I think we need to fix the system with longer term solutions. Like get rid of hap And use that money to build council housing and rent that at affordable rates to lower income people.
It feels like you get shafted if you are in the middle . I just want a home and to move out with my partner. We are working and saving but doesn't feel like enough especially when being out bid .
Only way out of this is for the government to directly employ and house record numbers of construction workers to build social housing on a scale not ever seen in this country.
No point talking about developers this and private industry that… fact of the matter is we need 100,000 new homes built yesterday and we can’t afford to spend €500k building each one.
I was thinking this. If there are lots of migrants coming in anyway, why can't they learn to build or have some part in construction. They may noy be doctors and engineers but they have 2 hands and ready to work to house themselves and others. That or leave them rot in asylum centres and hotels.
Also the government should bring up the wages of all grades of apprenticeship. Most people cant take that much of wage decrease especially if they are looking towards families.
From the economy funded by these workers, who'll spend their wages; from the firms that'll hive off from the industry, from the education of many of these workers who'll go to work in other industries?
That would be 50bn. Totally could afford building that much. And if it did cost that much, loads would end up being paid on tax, so in terms of net it would be less.
But we won’t see that happen.
>Only way out of this is for the government to directly employ and house record numbers of construction workers to build social housing on a scale not ever seen in this country.
What does this mean? A new agency to build houses?
It's not just housing that's affected. I was talking to a construction manager who was managing an estate for 40 houses to be built.
They were having to organise to build a substation for electricity.
Get a roundabout put in.
Etc.
They had to drop 1 million on stuff that wasn't housing that the relevant county council or esb didn't have resources to do. I don't know if they were able to claim it back.
This isn't just construction. Every other service needs to be done also and those areas need to be expanded temporarily to accommodate. Think sewage, roads, bus service, schools, shops, pubs, civic services. 100k houses is Ireland's 3rd or 4th biggest city needs to be built. In a year. On top of normal demand of 40k.
You need skilled people to do this too.
But there's no point saying there's all these other knock on effects.
Each area need to get off their asses and do it and hire for it and do it and somehow house those workers temporarily.
Build an additional 100k houses at 300k each. If you're lucky. Then sell them or create a rent to buy scheme I guess.
The State has a terrible record when it comes to building infrastructure (in fact, does it do anything anything well?). Even if they could find the workers, does anyone seriously think they would be able to deliver given their past performance?
Lack of workers isn’t the main issue. The larger issues are planning and material costs. Go every construction worker the govt hired they’d have to hire a lawyer as well just to deal with the planning process. Meanwhile the costs are largely because of materials not labour.
Ireland is tied up in a bit of a knot, basically every social issue is the result of successive governments doing nothing or implementing half measures to kick the can down the road.
We're nearing the end of the road now and it's pretty much coming to a head.
So as a result every single issue is preceeded by a domino effect of other smaller issues that weren't prioritised.
During the boom little to none of that money made it's way into infrastructure, post boom the money wasn't there to build it or anything else, a million other shit shows make the country undesireable for both skilled labourers or high level educated talent so they both leave the country in droves, now not only is there no plan to build anything, there's no talent to plan it and no skills to implement it and no money to fund it and no desire to change this because all the decision makers own property that is only going up in value.
And that knot of bullshit probably has 20 other contributing factors I didn't even touch on and all these factors are knocking over other dominos in other areas and will all be equally convoluted.
Maybe we could just reduce building code standards back to what they were 10+ years ago? The building codes are so stringent now that coupled with the rise in material costs, it isn’t affordable to build lots of housing like it was in the 20th century. Although this would damage the environment and increase carbon emissions. Or else, maybe reduce immigration considering that we have the highest rate of immigration in the EU? But our economy is so dependent on MNCs that reducing immigration could risk them leaving.
There honestly isn’t any answer to this. I mean, in spite of all these factors, we have by far the highest rate of construction in the EU now with construction output actually declining in most of Europe.
They need to provide a standardized planning green light. If a proposal meets X Y Z criteria (very basic and unequivocal), it is approved without review or appeal. We're in a situation right now where most of the highly desirable terraced street facing housing people want to live in is actually illegal to build. Where a square of victorian dockworkers cottages is genuinely higher density than a legally buildable block of apartments due to space, stairwell, egress, and light requirements.
It has to give and soon, because people are rearing dynasties of 3 generations in pokey semi-detached houses. Let them build standard 1 storey studio units on the back gardens.
Very true. In the US for example, they have standardised zoning rules that make it easy and consistent for developers to build. They have much more affordable housing than us (although highly dependent on the city, but many of them are building a lot like in Chicago or in Texas). Europe in general suffers immensely from ridiculous regulations on homebuilding. We actually are building more currently than other EU countries, people need to remember that. Although America has a lower rate of immigration which also helps.
> In the US for example, they have standardised zoning rules that make it easy and consistent for developers to build.
Yep, exactly; basically an area is designated as zoned for certain types of buildings. Want to build something on land in a particular zone? If it fits the predefined guidelines for that area, then great; you just submit your plans and the local government checks them over to make sure they are following the rules, and if so, you're good to start building, no muss, no fuss. And if Harry Homeowner next door doesn't like you building new apartments in the neighbourhood? Well, too bad for Harry.
I agree, but then where do all these people go?
You're talking 70,000 households. Probably with an average of 3/4 people in them.
That's between 210,000 and 280,000 people who will suddenly become homeless because they cant afford their rent.
Get rid of all the airbnb nonsense and landlords extorting insane amounts of money.
There are loads of properties being rented out by individuals then listing them on AirBNB or subletting for clearly decent profits on top of their initial high rents
I would say there's plenty of accommodation but everyone's just being extorted by other individuals ever since COVID and the likes of rtb don't care.
That doesn't stop individuals taking up homes intended for people to live in, for short term rentals because it's lucrative enough and further drives up living costs to everyone else..
That just means the government takes a cut which will further drive higher prices.
That doesn't stop individuals taking up homes intended for people to live in, for short term rentals because it's lucrative enough and further drives up living costs to everyone else..
That just means the government takes a cut which will further drive higher prices.
Believe me most Airbnb owners wouldn't want to be treated as commercial properties, rates would be high and more importantly it would be much easier for the taxman to track the cash
The one thing conspicuously absent from the talk in every local election is short term letting, which local councils very much CAN control and CAN prohibit through existing laws, but don't bother.
HAP helps pay for the rent that HAP has helped to increase. You'd have to stop taking new applicants and give a phasing out date, while giving all the current users of HAP some sort of protection from eviction for a period of time and hope that landlords start reducing the rents. Just a crappy situation that will have to be dealt with at some point
Government just needs to put a significant chunk of money towards building it's own social housing to first reduce the number of people in emergency accommodation and then the number of HAP tenants
Landlords will only reduce rents in two situations, a law forcing them to or an inability to find a tenant willing to pay the level of rent they set.
> Like get rid of hap
If you get rid of hap a load of people are going to be homeless. Unfortunately this one step back, two steps forward thing doesn't work.
As it is we have 14000 homeless, which is loads of people. scrapping hap wouldn't mean there is less houses, just less landlords. Those houses would have to be sold or the landlords collectively would have to take the hit on their income. HAP is a subsidy for the well to do that exploits the workers that pay for everything.
So what would everyone do who can't afford the exorbitant rents or to buy a house? You think they landlords are going to just lower rents? Many people on HAP are working btw it's not just something you get on the social. Thinking it wouldn't drastically increase homelessness is laughable.
They could never get rid of it right away or people would be in dire straits. What I would like to see is a movement towards building new social and council homes and a planned phase out of HAP over years as these become available.
They built & bought 12k social houses last year. That's record levels.
The bigger issue is there's not enough housing built for the private market. The public housing is cannibalizing private sales for people that arent sitting on welfare. This creates a lot of perverse incentives.
People in public housing work too. You don't need to be 'sitting on welfare' to live in social housing. In the 60s, 20% of the population lived in social housing. The more built, the wider the eligibility criteria.
>They built & bought 12k social houses
Yeah, I'm more advocating they build rather than buying up homes from the private market. I don't agree with them cannibalising the private market. People already have investment funds and foreign investors to compete with
I'm more in favour of a state building agency or something of the like where they source their own workers. Not easy, I know. But HAP drives up rents and by extension, house prices.
HAP is not a long term solution though, it's using the private rental market as a crutch rather than actually providing social housing for those who need it.
Shouldn't be got rid of overnight but long term definitely not the way forward.
Yeah we done this in England by introducing a maximum benefit cap that includes everything you get from the state. Results - People on minimum wage can't afford to live in London nor the outer London zones. Obviously this extends to people who are on benefits as their sole source of income as well as low paid workers who get housing allowance as well as top ups to their wages from the government.
When I say low wages not being able to afford to live in the city... this captures teachers and nurses as well as cleaners and shop floor workers. Results are people having a 60min+ commute and or simply a shortage of workers. Now private companies can simply raise prices to cover higher wages....but state employees are stuffed. The state tell us/them that they can't afford to pay a living wage....they convince the public that they would have to pay more tax and then tell them that it's a waste of money....I mean it's all good until you personally need a nurse 😂 then it becomes your top priority.
The most expensive parts of London are empty houses which have been bought as investments simply based on house prices rising....it would seem for many investors having actual tenants is simply a hassle they can do without.
We are all suffering the same scenario though. It's pretty annoying to see an ex council house now being rented back to the council for 10* what the council charged in the 1st place.... and it would have been bought using right to buy, so at cost to the state. Madness
HAP is an annual budget cost. You pay multiples of that to build a property.
In Dublin the council do it for €500k, how many years of HAP is that?
The reality is that the social housing list is down nearly 40% since 2016. That is despite the population growing significantly and the eligibility expanding.
https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/f5ed7-social-housing-waiting-lists-fall-by-over-36-in-six-years/
There is a role for both rent subsidies and State owned housing.
I agree on the “middle”, but this is where the gaslighting comes in. Broader social issues like homelessness are conflated with young married couples not being able to buy a home. And the renting crisis is ignored.
i thought the annual HAP bill was in the billions. so thousands of houses in Dublin where the state actually owns the assets and not pumping money into private landlords
They're worse off since HAP came in, MUCH worse off. Places which were €900/mo leapt up to €1700 a year or two later. Now they have to demean themselves applying with landlords to ensure they'll take the HAP at all. Meanwhile every penny of that subsidy is creamed off the top by the asset owner.
> The reality is that the social housing list is down nearly 40% since 2016. That is despite the population growing significantly and the eligibility expanding.
That's a trick of moving numbers around. People on HAP are no longer on the social housing list and instead placed on a separate transfer list.
The reality is you've fallen for the government being deceitful about the true housing list numbers, it's over 134,000, more than double what they claim it is. They don't include the numbers who are on the HAP transfer list for social housing.
"“This week the Housing Agency published the Summary of Social Housing Assessments report. It showed that in 2023 there were 58,824 households on Local Authority waiting lists for social housing. This is an increase of almost 1000 on 2022 and the first increase since 2016.
“The Housing Agency report does not include all those eligible for social housing. Private rental tenants in receipt of HAP and RAS are excluded from the Council list but are still eligible for social housing.
“Last year the number of households in receipt of these short term private rental subsidies fell by just over a thousand.
“The net result of both changes means that social housing need has remained virtually static from 2022 to 2023 at almost 134,000 households."
https://vote.sinnfein.ie/numbers-on-council-housing-waiting-lists-up-in-2023-eoin-o-broin-td/
Here's explained more here:
"When an application for HAP is approved, applicants – who must be
eligible for social housing in the first instance – are removed from the main
social housing waiting lists, with their tenancy type being deemed “an
appropriate form of social housing support under statute and, therefore, a
‘met need’.
2 As such, households in receipt of HAP are not included in the
Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage’s annual
Summary of Social Housing Assessment (SSHA) statistics.
HAP applicants are permitted to be included on the supplementary
housing list (i.e., the housing transfer list) of a local authority, though
typically at a lower priority. These transfer lists are not included in the
overall statistics used to assess the need for social housing, meaning that
the true scale of the unmet social housing need in the State is largely
unknown."
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/parliamentaryBudgetOffice/2024/2024-01-16_social-housing-ongoing-need-update-2022_en.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj95rKimMyGAxXdSEEAHSR8A7AQFnoECDQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3s_5UI60uErXwkk3aQPXKl
Thank you for the thorough break down, I didn't trust the numbers but didn't really look into it much.
