Tiny number of social units being built:

Wanderer78

Shepherd Black Shoemaker wrote: »

Well that’s the point. Providing free/subsidized housing to some people results in less housing available for people who pay, and hence results in higher prices/rents.

hmmm, i wonder does allowing financial institutions free rain to print money, to provide credit, have anything to do with rising house prices, and does actions such as quantitative easing also have any affect on these outcomes, or is it that bogeyman, 'the unemployed'?

padd b1975

Wanderer78 wrote: »

hmmm, i wonder does allowing financial institutions free rain to print money, to provide credit, have anything to do with rising house prices, and does actions such as quantitative easing also have any affect on these outcomes, or is it that bogeyman, 'the unemployed'?

Lending criteria have never been tighter!!

Jesus wept..

redhen94

The trouble is, most people wouldn't have the money to pay for a house upfront. Only the rich. Is it too much to expect reasonably priced social housing for lower-income people? Decent housing is a must for a healthy life. If you ask me, the referendum was a smokescreen to get people's minds off the fact that we have a not-too-great government.

end of the road

Shepherd Black Shoemaker wrote: »

Well that’s the point. Providing free/subsidized housing to some people results in less housing available for people who pay, and hence results in higher prices/rents.

not when a proper house building program is in place that includes social housing,, private rentals and houses to buy. that encourages builders and developers to build but which doesn't compromise on standards. like normal countries.

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

The problem is that too many people have far too high an expectation of what they are "entitled" to, given their financial circumstances. If you can't earn enough to accommodate 3 kids, a cat, a dog and a goldfish, then don't have those things until you can afford them. Why should the State pay for lifestyle choices?

because people have children. sometimes they can't afford them themselves hence whether one likes it or not, the children have to be supported regardless of one's opinions of the parents. other times, people have children when they could very much afford them but circumstances change.

Wanderer78

padd b1975 wrote: »

Lending criteria have never been tighter!!

Jesus wept..

some interesting data on global debt levels, pay particular attention to 'the debt burden', no no, not the one we re always been told about i.e. public debt, the real debt burden is in fact private debt! enjoy!

http://www.profstevekeen.com/data-on-credit-employment-and-house-prices/

Graces7

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

If you are not working and in receipt of welfare from the state in which you use to pay 30 euro a week rent in a 3 bedroom house then yes it is a free house.

You have done nothing to earn that money.

Which is the whole foundation of THE WELFARE STATE.

You do live in Ireland?

People on welfare are not penalised or punished any more. Not condemned to bread and water- or just bread... or to live in deprived accommodation.

And why the begrudgery? What business of anyone's how others live? Why the faux outrage? About folk you do not know?

Eggs For Dinner

end of the road wrote: »

because people have children. sometimes they can't afford them themselves hence whether one likes it or not, the children have to be supported regardless of one's opinions of the parents. other times, people have children when they could very much afford them but circumstances change.

Obviously, people's circumstances can unexpectedly change and that is when the State should assist. However, too many people, who can't afford to be self sufficient, think they can produce children as they please and the State will carry the cost of rearing them and put a roof over their heads.

end of the road

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Obviously, people's circumstances can unexpectedly change and that is when the State should assist. However, too many people, who can't afford to be self sufficient, think they can produce children as they please and the State will carry the cost of rearing them and put a roof over their heads.

they may do, but they find themselves receiving quite the shock when the reality actually hits. the reality actually being that having multiple children isn't economically advantageous like is claimed. the state offers supports to those people for the sake of the children mostly.

Eggs For Dinner

Graces7 wrote: »

And why the begrudgery? What business of anyone's how others live? Why the faux outrage? About folk you do not know?

Because most people work hard, take personal responsibility and yet struggle hard to meet their commitments all at the same time as a substantial number of dossers take from the system and contribute nothing to society. Basically, it is not equitable

end of the road

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Because most people work hard, take personal responsibility and yet struggle hard to meet their commitments all at the same time as a substantial number of dossers take from the system and contribute nothing to society.

realistically it's a small amount. ideally those people wouldn't do it but we don't live in an ideal world we live in the real one. their behaviour is certainly an issue but it's blown up into more of an issue then it actually is . if there was a way to deal with people like that and not cause further problems it would have been implemented.

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Basically, it is not equitable

and unfortunately it never will be.

