Social Housing - Why?

kraggy

Reading a thread in AH about, what cuts would you make? Several people mentioned that they'd get rid of Social Housing.

It reminded me that I meant to ask this before; why does the government provide housing for people for free?

Example, I know someone who went on the housing list in an Irish city around 8 or 9 years ago. Now, she may have been in dire circumstances back then, though I'm almost sure she wasn't. However, last year when she actually got assiagned a house, she was working full time and has a partner living with her who is earning a wage too.

Why should they get a house and others who are earning less, not?

That's just one example. I see countless others. Why should ANYONE get a house for virtually nothing? A lot of other people are on JSA and they get a house too. Just because they went on to a list several years ago. There are plenty others who are on the dole and don't apply for housing because they feel that, while they are going through bad circumstances presently, they would like to eventually start paying their own way again.

But yet we give housing to people who don't actually need it. They just played the system and got it after a few years wait.

Why do we still let this happen? And why do we provide housing at all?

HalloweenJack

kraggy wrote: »

It reminded me that I meant to ask this before; why does the government provide housing for people for free?

Why should they get a house and others who are earning less, not?

Why should ANYONE get a house for virtually nothing? A lot of other people are on JSA and they get a house too.

I'm aware of social housing but I don't know how it works financially. Can someone clarify the financial side of things? The OP clearly doesn't know.

"Free" does not equal "virtually nothing".
"Why should they get a house and others who are earning less, not". So these people are actually earning money (and paying tax), it's not the free hand-out you stated earlier on.
"A lot of other people are on JSA..." AFAIK, they'd be entitled to Rent Allowance too, so in that case, arguably, they are getting it "for free".

Victor

Social Housing - Why?

Because we would prefer not to have (a) hundreds of thousands of homeless people (b) tenements with 50+ people in a georgian town house.

HalloweenJack wrote: »

"Free" does not equal "virtually nothing".

Tenants in social housing pay a rent, typically determined by reference to income. It tends to be less than market rent, however the conditions of hte tenancy are also different, e.g. tenant would be responsible for decotation in social housing, but the landlord would be responsible with a private landlord.

Tenants in social housing do not get a "free house" - they are renting and do not own the property. However, many councils have has schems to allow tenants to buy their home.

"Why should they get a house and others who are earning less, not". So these people are actually earning money (and paying tax), it's not the free hand-out you stated earlier on.

Obtaining social housing is dependent on needs. One of the determinents would be assets and income. Earn / own too much and you won't be entitled to social housing. However, do we really want social housing to only be ghettoes only occupied by people on very low incomes? I thought we had learned that lesson in the 1980s.

"A lot of other people are on JSA..." AFAIK, they'd be entitled to Rent Allowance too, so in that case, arguably, they are getting it "for free".

Rent Allowance is defined as a poverty level payment, that is the person can not afford to house themselves.

MagicMarker

''Played'' the system?

If you meet the criteria then you can apply for a house and you pay rent based on your income. Who gets to the top of the housing list probably depends on your living situation, if you're a single unemployed twentysomething renting a room in a house then you'll probably be waiting a lot longer than an unemployed single mother with 2 kids renting a house.

But let's put things in perspective, a single mother working a decent but unskilled job (with an unskilled salary to match) is probably never going to be able to afford to buy a house and would probably struggle to rent a home in Dublin for instance, social housing offers a secure affordable alternative with a downside that your house will be in a less than desirable location.

gurramok

Problem is a lack of social housing, we are paying nearly 600m quid to private landlords in order to house people. Social housing should not be in a ghetto but for mixed use but there has been opposition from housing estates to accept social housing applicants.

Regarding single mothers, they are not allowed to work full time as they would lose RS hence they are "stuck" due to high cost of housing in the private rental sector. Move them into social housing and that will have an affect with lower rents for workers and at the same time saving public money as well allowing this group of people to obtain full time work.

kraggy

MagicMarker wrote: »

''Played'' the system?

If you meet the criteria then you can apply for a house and you pay rent based on your income. Who gets to the top of the housing list probably depends on your living situation, if you're a single unemployed twentysomething renting a room in a house then you'll probably be waiting a lot longer than an unemployed single mother with 2 kids renting a house.

But let's put things in perspective, a single mother working a decent but unskilled job (with an unskilled salary to match) is probably never going to be able to afford to buy a house and would probably struggle to rent a home in Dublin for instance, social housing offers a secure affordable alternative with a downside that your house will be in a less than desirable location.

Why the confused head?

She got a house, when she has a job in which she earns on average, 500 euro per week. That's more than a teacher staring out. Her partner also has a job, though I'm not sure what she earns.

Why should someone like that get a house with super low rent?

alboco

becasue in bankrupt Ireland, the Principle that ' Someone Else is respionsible for me' still applies. Communism isnt dead - it was jsut flogged off at a bargain price to the irish ! Why you have jsut elected a ' Socialist' as your head of State - and why not as Ireland isnt actually a functioning mature democracy and hasnt been sine it joined the EEC and became a begging bowl dependency.

bmaxi

gurramok wrote: »

Problem is a lack of social housing, we are paying nearly 600m quid to private landlords in order to house people. Social housing should not be in a ghetto but for mixed use but there has been opposition from housing estates to accept social housing applicants.

A lot of the opposition in private housing estates is because, like most aspects of Irish society, nobody is accountable.
The Local Authority acquire the house, put in the tenant and then wash their hands of the whole deal. No checks are made to see if the tenant is maintaining the house or gardens, no restrictions are placed on the number of residents, no action is taken in the event of anti social behaviour.
Now I know all people are not going to be like this but the problem is, when they are, nothing is done or else takes years to complete. If you've just mortgaged your life away to provide a pleasant home and environment for your family, how can it be fair to allow this kind of behaviour to occur next door to you.

MagicMarker

kraggy wrote: »

Why the confused head?

She got a house, when she has a job in which she earns on average, 500 euro per week. That's more than a teacher staring out. Her partner also has a job, though I'm not sure what she earns.

Why should someone like that get a house with super low rent?

What is her rent?

The confusion is you say she ''played the system'', in what way has she done this? Did she lie?

Manach

Social housing does seem to distort population mobility. Given that the the urban city areas such as Dublin would have a greater range of such housing, this would attract more people there and hence further increase the state spending.