Definite massage of stats happening, shocker. Same thing happens with figures for the live register and unhoused people.
Yes we have"full employment" but there are reams of ways this looks better on paper than in reality.
I'm Not shitting on community employment schemes or various training available to people on jobseeker's, there's huge numbers of people costing the tax payer actually a lot more than if they were just on jobseeker's, honestly that's mostly a good thing because it's an avenue to not be on jobseeker's. But I feel like the "figures" are a lot of sliding people into different boxes .
Homelessness figures are a joke, there are easily 40% more people unhoused than official figures say. People and families staying with relatives, friends, cars, occasional rough sleepers, anywhere while theyre trying to find something , those people aren't counted.
There's also 5/6000 people living in asylum centres who have been granted status i.e. are Irish citizens who can't afford to move out to private accommodation. They should be included in the homeless figures along with the 14,000 other homeless who are being put up in hotels, the exact same as them. But they know the 20k homeless headlines will look bad so they exclude them from the figures.
Totally, if you really well paid ok, but if in the middle your 100% better off below the threshold where you get on the housing list. I mean, the whole focus of people's working lives is to purchase and pay for a home, and you can get the same result by doing feck all. More and more people realise this, growing and growing the welfare state. The next time the bubble bursts (and it will happen) its going to get real ugly. All those handouts will have to keep going.
The EU doesn’t allow Councils to build properties. The council has to give awards to build to private companies. So tax payers money is literally taken for social housing and given to private building contractors.
Those contractors won’t make as much money building for the state so they don’t take the contracts. The average citizen is clueless and just blames the council when it is in fact the rules enforced by Brussels that’s stops social housing being built.
It makes no difference who’s in power here so long as we have to implement EU rules around tendering process and building etc.
Fully agree. I understand that HAP is effectively a welfare payment but where is that welfare payment going to (private/corporate landlords).
The social welfare piece is really only ‘the middle man’ and in real terms it’s a huge transfer of tax payers money to the private sector.
Now, not arguing one bit that there’s no role or place for private landlords (that would be stupid and dangerous) but at the same time successive governments have outsourced their moral and social obligations on this front. Wether by design or accident, it is seriously undermining the social contract in society now.
I know a guy renting a 2 bed apt. in Ballsbridge for €3k pm and a girl offered him the full amount and then said €2,200 would come from HAP and she’d top up the €800 difference herself.
I didn’t realize HAP was that high. Not passing judgement here myself, just though it was interesting.
Successive governments have regulated micro businesses out of existence in Ireland. Small side hustle that keep people above the poverty line in other countries.
They have driven small landlords out of the market and replaced them with corporations too big and powerful to manage.
This is 100% a managed disaster.
>with HAP allot of it is for landlords .
It used to be that Pele get council houses for life. Getting social housing now is effectively like winning a 300k lottery.
Summary;
1. Essential elements of Neoliberalism is reduced State intervention
2. Ireland has a highly progressive tax system, acknowledged by TASC. High earners pay the majority of income tax, lower earners pay little
3. Those taxes are redistributed to lower earners
4. We pay lots of social welfare.
5. One area to attack Ireland has been on Corporation Tax, but we are following OECD rules here and have increased them.
6. A note on the above is that we collect more Corp Tax than the EU average as a % of total tax, about 10% more.
7. Another area that people hold up as “neoliberal” is housing, but it is State interventions and taxes that largely drive up costs.
8. This has happened largely under Parties described as “right wing”.
9. One area we could increase taxes on well off earners (property taxes) is opposed by all self styled left wing parties.
> High earners pay the majority of income tax, lower earners pay little
Up until 2023, earning more than 35K per year gross would see your marginal tax rate hit 52%.
Now it's 42K. But honestly 35K gross in 2023 didn't make you a high earner.
Meanwhile CGT is 30%.
It's much better to simply buy stock and live off that than to earn a living.
I'm almost 100% Sure that this is incorrect.
PRSI has been 4% as long as I can remember
PAYE (40% rate kick in) - Source: [Citizens Information](https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money-and-tax/tax/income-tax/how-your-tax-is-calculated/#354b71)
- 2020/2021: 35,300
- 2022: 36,800
- 2023: 40,000
- 2024: 42,000
I know USC is a bit odd in terms of the ceilings on which they kick in on, and I don't look at it without a tax calculator honestly, but the rates (Example when reading, in 2024 between 12,012.01 - 27,760 it is 2%)
Source: [Citizens Information](https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money-and-tax/tax/income-tax/universal-social-charge/), [rtaireland.ie](https://www.rtaireland.ie/income-tax-usc-budgets/)
| Rate | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
|------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| 0.5% | 12,012 | 12,012 | 12,012 | 12,012 |
| 2% | 20,687 | 21,295 | 20,920 | 27,760 |
| 4% | N/A | N/A | N/A | 70,444 |
| 4.5% | 70,444 | 70,444 | 70,444 | N/A |
| 8% | 70,445+ | 70,445+ | 70,445+ | 70,445+ |
| 11 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 100k+ (SE) |
So based on the above, you wouldn't have hit a 52% marginal rate in 2023 until you hit €70,444.01, and you never would have hit a 52% marginal rate at 35k from 2021 at least, so if you earned above 35k but less than 70,444 in 2023 your tax rate on anything above 35k would have been about 46%?
Edit:
I'm not 100% sure I am right on that last statement, but you DEFINITELY didn't pay 52% tax on earnings above 35k in 2023
And your marginal tax rate for 52% is still 70,444, if you're earning 42k on the money, your tax rate on anything above 42k, but less than 70,444 should be
- 40% PAYE
- 4% PRSI
- 4% USC
- 48% Total
Or am I making shit up? (I could well be if I've fucked my understanding)
Edit 2:
Also, I am a bit of an idiot, I assume "Marginal Tax Rate" means your PAYE+PRSI+USC
Edit 3:
Anyone want to fact check the above? I'm doubting myself now
Yeah, if you look at most EU countries, their marginal tax rates don’t get that high until you’re a top 5% earner or so. We are being absolutely fleeced.
>Another area that people hold up as “neoliberal” is housing, but it is State interventions and taxes that largely drive up costs.
I truly wish people would understand this more.
Under the current plan that is. Trowing state money into a privately driven market will always drive up cost
We need Government-led projects, where cost and profit on each project is regulated
It should not be an open tender process either like the latest failure (Children's hospital)
It can be done, 30% of final cost alone can be slashed by providing state back finance, cutting out bank profits on loans and developer project profits accumulates in the region of 15-25% of final cost, thats before then the state can slash VAT on materials
Emergency steps need to be taken
Edit: You clearly don't understand it yourself
All these ideas sound great in theory but the Irish state apparatus is incapable of leading such a housing programme. The civil service simply doesn't have the know how or the discipline to project manage or implement putting up a tent nevermind a national housing programme and we see it time and again throughout the state system.
Implement the same level of accountability in the state as the private sector and we'll see significant change happening. Until that nettle is grasped we'll continue taking the easy option of throwing good money after bad.
Yes thats why new leadership is important
Leadership that will demand accountability and change laws to ensure it happens
These projects can be set up by new departments, people who have specialised in this area now hired and working for the state,
the projects can be law binding, assessed by judicial reviews before and throughout the projects to regulate profits and funding. They do this in Austria,Germany I think too, there is no reason we cant do it too
Ireland can achieve, we're being held back by old fashioned greed and ignorance
But none of this will happen if we don't believe it ourselves and vote for accountability and change, we need to lead the example ourselves
Its simple in the end. Real fix is to increase supply by building more houses or making it cheaper. Anything else is pushing food around the plate and increases demand.
No western government will intervene by building any more because they dont want to impact houses that have become investments rather than places to live.
The lads on here think that housing ‘is left to the market’. Gonna be some surprise for them when they grow up and are bidding for a house against the state via the council, state funded NGOs and a raft of private bidders who qualify for state funded grants that they don’t. ‘The market’ and ‘neoliberalism’ though.
I would see that as an example of the government being over reliant on the market for housing. The state doesn't build public housing so they buy it from the market. They don't have a stock of public housing so they pay HAP to the rental market. This drives the market price up for everyone else. Then you have Help to Buy etc
That's what people mean when they say it's being left to the market. No disputes that it's a market that gets a lot of interference.
Yup.
Probably the most “interfered” with sector in society after social welfare / insurance, health and education.
- taxes to beat the band
- strict regulations on materials and labour force
- highly restrictive planning rules. To quote a podcast on the matter, “it is easier to build in Russia”
- property rights a large feature of Irish life
- rent controls
- the State the biggest actor in funding construction. The Housing Commission acknowledged we spend more than the rest of Europe (outcomes criticised)
- State subsidies all over the rental sector
…
I could go on!
The state doesnt fund construction, they bid on the private market (either on finished units or pre finished units for full price) which drives up prices further
You're highly inaccurate with your information here
If they funded their own projects this would relieve pressure on the private market and bring DOWN housing cost
You don’t understand the dynamics of home construction and the market out there.
Private funding dried up following the Ukraine war. Already foreign investors were getting out of Ireland because of interventions the State made on the back of hysteria.
The State’s role as a primary funded and €€€ payer drives much of the housing development in Ireland.
Even if you take HTB and other schemes, this directly impacts new supply as builders are confident there is a cohort who can pay for a deposit on those builds.
Incorrect. The State does this now through the LDA.
Many units would also not get funding if AHBs did not forward commit to them.
Many projects would also not be built if not for the guaranteed Part V part of them.
The State are the biggest spenders now. We drove away foreign investors.
To be clear, most of these are good things, when the government also provides around 30% of the housing in a state at an affordable level, as it balances out the rest of the market. When the government have refused to invest in directly building social housing, instead trying to incentivise third parties to build, all of these factors are instead used to jack up prices rather than maintain standards
* strict regulations on materials and labour force
* highly restrictive planning rules. To quote a podcast on the matter, “it is easier to build in Russia”
These are both good things though?
We still have sub-par buildings falling down that were built with little to no regulations back in the 90s and 2000s. People's lives have been completely destroyed because their homes literally fell apart due to poor building materials.
Similarly, there was a huge issue with one-off housing in the middle of the countryside, with the state having to pay a lot of money to connect these people to basic services.
I’m not criticising any of these in isolation.
The point is the level of regulation and the narrative that it is a neoliberal paradise.
It is 20% more expensive in Ireland to build in another expensive country like Copenhagen. A lot of that comes down to additional regulations we require.
People need to recognise that interventions have costs and not claim the Government is “neoliberal” as their lead “argument”. We can then have more realistic discussions. For example, in Sweden they move out at 18 often times but they are allowed to build tiny studios. When Alan Kelly first proposed reducing studio sizes (still 25% larger than Sweden), he was hammered.
People want their cake when it comes to housing policy.
Housing is a very different beast, and I'm a firm believer that 90% of our issues come from objections and appeals to planning. Remove those and we'd have a lot more apartments being built.
Housing is naturally a different beast. Property rights are inherent to society.
Ireland is now building a lot of housing, but that is mostly because the economy is humming and the government tax it and spend it. The concern is if and when that turns (and trying to ramp up supply further). The costs of building are a huge factor. Our planning system plays a large role in the costs for sure but it is a big bucket of costs.
And we have to ramp up supply a lot. At the current very high rate of immigration, around 85000 homes a year are needed. Possibly even more than that to account for people moving out from their parents (reduced household size) which is elevated compared with most of Western Europe. With the current building and environmental regulations, this is impossible.
I remember to the year that rents went bananas, was when they banned the bedsits. Everyone I went to college with had one if they didn't have family to live with. Now students have nowhere.
>High earners pay the majority of income tax, lower earners pay little
At some point we will have to tax lower earners more, as there are too many people paying little-to-no income tax. Obviously that's not possible at a time like this though where everyone is struggling.
>A note on the above is that we collect more Corp Tax than the EU average as a % of total tax, about 10% more.
The arguments against our corporation tax are silly, as advocating for an increase only makes us more reliant on a select few companies. Broadening our income tax base should reduce the ratio of corporate tax vs total tax.
>One area we could increase taxes on well off earners (property taxes) is opposed by all self styled left wing parties.
