Family of seven sleep in Garda station Mod note post one

Alrigghtythen

forward8 wrote: »

Married at 15? How is that even legal?

Court can grant allowances.


3/4 more years and the 11 year old will be lining up for his house.

Mike Hoch

Silent Running wrote: »

A relative of mine lives in a private rented house (not Dublin) with this wife and baby, he earns 25k a year and manages to pay his rent and run a car to get to work. He gets children's allowance for the baby and that's it. He pays PRSI and USC.

So, he's on well under half of what this woman gets and manages to rent a house for his family. What does she do with all the money she gets?

There wouldn't be many 2 bed flats in Dublin currently being rented for less than 1200 per month, or 14,400 per year.

25K gross would bring home what, 20K net? Or would it be more if he's married?

I'm not saying you're wrong but it sounds near feckin impossible for a family of two adults to eat, run a car, clothe themselves and occasionally entertain themselves with 5500- 6000 euro of disposable income per year. Sure the state gives more to a single man in subsidised housing to survive on than that.

Gatling

Mike Hoch wrote: »

There wouldn't be many 2 bed flats in Dublin currently being rented for less than 1200 per month, or 14,400 per year.

Several here in tallaght going for 2000 pm

Silent Running

Mike Hoch wrote: »

There wouldn't be many 2 bed flats in Dublin currently being rented for less than 1200 per month, or 14,400 per year.

25K gross would bring home what, 20K net? Or would it be more if he's married?

I'm not saying you're wrong but it sounds near feckin impossible for a family of two adults to eat, run a car, clothe themselves and occasionally entertain themselves with 5500- 6000 euro of disposable income per year. Sure the state gives more to a single man in subsidised housing to survive on than that.

I did say not in Dublin. He pays 650 a month rent.

PlaneSpeeking

Silent Running wrote: »

Mike Hoch wrote: »

There wouldn't be many 2 bed flats in Dublin currently being rented for less than 1200 per month, or 14,400 per year.

25K gross would bring home what, 20K net? Or would it be more if he's married?

I'm not saying you're wrong but it sounds near feckin impossible for a family of two adults to eat, run a car, clothe themselves and occasionally entertain themselves with 5500- 6000 euro of disposable income per year. Sure the state gives more to a single man in subsidised housing to survive on than that.

I did say not in Dublin. He pays 650 a month rent.

Yeah I'm 750 down the country for a house, a colleague pays twice that for a 1 bed flat.

The commute is a bitch but worth it.

Amirani

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Cash is also means tested


I'm surprised at how few people know how this all works. The money given to her is considered to be the minimum required for a family of eight to live on. Not my own opinion but it is the socal welfares opinion. According to their rules she couldn't afford to pay a thousand per month in rent. I'm not an expert but I wouldn't expect her to pay more than a few hundred per month for a council house. I'm not saying that it's right but it is the way things are

I realise that it's considered the minimum required to "live on". Since when is rent not a living expense?

Stheno

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/homeless-mother-rejects-totally-unsuitable-accommodation-1.3594909?mode=amp

she's refused accommodation offered as its only for one night, despite the housing executive saying it will be on a continuous basis and she stayed there in the past

PlaneSpeeking

Stheno wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/homeless-mother-rejects-totally-unsuitable-accommodation-1.3594909?mode=amp

she's refused accommodation offered as its only for one night, despite the housing executive saying it will be on a continuous basis and she stayed there in the past

That idiot Flynn saying she's ashamed. I doubt it's an emotion she's capable of.

Mike Hoch

Gatling wrote: »

Several here in tallaght going for 2000 pm

It's a wonder there isn't some sort of army of the night going round vandalising properties that are being advertised for scandalous rent prices.

I'm not normally in any favour of crusty anarchists but it would serve them right. Food isn't sold at a price that makes it a massive part of your income, why must housing be?

Any two bed going for above 1200 is a disgrace, and 1200 is bad enough in itself.

Insane and all, the size of Dublin 24, 11 properties for rent with 2 beds or more.

One of them a former council house in Jobstown for 1400. Paying 1400 per month in rent when some neighbours pay 28 euro per week, if they pay at all.

Knowing this utter farce of a government there are probably thousands of people who bought their council house at a pittance, moved elsewhere, and now rent the house back to the council at upwards of 1000 per month via HAP and other similar acquisition schemes.

Read that again. The government paying over a grand per month for temporary use of a house they themselves built and then sold at a fraction of its market value.

Someone should go on trial for such a feat of stupidity.

Igotadose

Mike Hoch wrote: »

It's a wonder there isn't some sort of army of the night going round vandalising properties that are being advertised for scandalous rent prices.

