The Horseman
Registered User
- Messages
- 683
If you take a simple calculation of 50% tax on €460m then it's only "costing" the State €230m.
Even if the tax is used to fund HAP again its still only costing the State €230m.
If you take a simple calculation of 50% tax on €460m then it's only "costing" the State €230m.It's not ,I understand your point but tax is circular if 52% returns via taxes those taxes are again used to fund HAP.
I believe its called a "zero sum game "
Nonsensical argument the taxpayer still pays.If you take a simple calculation of 50% tax on €460m then it's only "costing" the State €230m.
Even if the tax is used to fund HAP again its still only costing the State €230m.
If you read my post you would see I said if you take a simple example but sure feel free to go on a rant.Nonsensical argument the taxpayer still pays.
And your are assuming that all landlords are paying tax and if they are its marginal tax . If you can't provide an link please do.
Now that you are down the rabbit hole ,does the RAS scheme have that same " net " benefit, that's costing €133m a year.
The purchasing of private housing has no " reliable " costing, but is funded by the taxpayer.
Where does it start and stop ? Pedantic posts on this thread mean nothing.
A modern European country should have a functional housing policy, yet billions are spent and nothing changes.....riddle us that.
The Dublin local authorities are particularly low when it comes to differential rents charged.There is substantial variation across local authorities in the level of support provided to otherwise identical households: more than 9-in-10 supported renters have their rent contributions– and so their level of support –determined by their local authority’s differential rent scheme. These vary hugely in their design across local authorities, leading otherwise identical households to receive different levels of support. For example, a lone parent with two children earning €25,000 per year would pay a contribution of just €226 per month in South Dublin County Council, €313 per month in Donegal but €450 per month in Meath (see infographic).
These are some very good points. However what shocked me most was why the parents of nearly 3,000 children had them when they could not provide the basics? Perhaps we need to highlight this issue more. Social housing should be built on council owned or acquired land. Traditionally housing estates that were built by the council cost less to buy when sold. This might solve the affordability problem for future owners. Another area for discussion could be why do we have 26 homeless organisations in Ireland? All with CEO’s, staff and substantial offices? One particular organisation comes to mind whenever I am near Christchurch.The Dublin local authorities are particularly low when it comes to differential rents charged.
You have to kind of peer through the analysis but the biggest issue seems to be is the "tenure-for-life" model of social housing.
If you qualify for social housing at a certain point in your life it's assumed that you will have that same need forever. Take for example a couple aged 25 where the wife is on minimum wage and the husband looks after the two kids. But the kids won't be young forever and if by 50 their household income is €100k they are still paying a 10% of income based rent.
Many (but not all) social tenants life in areas with good social cohesion and amenities - why would they leave and buy their own house?!
On the flipside there are lots of people who later in life are in need of social housing due to addiction, family issues, business collapse, etc, and they are generally stuck in the private rental market paying a large % of income.
Wow I didn't think there was so many. How could any coherent strategy every be developed to solve this problem with this many, they would have their own agendas and of course be very slow to change anything that might affect their lives.Another area for discussion could be why do we have 26 homeless organisations in Ireland? All with CEO’s, staff and substantial offices? One particular organisation comes to mind whenever I am near Christchurch.
Wow I didn't think there was so many. How could any coherent strategy every be developed to solve this problem with this many, they would have their own agendas and of course be very slow to change anything that might affect their lives.
And I suppose they are getting Grant's from all sorts of Government agencies, the Government has essentially outsourced the issue and it's now an industry. Mc Verry trust has a €100m balance sheet with staff costs of €30.The Peter McVerry Trust most recent statement showed that 44 million was spent on operational costs with 12.5 million on the acquisition of houses. Figures for 2020.
And now there are calls to increase HAP with a report due to be released next month.It should come as no surprise to anyone that we have a thriving homelessness industry in Ireland or that a substantial proportion of its income comes from the State.
And I suppose they are getting Grant's from all sorts of Government agencies, the Government has essentially outsourced the issue and it's now an industry. Mc Verry trust has a €100m balance sheet with staff costs of €30.