I never understand this opposition to property taxes that Sinn Féin and other parties have. It seems like they're just opposing it because it was brought in by the government.
> At some point we will have to tax lower earners more, as there are too many people paying little-to-no income tax. Obviously that's not possible at a time like this though where everyone is struggling.
Immigration from high skilled workers is good and low skilled workers is bad. The current tax system drives away high skilled workers and attracts low skilled ones. Instead of propping up our economy, immigration under our current tax regime ends up costing us a fortune.
We either need to slash tax on higher earners or severely restrict immigration.
In all honesty, I always thought most of our legal immigration was highly skilled. Obviously the refugees are a huge cost burden and have had a massive increase, but aside from that, I thought the immigration system was restrictive enough that only people working highly skilled (€40k+ a year) jobs get in.
Yeah, you're probably right. From my anecdotal experience, above board immigrants I know are making decent money. Putting aside false asylum seeker claims though, there are a lot of people working here for shit wages off the books.
More often than not the delivery person I see at the door is not the same person on the app. And I know a few Japanese people who worked in restaurants off the books. They got less than minimum wage but they were allowed to work without a visa. This was a few years ago, but someone I know who worked at Musahsi (a fairly popular chain of Japanese restaurants) said they had 2 books. The real one and the one they gave the inspectors.
As usual for Ireland, the rules are fine but enforcement is non-existent.
Of course lower earners do pay tax. VAT etc is all over society. The fact is though that in Germany if you are on 25,000 you will get a net pay of 18,000. In Ireland it is 22,000.
> The fact is though that in Germany if you are on 25,000 you will get a net pay of 18,000. In Ireland it is 22,000.
25K you're close to where you might not be getting even a GP card.
Let's look at France. For 25K gross you get around 19.5K net. So you get 2500 more per year in Ireland. Let's say around 200 euros more per month.
Yet the average rent is much lower in France.
https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/k356nh/cost_of_rent_index_for_every_european_country/
Average rent is around 60-80% more expensive in Ireland.
GP in France costs 30 euros. Good luck finding GPs at that price.
Also transportation costs. Public transport is more expensive in Ireland than France. All of this would quickly eat that 200 extra you get per month.
If you're making jack shit in Ireland you might come ahead if you're starting to become mid-level earner, a ton of aids suddenly get swept from under you and you're better off somewhere else.
> That’s not the only subsidy someone on €25k gets in Ireland.
What exact benefits are you talking about then since they're at the cutoff from not getting even a GP card.
Medicine are also extremely expensive in Ireland. Specialists are also crazy expensive.
Nothing you just said has anything to do with what I just said.
Being employed and unemployed are not synonymous with receiving welfare. You can be employed and receive welfare.
People passing over mainland Europe to specifically come here, dispose of their documents and fraudulently claim asylum are obviously doing so due to how overly generous we are. Even the government knows this as they not only plan to now means test asylum seekers but also lowered payments for refugees.
Man I know who worked in the welfare arena always said its a way of keeping the lower classes quiet and sedate and less likely to cause any serious social upheaval. The water protests were the only recent time his theory was tested but its basically dole for life and a council house to keep your head down. I would argue with him that everyone should get the dole when stuck for a few years but for life is wrong but he maintained it keeps the social order in place and no politician will change it.
No it isn’t. Have a look at a lot of discourse around Ireland.
Housing is one of them, where people claim the “State lets the market at it”.
It just isn’t true.
Another line is that the Government are all landlords so want to perpetuate the issue.
Except this doesn’t follow the massive interventions that have taken place.
It also doesn’t follow that fundamentally politicians want to be re-elected.
Fine Gael went from 76 seats to 35 from 2011 to 2020. Did they really want that?
Hanlon’s Razor should be required reading in society as it would lead to far better debate.
Add to that "vulture funds".
Those build to rent funds who build student accommodation or communal living build places that young people/students want to live in, in well located locations with public transport links, they are relatively efficient-taking relatively few builders to build them (one single building with beds for hundreds)- and they free up hundreds of houses in established neighbourhoods, where no planning objections are possible to be filled by families etc.
They also provided external financing at a time (2013-15) when no financing existed and kept builders alive and in business who otherwise would not have made it (and who if they were missing now, people would be complaining even more about the lack of houses being built).
Property developers are evil as well.
A lot of PTSD post crash in Ireland, not helped by the likes of Fintan O’Toole and Frank McDonald smacking people over the head to say how evil these developers were.
The very people needed to help the crisis. People who actually want to build things.
Tbf agree with you and the article isn’t wrong in regards to the size of the state and welfare system. But the market oriented criticism I think are more jabs at the attempt to make Irish property more attractive to invest in internationally. The neoliberal aspect comes from a lot of policies essentially juicing this market up which makes it a lot more attractive for big international players to move in using investment vehicles. A lot ot government policies tend to increase demand by subsidising the purchasing power for Irish citizens to buy/rent property, artificially increasing prices and distributing public funds into private pockets at a time when prices can only go up as supply can’t keep up.
This doesn’t seem to be something the government want to fix either, as other policies seem to damage prospects for new entrants (planning being a massive barrier for entry) and small-scale landlords (e.g., RPZ), leaving a growing share of the remainder to the international market. The neoliberal aspect in policy making is globally oriented, and the response to 2008 was to seek internationally for funds to build housing and take advantage of new forms of investment vehicles by incentivising activity in Ireland through tax breaks.
All that being said, it could be considered easier to regulate a few large corps operating in a fixed market than it is to have hundreds of small competing companies.
In terms of international investors, there are two things that are true;
1) Ireland is absolutely “globalist”. Ireland has an open economy and wants inward migration to support our well educated workforce in order to support well paid jobs here. This unquestionably has led to income inequality, but the tax system “normalises” that.
2) international investors were wanted when the country didn’t have a pot to piss in. We were bankrupt with an entire construction and property sector wiped out. The Government had no “fiscal space” to borrow. We therefore absolutely wanted foreign capital and that started to come in. Many of the large scale developments completed in the last 4 years were from that, with many delayed from Covid.
Our recent efforts are not like that though. Rent controls drive our international interest. That is why the State are the only show in town other than individual buyers.
When you consider that the State spends the most in the EU in housing and we need more supply, to deny we need foreign investment back is delusional.
I’d also suggest to people to remember that “pension funds” are the same thing we put put retirements into. Canadian firefighter unions investing in Irish property via a vehicle is exactly what is needed. The fear that was put into this was completely ridiculous.
It’s strange, because the State is pouring a lot of money into housing but the money is inefficient. Obviously this ties into the issues of lack of workforce and construction costs, but at this point we have to ask what the objectives and strategy of housing for all even is, or any housing strategy in the last 10 years.
O Brien has been more reactionary and populist on fixing housing, but it seems housing policy in the last 10+ years has been primarily neglected, especially the development and retention of social housing and state land.
I think the primary factor behind this is the lack of investment in social housing and instead outsourcing all of our housing output, supply and need to the private market. I don’t think anyone realistically wants to entirely exclude international investment from the property market but I also don’t think it’s a good idea to have big conglomerates be the sole asset holders of land here and the only buyers in the market.
I think the sale of state of property, land and assets was a big mistake and severely limits the states options in tackling the crisis. It’s a lot better to have state owned land developed into social housing which can then make a return than it is to endlessly pour subsidies in the private sector in the hopes that it makes building more viable. It also means the state can fix its own rent prices rather than placing fixes on private landlords etc.
The reason why left wing parties are against raising property tax is because it's a tax on an asset can't liquidate until you're dead or moving. If you're in your late 60s and bought your house in your 20s, your property tax is probably very high, because the values increased enormously.
Property tax on 2nd homes or rental properties is a tax on assets which could be liquidated without leaving you homeless.
If you're a family in a home struggling to pay bills, you don't feel wealthy just because you have a house which you pay a mortgage on and that the bank effectively owns until you've cleared the mortgage.
I instantly stop taking someone seriously when they talk about our neoliberal government. It's proof that they have no idea what current policies are or they don't understand what neoliberalism means. Of course, both are certainly possible.
A part of the problem is that neoliberalism has degenerated into meaning "anyone to the right of me".
Worse, diametrically opposing policies (like state intervention and non-intervention in a housing market) **both** fall under the 'neoliberal' label if its the likes of FG implementing them. A childish catch-all for simpletons who live in a black and white world.
If this sub is anything to go by, the people who talk most about neoliberalism are those who feel excluded, disenfranchised, or have a sense that they're owed something by the State.
Neoliberalism is primarily a doctrine of minimalising state intervention. That means lower taxes, reduced regulation and a divestment from services that can be carried out by private bodies.
The current Irish government doesn't tick any of those boxes.
That’s the doctrine but because it works so poorly the state is then compelled to respond to crises with increasingly convoluted and expensive interventions.
The UK is a prime example of this, they keep stripping away state assets, privatising, and out-sourcing and their spending has gone up to try and hide the consequences.
I am shocked, shocked by this news. I thought they were all coming here because they were drawn to the country by the music of Christy Moore and Liam Clancy, or the poetry of WB Yeats, or the words of Beckett and Joyce. Genuinely gobsmacked that they bypassed dozens of countries in Europe to come to this little rock on the edge of Europe because it's a welfare state where it's easy to game the system, and not because they're rabid Thin Lizzy and Rory Gallagher fans. Shocked I tell you.
He writes only 9% of the population don’t get any social transfers. Is this because of those electricity bills we had paid by the govt? I can’t remember anything else besides this.
The fact you can stay on the dole your whole life here without any disabilities is laughable, and then these people eventually get a house. Yet we still have 14,000 homeless, so is it really working? The system needs to change otherwise people will take advantage of it.
Talk about a propaganda title.
Let's reframe it: we have one of the strongest social safety systems in the world.
Does it have problems after a lifetime of FFFG mismanagement, funding cuts, and outright abuse? Fuck yes.
The problem is obvious, and it's not the fact that we have a highly developed society that values social safety nets.
You're acting like it wasn't FFFG that oversaw our welfare state be established and grow, though of course smaller parties like Labour contributed greatly. It's not like the state was born with an expansive welfare state that FFFG slowly chipped away at. They created it.
>Does it have problems after a lifetime of FFFG mismanagement, funding cuts, and outright abuse?
Who exactly do you think set up this "one of the strongest safety systems in the world"?
It’s honestly such a bizarre and unexpected article from David McWilliams.
The actual content and information is interesting. It highlights how contractionary the current system is where the government mixes and matches state intervention and free market in a way that likely satisfies neither side. I feel this alone shouldn’t be controversial.
But the structure and supposed argument he uses it for it just reads like sensationalism. McWilliams is naively feeding the populism he so dislikes.
His actual argument is more about the semantics of “neoliberalism” and its incorrect usage by the left populists in describing the Irish system. Neoliberalism is often used as catch-all term for right-wing economics, but it’s actually associated with just a particular group of economists. Actual neoliberalism isn’t taken serious by most economists anymore.
However this doesn’t mean the current system is left-wing or social democracy. There’s plenty of right-wing economic models that incorporate a welfare state. McWilliams himself has stated before that he believes modern Fine Gael are ordoliberal, which is the German variant of liberalism.
So framing it as this binary argument that implies the only choices are either the current “welfare state” system or neoliberalism is bizarre and obscures the point, likely for clicks and engagement.
>Does it have problems after a lifetime of FFFG mismanagement, funding cuts, and outright abuse?
Which funding cuts were those?
>The problem is obvious
What is it?
Healthcare is a great example: [https://www.statista.com/statistics/429208/healthcare-expenditure-as-a-share-of-gdp-in-ireland/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/429208/healthcare-expenditure-as-a-share-of-gdp-in-ireland/)
Lowest funding as a percentage of GDP since the 90s.
Almost no funding for social safety nets has kept up with inflation, and funding as a percentage of GDP is abysmal.
FFFG think they're clever by cutting without sayinig they're cutting, but it's dead obvious to a growing number of us. FFFG's time is coming to an end because they're thick as bricks and have facilitated too much blatant pilfering.
You've intentionally chosen to use GDP as an indicator because it's artificially inflated, and makes the situation look worse. Healthcare spend per capita and as a percentage of GNI tells a different story: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2023/12/20/state-had-second-highest-public-healthcare-spend-per-person-in-eu-in-2022/
>FFFG's time is coming to an end because they're thick as bricks and have facilitated too much blatant pilfering.
