The cost of travelling to work is becoming unsustainable

ted1

reni10 wrote: »

So the staff want to pay really expensive prices for accommodation or sit in traffic for hours every day???

The staff want to be in an urban environment with their peers , they want pubs restaurants activities nightlife etc. They want other similar companies in the area they could move to if they wanted too

Myself and my peer group have all said that if we had to move down the country for work we would rather immigrate

Tech staff are well paid and can afford rent in Dublin. Not many commute.

Del2005

Chuchote wrote: »

Well… one transnational company I know of has bought several houses and rents them out for a fair price to its foreign employees. It's been doing that since the 1990s at least.



I don't think you are familiar with council housing. It's not a perk; you pay rent aligned to your salary; the rents finance the building of more houses; the fact that the council provides housing puts a damper on the developers making a fortune from building ticky-tacky boxes.

Most people in council housing aspire to buying their own home, many are saving to do so and succeed in it, freeing the council house or apartment for someone else to rent.

The rent in council housing is, or was, 10% of income. That wouldn't cover the cost of constructing the house never mind funding others. Don't council house tenants save up to buy their council house at greatly reduced rates.

Therefore we have people not paying enough to cover the construction costs and eventually buying it subsidised and you think that is sustainable?

We should be building more social housing, but we also need to ensure that its been used for people who need it. If people in social housing can afford to run a new car and take foreign holidays then they don't need social housing and should be moved on so that the next needy person can get a helping hand.

Chuchote

Del2005 wrote: »

The rent in council housing is, or was, 10% of income. That wouldn't cover the cost of constructing the house never mind funding others. Don't council house tenants save up to buy their council house at greatly reduced rates.

Therefore we have people not paying enough to cover the construction costs and eventually buying it subsidised and you think that is sustainable?

We should be building more social housing, but we also need to ensure that its been used for people who need it. If people in social housing can afford to run a new car and take foreign holidays then they don't need social housing and should be moved on so that the next needy person can get a helping hand.

Not 10%: http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-housing/rent-assessment

Yes, social housing should go to people who need it, but it shouldn't, as Simon Coveney has correctly said, be a ghetto; housing should be mixed-income.

Carlos Orange

Chuchote wrote: »

Not 10%: http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-housing/rent-assessment

I don't think I have ever paid 15% for my housing. Pretty sure it has usually been in the 25-35% range. Never mind getting a concierge service for €1.90 a week.

psinno

psinno wrote: »

I don't think I have ever paid 15% for my housing. Pretty sure it has usually been in the 25-35% range. Never mind getting a concierge service for €1.90 a week.

No mention of 25-35% there.....

"How is the weekly rent charge arrived at?

The rent is calculated having regard to the weekly assessable income firstly of the Principal Earner and then the Subsidiary Earners. When the rent payable by the Principal Earner has been calculated additions will be made to this amount in respect of a rent contribution from the Subsidiary Earners. The amount to be paid is calculated as follows:

Where the Principal Earner is a single person it is 15% of the weekly assessable income over €32.00
Where the Principal Earner is regarded as a couple it is 15% of the weekly assessable income over €64.00. If a spouse/partner however has a weekly income over €32.00 the couple allowance does not apply.
Where the Subsidiary Earner is a single person it is 15% of the weekly assessable income over €32.00. The maximum contribution is €19.00 per week.
Where the Subsidiary Earner is regarded as a couple it is 15% of the weekly assessable income over €64.00. The maximum contribution is €19.00 per week.
The maximum combined rent contribution payable from the weekly assessable incomes of the Subsidiary Earners in an individual household is €76.00"

that's all from the "net" income too.

Self employed
"What if I am self-employed?

If you are self-employed after 7th March 2012 you will be assessed based on the following assumed net weekly income:

Trades People - €560.00
Non-Trade/Other Business - €500.00
Taxi Drivers/Licence Plate owners - €500.00
Hackney Drivers/'Cosy' Drivers - €500.00"

Blame the government eh ??

Chuchote

Chuchote wrote: »

..........



I don't think you are familiar with council housing. It's not a perk; you pay rent aligned to your salary; the rents finance the building of more houses; the fact that the council provides housing puts a damper on the developers making a fortune from building ticky-tacky boxes........

You pay tiny rent alligned to quite generous net income rates.

It's a total joke, folks who need social housing on a waiting list while the swindling stock of social housing is largely sheltering folks on decent money.

Emme

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you the only worker who pays train fare or are you having a pop at those who may be genuinely unable to either work or get work?

However, I DO agree that they should only be allowed travel offpeak or like the UK system, only within a certain radius of their home. Should they need to travel at peak times or outside this radius, they should be able to claim pack a portion of their travel costs.

