 30s paying over half their wages to rent a bedsit.
@ Marian. It is not socialism that has left someone on 30k in their 30s paying over half their wages to rent a bedsit. That is unbridled capitalism at it’s very best.
The low paid worker has to compete against The State with it’s €950 “rent cap” subsidy (i.e. rent floor).
The medium paid worker has to compete against The State turning a blind eye to the US multinationals who subsidise their employee’s rents (tax free on both ends, of course) which causes €2k a month rents in the Grand Canal Dock area (for example). I mean, how else could you attract a tech worker to come to Dublin?
The State is interfering by its actions and inactions. The State is incompetent when it comes to planning and when it all goes wrong, people like you think The State is the solution.
Anyway, it doesn’t bother me. But I do feel sorry for the poor 30-something/40-something schmucks stuck in the middle. Many are now too old for a mortgage. If I were them, I would hastily leave. That’s just my own view. An even bigger problem than the sea of suppressed individual talents and wasted lives is that if/when they leave, low quality people are only too happy to come and fill the gap (two to a room) with The State on hand to pay for it all. Ireland is on a path of irreversible self-destruction. The signs are everywhere, but if you watch enough emerald tinted RTE television, you can prolong the denial.
If you’re on 30k a year (a Garda with 5 years’ experience I believe) your income is not more than what, 2k a month? Try renting a flat in Dublin on that. Chuckle, chuckle… If you live like Angela’s Ashes, you could just about stretch to a 1.2L Ford Fiesta. Real babe magnet.
But the biggest lie in New Ireland is to think that if you “team up” and get yourself a working wife, all your problems will be solved. The amount of “young” couples I hear of who are the wrong side of 35 “trying” for a baby is ridiculous. Like I said earlier, self destruction… One sure as hell way for a society to self-destruct is to not reproduce. Ireland incentivises the very worst to reproduce and does everything it can to disincentivise those who “do the right thing” (well, according to what New Ireland thinks the “right thing” is).
nasty vicious subhuman psychotic loser
“if you don’t own your home then someone else does.”
Yeah, the bank for most of your time living there, while you cover it’s maintenance and are liable for every defect.
I do have a problem with amateurs buying an extra house or two and expecting the tenant to foot the mortgage in it’s entirety, plus profit, for their pension – unprofessional and haphazard.
It’s really not about rich and poor, especially now when the average rent is more expensive than the average mortgage repayment – people too poor to qualify for a mortgage paying more than the mortgage would cost. It’s about professional landlords, providing a professional, secure, controlled and regulated service people find preferable than shackling themselves to debts ten or fifteen times their income.
I would have no problem with yours or my pension fund for instance owning and renting my home to me on a long term basis. Why would I? Institutional investors, in it for the long haul with an eye on the long term return rather than milking every cent out of their tenant.
@ Marian. Not nitpicking but..
The low paid worker is competing with landlords who back in the day would have put the English to shame. Reason is money rather than privilege.
The medium paid worker is free to spend his or her time enjoying the customer service driven ethos of CIÉ. Yup. Move on or if your are on a train coming in from the North, just look out the window and watch several Darts go by.
2k a month in the IFSC is perfectly reasonable as it is full of coke heads shouting each other down. I really would hate to be one of their neighbours. Give me a council flat any day.
Deeter has a point. Social housing should be for poor people and indexed against wages. The more you earn the more you pay.
If you have a good income mix in publically owned houses, the system generates more money, which can be ploughed back into the social housing system. If you earn a good wage, pay the provider, whether pubic or private, market rent.
Mandating a minimum level of poverty would turn council estates into ghettos in the absence of mandating mix of tenures in a development.
“for poor people”
What an ignoramus you are.
“The more you earn the more you pay.”
If that mantra was applied to income tax, you’d be calling it communist.
That’s how PAYE is supposed to work Tish.. and that’s what happens with social housing too. People pay more if they earn more.. Deeter isn’t happy with that though, as it’s no where near the absurd market rents.
“Deeter has a point. Social housing should be for poor people and indexed against wages. The more you earn the more you pay.”