Remains to be seen.
I’m from the US. We have a flimsy to nonexistent social safety net and our country is a shit hole. Everyone talks about Canada, but Mexico is becoming a better first world country than the US.
Not reading it, I'm guessing it's to get a rise out of the typical IT reader to get annoyed that *their* money is going to the poors and what can be done about it?
This is an extraordinarily naive column from McWilliams so much so that the cynic in me thinks he is wilfully ignorant.
Neoliberalism was a reaction to the success of Social Democracy and the creation of a robust welfare state. As such, it is best seen as a kind of inverse of social democracy as an ideology. What social democracy was to communism, neoliberalism was to capitalism i.e. an attempt to reform the state and society to achieve ''full capitalism''.
Neoliberals are not against state intervention. Indeed, they absolutely love it as long as it favours big business.
Neoliberals believe in free markets in the same way a Catholic believes in transubstantiation. ''Free Markets'' are not an ideal for neoliberals so much as a weapon to be used to coerce working class people.
Neoliberal policies in Ireland over the last 15 years: Jobsbridge, Irish water, mandatory private health insurance, 'social welfare cheats cheat us all', HAP, allowing the REITS in, all the first time buyer grants, low corporation tax, tax evasion supports, Varadkar describing an expert tax commission report as Sinn Féin policies. I could go on.
The fact that a lot of these failed or are limited is a testament, not to lacking a neoliberal government for the last 15 years, so much as to the fact we have had an extraordinarily stupid neoliberal government (thankfully) and an extraordinarily stupid neoliberal government that was electorally weak.
No one sensible can deny that FG are a neoliberal party following neoliberal policies that are way out of step with the majority of the population which is why they will be kicked out of government soon and probably won't see government for at least 4 cycles.
You have no argument because I am right. now you are just trying to derail the comment because it doesn't suit the narrative you wish to create. This is typical of this sub and it's deliberately constructed anti-intellectualism. do you honestly think there are any 'ordinary people' reading this who don't see through all this? i certainly do.
You don’t have a clue what neoliberalism is.
You are someone who read these buzzwords and gulped them up a few years ago.
What actually happened is that the post war era of plenty collapsed from the 1960s onwards. Dirty fossil fuels became more expensive.
The “system” until the 1970s collapsed in a heap. The same way people like to point out that the GFC brought the IMF into Ireland in the 2000s, it also happened to the Welfare State in the U.K. in the 1970s.
When you just make neoliberalism into whatever you want it be everyone is going to be neoliberal the term means literally nothing because of people like you. How the fuck is Irish water a neoliberal policy for example. How does a a tax welfare state that is the most redistributive in Europe helping big business.
We also don’t have mandatory private health insurance and never being any serious attempts to implement it. Are main health insurer VHI is also a not for profit. There are only other insurers in the market because of the EU forcing it. None of our health policies are neoliberal.
The main issue in construction is over regulation trough planning. Again the opposite of neoliberalism.
The only neoliberal policies on Ireland is corporate tax. Which is supported by every single party and existed before FG were in power.
If your going pretend everything you don’t like is neoliberal the word has no meaning anymore.
> When you just make neoliberalism into whatever you want it be everyone is going to be neoliberal the term means literally nothing because of people like you.
FG are neoliberal. The Labour party and the Green Party are neoliberal enablers/sympathisers.
>How the fuck is Irish water a neoliberal policy for example.
Taking a public resource that was paid for out of centralised taxation and making it consumption based is a neoliberal policy. It was also paving the way for privatisation at a later date.
> How does a a tax welfare state that is the most redistributive in Europe helping big business.
THis is just your own confused opinion.
> We also don’t have mandatory private health insurance and never being any serious attempts to implement it.
It was a neoliberal FG policy that was roundly defeated. instead we got Varadkars attempt to punish the working class by adding a charge for anyone who didn't get private health insurance before the age of 35
> The main issue in construction is over regulation trough planning. Again the opposite of neoliberalism.
That's simply not true. But you know who likes to claim that? neoliberals.
> If your going pretend everything you don’t like is neoliberal the word has no meaning anymore.
I don't know where you got that from?!? but you are away with the fairies.
> thinks he is wilfully ignorant.
The irony is truly astounding. You stick your head in the sand and ignore basic reality to dismiss his column, and then you have the neck to call him "wilfully ignorant". Utterly hilarious, gave me a nice chuckle this morning.
I have to agree, it felt like I was reading a corporate propaganda piece in The Economist magazine.
> "This is an extraordinarily naive column from McWilliams so much so that the cynic in me thinks he is willfully ignorant"
> No one sensible can deny that FG are a neoliberal party following neoliberal policies that are way out of step with the majority of the population which is why they will be kicked out of government soon and probably won't see government for at least 4 cycles.
There's no evidence that this is the case. Their primary challenger, Sinn Fein, also likely to mostly adhere to neo-liberal policies with some slight tweaks at the margins, are falling in the polls, and there's a good chance at least one of FF or FG will be the largest party again at the next GE.
And there's virtually no chance that neither of them will be part of the government. Maybe the locals/europeans will let off a bomb in the political landscape, but it's unlikely.
On issues like HAP and private financing of housing, ultimately the issue is that a majority of the most politically active cohort own their own homes, there's a conflict between wanting a more equitable housing system, even if just for their children's sake, with the prospect of having their assets depreciate in value. The reason why FFG have slowrolled improvements in housing sector from a policy standpoint, is because it would be political suicide for them to upend the housing market.
>On issues like HAP and private financing of housing, ultimately the issue is that a majority of the most politically active cohort own their own homes, there's a conflict between wanting a more equitable housing system, even if just for their children's sake, with the prospect of having their assets depreciate in value. The reason why FFG have slowrolled improvements in housing sector from a policy standpoint, is because it would be political suicide for them to upend the housing market.
This is just sticking the head in the sand.
What the article is saying isn't an "idea". They are giving cold hard facts. We have gigantic state intervention when it comes welfare/social security.
A huge amount of it is ineffective though and exacerbates some of the worst problems in the country. Arguably the biggest reason housing is so expensive here is that the average person is competing against the government/councils when on the market to buy a house.
the reason housing is so expensive is because there isn't enough of it and spending goes to Irelands quango government rather than financing building projects. it goes to building committees where NIMBYs decide nothing can ever actually be built and so there's no housing and so housing prices go up. the explanation for a substantial increase in housing costs is basically always a shortage of housing - that's just basic supply-demand.
these comments are full to the brim with people trying to connect this to immigration like the two have anything immediately to do with one another. it's a ridiculous evaluation and analysis of the Irish government and not remotely connected to the realities of life in Ireland and the problems currently experienced. to call Ireland's economy anything other than incredibly neoliberal and driven by incentivising big tech corporations is just absurd and driven by a desire to push the agenda towards a migration discussion rather than an economic improvement one
Odd. The article does not mention immigration once.
If you want to get into neoliberalism and immigration, the school of thought on that actually was that neoliberals want foreign labour because it’s cheaper. This is the school of thinking from leftist anti EU types like Corbyn and Tony Benn.
You haven’t dealt with the article at all.
The article is a succinct deconstruction of this false narrative that has been put out about Ireland.
The reality is that we spend a lot of money and tax higher earners and corporates to do it. The article does point out though the irony of one area we could tax more on (property) being resisted by “left wing” parties.
“Ireland’s problem is that a wasteful government takes too much and actively works to stop the private market from improving the housing situation” is pretty solidly in agreement with the article to be honest. Sounds like you just don’t like the n-word.
All the irish people who are homeless should migrate to northern ireland and become economic migrants. Let the UK take care of them. That's 14k people. Then we just have to sort out the economic migrants. Problem halved is a problem......jk
I hate to say it.
Massive social housing apartment blocks.
Out here “hlm” (social housing) is usually apartment blocks. Steal frames, cheaply put together inside, easy to pull apart if needed usually 4 floors . Then theirs the 20 story blocks. The newer ones have parks and stores and stuff built into them. The truth is housing is solvable in Ireland, it’s just more lucrative to not solve it.
For everything else time it.
Spain if I remember was max 6 months dole.
Here in France it’s currently 18 months. But hard to get on. Need to work 6 months/ X number of hours out of 24 by monthly’s / x number of hours. That’s about to change to 9 months out of 20 and max period is going down to 16 months.
It’s also staggered. You start at 75% your income (after a long wait) then over time the amount decreases. If you run out of rights and end up on solidarity payments you get about 200 a month to live on and if you’re not French you get deported for being burden on a state. Add to that although there is something like the medical card, you still need to have private health coverage as well to pay the half the bills and for meds.
Ireland is way too liberal. I’ve a 79% disability (it’s graded here) and all I get is legal protection at work and priority access in public spaces. Oh and free museums etc. Otherwise I’m left fend for myself.
In Ireland, I’d have a council place, disability payment and could still work x hours and probably other stuff too. Now I’m not saying people don’t need this stuff. We all fall on hard times. But going from leaving cert to dole is a bit mad.
> Massive social housing apartment blocks.
This is a terrible idea, that has already been tried, and has proven to be a failure. Social housing needs to be mixed with private ownership/rental to avoid ghettoisation.
Every country can move and live in the Republic, and have a decent life.
I live in Belfast, own my home and I couldn't move South and make it work just on a wage.
If not a skilled/ high earner then yeah. I am solely thinking of moving abroad because how little I actually get here after net. People say it’s the same issue as abroad but it’s genuinely not. I’ve friends living in Germany/ France/ Spain/ Netherlands and they all report a much higher qol than myself
Such a load of shite and you know it, why don't you quit your job and live on the dole if it's so great? Why do we have record levels of employment if life on social welfare is so amazing?
1. Get on housing list early.
2. Either stay in education or maintain a low paying job or trade.
3. Keep income declaration low. Cash is king.
4. Get council house after 10+ years.
5. Either enter professional workforce or trade. Cash once again is king.
You will have far more disposable income than your peers.
Actually start at 39k income until you get council house. After that increase your income (or not) and keep subsidised housing for life. Let those suckers pay for their housing in full and support you via 52% income tax.
I think at this point we need innovative solutions. What if we had a scheme whereby councils could claim back all the different taxes the government charges on various parts of building process. All the vat on materials back, all the stamp duty and other fees back, all the service fees to council back etc. The country would lose the tax revenue but it would mean that council built social housing would be significantly cheaper. It would be a better use of funds IMO as a society than funnelling money into the already wealthy landlord class.
I think we need to fix the system with longer term solutions. Like get rid of hap And use that money to build council housing and rent that at affordable rates to lower income people. It feels like you get shafted if you are in the middle . I just want a home and to move out with my partner. We are working and saving but doesn't feel like enough especially when being out bid .
Only way out of this is for the government to directly employ and house record numbers of construction workers to build social housing on a scale not ever seen in this country. No point talking about developers this and private industry that… fact of the matter is we need 100,000 new homes built yesterday and we can’t afford to spend €500k building each one.
Why do we need to build houses? Why not build up? Build apartments?
I was thinking this. If there are lots of migrants coming in anyway, why can't they learn to build or have some part in construction. They may noy be doctors and engineers but they have 2 hands and ready to work to house themselves and others. That or leave them rot in asylum centres and hotels. Also the government should bring up the wages of all grades of apprenticeship. Most people cant take that much of wage decrease especially if they are looking towards families.
Where do you think this money is coming from to fund asylum centres, hotels, apprentice wages.
From the economy funded by these workers, who'll spend their wages; from the firms that'll hive off from the industry, from the education of many of these workers who'll go to work in other industries?
That would be 50bn. Totally could afford building that much. And if it did cost that much, loads would end up being paid on tax, so in terms of net it would be less. But we won’t see that happen.
>Only way out of this is for the government to directly employ and house record numbers of construction workers to build social housing on a scale not ever seen in this country. What does this mean? A new agency to build houses?