I'm not normally in any favour of crusty anarchists but it would serve them right. Food isn't sold at a price that makes it a massive part of your income, why must housing be?

Supply and demand

Amirani

Mike Hoch wrote: »

It's a wonder there isn't some sort of army of the night going round vandalising properties that are being advertised for scandalous rent prices.

I'm not normally in any favour of crusty anarchists but it would serve them right. Food isn't sold at a price that makes it a massive part of your income, why must housing be?

Scarcity.

Sleeper12

Amirani wrote:

I realise that it's considered the minimum required to "live on". Since when is rent not a living expense?

I know a family like this. Settled not traveller. Only 4 kids & the father isn't supposed to be living there so 5 supposed to be in the house. No income at all except social welfare and they pay less than 200 per month in Donaghmede. The same house would get close to 2k per month on the open market.

Mike Hoch

Igotadose wrote: »

Supply and demand

Twas a rhetorical question :pac:

Galwayguy35

Stheno wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/homeless-mother-rejects-totally-unsuitable-accommodation-1.3594909?mode=amp

she's refused accommodation offered as its only for one night, despite the housing executive saying it will be on a continuous basis and she stayed there in the past

So she was going to be able to return every evening and wasn't going to be left there for only one night like Flynn said and still she refused the offer.

PlaneSpeeking

Mike Hoch wrote: »

Gatling wrote: »

Several here in tallaght going for 2000 pm

It's a wonder there isn't some sort of army of the night going round vandalising properties that are being advertised for scandalous rent prices.

I'm not normally in any favour of crusty anarchists but it would serve them right. Food isn't sold at a price that makes it a massive part of your income, why must housing be?

Any two bed going for above 1200 is a disgrace, and 1200 is bad enough in itself.

Insane and all, the size of Dublin 24, 11 properties for rent with 2 beds or more.

One of them a former council house in Jobstown for 1400.

Knowing this utter farce of a government there are probably thousands of people who bought their council house at a pittance, moved elsewhere, and now rent the house back to the council at upwards of 1000 per month via HAP and other similar acquisition schemes.

Read that again. The government paying over a grand per month for temporary use of a house they themselves built and then sold at a fraction of its market value.

Someone should go on trial for such a feat of stupidity.

Vandalism? That's the solution?

Ridiculous post in my opinion.

Sleeper12

I don't believe the headline because FG supporters don't believe that there is a homeless crisis so I don't believe FGs core vote will suffer

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/una-mullally-housing-crisis-will-collapse-in-on-top-of-fine-gael-1.3593832

Mike Hoch

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Vandalism? That's the solution?

Ridiculous post in my opinion.

I'm not saying I support it. But would you fee sorry for a landlord who is renting a two bed for 2000 euro in a working class area if someone came in and smashed his windows and tore up his carpets on repeated occasions?

I sure as fuk wouldn't. It isn't like those idiots who ransacked the cornflakes cafe in London. People have a choice not to pay a fiver for a bowl of flakes. They don't have a choice in being raped by a parasite landlord renting his home for 2.5 times what he rented it for in 2010.

And the "he barely makes a profit" doesn't wash with me. Plenty of people make bad business investments. Why should I feel sorry for someone who bought 12 properties in 2008 and ended up up the creek with them? We're already experiencing a decline in birth rates that I would bet is at least something to do with the cost of renting.

PlaneSpeeking

Mike Hoch wrote: »

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Vandalism? That's the solution?

Ridiculous post in my opinion.

I'm not saying I support it. But would you fee sorry for a landlord who is renting a two bed for 2000 euro in a working class area if someone came in and smashed his windows and tore up his carpets on repeated occasions?

I sure as fuk wouldn't. It isn't like those idiots who ransacked the cornflakes cafe in London. People have a choice not to pay a fiver for a bowl of flakes. They don't have a choice in being raped by a parasite landlord renting his home for 2.5 times what he rented it for in 2010.

And the "he barely makes a profit" doesn't wash with me. Plenty of people make bad business investments. Why should I feel sorry for someone who bought 12 properties in 2008 and ended up up the creek with them?

I would always feel sorry for anyone who's property was vandalised by some pathetic jealous scrote who would prefer to wreck someone else's life than woek for their own.

iamwhoiam

Mike Hoch wrote: »

I'm not saying I support it. But would you fee sorry for a landlord who is renting a two bed for 2000 euro in a working class area if someone came in and smashed his windows and tore up his carpets on repeated occasions?