They already do – pay more if they earn more.
“Now people say ‘oh but they are means tested and there’s differentiations, etc’ but that, to me, still doesn’t get to the root nub of the issue…There’s a lot of people who are well able to afford more than the rent ”
He just wants them paying market rates.
“who are moderately well-off who are earning above average wage, living in these social houses, receiving what is effectively a very subsidised rent.”
Effectively? In what sense is it subsidised? What are the costs not met by the rents?
The funding for any social houses has been well paid off I would have thought, and the rents are well covering any ongoing costs.. saying you could be making more profit, is not the same as saying it’s being subsidised.
Sorry, one more link today from McWilliams..
800 a year he says the state could be providing social housing for..
“Rightly or wrongly, fixing the housing problem will take massive government intervention.
It will be done via government borrowing and that government borrowing has to be ringfenced explicitly to build houses.
These are not social houses; they are houses. Let’s drop the social bit.
Before I explain how it will work, let me tell you about the true cost of houses.
It would cost €5.3bn.
Our new government can borrow for 30 years today at 0.7pc per annum.
This implies that a ringfenced special purpose borrowing vehicle for Irish State housing would have to pay around €38m per year. Now we are talking. This is a tiny figure.
How much annual rent would you have to charge on these State houses to cover this interest rate cost?
The actual figure would be €760 per house per year. Not per month, per year. This would be affordable housing, wouldn’t it? ”
760 euro a year.
Deeter isn’t talking about the costs here though.. he’s talking about potential profits that could be made from people in social housing, comparing it to what people pay in the private market.. ‘they’re being fleeced over there, so we should fleece them here too’.
760 euro a year. every year. for 30 years. That’s just the interest.
and then in 30 years time we need to find €5.3 billion. You need to pay back the money you borrow, not just the interest.
And this doesn’t include the land purchase. So what was the solution? buy the land at agricultural prices. perfect. So we are going to build 50,000 houses in the countryside. which sounds to me like all the ghost estates.
Oh, and there is no provision in those costs for any services – you know, roads, electricity, gas, water, sewerage. so those costs are not reasonable.
Well, I would take it that he meant people would be paying more than the 760 a year like..
“Obviously, there are other costs and charges you could add to these base figures but this gives you a sense of how the creative use of State borrowing at very low interest rates can get us out of this hole at almost zero cost.
If you wanted the State to pay back more, you could increase the rent paid on these houses.
New Ireland not quite working out as planned, eh?
Funny watching all the 20 and 30 somethings beginning to realise that the firmly held false ideas they hold are failing. Instead of voting, they’re too busy campaigning on Facebook for two men (but not three) to get married. Soon they’ll be 40 and too old for a mortgage. I guess it’s a kind of earthly justice. Or Darwinian effect. Who knows… The whole Irish property thing is very weird. The British were fair and moral landlords. That is, until the Irish took over and put their own out to live in the ditch. But the Irish went one further – instead of dealing with problems as they come (like a grown up country would do), they use the unfortunates as an opportunity to set up a housing quango and/or get charity tax status.
Do people not want to be free? Has society given up on promoting freedom, the family and home ownership? We vote (and pay) to have The State on hand to wipe everyone’s bum? Nobody is responsible?
You lot need to grow up.
you seem like a particularly nasty sub-human piece of compassion-less trash
“The British were fair and moral landlords.”
I’ll have a pint of what ever you are on luv.
The reason people feel so strongly about referendums is that they feel they can actually change something. Until now, elections between the old Punch and Judy show of FG/FF mean no real difference. Wait for the 8th and see what people really think of this imposed top down social conservatism.
But when you have politicians flying abroad to meet vulture funds and the Credit Union movement offering refused money to resolve the crisis, things will change. In the mean time families suffer in hotels and some will die on the streets but sure isn’t a Pro Life way principle way more important than that?
Sure as long as we’re all Gay and renting, what else could possibly matter to the aspiring childless metropolitan elite?
Equal in the gutter (gazing bleary eyed up to the ploughy stars or whatever) is not something to aspire to.
