Right to a house?

recedite

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Great point.
Also if you put a family in an area with a stigma attached, poor quality schools and little to no infrastructure, it in the least will make it difficult for people to try get ahead.

Lets look at these three issues.
A "stigma" attaches to people, not a piece of land. So if you move these same kind of people to a better area, the stigma moves with them.
Also, it is within the power of the stimatised people to change their behaviour, so that the stigma disappears. So "stigma" is a red herring.

All state schools should be of a high standard, and the vast majority are. Nobody is suggesting poor quality schools for certain areas, or certain classes of people. So that is a red herring.

Nobody is suggesting putting little or no infastructure for new council houses, except maybe the "quick fix" lobbyist/politician/homeless industry partnership.
Properly built council estates should have proper infastructure.
The estates should not be so large that the whole area gets a bad name, but they should be separate from private houses, and as a matter of principle they should be more basic, or not quite as luxurious in some way.
The kids however should all be attending the same schools, unless the parents want to pay for fully private education.

NIMAN

Matt Barrett wrote: »

And you feel there'll be sufficient amounts of this kind of situation for it to have a big effect or are we just looking to assign fault anywhere we can?

EH?

I was pointing out that families need bigger homes now than in the 70s or 80s as new rules are in place. This is adding to the problem. I'm sure there are people out there with 4 kids who are saying they need a 5 bed house as all the kids need a separate bedroom, whereas a 3 bed would have sufficed in the 80s.

That's all. Plus how these rules are likely to change again in the future.

tringle

server down wrote: »

How far back was this? The early 19C? It’s no way that was common a generation ago. Also a two bedroom is a two bedroom. How many kids you have is up to you.


The actual statistics are that 80% of people owned their houses by the end of the 80s, early 90s

This was in the 70s and 80s.
My point was that people weren't homeless because they lived with family not like many of today's families that feel entitled to a comfortable home at this expense of the state.

tringle

NIMAN wrote: »

Many 'rules' now exist that wouldn't have back in the 70s or 80s.

If you have a mix of boys and girls among your children, they need to have separate bedrooms, isn't that right? A girl wouldn't be expected to share a bedroom with her brother?

Add to this, its only a matter of time before we hear of some claimant say they have 3 children, a boy, a girl and another who doesn't want to be seen as either, so they need 3 additional bedrooms for that.

I might say it tongue in cheek, but watch this space.

But these rules only apply to those living in social housing. Rent privately or own a house then you only get what you can afford regardless of gender and number of people.

server down

NIMAN wrote: »

Many 'rules' now exist that wouldn't have back in the 70s or 80s.

If you have a mix of boys and girls among your children, they need to have separate bedrooms, isn't that right? A girl wouldn't be expected to share a bedroom with her brother?

Add to this, its only a matter of time before we hear of some claimant say they have 3 children, a boy, a girl and another who doesn't want to be seen as either, so they need 3 additional bedrooms for that.

I might say it tongue in cheek, but watch this space.

And most people don’t have 8 kids. That’s the biggest reason we don’t have large families in 2 bedroom housing.

server down

tringle wrote: »

This was in the 70s and 80s.
My point was that people weren't homeless because they lived with family not like many of today's families that feel entitled to a comfortable home at this expense of the state.

You started off with that anecdote then you said that your children moved in to live with you.

And more people had homes courtesy of the state in the 70s and 80s.

James Brown

recedite wrote: »

Lets look at these three issues.
A "stigma" attaches to people, not a piece of land. So if you move these same kind of people to a better area, the stigma moves with them.
Also, it is within the power of the stimatised people to change their behaviour, so that the stigma disappears. So "stigma" is a red herring.

All state schools should be of a high standard, and the vast majority are. Nobody is suggesting poor quality schools for certain areas, or certain classes of people. So that is a red herring.

Nobody is suggesting putting little or no infastructure for new council houses, except maybe the "quick fix" lobbyist/politician/homeless industry partnership.
Properly built council estates should have proper infastructure.
The estates should not be so large that the whole area gets a bad name, but they should be separate from private houses, and as a matter of principle they should be more basic, or not quite as luxurious in some way.
The kids however should all be attending the same schools, unless the parents want to pay for fully private education.

Agreed. As regards stigmas, they are attached to areas for a long long time.
The line of discussion was regarding segregation over mixed. An area of only low/no income people, which in the past has seen drug issues, Garda calling it a no go area etc. is not what we should be returning to. These areas can often have poor quality schools, (I've seen teachers stumble in drunk, so it happens).
I would suggest pockets of social housing throughout the city centers and suburbs.

tringle

server down wrote: »

You started off with that anecdote then you said that your children moved in to live with you. .

Yes, because we have the space for them and they don't feel that the state is obliged to house them.

Mousewar

I don't actually believe in rights at all.
I mean, they're a useful concept and as a society I believe we have a moral duty to help out those who need help but I don't feel as if I have a right to anything at all. Not a house, not my health, not even my life. The fact that I have those things makes me feel very appreciative and I would like everyone to have them as well but I don't feel any of them are my "right" and don't understand people who do think like that.