I sure as fuk wouldn't. It isn't like those idiots who ransacked the cornflakes cafe in London. People have a choice not to pay a fiver for a bowl of flakes. They don't have a choice in being raped by a parasite landlord renting his home for 2.5 times what he rented it for in 2010.

And the "he barely makes a profit" doesn't wash with me. Plenty of people make bad business investments. Why should I feel sorry for someone who bought 12 properties in 2008 and ended up up the creek with them? We're already experiencing a decline in birth rates that I would bet is at least something to do with the cost of renting.

What an immature attitude

Always number 1

Mike Hoch wrote: »

Something a bit related to what I asked about earlier:

https://www.thesun.ie/news/2972064/homeless-mum-margaret-cash-arrested-caravan/

Are local authorities really doing caravan counts on official halting sites and throwing out anyone who isn't officially living there/ exceeds the amount of caravans allowed?

If they are, and think spending thousands on hotels and private rentals is a better solution, that is an utter disgrace no matter what side of the fence you are on, and whoever is behind this nonsense needs to get the boot. I'm not a fan of giving them the steam off my piss, but jesus christ if we have to make the choice between a 2500 euro caravan or paying that amount every two months, give them the caravan, give them a space and be rid of the problem.

I'd imagine they don't want another Carrickmines type tragedy on their hands. If they're providing water/electricity for a specified no of caravans they don't want other caravan users coming in with generators etc on top of that or running extra wires from overused sources etc

woejus

warsaw2018 wrote: »

hello, I'm Johnny Cash

Find your soulmate, Homer.

Sleeper12

Mike Hoch wrote:

I'm not saying I support it. But would you fee sorry for a landlord who is renting a two bed for 2000 euro in a working class area if someone came in and smashed his windows and tore up his carpets on repeated occasions?

You are angry with the wrong people.
Being a landlord is a business. It's down to supply and demand. Most landlords lost money or barely broke even from 2008 to 2012 because rents dropped. How is it a landlords fault if there is a housing shortage. Why not lay the blame where it belongs. The government has been warned since 2012 of a housing shortage & they ignored it. Other governments would have tried to stimulate the building sector. FF kicked started the housing market in the late 80s with tax relief. I'm not saying FF are the answer but they have proved time & again that it is possible to kick start the building industry

When you pretend that you don't have a problem for 6 years it's bound to kick you in the ass.

One eyed Jack

jmayo wrote: »

If more people chose to have more children and not work to help pay for them then that cost falls on the taxpayers, you (I presume), me and all the other smucks who do work.

If more people chose to commit crime the cost of policing goes up, or is meant to, and ultimately that cost falls on the taxpayers.
We don't exist in a vacuum, we are all in a society.

If those costs go up then either more taxes need to be raised or money is diverted from other areas.

FFS my 5 year old has a better comprehension of this than you it seems.

That cost falls to the State, not taxpayers. It’s the State which is charged with the responsibility of providing services, and whether it be crime prevention or providing housing, health or welfare services, the State too has to work within it’s budget. Money is of course always diverted from other areas because no party has ever been popular for having to increase taxes or introduce austerity measures to curb public spending in any given area. You’ll find lobby groups will always say they aren’t receiving sufficient funding and the services provided by the State are simply inadequate. Look at what happened when the Government set up Irish Water. People complain that services are inadequate, but they aren’t willing to pay an increase in taxes to provide better infrastructure. Government still has to find the money from somewhere, and it’s usually by cutting services from the people who are likely to be able to complain the least about it.

If you’re saying we don’t exist in a vacuum and we all exist in society, then you also have to acknowledge that people like the woman in question in this particular case, and her family, also exist in Irish society, and it is the duty of the State to provide for them. Successive Governments since the founding of the State have repeatedly failed in this regard, which is why we find ourselves in the situation we’re in now where homes and properties are being repossessed at a phenomenal rate, and more and more people are becoming homeless, and dependent upon the State. The woman in question in this case is but one example of many, many thousands of people who dare not speak publicly for fear of being targeted on social media. They would literally be painting a target on their backs. Their silence suits the current administration who are more concerned with their public image rather than anything of any substance.

Ah FFS here we go with this shyte that somehow we are not directly funding leeches.

It may be only €0.001 of my tax money that goes to fund this particular woman, but add up all the leeches and then you find that it is millions that are spent keeping some people in a manner and in a lifestyle choice that workers can't make.
It is not like the sinn fein magic money tree you know.

More money for large families on the dole less money for A&E, less money for the daughter looking after the ill parent or the disabled child.