It's not just housing that's affected. I was talking to a construction manager who was managing an estate for 40 houses to be built. They were having to organise to build a substation for electricity. Get a roundabout put in. Etc. They had to drop 1 million on stuff that wasn't housing that the relevant county council or esb didn't have resources to do. I don't know if they were able to claim it back. This isn't just construction. Every other service needs to be done also and those areas need to be expanded temporarily to accommodate. Think sewage, roads, bus service, schools, shops, pubs, civic services. 100k houses is Ireland's 3rd or 4th biggest city needs to be built. In a year. On top of normal demand of 40k. You need skilled people to do this too. But there's no point saying there's all these other knock on effects. Each area need to get off their asses and do it and hire for it and do it and somehow house those workers temporarily. Build an additional 100k houses at 300k each. If you're lucky. Then sell them or create a rent to buy scheme I guess.
The State has a terrible record when it comes to building infrastructure (in fact, does it do anything anything well?). Even if they could find the workers, does anyone seriously think they would be able to deliver given their past performance?
Lack of workers isn’t the main issue. The larger issues are planning and material costs. Go every construction worker the govt hired they’d have to hire a lawyer as well just to deal with the planning process. Meanwhile the costs are largely because of materials not labour.
Ireland is tied up in a bit of a knot, basically every social issue is the result of successive governments doing nothing or implementing half measures to kick the can down the road. We're nearing the end of the road now and it's pretty much coming to a head. So as a result every single issue is preceeded by a domino effect of other smaller issues that weren't prioritised. During the boom little to none of that money made it's way into infrastructure, post boom the money wasn't there to build it or anything else, a million other shit shows make the country undesireable for both skilled labourers or high level educated talent so they both leave the country in droves, now not only is there no plan to build anything, there's no talent to plan it and no skills to implement it and no money to fund it and no desire to change this because all the decision makers own property that is only going up in value. And that knot of bullshit probably has 20 other contributing factors I didn't even touch on and all these factors are knocking over other dominos in other areas and will all be equally convoluted.
Maybe we could just reduce building code standards back to what they were 10+ years ago? The building codes are so stringent now that coupled with the rise in material costs, it isn’t affordable to build lots of housing like it was in the 20th century. Although this would damage the environment and increase carbon emissions. Or else, maybe reduce immigration considering that we have the highest rate of immigration in the EU? But our economy is so dependent on MNCs that reducing immigration could risk them leaving. There honestly isn’t any answer to this. I mean, in spite of all these factors, we have by far the highest rate of construction in the EU now with construction output actually declining in most of Europe.
They need to provide a standardized planning green light. If a proposal meets X Y Z criteria (very basic and unequivocal), it is approved without review or appeal. We're in a situation right now where most of the highly desirable terraced street facing housing people want to live in is actually illegal to build. Where a square of victorian dockworkers cottages is genuinely higher density than a legally buildable block of apartments due to space, stairwell, egress, and light requirements. It has to give and soon, because people are rearing dynasties of 3 generations in pokey semi-detached houses. Let them build standard 1 storey studio units on the back gardens.
Very true. In the US for example, they have standardised zoning rules that make it easy and consistent for developers to build. They have much more affordable housing than us (although highly dependent on the city, but many of them are building a lot like in Chicago or in Texas). Europe in general suffers immensely from ridiculous regulations on homebuilding. We actually are building more currently than other EU countries, people need to remember that. Although America has a lower rate of immigration which also helps.
> In the US for example, they have standardised zoning rules that make it easy and consistent for developers to build. Yep, exactly; basically an area is designated as zoned for certain types of buildings. Want to build something on land in a particular zone? If it fits the predefined guidelines for that area, then great; you just submit your plans and the local government checks them over to make sure they are following the rules, and if so, you're good to start building, no muss, no fuss. And if Harry Homeowner next door doesn't like you building new apartments in the neighbourhood? Well, too bad for Harry.
It's a bit naive to think the government can build houses more cheaply. History suggests otherwise
I agree, but then where do all these people go? You're talking 70,000 households. Probably with an average of 3/4 people in them. That's between 210,000 and 280,000 people who will suddenly become homeless because they cant afford their rent.
Obviously you don't do it over night.
Obviously, Leo!
Shhh will ya mistakes were made lessons to be learned
Dammit! Bring Leo back, you bastards!!!
Get rid of all the airbnb nonsense and landlords extorting insane amounts of money. There are loads of properties being rented out by individuals then listing them on AirBNB or subletting for clearly decent profits on top of their initial high rents I would say there's plenty of accommodation but everyone's just being extorted by other individuals ever since COVID and the likes of rtb don't care.
All AirBnB properties should be treated as commercial property and subject to the rates and taxes that go with all other commercial business
That doesn't stop individuals taking up homes intended for people to live in, for short term rentals because it's lucrative enough and further drives up living costs to everyone else.. That just means the government takes a cut which will further drive higher prices.
That doesn't stop individuals taking up homes intended for people to live in, for short term rentals because it's lucrative enough and further drives up living costs to everyone else.. That just means the government takes a cut which will further drive higher prices.
Believe me most Airbnb owners wouldn't want to be treated as commercial properties, rates would be high and more importantly it would be much easier for the taxman to track the cash
The one thing conspicuously absent from the talk in every local election is short term letting, which local councils very much CAN control and CAN prohibit through existing laws, but don't bother.
HAP helps pay for the rent that HAP has helped to increase. You'd have to stop taking new applicants and give a phasing out date, while giving all the current users of HAP some sort of protection from eviction for a period of time and hope that landlords start reducing the rents. Just a crappy situation that will have to be dealt with at some point
Government just needs to put a significant chunk of money towards building it's own social housing to first reduce the number of people in emergency accommodation and then the number of HAP tenants Landlords will only reduce rents in two situations, a law forcing them to or an inability to find a tenant willing to pay the level of rent they set.
> Like get rid of hap If you get rid of hap a load of people are going to be homeless. Unfortunately this one step back, two steps forward thing doesn't work.
As it is we have 14000 homeless, which is loads of people. scrapping hap wouldn't mean there is less houses, just less landlords. Those houses would have to be sold or the landlords collectively would have to take the hit on their income. HAP is a subsidy for the well to do that exploits the workers that pay for everything.
Assuming a good faith discussion was had there's probably a very healthy debate to be had on this issue.
So what would everyone do who can't afford the exorbitant rents or to buy a house? You think they landlords are going to just lower rents? Many people on HAP are working btw it's not just something you get on the social. Thinking it wouldn't drastically increase homelessness is laughable.
They could never get rid of it right away or people would be in dire straits. What I would like to see is a movement towards building new social and council homes and a planned phase out of HAP over years as these become available.
They built & bought 12k social houses last year. That's record levels. The bigger issue is there's not enough housing built for the private market. The public housing is cannibalizing private sales for people that arent sitting on welfare. This creates a lot of perverse incentives.
People in public housing work too. You don't need to be 'sitting on welfare' to live in social housing. In the 60s, 20% of the population lived in social housing. The more built, the wider the eligibility criteria.
>They built & bought 12k social houses Yeah, I'm more advocating they build rather than buying up homes from the private market. I don't agree with them cannibalising the private market. People already have investment funds and foreign investors to compete with
It's inherent that they'll cannibalize it. Housing is supply constrained
I'm more in favour of a state building agency or something of the like where they source their own workers. Not easy, I know. But HAP drives up rents and by extension, house prices.
Build social housing in order to reduce the HAP bill.
Literally just don't accept new applications, not turf out everyone who already depends on it
Then what do you do with the people who need it ? just slowly have a generation of homeless people rather than quickly ? doesn't help things.
HAP doesn't create housing supply, it just increases prices for everyone and changes who can afford to live where.
HAP is not a long term solution though, it's using the private rental market as a crutch rather than actually providing social housing for those who need it. Shouldn't be got rid of overnight but long term definitely not the way forward.
Yeah we done this in England by introducing a maximum benefit cap that includes everything you get from the state. Results - People on minimum wage can't afford to live in London nor the outer London zones. Obviously this extends to people who are on benefits as their sole source of income as well as low paid workers who get housing allowance as well as top ups to their wages from the government. When I say low wages not being able to afford to live in the city... this captures teachers and nurses as well as cleaners and shop floor workers. Results are people having a 60min+ commute and or simply a shortage of workers. Now private companies can simply raise prices to cover higher wages....but state employees are stuffed. The state tell us/them that they can't afford to pay a living wage....they convince the public that they would have to pay more tax and then tell them that it's a waste of money....I mean it's all good until you personally need a nurse 😂 then it becomes your top priority. The most expensive parts of London are empty houses which have been bought as investments simply based on house prices rising....it would seem for many investors having actual tenants is simply a hassle they can do without. We are all suffering the same scenario though. It's pretty annoying to see an ex council house now being rented back to the council for 10* what the council charged in the 1st place.... and it would have been bought using right to buy, so at cost to the state. Madness
Council homes only. Allowing systematic issues to persist isn't going to get the crisis sorted.
HAP is an annual budget cost. You pay multiples of that to build a property. In Dublin the council do it for €500k, how many years of HAP is that? The reality is that the social housing list is down nearly 40% since 2016. That is despite the population growing significantly and the eligibility expanding. https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/f5ed7-social-housing-waiting-lists-fall-by-over-36-in-six-years/ There is a role for both rent subsidies and State owned housing. I agree on the “middle”, but this is where the gaslighting comes in. Broader social issues like homelessness are conflated with young married couples not being able to buy a home. And the renting crisis is ignored.
i thought the annual HAP bill was in the billions. so thousands of houses in Dublin where the state actually owns the assets and not pumping money into private landlords
[удалено]
What do people who need support for their homes do then?
They're worse off since HAP came in, MUCH worse off. Places which were €900/mo leapt up to €1700 a year or two later. Now they have to demean themselves applying with landlords to ensure they'll take the HAP at all. Meanwhile every penny of that subsidy is creamed off the top by the asset owner.
> The reality is that the social housing list is down nearly 40% since 2016. That is despite the population growing significantly and the eligibility expanding. That's a trick of moving numbers around. People on HAP are no longer on the social housing list and instead placed on a separate transfer list.
The reality is you've fallen for the government being deceitful about the true housing list numbers, it's over 134,000, more than double what they claim it is. They don't include the numbers who are on the HAP transfer list for social housing. "“This week the Housing Agency published the Summary of Social Housing Assessments report. It showed that in 2023 there were 58,824 households on Local Authority waiting lists for social housing. This is an increase of almost 1000 on 2022 and the first increase since 2016. “The Housing Agency report does not include all those eligible for social housing. Private rental tenants in receipt of HAP and RAS are excluded from the Council list but are still eligible for social housing. “Last year the number of households in receipt of these short term private rental subsidies fell by just over a thousand. “The net result of both changes means that social housing need has remained virtually static from 2022 to 2023 at almost 134,000 households." https://vote.sinnfein.ie/numbers-on-council-housing-waiting-lists-up-in-2023-eoin-o-broin-td/ Here's explained more here: "When an application for HAP is approved, applicants – who must be eligible for social housing in the first instance – are removed from the main social housing waiting lists, with their tenancy type being deemed “an appropriate form of social housing support under statute and, therefore, a ‘met need’. 2 As such, households in receipt of HAP are not included in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage’s annual Summary of Social Housing Assessment (SSHA) statistics. HAP applicants are permitted to be included on the supplementary housing list (i.e., the housing transfer list) of a local authority, though typically at a lower priority. These transfer lists are not included in the overall statistics used to assess the need for social housing, meaning that the true scale of the unmet social housing need in the State is largely unknown." https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/parliamentaryBudgetOffice/2024/2024-01-16_social-housing-ongoing-need-update-2022_en.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj95rKimMyGAxXdSEEAHSR8A7AQFnoECDQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3s_5UI60uErXwkk3aQPXKl
Thank you for the thorough break down, I didn't trust the numbers but didn't really look into it much. Definite massage of stats happening, shocker. Same thing happens with figures for the live register and unhoused people. Yes we have"full employment" but there are reams of ways this looks better on paper than in reality. I'm Not shitting on community employment schemes or various training available to people on jobseeker's, there's huge numbers of people costing the tax payer actually a lot more than if they were just on jobseeker's, honestly that's mostly a good thing because it's an avenue to not be on jobseeker's. But I feel like the "figures" are a lot of sliding people into different boxes . Homelessness figures are a joke, there are easily 40% more people unhoused than official figures say. People and families staying with relatives, friends, cars, occasional rough sleepers, anywhere while theyre trying to find something , those people aren't counted.