MayoSalmon

Mousewar wrote:

I don't actually believe in rights at all. I mean, they're a useful concept and as a society I believe we have a moral duty to help out those who need help but I don't feel as if I have a right to anything at all. Not a house, not my health, not even my life. The fact that I have those things makes me feel very appreciative and I would like everyone to have them as well but I don't feel any of them are my "right" and don't understand people who do think like that.

So if you don't feel you have a "right" to your life or anybody else to theirs murder would be grand in your eyes.

Mousewar

As I said, just because I don't believe someone has a right to something doesn't mean I don't want them to have that something, nor do I think it acceptable to deprive them of that thing.

Do you think I have some kind of human right to my iPad? No, yet you'd still think it wrong if someone stole it.

MayoSalmon

Mousewar wrote:

Do you think I have some kind of human right to my iPad? No, yet you'd still think it wrong if someone stole it.

Yes you have a right to property so your iPad, house, car, bag of jellies are your right if they are your property.

Mousewar

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Yes you have a right to property so your iPad, house, car, bag of jellies are your right if they are your property.

Yes that's the law. You're just using rights as a pseudonym for laws.
Anyway, all these things as some kind of innate entitlements, I reject all that. I don't feel entitled to anything at all, just thankful for anything I manage to get either through luck or effort.

MayoSalmon

Mousewar wrote:

Yes that's the law. You're just using rights as a pseudonym for laws. Anyway, all these things as some kind of innate entitlements, I reject all that. I don't feel entitled to anything at all, just thankful for anything I manage to get either through luck or effort.

No property rights maybe are more closely aligned to legal rights but natural rights would apply to the right to life as do most basic human rights.

Anyway not really sure what the point if this discussion is. You don't feel anybody has a right to their property or life and that they shouldn't feel entitled to either...mad but sure each to his own.

Mousewar

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Anyway not really sure what the point if this discussion is.

Well you were the one perpetuating it. I just stated my view that I believe the concept of a human right is meaningless.

server down

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Morally, you have no right to demand housing off me and likewise I have no right to demand housing of you.

Now I may recognise your necessity and provide charity

That’s nice of you but you haven’t paid the government back for your schooling at primary, secondary or tertiary yet. When are you doing that?

jm08

Mousewar wrote: »

I don't actually believe in rights at all.
I mean, they're a useful concept and as a society I believe we have a moral duty to help out those who need help but I don't feel as if I have a right to anything at all. Not a house, not my health, not even my life. The fact that I have those things makes me feel very appreciative and I would like everyone to have them as well but I don't feel any of them are my "right" and don't understand people who do think like that.

With Rights come Responsibilities - be responsible not to take advantage of your fellow citizens or the State.

Carlos Orange

Idbatterim wrote: »

right, let me guess! its some pittance of their income they pay? not the 50% some are landing out to rent their own place or 25% to rent a room with in a house share with strangers?

It is 15% of income after tax in Dublin with a maximum rent that hasn't been updated since 2012. If you are on 300k a year you get a 4 bedroom house for about what I paid for a 2 bedroom apartment. Above that you don't pay any extra.

Galwayguy35

server down wrote: »

That’s nice of you but you haven’t paid the government back for your schooling at primary, secondary or tertiary yet. When are you doing that?

If he's a person with a job that's exactly what he is doing through his taxes as are the rest of us.

The 2 junkies in the tent that were on the programme the other night certainly won't be paying anyone for the house they were saying should be provided for them.

Consonata

Eric Cartman wrote:

I would say take everyone on that list, find out the ones who are not addicts who are working and make them the priority, the intergenerationally unemployed can have some attention after all the workers have been looked after.

Addicts often can't look after themselves, else they wouldnt be call3d addicts.

So if that person has kids, are you condeming that child to life without a home to call their own because their parent isnt capable of giving them one?

Are you condeming that person, who is in the depths of their own depressing situation, to make it 10x worse by making them sleep rough?

Eric Cartman

Consonata wrote: »

Addicts often can't look after themselves, else they wouldnt be call3d addicts.

So if that person has kids, are you condeming that child to life without a home to call their own because their parent isnt capable of giving them one?

Are you condeming that person, who is in the depths of their own depressing situation, to make it 10x worse by making them sleep rough?

I said give them a detox centre. I personally believe drug addicts should be offered sterilisation and also have any existing children taken from them. You can have a smack problem or kids, not both in my book.

Consonata

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I said give them a detox centre. I personally believe drug addicts should be offered sterilisation and also have any existing children taken from them. You can have a smack problem or kids, not both in my book.

I mean, what person is going to willingly sterilise themselves. I think you mean mandatory sterilisation, in which case what right do you have to decide who can have kids and who not to.

recedite

Consonata wrote: »

I mean, what person is going to willingly sterilise themselves. I think you mean mandatory sterilisation, in which case what right do you have to decide who can have kids and who not to.

I think if the previous poster had meant mandatory he would have said it. Lots of people get themselves sterilised, and pay for it themselves too. Have you never heard of "the snip" or tubal ligation?

hatrickpatrick

Tabnabs wrote: »

The problem I have with this logic is that it attracts a very vocal cohort who ultimately seek to make housing a right rather than a need.