Eggs For Dinner

So you're saying we should accept leeches on society because the numbers are low and effectively managable. Well sorry, I think the number is substantial and I won't accept it. All I can do is keep voting against those who would further accommodate those dossers if given the power, even if that leaves me with the shower of gobsites we've usually get

Cyrus

Graces7 wrote: »

And why the begrudgery? What business of anyone's how others live? Why the faux outrage? About folk you do not know?

it becomes your business when you pay a marginal tax rate of over 50% to pay for it

Wanderer78

Cyrus wrote: »

it becomes your business when you pay a marginal tax rate of over 50% to pay for it

so all of your tax goes into welfare payments?

kingbhome

Everybody has the answers yet they keep voting for the fools that made the decisions lol. Only yourselves to really.

Cyrus

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so all of your tax goes into welfare payments?

i dont recall saying that it did? but some of it does as well you know.

Wanderer78

kingbhome wrote: »

Everybody has the answers yet they keep voting for the fools that made the decisions lol. Only yourselves to really.

nobody really has the answers, we re effectively stuck with this problem, i suspect it actually doesnt matter whos voted in now, and no, we dont get the governments we vote in, as theres a serious lack of democracy and powerlessness within out political institutions to truly change things

kingbhome

Wanderer78 wrote: »

nobody really has the answers, we re effectively stuck with this problem, i suspect it actually doesnt matter whos voted in now, and no, we dont get the governments we vote in, as theres a serious lack of democracy and powerlessness within out political institutions to truly change things

I dont vote but IMO, if one had of voted in SF when Gerry Adams was the main man of the party, there isnt a hope in hell a man who was on an industrial wage would let the bankers ruin this country. We all know about his past but the country would be in a better place than it is now.

Cyrus

kingbhome wrote: »

I dont vote but IMO, if one had of voted in SF when Gerry Adams was the main man of the party, there isnt a hope in hell a man who was on an industrial wage would let the bankers ruin this country. We all know about his past but the country would be in a better place than it is now.

brilliant

i dont vote

and if i did it would have been for SF when Gerry was the main man :P Gerry who didnt even know what the vat rate was down here would have sorted the economy out

Wanderer78

kingbhome wrote: »

I dont vote but IMO, if one had of voted in SF when Gerry Adams was the main man of the party, there isnt a hope in hell a man who was on an industrial wage would let the bankers ruin this country. We all know about his past but the country would be in a better place than it is now.

we ve no way of actually knowing this, but i suspect you could be wrong, the actions of people such as yanis varoufakis has showed us this, left leaning thinking, particularly left leaning economic thinking is not possible within the bounds of the eu at the moment.

doolox

Don't get married to a person who wants kids, you can't afford it.
If at all possible buy a small apartment on your own. If not share with a like minded person re: having no kids.

Do not get sick or lose good health or you will lose apartment and be homeless.

Do not trust your employer to hold on to your job, be at all times aware of the need to cover your ass, be ever mindful of the competition in your sector and be ready to move at a moments notice if and when things go pear-shaped.

Learn and apply the rules of finance and credit control to all your spheres of life. If you have a tracker hold onto it for dear life, it is the cheapest money you will ever get.

I now have two kids both adults and both no longer needing full time care and financial support as they used to. My wife had early menopause and we were sad at the time. Boy! are We glad we didn't have more kids! My job went pearshaped and I was let go, my wifes work is also precarious but our mortgage is paid and we are solvent with little or no debts. The only thing now that can screw us is bad health.

My health, esp eyesight, is not as good as it was so younger people can beat the crap out of me in my chosen career. You need VERY good eyesight for electronics hardware repair now and an infinite supply of delicate hand skills and repair knowledge. Get it wrong and you are toast......

I have been lucky to have another line of work that , hour for hour, pays me better than any electronic or factory job could ever do. These types of manual, non-degree jobs are dead now anyway. Do not be afraid to re-invent yourself and, most importantly, do not blame other people such as bosses and accountants etc for closing down your factory and f%$"$ing up your life. This gives them too much power.

If possible go free lance and have many employers. It is no longer wise to rely on one employer for your existence, it gives them far too much power.

Save like a squirrel and eschew unnecessary spending. Do not heed advertisers and sponsored messages encouraging spending. Every Euro IS a prisoner.