Sitting on ones backside on the dole is torture for one used to and willing to work.

If you read the entire thread you will see where I pointed out that some people are unemployed through no fault of their own. The majority of unemployed people.

There is also a minority who abuse the system and one such person said to me that I'm a fool for working and an even bigger fool for paying thousands to get there. This when I was knackered at the end of a long week working and commuting. This person has a better standard of life than most unemployed people, she goes on holidays twice a year and doesn't seem to want to find work.

Emme

Solomon Pleasant wrote: »

There's one possible solution OP - Emigrate.

I would have done so years ago but unfortunately it is not an option for me.

I stated that I have no problem with OAPs getting free travel. I do have a problem with the lack of capacity on rush hour trains. It is not fair for one set of passengers to have to stand while others get to sit purely because they get on earlier on the line. It is also not fair to expect people to pay thousands a year to stand on a train, put in a full days work and stand again on the way home. It leads to burnout and chronic fatigue. I've been through that. Is it wrong for a paying commuter to want to be well enough to do his or her job and not get burnt out in the process of commuting?

There are no jobs near where I live but a local business seems to close every week. Recovery my eye. It all happens inside the Pale.

Carlos Orange

Augeo wrote: »

No mention of 25-35% there.....

I'm not lucky enough to have lived in subsidised accommodation. I have paid the market rate for mine and then subsidised others subsidised accommodation.

ebbsy

Emme wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1011/823151-iarnrod-eireann-car-park/

I am sick of being screwed for my hard earned salary by all and sundry. Sick of trying to find a seat on a train in the morning full of people who don't pay anything to travel and could more than likely travel on a later train if they wished. Sick of racketeering extortionist borderline criminal car park operators who make the Kray twins look like amateurs. A woman who put her valid parking ticket upside down in her car was clamped in my local train station car park.

It is getting to the stage where it is costing me too much to travel to work and I might be better off sitting on my backside all day on benefits. I am not the only person who feels this way. No offence to those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own in recent years. However the cost of working is getting more and more unsustainable. Increases in car tax, car insurance, commuting ticket costs and now parking costs at the local train station. Throw the odd clamping fine in for good measure.

This government seems to be hell bent on destroying rural Ireland and locating as many jobs in Dublin as possible What incentive is there to work in this country when the roads to Dublin are clogged every morning by 7am, rail travel costs a fortune, rent and housing in the Dublin is unaffordable for people on an average salary and if you live outside the city and commute most of your disposable income is eaten up by commuting costs.

No wonder some people don't see the point of working.

Fantastic post.

Chuchote

Augeo wrote: »

You pay tiny rent alligned to quite generous net income rates.

It's a total joke, folks who need social housing on a waiting list while the swindling stock of social housing is largely sheltering folks on decent money.

This simply isn't so.

Emme

Emme wrote: »

If you read the entire thread you will see where I pointed out that some people are unemployed through no fault of their own. The majority of unemployed people.

There is also a minority who abuse the system and one such person said to me that I'm a fool for working and an even bigger fool for paying thousands to get there. This when I was knackered at the end of a long week working and commuting. This person has a better standard of life than most unemployed people, she goes on holidays twice a year and doesn't seem to want to find work.

Your original post sounds like
(a) you have a gripe with the number of people travelling for free on the public transport you use.
(b) you have a gripe with the cost of commuting.

I was pointing out that unemployed people do NOT have free travel. One may be entitled to free travel if you are permanently living in the State and: You are aged 66 or over. You are getting Disability Allowance, Blind Pension, Carer's Allowance or an Invalidity Pension from the Department of Social Protection. What makes you thing they are all travelling at the same time as you?
The cost of commuting or indeed any method of travelling to work or for leisure, is pretty dear, but is a choice one must make.

BTW, Life on the Dole can be soul destroying. Ask anyone who is used to paying their own way and has a work ethic and they will tell you.

Chuchote

Chuchote wrote: »

This simply isn't so.

It's in the link you posted.
Under 15% of net income.

Chuchote

Augeo wrote: »

It's in the link you posted.
Under 15% of net income.

Sorry, what I was saying isn't so was your statement: "It's a total joke, folks who need social housing on a waiting list while the swindling stock of social housing is largely sheltering folks on decent money."

That's not so.

hytrogen

Banjoxed wrote:

That is masochism in its purest form. If I lived in Carrickmacross I'd drive to Dundalk and take the train to Dublin instead.

Deleted User wrote:

Be better taking the bus from Dundalk tbh.