It’s very weird that important stuff (like owning your own home when you’re in the autumn years of your life, preferably during the summer years) is so unimportant to young people. It’s as if Facebook never told them that they’ll be dying soon. Do they realise that in the not too distant future, there will be more dead people on Facebook than living people?
VISA credit card transaction on South William Street – ready meal for one
Irish young (and not so young) people need to put away the bikes, the craft beer, the silly moustaches and sort their sh*t out. Make a plan and execute it. Otherwise, The State will be “looking after you” in your old age! Lol.
Good to read your inspirational stuff
For every odd shoe, there’s an odd sock to match..
“Sure as long as we’re all Gay and renting, what else could possibly matter to the aspiring childless metropolitan elite?” Right up there on the “The British were fair and moral landlords.” sweetheart.
Please keep going?
This was my favourite –
“It’s as if Facebook never told them that they’ll be dying soon”
She’s hatin’ on everyone and anyone.. probably an auld wan who got on the property market and had kids much younger than young people can today.. eh, because there was no facebook and gay marriage back in her day to be distracted by.
Follow the money.
People who make their money out of mortgages don’t want the councils to build housing, because if they do, it will dampen down the price of rent and stop a mortgage bubble.
And of course people shouldn’t “inherit” council houses or flats. Of course people in council houses and flats should have their rent reviewed against their income, in a fair way.
“Follow the money.
People who make their money out of mortgages don’t want the councils to build housing, because if they do, it will dampen down the price of rent and stop a mortgage bubble”
Hi Anne… Interesting links there, thank you.
Last week Goldman Sachs upgraded RBS to a ‘buy’ recommendation http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/sharewatch/rbs-boosted-by-goldman-sachs-upgrade-to-buy-a6933796.html
I think we are trying to stabilise banks
Personally, I think that gambling with people’s homes to prop up failures is a dick move considering how we got into this mess.
No bother.. Just working out some of the percentage discounts as requested earlier by Owen. :)
Re: “Personally, I think that gambling with people’s homes to prop up failures is a dick move considering how we got into this mess.”
David McWilliams said the same recently.
“Who do you think they will sell to? Who do you think are the natural owners of Irish property? Irish people are, of course. The vulture funds are just glorified bridge finance merchants. They have no intention of owning Ireland in the long term. That’s not their game. They are just here because no one else has access to big piles of cash.
The vultures are waiting for Irish banks to recover so that they can sell Ireland back to the Irish at a massive profit.
However, the question is who pays for their extravagant returns?
This is where it gets tricky for Ireland because when the opportunity passes for significant double-digit returns, why would a property fund sniff around here? Who will buy from the vultures?
Of course these assets will revert to their natural owners, Irish people.
But where will the Irish get the cash? Why, we’ll borrow it from Irish banks and we will be back to where we started with Irish banks over-leveraged to expensive Irish property. Remember why we got into this mess. The Irish crisis happened because our banks were massively leveraged to over-expensive Irish property. When the vultures have flown, that’s where we’ll end up again and Nama will have been the broker.”
The only thing there is central bank rules are making that impossible for working class people to get mortgages, whereas those rules are not an issue for the Irish wealthy/insiders in nama working with the vultures.. Concentration of property ownership is the way it’s going. We’ll have to get over that so called obsession with owning our own home we’re told. Implying that should be for others to obsess about.
I wholeheartedly agree with what Carl Deeter says. I’ve been discussing this same issue a lot lately. Once social housing tenants earn above the threshold, which is €35,000 for single people and €42,000 for family in Dublin, they should pay market rents. The council’s and housing associations can then use this extra rent to provide accommodation for other, more deserving people. Its simple.
I’m a renter and the small block of apartments next door to me is a social housing block. Some of them may struggle. But probably no more or less than We do. Many of the units have two adults, some of them have three. Most of the people in the complex work because they go off to work when I’m leaving in the morning. Neither I nor my partner are in well paid jobs so I can’t imagine that we’re better off than many of them, if at all.