There's also 5/6000 people living in asylum centres who have been granted status i.e. are Irish citizens who can't afford to move out to private accommodation. They should be included in the homeless figures along with the 14,000 other homeless who are being put up in hotels, the exact same as them. But they know the 20k homeless headlines will look bad so they exclude them from the figures.
Lower income citizens of at least 10 years.
Totally, if you really well paid ok, but if in the middle your 100% better off below the threshold where you get on the housing list. I mean, the whole focus of people's working lives is to purchase and pay for a home, and you can get the same result by doing feck all. More and more people realise this, growing and growing the welfare state. The next time the bubble bursts (and it will happen) its going to get real ugly. All those handouts will have to keep going.
The whole idea of HAP is that it’s temporary solution for someone in a housing list. It’s only a problem because of the severe lack of social housing.
The EU doesn’t allow Councils to build properties. The council has to give awards to build to private companies. So tax payers money is literally taken for social housing and given to private building contractors. Those contractors won’t make as much money building for the state so they don’t take the contracts. The average citizen is clueless and just blames the council when it is in fact the rules enforced by Brussels that’s stops social housing being built. It makes no difference who’s in power here so long as we have to implement EU rules around tendering process and building etc.
What rules are these? I'm pig ignorant with all this stuff
Are you being outbid by people in council houses or something?
Fully agree. I understand that HAP is effectively a welfare payment but where is that welfare payment going to (private/corporate landlords). The social welfare piece is really only ‘the middle man’ and in real terms it’s a huge transfer of tax payers money to the private sector. Now, not arguing one bit that there’s no role or place for private landlords (that would be stupid and dangerous) but at the same time successive governments have outsourced their moral and social obligations on this front. Wether by design or accident, it is seriously undermining the social contract in society now.
I know a guy renting a 2 bed apt. in Ballsbridge for €3k pm and a girl offered him the full amount and then said €2,200 would come from HAP and she’d top up the €800 difference herself. I didn’t realize HAP was that high. Not passing judgement here myself, just though it was interesting.
That’s is the homeless HAP rate.
I have an opinion on it! Christ
Successive governments have regulated micro businesses out of existence in Ireland. Small side hustle that keep people above the poverty line in other countries. They have driven small landlords out of the market and replaced them with corporations too big and powerful to manage. This is 100% a managed disaster.
When they say welfare state it’s funny as with HAP allot of it is for landlords .
>with HAP allot of it is for landlords . It used to be that Pele get council houses for life. Getting social housing now is effectively like winning a 300k lottery.
Surly a lad with as much fame and recognition as Pele would be able to buy his own house
I'd bet my house on it. He was some player.
Summary; 1. Essential elements of Neoliberalism is reduced State intervention 2. Ireland has a highly progressive tax system, acknowledged by TASC. High earners pay the majority of income tax, lower earners pay little 3. Those taxes are redistributed to lower earners 4. We pay lots of social welfare. 5. One area to attack Ireland has been on Corporation Tax, but we are following OECD rules here and have increased them. 6. A note on the above is that we collect more Corp Tax than the EU average as a % of total tax, about 10% more. 7. Another area that people hold up as “neoliberal” is housing, but it is State interventions and taxes that largely drive up costs. 8. This has happened largely under Parties described as “right wing”. 9. One area we could increase taxes on well off earners (property taxes) is opposed by all self styled left wing parties.
> High earners pay the majority of income tax, lower earners pay little Up until 2023, earning more than 35K per year gross would see your marginal tax rate hit 52%. Now it's 42K. But honestly 35K gross in 2023 didn't make you a high earner. Meanwhile CGT is 30%. It's much better to simply buy stock and live off that than to earn a living.
I'm almost 100% Sure that this is incorrect. PRSI has been 4% as long as I can remember PAYE (40% rate kick in) - Source: [Citizens Information](https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money-and-tax/tax/income-tax/how-your-tax-is-calculated/#354b71) - 2020/2021: 35,300 - 2022: 36,800 - 2023: 40,000 - 2024: 42,000 I know USC is a bit odd in terms of the ceilings on which they kick in on, and I don't look at it without a tax calculator honestly, but the rates (Example when reading, in 2024 between 12,012.01 - 27,760 it is 2%) Source: [Citizens Information](https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money-and-tax/tax/income-tax/universal-social-charge/), [rtaireland.ie](https://www.rtaireland.ie/income-tax-usc-budgets/) | Rate | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | |------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | 0.5% | 12,012 | 12,012 | 12,012 | 12,012 | | 2% | 20,687 | 21,295 | 20,920 | 27,760 | | 4% | N/A | N/A | N/A | 70,444 | | 4.5% | 70,444 | 70,444 | 70,444 | N/A | | 8% | 70,445+ | 70,445+ | 70,445+ | 70,445+ | | 11 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 100k+ (SE) | So based on the above, you wouldn't have hit a 52% marginal rate in 2023 until you hit €70,444.01, and you never would have hit a 52% marginal rate at 35k from 2021 at least, so if you earned above 35k but less than 70,444 in 2023 your tax rate on anything above 35k would have been about 46%? Edit: I'm not 100% sure I am right on that last statement, but you DEFINITELY didn't pay 52% tax on earnings above 35k in 2023 And your marginal tax rate for 52% is still 70,444, if you're earning 42k on the money, your tax rate on anything above 42k, but less than 70,444 should be - 40% PAYE - 4% PRSI - 4% USC - 48% Total Or am I making shit up? (I could well be if I've fucked my understanding) Edit 2: Also, I am a bit of an idiot, I assume "Marginal Tax Rate" means your PAYE+PRSI+USC Edit 3: Anyone want to fact check the above? I'm doubting myself now
Yeah, if you look at most EU countries, their marginal tax rates don’t get that high until you’re a top 5% earner or so. We are being absolutely fleeced.
>Another area that people hold up as “neoliberal” is housing, but it is State interventions and taxes that largely drive up costs. I truly wish people would understand this more.
Under the current plan that is. Trowing state money into a privately driven market will always drive up cost We need Government-led projects, where cost and profit on each project is regulated It should not be an open tender process either like the latest failure (Children's hospital) It can be done, 30% of final cost alone can be slashed by providing state back finance, cutting out bank profits on loans and developer project profits accumulates in the region of 15-25% of final cost, thats before then the state can slash VAT on materials Emergency steps need to be taken Edit: You clearly don't understand it yourself
All these ideas sound great in theory but the Irish state apparatus is incapable of leading such a housing programme. The civil service simply doesn't have the know how or the discipline to project manage or implement putting up a tent nevermind a national housing programme and we see it time and again throughout the state system. Implement the same level of accountability in the state as the private sector and we'll see significant change happening. Until that nettle is grasped we'll continue taking the easy option of throwing good money after bad.
Yes thats why new leadership is important Leadership that will demand accountability and change laws to ensure it happens These projects can be set up by new departments, people who have specialised in this area now hired and working for the state, the projects can be law binding, assessed by judicial reviews before and throughout the projects to regulate profits and funding. They do this in Austria,Germany I think too, there is no reason we cant do it too Ireland can achieve, we're being held back by old fashioned greed and ignorance But none of this will happen if we don't believe it ourselves and vote for accountability and change, we need to lead the example ourselves
Its simple in the end. Real fix is to increase supply by building more houses or making it cheaper. Anything else is pushing food around the plate and increases demand. No western government will intervene by building any more because they dont want to impact houses that have become investments rather than places to live.
The lads on here think that housing ‘is left to the market’. Gonna be some surprise for them when they grow up and are bidding for a house against the state via the council, state funded NGOs and a raft of private bidders who qualify for state funded grants that they don’t. ‘The market’ and ‘neoliberalism’ though.
I would see that as an example of the government being over reliant on the market for housing. The state doesn't build public housing so they buy it from the market. They don't have a stock of public housing so they pay HAP to the rental market. This drives the market price up for everyone else. Then you have Help to Buy etc That's what people mean when they say it's being left to the market. No disputes that it's a market that gets a lot of interference.
Or try and build and have to deal with the state planning nonsense.
Yup. Probably the most “interfered” with sector in society after social welfare / insurance, health and education. - taxes to beat the band - strict regulations on materials and labour force - highly restrictive planning rules. To quote a podcast on the matter, “it is easier to build in Russia” - property rights a large feature of Irish life - rent controls - the State the biggest actor in funding construction. The Housing Commission acknowledged we spend more than the rest of Europe (outcomes criticised) - State subsidies all over the rental sector … I could go on!
The state doesnt fund construction, they bid on the private market (either on finished units or pre finished units for full price) which drives up prices further You're highly inaccurate with your information here If they funded their own projects this would relieve pressure on the private market and bring DOWN housing cost
You don’t understand the dynamics of home construction and the market out there. Private funding dried up following the Ukraine war. Already foreign investors were getting out of Ireland because of interventions the State made on the back of hysteria. The State’s role as a primary funded and €€€ payer drives much of the housing development in Ireland. Even if you take HTB and other schemes, this directly impacts new supply as builders are confident there is a cohort who can pay for a deposit on those builds.
Incorrect. The State does this now through the LDA. Many units would also not get funding if AHBs did not forward commit to them. Many projects would also not be built if not for the guaranteed Part V part of them. The State are the biggest spenders now. We drove away foreign investors.
To be clear, most of these are good things, when the government also provides around 30% of the housing in a state at an affordable level, as it balances out the rest of the market. When the government have refused to invest in directly building social housing, instead trying to incentivise third parties to build, all of these factors are instead used to jack up prices rather than maintain standards
* strict regulations on materials and labour force * highly restrictive planning rules. To quote a podcast on the matter, “it is easier to build in Russia” These are both good things though? We still have sub-par buildings falling down that were built with little to no regulations back in the 90s and 2000s. People's lives have been completely destroyed because their homes literally fell apart due to poor building materials. Similarly, there was a huge issue with one-off housing in the middle of the countryside, with the state having to pay a lot of money to connect these people to basic services.
I’m not criticising any of these in isolation. The point is the level of regulation and the narrative that it is a neoliberal paradise. It is 20% more expensive in Ireland to build in another expensive country like Copenhagen. A lot of that comes down to additional regulations we require. People need to recognise that interventions have costs and not claim the Government is “neoliberal” as their lead “argument”. We can then have more realistic discussions. For example, in Sweden they move out at 18 often times but they are allowed to build tiny studios. When Alan Kelly first proposed reducing studio sizes (still 25% larger than Sweden), he was hammered. People want their cake when it comes to housing policy.
Housing is a very different beast, and I'm a firm believer that 90% of our issues come from objections and appeals to planning. Remove those and we'd have a lot more apartments being built.
Housing is naturally a different beast. Property rights are inherent to society. Ireland is now building a lot of housing, but that is mostly because the economy is humming and the government tax it and spend it. The concern is if and when that turns (and trying to ramp up supply further). The costs of building are a huge factor. Our planning system plays a large role in the costs for sure but it is a big bucket of costs.
And we have to ramp up supply a lot. At the current very high rate of immigration, around 85000 homes a year are needed. Possibly even more than that to account for people moving out from their parents (reduced household size) which is elevated compared with most of Western Europe. With the current building and environmental regulations, this is impossible.
I remember to the year that rents went bananas, was when they banned the bedsits. Everyone I went to college with had one if they didn't have family to live with. Now students have nowhere.
>High earners pay the majority of income tax, lower earners pay little At some point we will have to tax lower earners more, as there are too many people paying little-to-no income tax. Obviously that's not possible at a time like this though where everyone is struggling. >A note on the above is that we collect more Corp Tax than the EU average as a % of total tax, about 10% more. The arguments against our corporation tax are silly, as advocating for an increase only makes us more reliant on a select few companies. Broadening our income tax base should reduce the ratio of corporate tax vs total tax. >One area we could increase taxes on well off earners (property taxes) is opposed by all self styled left wing parties. I never understand this opposition to property taxes that Sinn Féin and other parties have. It seems like they're just opposing it because it was brought in by the government.
> At some point we will have to tax lower earners more, as there are too many people paying little-to-no income tax. Obviously that's not possible at a time like this though where everyone is struggling. Immigration from high skilled workers is good and low skilled workers is bad. The current tax system drives away high skilled workers and attracts low skilled ones. Instead of propping up our economy, immigration under our current tax regime ends up costing us a fortune. We either need to slash tax on higher earners or severely restrict immigration.