Housing should be a right, because it is a need.

hatrickpatrick

boombang wrote: »

But what the people pay in social housing cost is nowhere near the market value of the home. So person A lives in social housing in Crumlin and pays buttons to rent it from the corpo, while person B next door breaks his hole working to pay a €1,500 a month mortgage on the same house. This can be the case even if person A is working.

The concept of the free market dictating everything is merely one ideology of many. You may believe that market value should be relevant when it comes to housing, plenty of others do not.

Good loser

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The concept of the free market dictating everything is merely one ideology of many. You may believe that market value should be relevant when it comes to housing, plenty of others do not.

If market value is irrelevant to housing then you are saying money is irrelevant to housing. And/or money is limitless. If money was limitless it would have no value. And market value would not exist. Which we know is absurd, don't we?

hatrickpatrick

Good loser wrote: »

If market value is irrelevant to housing then you are saying money is irrelevant to housing. And/or money is limitless. If money was limitless it would have no value. And market value would not exist. Which we know is absurd, don't we?

Not everything is subject to the free market. For instance, in Ireland we have made the decision that primary education, healthcare, public transport and many other essential or even quasi-essential aspects of daily living should not be subject to the free market. I am advocating that housing be added to this list. Everybody, absolutely everybody, should be entitled to a basic standard of living including housing. The free market should only kick in if people want to upgrade, just as the free market only kicks in for healthcare if people want to upgrade from a public to a private hospital, and the free market for transport only kicks in if people want to upgrade from public transport to a private vehicle.

We have never had pure capitalism in this country or I believe in most European countries, certainly not since the twentieth century anyway. There is no reason other than an ideological reason why housing should not be up for discussion as another basic living standard which should have a minimum "floor" that is guaranteed by the state, just like healthcare and so on.

Honestly, people talk as if Herbert Simms either didn't exist or else belongs to an age hundreds of years in the past. We've only done away with state built public housing since the 1980s and the dawn of neoliberalism. There are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions (consult the census) of people currently alive who would be old enough to remember this.

Good loser

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not everything is subject to the free market. For instance, in Ireland we have made the decision that primary education, healthcare, public transport and many other essential or even quasi-essential aspects of daily living should not be subject to the free market. I am advocating that housing be added to this list. Everybody, absolutely everybody, should be entitled to a basic standard of living including housing. The free market should only kick in if people want to upgrade, just as the free market only kicks in for healthcare if people want to upgrade from a public to a private hospital, and the free market for transport only kicks in if people want to upgrade from public transport to a private vehicle.

We have never had pure capitalism in this country or I believe in most European countries, certainly not since the twentieth century anyway. There is no reason other than an ideological reason why housing should not be up for discussion as another basic living standard which should have a minimum "floor" that is guaranteed by the state, just like healthcare and so on.

Honestly, people talk as if Herbert Simms either didn't exist or else belongs to an age hundreds of years in the past. We've only done away with state built public housing since the 1980s and the dawn of neoliberalism. There are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions (consult the census) of people currently alive who would be old enough to remember this.

Market value in housing exists. Otherwise there would be no such thing as House Price Statistics. That makes house market value prices relevant to any discussion on housing.

So, for example, if the average house price in Dublin is 300k it means to the Govt that every house it provides will set it back this amount. Or €1 m for every three.
Put another way every three people in Dublin that provide housing for themselves via the market saves the Govt €1m. And, at the same time , probably provides 300k in taxes to the Exchequer.

(If I remember, back the way, you were claiming apartments in Dublin could be supplied for 40K a pop)

tringle

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not everything is subject to the free market. For instance, in Ireland we have made the decision that primary education, healthcare, public transport and many other essential or even quasi-essential aspects of daily living should not be subject to the free market. I am advocating that housing be added to this list. Everybody, absolutely everybody, should be entitled to a basic standard of living including housing. The free market should only kick in if people want to upgrade, just as the free market only kicks in for healthcare if people want to upgrade from a public to a private hospital, and the free market for transport only kicks in if people want to upgrade from public transport to a private vehicle.
.

I actually agree with the ideology of this that "a basic standard of living including housing" is not subject to the free market and we all then are free to upgrade. However I feel that many younger people now see this "basic standard" as being much higher than what many of us grew up with as basic, that they expect much more than basic. And while I don't want to ghettoise families I feel that two identical rental houses in a street should cost the same regardless of who rents them.

oceanman

Good loser wrote: »

Market value in housing exists. Otherwise there would be no such thing as House Price Statistics. That makes house market value prices relevant to any discussion on housing.

So, for example, if the average house price in Dublin is 300k it means to the Govt that every house it provides will set it back this amount. Or €1 m for every three.
Put another way every three people in Dublin that provide housing for themselves via the market saves the Govt €1m. And, at the same time , probably provides 300k in taxes to the Exchequer.

(If I remember, back the way, you were claiming apartments in Dublin could be supplied for 40K a pop)

300k is the avarage price of the house in the current market, it dosent cost anywhere near that to build it...