I drive a 13 year old car. 3 of my neighbours in social housing drive 161 cars, one is a 161 Audi. You would have to work very very very hard to convince me that these people can’t afford to pay a little more rent.
….I should probably have said market rents, not “a little more rent”.
“Some of them may struggle. But probably no more or less than We do.”
That’s what Karl Deeter wants too.. Great stuff. Have everyone struggle.
You seem to be missing the point Anne. Less of us would struggle if the social housing tenants who no longer meet the criteria to qualify for social housing were paying market rents. Even after the crash they weren’t paying market rents. We’re subsidising them and they’re blocking those who are worse off from accessing social housing.
Councils selling off these properties at reduced rates to these same tenants has also contributed to the lack of availability of social housing stock because the houses/apartments didn’t revert back to the council after death. These types of schemes had gone away for a while but they are coming back. I know of summer local authorities who are selling off their housing stock to current tenants….. at reduced rates. Its silly.
Meanwhile the government is getting rid of tax relief on rent paid by private PAYE workers. Just when it is most needed. This had the effect of widening the gap between effective market rent values and what social housing tenants (earning greater than €35,000).
Aaaaarrrrrg *SOUND OF HEAD EXPLODING*
“Less of us would struggle if the social housing tenants who no longer meet the criteria to qualify for social housing were paying market rents.”
How would more demand for private housing make it less of a struggle for those already in the private rental market? It wouldn’t.. it would make it more of a struggle.
They’re not being subsidising either. See where he said effectively. That means they’re effectively not being subsidised. There’s millions being collected in rents.. they’re still not building more social housing.
If anyone’s being subsidised it’s private landlords, who are paid from the public purse for housing in a market that’s not affordable for many.
Say for instance, someone on 34999 pays a council rent, of say €120 per week. They then get a pay rise of €20 per annum….. You’re suggesting that they then should pay rent of €1500 per month ( €375 per week approx). That ain’t so clever.
I live in a city centre apartment complex and share a carpark with a social housing block. Nobody and I mean NOBODY in that block has a car older then three years. When I say car I mean SUVs and jeeps. There is absolutely no shortage of money. There is also absolutely no understanding of community living. The debris from their regularly refurnished apartments is simply dumped in the bin-rooms. They have no understanding of how the incidental costs of removing this debits feeds into higher management fees because they don’t pay that either. I am all for social housing for people that cannot afford it should not be for life. People get back on their feet and the system should reflect this.
Other people are doing well so let’s kick them if they’re lower class right? What have you done to engage with the management company and other stakeholders and tackle these issues?
This is nothing to do with class it’s someone saying they can’t afford a home and dropping 30k on a jeep. These people are very much middle class mainly because they don’t need to pay a mortgage or market rate rent.
John f, you’re a typical Irish middle class petty snob. You hate what you perceive as a lesser class having more than you have. You really hate it.
“oh look at them with their large screen TVs and their 161 cars. How dare they display material goods. They should get back in their pigeon holes and be oppressed”
Lol doesn’t matter what was said when it’s tee’d up with ‘strategic default’ & a one liner from American Psycho! (Great film btw). Incidentally 50% of people in deep arrears pay zero, lead off with that next time, it’s even more inflamatory. Kudos to most of you who saw that the conversation is valid and deserves deeper consideration.
Sorry, what are you on about? A one liner from American Psycho?
How is it even more inflammatory? Shur it was the likes of you who caused the over flated prices in the first place, Karl Deeter,.. if that is truly he who believes in helping poor people.. lol
The line about returning video tapes? I’m guessing by the remark above you don’t belive in helping the poor and less well off? Don’t have much to discuss with you if that’s the case.
Oh yeah, the title.. I forgot.
Help me Karl, I’m a poor person. (just messin’)
Your opinions on housing should come with a warning ‘here are the words of a vested interest whose institutions helped contribute to the mess he’s referring to’..
I believe in helping the less well off, I also believe in affordable housing for low/middle income earners, rather than being burdened with unsustainable debt to put a roof over theirs heads.
I don’t agree with kicking people out of their homes, to free up social housing for others.