There’s absolutely nothing to be gained from targeting individuals, nothing! It’s just petty and spiteful. Instead what should be targeted are the bad policies. It’s true that not just millions, but billions in revenue is pissed down the drain every year on wasting resources and keeping some people in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. That’s not those people’s fault though. They are simply taking advantage of bad policy, and why wouldn’t they? It’s to their advantage to do so. They as individuals couldn’t care less about how much you or I pay in tax, and why should they? That’s the States responsibility, and it’s the Governments responsibility. Of course anyone in employment can make the same choices, but they don’t. There’s no point in complaining about people who don’t make the same lifestyle choices as you or I do because we’ve made those choices for ourselves in the same way as other people make choices for themselves.

The problems with the lack of adequate funding and support services for health services, for caters, or for people with disabilities are a lot further up the chain than this particular woman in question. She and her family and her circumstances are just a symptom of the systemic rot that is simply bad policies introduced by a Government that is all fur coat and no knickers. You imagine it’s bad now, the future isn’t looking any brighter as we’re running headlong into another crippling economic recession. Thought the last one was bad? You ain’t seen nothing yet.

She gets more than children's allowance.
Also she gets medical cards so that she never has to worry about GP and medicine costs for most things.
Now saying that she will not have the option of going private for quicker service, but the people that do go private are paying for private healthcare insurance and it aint cheap.

You’re correct, she gets exactly what she is legally entitled to, as does anyone else in the State. You’re also correct in pointing out that I can avail of a better quality of healthcare services, and that’s because my employer pays for it. I would pay for it myself if I had to because I consider it value for money, I don’t think it’s expensive at all, because you get what you pay for (or at least my employer does in that I am a healthy employee who is a more productive employee). Recently had a hip replacement done, when I needed it done, as opposed to having to go on a waiting list which would mean I’d have had to wait only God knows how long to get the procedure done. For anyone who isn’t able to afford private healthcare, they’re pretty much screwed. I don’t feel one bit envious of anyone with a medical card or anything else to which they are entitled from the State. They’re more than welcome to it as far as I’m concerned. It just wouldn’t be for me. That is again a choice that I make, that nobody else is forcing me to make, that I hold nobody else responsible for.

I have kids and yes we do get children's allowance, but we also have more costs such as childcare (massive), medical and school.

BTW childcare costs are huge, like another mortgage and that is what has kept many families from making the lifestyle choice of having more than one kid.
This woman doesn't need to worry about that and is in fact rewarded for having more kids.

We could not afford, nor would I ever want, the number of kids that this woman has managed to spew out even by this age.

And we are trying to rear our children to follow in the footsteps of their parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles to go out and get a job and pay for themselves and the next generation.

You see you might see it as subsidising my kids, but I would term it more that you are contributing towards someone that will help pay for some of the costs you may incur in the future such as medical and pension costs.
Consider it an investment.

Sure, I completely get where you’re coming from, but the fundamental point you keep missing is that you are making those choices for yourself and your family of your own volition. Nobody, least of all the woman in question in this case, is forcing you to make any choices you don’t want to make. There’s no point in being a dog in a manger about it and saying that because you have chosen not to have more children that other people should make the same choices you have done in your particular circumstances. Their circumstances are different. I know that in my own circumstances childcare wasn’t even considered, we had already agreed that my wife would stay at home and raise our child. It wasn’t for financial reasons, it was simply because that is what we believed was in our child’s best interests. It also wasn’t for financial reasons that we weren’t able to have more children, but it was due to health reasons. Do I begrudge anyone else the opportunity to have as many children as they want? No, why would I? Their family circumstances are none of my concern. How many children anyone chooses to have, regardless of their circumstances, isn’t in my opinion at least, a matter for public debate or discussion. If you see someone struggling, help them out, because they themselves could be the greatest pain in the tits that ever lived, but their children will benefit in the long run, and constant criticism and condemnation and humiliation only serves to alienate people and instill bitterness and resentment in their children.

If you want to invest in people, they’re generally a long term investment rather than immediate and apparent gains. That much should be obvious to you from having your own children, but to a lot of people, even those with children, it isn’t. We’re not talking about financial investment here but investing in a future society that you would want your children to live in. I don’t want my child to grow up to be a miserable, begrudging pain in the tits either, and so I lead by example. I’m not by any means the best example, but where I fail at least I know he has examples of others he can draw experience from which allows him to be more informed about the society in which he lives. I’d hate the idea of him turning out to be a mini-me, which appears to be the objective of many people who are charged with the responsibility of raising children.

It has been a long term strategy now for decades and as long as people defend and condone people like this woman it will continue.