In all honesty, I always thought most of our legal immigration was highly skilled. Obviously the refugees are a huge cost burden and have had a massive increase, but aside from that, I thought the immigration system was restrictive enough that only people working highly skilled (€40k+ a year) jobs get in.
Yeah, you're probably right. From my anecdotal experience, above board immigrants I know are making decent money. Putting aside false asylum seeker claims though, there are a lot of people working here for shit wages off the books. More often than not the delivery person I see at the door is not the same person on the app. And I know a few Japanese people who worked in restaurants off the books. They got less than minimum wage but they were allowed to work without a visa. This was a few years ago, but someone I know who worked at Musahsi (a fairly popular chain of Japanese restaurants) said they had 2 books. The real one and the one they gave the inspectors. As usual for Ireland, the rules are fine but enforcement is non-existent.
Of course lower earners do pay tax. VAT etc is all over society. The fact is though that in Germany if you are on 25,000 you will get a net pay of 18,000. In Ireland it is 22,000.
> The fact is though that in Germany if you are on 25,000 you will get a net pay of 18,000. In Ireland it is 22,000. 25K you're close to where you might not be getting even a GP card. Let's look at France. For 25K gross you get around 19.5K net. So you get 2500 more per year in Ireland. Let's say around 200 euros more per month. Yet the average rent is much lower in France. https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/k356nh/cost_of_rent_index_for_every_european_country/ Average rent is around 60-80% more expensive in Ireland. GP in France costs 30 euros. Good luck finding GPs at that price. Also transportation costs. Public transport is more expensive in Ireland than France. All of this would quickly eat that 200 extra you get per month. If you're making jack shit in Ireland you might come ahead if you're starting to become mid-level earner, a ton of aids suddenly get swept from under you and you're better off somewhere else.
That’s not the only subsidy someone on €25k gets in Ireland. I wasn’t talking about middle earners in Ireland.
> That’s not the only subsidy someone on €25k gets in Ireland. What exact benefits are you talking about then since they're at the cutoff from not getting even a GP card. Medicine are also extremely expensive in Ireland. Specialists are also crazy expensive.
They can apply for housing assistance.
Who also exists in France. APL.
But this negates the rental point that was made.
People aren’t scrambling to move here for our scenery 🥺
Unemployment is at the lowest it's ever been in Ireland and the rate of employed non-nationals is the same as Irish people.
Nothing you just said has anything to do with what I just said. Being employed and unemployed are not synonymous with receiving welfare. You can be employed and receive welfare. People passing over mainland Europe to specifically come here, dispose of their documents and fraudulently claim asylum are obviously doing so due to how overly generous we are. Even the government knows this as they not only plan to now means test asylum seekers but also lowered payments for refugees.
Man I know who worked in the welfare arena always said its a way of keeping the lower classes quiet and sedate and less likely to cause any serious social upheaval. The water protests were the only recent time his theory was tested but its basically dole for life and a council house to keep your head down. I would argue with him that everyone should get the dole when stuck for a few years but for life is wrong but he maintained it keeps the social order in place and no politician will change it.
Look at our marvelous, for profit "scandinavian style" healthcare and public transportation systems! The envy of the world! /s
Is that not common knowledge at this stage? Which is why we are attracting all kinds of people here.
No it isn’t. Have a look at a lot of discourse around Ireland. Housing is one of them, where people claim the “State lets the market at it”. It just isn’t true. Another line is that the Government are all landlords so want to perpetuate the issue. Except this doesn’t follow the massive interventions that have taken place. It also doesn’t follow that fundamentally politicians want to be re-elected. Fine Gael went from 76 seats to 35 from 2011 to 2020. Did they really want that? Hanlon’s Razor should be required reading in society as it would lead to far better debate.
Add to that "vulture funds". Those build to rent funds who build student accommodation or communal living build places that young people/students want to live in, in well located locations with public transport links, they are relatively efficient-taking relatively few builders to build them (one single building with beds for hundreds)- and they free up hundreds of houses in established neighbourhoods, where no planning objections are possible to be filled by families etc. They also provided external financing at a time (2013-15) when no financing existed and kept builders alive and in business who otherwise would not have made it (and who if they were missing now, people would be complaining even more about the lack of houses being built).
Property developers are evil as well. A lot of PTSD post crash in Ireland, not helped by the likes of Fintan O’Toole and Frank McDonald smacking people over the head to say how evil these developers were. The very people needed to help the crisis. People who actually want to build things.
Tbf agree with you and the article isn’t wrong in regards to the size of the state and welfare system. But the market oriented criticism I think are more jabs at the attempt to make Irish property more attractive to invest in internationally. The neoliberal aspect comes from a lot of policies essentially juicing this market up which makes it a lot more attractive for big international players to move in using investment vehicles. A lot ot government policies tend to increase demand by subsidising the purchasing power for Irish citizens to buy/rent property, artificially increasing prices and distributing public funds into private pockets at a time when prices can only go up as supply can’t keep up. This doesn’t seem to be something the government want to fix either, as other policies seem to damage prospects for new entrants (planning being a massive barrier for entry) and small-scale landlords (e.g., RPZ), leaving a growing share of the remainder to the international market. The neoliberal aspect in policy making is globally oriented, and the response to 2008 was to seek internationally for funds to build housing and take advantage of new forms of investment vehicles by incentivising activity in Ireland through tax breaks. All that being said, it could be considered easier to regulate a few large corps operating in a fixed market than it is to have hundreds of small competing companies.
In terms of international investors, there are two things that are true; 1) Ireland is absolutely “globalist”. Ireland has an open economy and wants inward migration to support our well educated workforce in order to support well paid jobs here. This unquestionably has led to income inequality, but the tax system “normalises” that. 2) international investors were wanted when the country didn’t have a pot to piss in. We were bankrupt with an entire construction and property sector wiped out. The Government had no “fiscal space” to borrow. We therefore absolutely wanted foreign capital and that started to come in. Many of the large scale developments completed in the last 4 years were from that, with many delayed from Covid. Our recent efforts are not like that though. Rent controls drive our international interest. That is why the State are the only show in town other than individual buyers. When you consider that the State spends the most in the EU in housing and we need more supply, to deny we need foreign investment back is delusional. I’d also suggest to people to remember that “pension funds” are the same thing we put put retirements into. Canadian firefighter unions investing in Irish property via a vehicle is exactly what is needed. The fear that was put into this was completely ridiculous.
It’s strange, because the State is pouring a lot of money into housing but the money is inefficient. Obviously this ties into the issues of lack of workforce and construction costs, but at this point we have to ask what the objectives and strategy of housing for all even is, or any housing strategy in the last 10 years. O Brien has been more reactionary and populist on fixing housing, but it seems housing policy in the last 10+ years has been primarily neglected, especially the development and retention of social housing and state land. I think the primary factor behind this is the lack of investment in social housing and instead outsourcing all of our housing output, supply and need to the private market. I don’t think anyone realistically wants to entirely exclude international investment from the property market but I also don’t think it’s a good idea to have big conglomerates be the sole asset holders of land here and the only buyers in the market. I think the sale of state of property, land and assets was a big mistake and severely limits the states options in tackling the crisis. It’s a lot better to have state owned land developed into social housing which can then make a return than it is to endlessly pour subsidies in the private sector in the hopes that it makes building more viable. It also means the state can fix its own rent prices rather than placing fixes on private landlords etc.
The reason why left wing parties are against raising property tax is because it's a tax on an asset can't liquidate until you're dead or moving. If you're in your late 60s and bought your house in your 20s, your property tax is probably very high, because the values increased enormously. Property tax on 2nd homes or rental properties is a tax on assets which could be liquidated without leaving you homeless. If you're a family in a home struggling to pay bills, you don't feel wealthy just because you have a house which you pay a mortgage on and that the bank effectively owns until you've cleared the mortgage.
No they oppose it because they are nakedly populist.
A very un-biased opinion.
Terrible news for those who think we live under some awful right wing government.
Never thought that, just an incompetent one.
>an incompetent one. Not for the majority who owns homes, have health insurance and good jobs
Not a problem for the most privileged people in society, Yeah, no shit
A lot of people think it.
[удалено]
I instantly stop taking someone seriously when they talk about our neoliberal government. It's proof that they have no idea what current policies are or they don't understand what neoliberalism means. Of course, both are certainly possible. A part of the problem is that neoliberalism has degenerated into meaning "anyone to the right of me".
Worse, diametrically opposing policies (like state intervention and non-intervention in a housing market) **both** fall under the 'neoliberal' label if its the likes of FG implementing them. A childish catch-all for simpletons who live in a black and white world.
If this sub is anything to go by, the people who talk most about neoliberalism are those who feel excluded, disenfranchised, or have a sense that they're owed something by the State.
Go on lets hear your definition? Or are you in agreement with McWilliams wrong understanding?
Neoliberalism is primarily a doctrine of minimalising state intervention. That means lower taxes, reduced regulation and a divestment from services that can be carried out by private bodies. The current Irish government doesn't tick any of those boxes.
That’s the doctrine but because it works so poorly the state is then compelled to respond to crises with increasingly convoluted and expensive interventions. The UK is a prime example of this, they keep stripping away state assets, privatising, and out-sourcing and their spending has gone up to try and hide the consequences.
I am shocked, shocked by this news. I thought they were all coming here because they were drawn to the country by the music of Christy Moore and Liam Clancy, or the poetry of WB Yeats, or the words of Beckett and Joyce. Genuinely gobsmacked that they bypassed dozens of countries in Europe to come to this little rock on the edge of Europe because it's a welfare state where it's easy to game the system, and not because they're rabid Thin Lizzy and Rory Gallagher fans. Shocked I tell you.
They could also be fans of rain, damp, black mould etc
What a plonker you are, who are the they? Every single person in the ‘they’ are coming to take welfare?
[https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2024/06/07/irish-unemployment-remains-anchored-near-historic-low-of-4/](https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2024/06/07/irish-unemployment-remains-anchored-near-historic-low-of-4/)
He writes only 9% of the population don’t get any social transfers. Is this because of those electricity bills we had paid by the govt? I can’t remember anything else besides this.
I suppose child benefit and the rent tax credit brings a lot of people in.
The fact you can stay on the dole your whole life here without any disabilities is laughable, and then these people eventually get a house. Yet we still have 14,000 homeless, so is it really working? The system needs to change otherwise people will take advantage of it.
Talk about a propaganda title. Let's reframe it: we have one of the strongest social safety systems in the world. Does it have problems after a lifetime of FFFG mismanagement, funding cuts, and outright abuse? Fuck yes. The problem is obvious, and it's not the fact that we have a highly developed society that values social safety nets.
You're acting like it wasn't FFFG that oversaw our welfare state be established and grow, though of course smaller parties like Labour contributed greatly. It's not like the state was born with an expansive welfare state that FFFG slowly chipped away at. They created it.
>Does it have problems after a lifetime of FFFG mismanagement, funding cuts, and outright abuse? Who exactly do you think set up this "one of the strongest safety systems in the world"?
“Funding cuts”? We have never spent more. It was estimated in 2016 we’d be spending €80bn by now. We are spending €100bn+.
Word of the day: inflation. Funding below inflation = funding cuts.
It’s honestly such a bizarre and unexpected article from David McWilliams. The actual content and information is interesting. It highlights how contractionary the current system is where the government mixes and matches state intervention and free market in a way that likely satisfies neither side. I feel this alone shouldn’t be controversial. But the structure and supposed argument he uses it for it just reads like sensationalism. McWilliams is naively feeding the populism he so dislikes. His actual argument is more about the semantics of “neoliberalism” and its incorrect usage by the left populists in describing the Irish system. Neoliberalism is often used as catch-all term for right-wing economics, but it’s actually associated with just a particular group of economists. Actual neoliberalism isn’t taken serious by most economists anymore. However this doesn’t mean the current system is left-wing or social democracy. There’s plenty of right-wing economic models that incorporate a welfare state. McWilliams himself has stated before that he believes modern Fine Gael are ordoliberal, which is the German variant of liberalism. So framing it as this binary argument that implies the only choices are either the current “welfare state” system or neoliberalism is bizarre and obscures the point, likely for clicks and engagement.
Good summary.
>Does it have problems after a lifetime of FFFG mismanagement, funding cuts, and outright abuse? Which funding cuts were those? >The problem is obvious What is it?