It says on its 2020 accounts it helped 10,000 find accommodation and 1250 into new homes a quick read seems to suggest that they received €30m in Grant's, ok they are restricted so would be used in the future, the county councils that they operate in seem to be the main funders.
Housing has been outsourced and people are profiting from it.
I'm going have a go but first I need to get the historical data start in 2010 so I'll have 10 years data but reading the ESRI report there isn't cost for all services.It would be interesting to see how much exactly the state is spending every year between hap, ras, direct leasing properties for 10/15/25 year terms, grants to threshold, simon, focus, mcverry trust, & the rest of the 26 homeless charities, plus the funding or grants given to the 520 ahb's like cluid, tuath, respond etc. Then add in the new developers subsidy. Plus the amounts being spent on buying units under part5 and councils buying additional housing in private developments, and one-off's properties being sold on the open market.
Sounds like a lot but maybe it's typical of how social housing is managed everywhere now. Comparisons with other EU countries and our nearest neighbour, and how they do things, would also be interesting. Maybe they have a better handle on it, ours seems completely messed up.
Not true. 52% of rental profits, not total rents, go back to the State in taxes.HAP doesn't cost the tax payer €460m it costs significantly less than that as every €1 of rent half of it (for small landlords in the higher tax bracket goes back to the State and by extension the Taxpayer).
Off the scale levels of untrue.If you take a simple calculation of 50% tax on €460m then it's only "costing" the State €230m.
Even if the tax is used to fund HAP again its still only costing the State €230m.
Agreed it is rental profits and not rent. There is so little left to "write off" in expenses.Not true. 52% of rental profits, not total rents, go back to the State in taxes.
Off the scale levels of untrue.
Really?There is so little left to "write off" in expenses.
Your claim that 52% of rents go back to the State in tax and that HAP only costs the State half of what is spent on it.What is "off the scale levels of untrue"
Good for you!Forecasting might need a bit of science from other posters but it might start a debate that we can actually see the figures rather than having to trawl through multiple reports from multiple agencies and charities.
Good for you!
However, it's worth bearing in mind that people who need housing are not an homogenous group.
I find Charities operating within the Homelessness Industry are mainly concerned with making political points.The McVerry Trust, for instance, is mainly concerned housing those with long-term addiction and mental health issues who also require long-term support.
It is indeed.I suppose the question is value for money as much as cost.
There is a proliferation of Charities within the Homelessness Industry. I very much doubt that they are offering value for money. I suspect there is massive duplication, inefficiency and waste.It is possible that a charity, with State support, might achieve better outcomes.
Absolutely I started just trying to find who's who , it's like whack a mole they keep popping up......but one thing I gleaned the spend for 2022 is €4bn where that disappears to will be fun to find.Good for you!
However, it's worth bearing in mind that people who need housing are not an homogenous group.
The McVerry Trust, for instance, is mainly concerned housing those with long-term addiction and mental health issues who also require long-term support.
I suppose the question is value for money as much as cost.
It is possible that a charity, with State support, might achieve better outcomes.
Well its huge money, the one with the Irish name cluid? is another 100m balance sheet but it has 650m in debt it very complex, some of the funding I noticed was at 3.25% AIB and other banks I never heard of.....of course this is all underwritten by the Government. Assets are €1.2 bn but they use an amortisation calculation that will need a bit of understanding.I find Charities operating within the Homelessness Industry are mainly concerned with making political points.
It is indeed.
There is a proliferation of Charities within the Homelessness Industry. I very much doubt that they are offering value for money. I suspect there is massive duplication, inefficiency and waste.
Edit: according to the London Times (Paddy edition) there are 27 charities providing food to homeless people in Dublin.
The Dublin Regional Homeless Executive said that Dublin's 4 Councils spend €159 million in 2020 feeding homeless people. That's €30 a week per person for 10,000 people. There are under 100 rough sleepers in Dublin. Where'd everyone else come from?