As I mentioned already, this one case is but a symptom of a much greater issue facing Irish society. There’s no point in blaming her or holding her responsible for the abject failures of successive Governments to adequately tackle social and economic issues in any meaningful way. As long as they can continue to distract people with this kind of petty, spiteful nonsense though, they’re quite glad of people like the woman in this instance who dare to put their head above the parapet every so often and point out that something isn’t right here. It gives people a target for their anger and frustration and takes the heat off the real culprits who are responsible for the current economic farce in which we find ourselves.

Taylor365

Mike Hoch wrote: »

I'm not saying I support it. But would you fee sorry for a landlord who is renting a two bed for 2000 euro in a working class area if someone came in and smashed his windows and tore up his carpets on repeated occasions?

I sure as fuk wouldn't. It isn't like those idiots who ransacked the cornflakes cafe in London. People have a choice not to pay a fiver for a bowl of flakes. They don't have a choice in being raped by a parasite landlord renting his home for 2.5 times what he rented it for in 2010.

And the "he barely makes a profit" doesn't wash with me. Plenty of people make bad business investments. Why should I feel sorry for someone who bought 12 properties in 2008 and ended up up the creek with them? We're already experiencing a decline in birth rates that I would bet is at least something to do with the cost of renting.

Your anger is misdirected.


It's the government you should be after. Terrible policies have led us to the situation we're in now.

Mike Hoch

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I would always feel sorry for anyone who's property was vandalised by some pathetic jealous scrote who would prefer to wreck someone else's life than woek for their own.

I don't deny that those who would take part in such an act would likely be layabouts themselves, the whole no way we won't pay brigade.

But to put it in perspective:

- the cheapest 3 bed house for rent in Finglas today is listed at 1700 per month.
The cheapest 3 bed habitable house for sale in Finglas is on offer for 174,950 per month.

-The cheapest 3 bed for sale in Blackrock is for 435,000. The cheapest to rent is 2750.

A house for sale in a salubrious area like Blackrock is roughly 2.5 times more expensive than the cheapest in working class Finglas.

The cheapest rental in Blackrock is just over 50 percent more expensive than the cheapest rental in Finglas.

That is an outrageous price gap. In just over 8 years a tenant would have paid the entire value of the similar Finglas property in rent.

Mike Hoch

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You are angry with the wrong people.
Being a landlord is a business. It's down to supply and demand. Most landlords lost money or barely broke even from 2008 to 2012 because rents dropped.

Oh poor them.

I'm not saying the state is to blame. It is. But when are charging working class people most of their income to live in a working class area, in some cases using a house you yourself were gifted at some stage and then bought off the council, you're a feckin lowlife. You're not rich by hard graft, you're rich because you got lucky and saw a way to profit off desperation.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Stheno wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/homeless-mother-rejects-totally-unsuitable-accommodation-1.3594909?mode=amp

she's refused accommodation offered as its only for one night, despite the housing executive saying it will be on a continuous basis and she stayed there in the past

She's really rubbing our faces in it now, pretty much trolling. Why can't she fcuk off and rent her own place, not like she's short of money.

PlaneSpeeking

Mike Hoch wrote: »

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I would always feel sorry for anyone who's property was vandalised by some pathetic jealous scrote who would prefer to wreck someone else's life than woek for their own.

I don't deny that those who would take part in such an act would likely be layabouts themselves, the whole no way we won't pay brigade.

But to put it in perspective:

- the cheapest 3 bed house for rent in Finglas today is listed at 1700 per month.
The cheapest 3 bed habitable house for sale in Finglas is on offer for 174,950 per month.

-The cheapest 3 bed for sale in Blackrock is for 435,000. The cheapest to rent is 2750.

A house for sale in a salubrious area like Blackrock is roughly 2.5 times more expensive than the cheapest in working class Finglas.

The cheapest rental in Blackrock is just over 50 percent more expensive than the cheapest rental in Finglas.

That is an outrageous price gap. In just over 8 years a tenant would have paid the entire value of the similar Finglas property in rent.

And organised antisocial and criminal behaviour will somehow impact those prices?

22michael44

Taylor365 wrote: »

Your anger is misdirected.


It's the government you should be after. Terrible policies have led us to the situation we're in now.

not making any comment on the virtues or otherwise of vandalism but landlords are generally scum.

Andrew Beef

The logic gap here relates to the notion that people on low incomes should be able to live near the city centre. More productive members of society will always be able to outbid them.

As for this woman and her children, why were they wearing school uniforms in August? Purely for shock value. And who are the fathers of these children? And why can’t her family help her? It has all the hallmarks of a ready-up.