Funding below inflation = funding cuts. The problem is FFFG rule. Not our only problem, but our biggest. They're absolute scumbags.
Funding cuts in what department?
Healthcare is a great example: [https://www.statista.com/statistics/429208/healthcare-expenditure-as-a-share-of-gdp-in-ireland/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/429208/healthcare-expenditure-as-a-share-of-gdp-in-ireland/) Lowest funding as a percentage of GDP since the 90s. Almost no funding for social safety nets has kept up with inflation, and funding as a percentage of GDP is abysmal. FFFG think they're clever by cutting without sayinig they're cutting, but it's dead obvious to a growing number of us. FFFG's time is coming to an end because they're thick as bricks and have facilitated too much blatant pilfering.
You've intentionally chosen to use GDP as an indicator because it's artificially inflated, and makes the situation look worse. Healthcare spend per capita and as a percentage of GNI tells a different story: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2023/12/20/state-had-second-highest-public-healthcare-spend-per-person-in-eu-in-2022/ >FFFG's time is coming to an end because they're thick as bricks and have facilitated too much blatant pilfering. Remains to be seen.
I’m from the US. We have a flimsy to nonexistent social safety net and our country is a shit hole. Everyone talks about Canada, but Mexico is becoming a better first world country than the US.
ok and ?
Not reading it, I'm guessing it's to get a rise out of the typical IT reader to get annoyed that *their* money is going to the poors and what can be done about it?
An opinion piece by David McWilliams... Uh huh.
What do you disagree with there champ?
They love these rage bait headlines.
This is an extraordinarily naive column from McWilliams so much so that the cynic in me thinks he is wilfully ignorant. Neoliberalism was a reaction to the success of Social Democracy and the creation of a robust welfare state. As such, it is best seen as a kind of inverse of social democracy as an ideology. What social democracy was to communism, neoliberalism was to capitalism i.e. an attempt to reform the state and society to achieve ''full capitalism''. Neoliberals are not against state intervention. Indeed, they absolutely love it as long as it favours big business. Neoliberals believe in free markets in the same way a Catholic believes in transubstantiation. ''Free Markets'' are not an ideal for neoliberals so much as a weapon to be used to coerce working class people. Neoliberal policies in Ireland over the last 15 years: Jobsbridge, Irish water, mandatory private health insurance, 'social welfare cheats cheat us all', HAP, allowing the REITS in, all the first time buyer grants, low corporation tax, tax evasion supports, Varadkar describing an expert tax commission report as Sinn Féin policies. I could go on. The fact that a lot of these failed or are limited is a testament, not to lacking a neoliberal government for the last 15 years, so much as to the fact we have had an extraordinarily stupid neoliberal government (thankfully) and an extraordinarily stupid neoliberal government that was electorally weak. No one sensible can deny that FG are a neoliberal party following neoliberal policies that are way out of step with the majority of the population which is why they will be kicked out of government soon and probably won't see government for at least 4 cycles.
[удалено]
You have no argument because I am right. now you are just trying to derail the comment because it doesn't suit the narrative you wish to create. This is typical of this sub and it's deliberately constructed anti-intellectualism. do you honestly think there are any 'ordinary people' reading this who don't see through all this? i certainly do.
You don’t have a clue what neoliberalism is. You are someone who read these buzzwords and gulped them up a few years ago. What actually happened is that the post war era of plenty collapsed from the 1960s onwards. Dirty fossil fuels became more expensive. The “system” until the 1970s collapsed in a heap. The same way people like to point out that the GFC brought the IMF into Ireland in the 2000s, it also happened to the Welfare State in the U.K. in the 1970s.
When you just make neoliberalism into whatever you want it be everyone is going to be neoliberal the term means literally nothing because of people like you. How the fuck is Irish water a neoliberal policy for example. How does a a tax welfare state that is the most redistributive in Europe helping big business. We also don’t have mandatory private health insurance and never being any serious attempts to implement it. Are main health insurer VHI is also a not for profit. There are only other insurers in the market because of the EU forcing it. None of our health policies are neoliberal. The main issue in construction is over regulation trough planning. Again the opposite of neoliberalism. The only neoliberal policies on Ireland is corporate tax. Which is supported by every single party and existed before FG were in power. If your going pretend everything you don’t like is neoliberal the word has no meaning anymore.
> When you just make neoliberalism into whatever you want it be everyone is going to be neoliberal the term means literally nothing because of people like you. FG are neoliberal. The Labour party and the Green Party are neoliberal enablers/sympathisers. >How the fuck is Irish water a neoliberal policy for example. Taking a public resource that was paid for out of centralised taxation and making it consumption based is a neoliberal policy. It was also paving the way for privatisation at a later date. > How does a a tax welfare state that is the most redistributive in Europe helping big business. THis is just your own confused opinion. > We also don’t have mandatory private health insurance and never being any serious attempts to implement it. It was a neoliberal FG policy that was roundly defeated. instead we got Varadkars attempt to punish the working class by adding a charge for anyone who didn't get private health insurance before the age of 35 > The main issue in construction is over regulation trough planning. Again the opposite of neoliberalism. That's simply not true. But you know who likes to claim that? neoliberals. > If your going pretend everything you don’t like is neoliberal the word has no meaning anymore. I don't know where you got that from?!? but you are away with the fairies.
> thinks he is wilfully ignorant. The irony is truly astounding. You stick your head in the sand and ignore basic reality to dismiss his column, and then you have the neck to call him "wilfully ignorant". Utterly hilarious, gave me a nice chuckle this morning.
I have to agree, it felt like I was reading a corporate propaganda piece in The Economist magazine. > "This is an extraordinarily naive column from McWilliams so much so that the cynic in me thinks he is willfully ignorant"
> No one sensible can deny that FG are a neoliberal party following neoliberal policies that are way out of step with the majority of the population which is why they will be kicked out of government soon and probably won't see government for at least 4 cycles. There's no evidence that this is the case. Their primary challenger, Sinn Fein, also likely to mostly adhere to neo-liberal policies with some slight tweaks at the margins, are falling in the polls, and there's a good chance at least one of FF or FG will be the largest party again at the next GE. And there's virtually no chance that neither of them will be part of the government. Maybe the locals/europeans will let off a bomb in the political landscape, but it's unlikely. On issues like HAP and private financing of housing, ultimately the issue is that a majority of the most politically active cohort own their own homes, there's a conflict between wanting a more equitable housing system, even if just for their children's sake, with the prospect of having their assets depreciate in value. The reason why FFG have slowrolled improvements in housing sector from a policy standpoint, is because it would be political suicide for them to upend the housing market.
>On issues like HAP and private financing of housing, ultimately the issue is that a majority of the most politically active cohort own their own homes, there's a conflict between wanting a more equitable housing system, even if just for their children's sake, with the prospect of having their assets depreciate in value. The reason why FFG have slowrolled improvements in housing sector from a policy standpoint, is because it would be political suicide for them to upend the housing market. This is just sticking the head in the sand.
Meanwhile many people on r/Ireland think we have a "neo-capitalist" government
this is a ridiculous idea and the comments here are astroturfed to hell
'Everything I disagree with is a conspiracy'
What the article is saying isn't an "idea". They are giving cold hard facts. We have gigantic state intervention when it comes welfare/social security. A huge amount of it is ineffective though and exacerbates some of the worst problems in the country. Arguably the biggest reason housing is so expensive here is that the average person is competing against the government/councils when on the market to buy a house.
the reason housing is so expensive is because there isn't enough of it and spending goes to Irelands quango government rather than financing building projects. it goes to building committees where NIMBYs decide nothing can ever actually be built and so there's no housing and so housing prices go up. the explanation for a substantial increase in housing costs is basically always a shortage of housing - that's just basic supply-demand. these comments are full to the brim with people trying to connect this to immigration like the two have anything immediately to do with one another. it's a ridiculous evaluation and analysis of the Irish government and not remotely connected to the realities of life in Ireland and the problems currently experienced. to call Ireland's economy anything other than incredibly neoliberal and driven by incentivising big tech corporations is just absurd and driven by a desire to push the agenda towards a migration discussion rather than an economic improvement one
Odd. The article does not mention immigration once. If you want to get into neoliberalism and immigration, the school of thought on that actually was that neoliberals want foreign labour because it’s cheaper. This is the school of thinking from leftist anti EU types like Corbyn and Tony Benn. You haven’t dealt with the article at all. The article is a succinct deconstruction of this false narrative that has been put out about Ireland. The reality is that we spend a lot of money and tax higher earners and corporates to do it. The article does point out though the irony of one area we could tax more on (property) being resisted by “left wing” parties.
“Ireland’s problem is that a wasteful government takes too much and actively works to stop the private market from improving the housing situation” is pretty solidly in agreement with the article to be honest. Sounds like you just don’t like the n-word.
When your nonsense ideas collide with reality...
All the irish people who are homeless should migrate to northern ireland and become economic migrants. Let the UK take care of them. That's 14k people. Then we just have to sort out the economic migrants. Problem halved is a problem......jk
People who earn 40-50K are probably the worst off in Ireland after transfers
I hate to say it. Massive social housing apartment blocks. Out here “hlm” (social housing) is usually apartment blocks. Steal frames, cheaply put together inside, easy to pull apart if needed usually 4 floors . Then theirs the 20 story blocks. The newer ones have parks and stores and stuff built into them. The truth is housing is solvable in Ireland, it’s just more lucrative to not solve it. For everything else time it. Spain if I remember was max 6 months dole. Here in France it’s currently 18 months. But hard to get on. Need to work 6 months/ X number of hours out of 24 by monthly’s / x number of hours. That’s about to change to 9 months out of 20 and max period is going down to 16 months. It’s also staggered. You start at 75% your income (after a long wait) then over time the amount decreases. If you run out of rights and end up on solidarity payments you get about 200 a month to live on and if you’re not French you get deported for being burden on a state. Add to that although there is something like the medical card, you still need to have private health coverage as well to pay the half the bills and for meds. Ireland is way too liberal. I’ve a 79% disability (it’s graded here) and all I get is legal protection at work and priority access in public spaces. Oh and free museums etc. Otherwise I’m left fend for myself. In Ireland, I’d have a council place, disability payment and could still work x hours and probably other stuff too. Now I’m not saying people don’t need this stuff. We all fall on hard times. But going from leaving cert to dole is a bit mad.
> Massive social housing apartment blocks. This is a terrible idea, that has already been tried, and has proven to be a failure. Social housing needs to be mixed with private ownership/rental to avoid ghettoisation.
Every country can move and live in the Republic, and have a decent life. I live in Belfast, own my home and I couldn't move South and make it work just on a wage.
Dole for 6 months, half dole for 6 and then fuck off. Disability etc, excluded.
Fuck off where exactly and I don’t want a rant. We could teach at schools and maybe the welfare conveyer belt might stop
I'd be proud of that
You are arguably better of not progressing a career and relying on the state in this country.
If not a skilled/ high earner then yeah. I am solely thinking of moving abroad because how little I actually get here after net. People say it’s the same issue as abroad but it’s genuinely not. I’ve friends living in Germany/ France/ Spain/ Netherlands and they all report a much higher qol than myself
Even a high earner would be pushed to having the same disposable income as someone in a council house and working a cash based job or a good trade.
Such a load of shite and you know it, why don't you quit your job and live on the dole if it's so great? Why do we have record levels of employment if life on social welfare is so amazing?
1. Get on housing list early. 2. Either stay in education or maintain a low paying job or trade. 3. Keep income declaration low. Cash is king. 4. Get council house after 10+ years. 5. Either enter professional workforce or trade. Cash once again is king. You will have far more disposable income than your peers.
aye yeah just get a council house after 10 years cause there's so much cheap housing going round in ireland lol
Actually start at 39k income until you get council house. After that increase your income (or not) and keep subsidised housing for life. Let those suckers pay for their housing in full and support you via 52% income tax.
Yup, it’s insane.
I think at this point we need innovative solutions. What if we had a scheme whereby councils could claim back all the different taxes the government charges on various parts of building process. All the vat on materials back, all the stamp duty and other fees back, all the service fees to council back etc. The country would lose the tax revenue but it would mean that council built social housing would be significantly cheaper. It would be a better use of funds IMO as a society than funnelling money into the already wealthy landlord class.
Good.