Wheeliebin30

kingbhome wrote: »

I dont vote but IMO, if one had of voted in SF when Gerry Adams was the main man of the party, there isnt a hope in hell a man who was on an industrial wage would let the bankers ruin this country. We all know about his past but the country would be in a better place than it is now.

Lol Gerry has 3 holiday homes, don’t make laugh.

kingbhome

Wanderer78 wrote: »

we ve no way of actually knowing this, but i suspect you could be wrong, the actions of people such as yanis varoufakis has showed us this, left leaning thinking, particularly left leaning economic thinking is not possible within the bounds of the eu at the moment.

I know one thing, keep voting in FG and FF and the situation will only get worse!

Wanderer78

kingbhome wrote: »

I know one thing, keep voting in FG and FF and the situation will only get worse!

in a way id agree, but in another way id disagree. theres a seriously lack of democracy within the eu at the moment, and i suspect, it actually doesnt matter who you vote in now. the political left is a disaster as well, so we re kinna stuck

end of the road

Cyrus wrote: »

it becomes your business when you pay a marginal tax rate of over 50% to pay for it

except you are paying that rate to pay for everything due to the high costs of living in our country. if wellfare went tomorrow you would still be paying the same rate of tax.

kingbhome wrote: »

I dont vote but IMO, if one had of voted in SF when Gerry Adams was the main man of the party, there isnt a hope in hell a man who was on an industrial wage would let the bankers ruin this country. We all know about his past but the country would be in a better place than it is now.

absolutely. our boy gerry wouldn't stand for it. we need another one of him to take the lead in sf.

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Lol Gerry has 3 holiday homes, don’t make laugh.

he has earned them. he gave his life to politics and doing good. one of the greatist politicians this country has ever seen and ever will see.

end of the road

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

So you're saying we should accept leeches on society because the numbers are low and effectively managable.

i'm saying that we have to deal with the reality that they exist. we don't have to except them but unless there is an alternative to deal with them without causing further problems then excepting them is the least worst option.

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Well sorry, I think the number is substantial and I won't accept it.

fine, you can think they are substantial if you like. however apart from grudgingly excepting the reality that they exist and that there is probably nothing that can be done, what is your alternative to deal with them given in reality they would be a small number?

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

All I can do is keep voting against those who would further accommodate those dossers if given the power, even if that leaves me with the shower of gobsites we've usually get

of course, if you want to sell yourself short that is up to you. but i do think that whoever is in power, the dossers will get no more then they currently get.

erica74

Wanderer78 wrote: »

What if you cannot afford to pay for a house?

Ever?

I said

erica74 wrote: »

The easiest solution to the problem is to stop allowing any tenant stay in social housing long term. These houses are supposedly for people down on their luck, in need of assistance, yet, you have people living in them for their whole lives because they are given the opportunity to buy their house, this shouldn't be allowed. Each house should be let out to a person for a set period of time, during which they are monitored to ensure they are applying for jobs, attending interviews etc and then, once they are back on their feet, they are given notice to leave and should find a place of their own to rent or buy.

Everyone would have an opportunity to get themselves together before being moved out of, what should be, temporary accommodation. 5 years would be a good length of time for anyone to find a job, retrain, go to college, sort out their life and begin saving towards being a fully functioning member of society.

The current system of living in a "free" house until you are given the option of buying it is the reason why we now have a shortage of affordable housing.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so all of your tax goes into welfare payments?

Actually, the income tax take is, more or less, the welfare budget.

Wanderer78

Sincere Zealous Gunboat wrote: »

Actually, the income tax take is, more or less, the welfare budget.

but we all know, the weird and wonderful world of taxation doesnt really work like that, bits go here there and everywhere

Wanderer78

erica74 wrote: »

Ever?

I said



Everyone would have an opportunity to get themselves together before being moved out of, what should be, temporary accommodation. 5 years would be a good length of time for anyone to find a job, retrain, go to college, sort out their life and begin saving towards being a fully functioning member of society.

The current system of living in a "free" house until you are given the option of buying it is the reason why we now have a shortage of affordable housing.

but what if the right conditions never exist for some to do so?

our shortage of affordable housing is far more complex that that, theres something fundamentally going wrong globally with regards these issues, its a relatively common problem, maybe macro economic policies have something to do with it?

Cyrus

end of the road wrote: »

except you are paying that rate to pay for everything due to the high costs of living in our country. if wellfare went tomorrow you would still be paying the same rate

Think about what you just said

And no I wouldn’t