Be grand on the train from Navan if that still ran..

magicbastarder

hannible the cannible wrote: »

I was wondering the same . I also wondered what an unemployed person would be doing taking the train to Dublin every day

maybe not every day, but the act of looking for and securing a job might involve a good bit of travel.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

maybe not every day, but the act of looking for and securing a job might involve a good bit of travel.

But not a peak time. Surely it's cheaper to travel off peak?

magicbastarder

depends when your job interview might be scheduled for, i suppose.

end of the road

Augeo wrote: »

That's half the reason we are short of council housing.
Many of the occupants wouldn't get one based on their current situation...... why build more when many end up as a perk off the state.

because to solve everything in relation to the countries housing needs we can't either
1. simply rely on the private rental market, it costs a lot more long term and it's unsustainible to rely on it.
2. simply rely on everyone being able to get a mortgage as some are just unmortgageible and (rightly) the banks aren't giving mortgages out like sweets, we saw what happened when they were. that also cost and was unsustainible
so we need a third option, social/council housing for those of a low income including the huge number of low income workers.

Carlos Orange

end of the road wrote: »

so we need a third option, social/council housing for those of a low income including the huge number of low income workers.

That doesn't really address the question of why people who don't qualify for council homes because they don't have a low income should be allowed to live in them because they once qualified.

Kadser

Solomon Pleasant wrote: »

There's one possible solution OP - Emigrate.

Or become homeless and sleep in Dublin City centre. Free soup and sandwiches most nights offered by several charities and you won't need to commute to the job.

end of the road

Emme wrote: »

I do have a problem with the lack of capacity on rush hour trains.

your problem is with the government, irish rail and the NTA/DTA/TFI/whatever they call themselves this week. not other people.

Emme wrote: »

It is not fair for one set of passengers to have to stand while others get to sit purely because they get on earlier on the line.

of course it is . if people get on a few stations before you and they're are seats availible then why shouldn't those people have them. should some of those be forced to stand so some from other stations can get seats? if people finish work a few minutes earlier then you and they arrive at the station earlier and get seats then why shouldn't they have them. should they be forced out of their seats because they might be going to stations before yours, just so you can have a seat?

Deleted User wrote: »

But not a peak time. Surely it's cheaper to travel off peak?

it would be, but they will rightly plan their travel time around their interview/interviews.

elperello

ted1 wrote: »

So those people aren't available for work and shouldn't receive JSA. Hospital have staff and the relative can generally cope for an hour.

If someone is volunteering for a charity why should they be getting free travel , should they not be working ? I've no problem with people volunteering but if they are getting free travel then that's a charity donation and I'd rather select what charity my taxes go to

You don't get free travel for going to work in a charity but people who have free travel may be volunteers.

The gist of my post was that there are many ways people contribute to society other than just in paid employment.

Nomis21

ted1 wrote: »

So those people aren't available for work and shouldn't receive JSA. Hospital have staff and the relative can generally cope for an hour.

If someone is volunteering for a charity why should they be getting free travel , should they not be working ? I've no problem with people volunteering but if they are getting free travel then that's a charity donation and I'd rather select what charity my taxes go to

You don't get a free travel pass for being on JSA or being unemployed.

The pass is given to those on disability allowance and those over 66 years old who may choose to do unpaid charity work and may need to use public transport to get to it.

magicbastarder

i thought being over 66 gave you a free pass, regardless of whether you're doing charity work?
or is the pass you get being over 66 limited in some way? my folks have it but generally use it on the train, i don't know their experiences on the buses.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

i thought being over 66 gave you a free pass, regardless of whether you're doing charity work?
or is the pass you get being over 66 limited in some way? my folks have it but generally use it on the train, i don't know their experiences on the buses.

Can be used on all public transport, trains, busses, luas, dart

Ave Sodalis

psinno wrote:

That doesn't really address the question of why people who don't qualify for council homes because they don't have a low income should be allowed to live in them because they once qualified.

What on earth has this to do woth over packed public transport during peak hours?

Carlos Orange

sup_dude wrote: »

What on earth has this to do woth over packed public transport during peak hours?

Seems like a bit of a tangent to be sure but why reply to something and not address what you are replying to.

elperello

magicbastarder wrote: »

i thought being over 66 gave you a free pass, regardless of whether you're doing charity work?
or is the pass you get being over 66 limited in some way? my folks have it but generally use it on the train, i don't know their experiences on the buses.

You are right, over 66 gets the pass and why they chose to travel on bus or train is their own business.

People travel for all sorts of reasons and they should not be segregated or discriminated against.

(by the way I don't have free travel)

Carlos Orange

elperello wrote: »

People travel for all sorts of reasons and they should not be segregated or discriminated against.

Is it discrimination to charge everyone to travel at peak hours?