The Frederick St protest and reaction

Annasopra

jluv wrote: »

It's not actually a case of whether I like her or not. It's actually a case of whether she's deserving or not. And in comparison to others she is much less deserving. Show how you have tried to provide housing for your kids. Show how you have worked to provide a house and standard of living for your kids. Show how you have struggled.I know a lot of people who can do that. I read and see people who do that and struggle and have kids who have issues etc .People who have given and been productive members of society.
We have a housing issue. We need to prioritise who get assistance.

Ah ok. There we have it.
We want to go back to victorian times of extreme judgementalism and dividing people into "deserving poor" "undeserving poor"

McMurphy

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

She was on RT6 news

I didn't put her there.....

Have you emailed RTE yet and asked why they did?

Johnny Dogs

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

This takes us back to the asset being taxed argument.

Why should a family who are paying lpt on their home, including all the taxes on top of the upkeep of said home be taxed on it, because the property (or home) is an asset, yet those who own a property, bought for investment purposes (that's an asset, right?) Not be

It's a circle that needs squared.

Fancy taking a stab at it?

What makes you think that they’re not paying LPT or aren’t liable for it? A property has to be on the point of collapse before it’s exempt. Lack of water and electricity aren’t enough.

Alrigghtythen

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ah ok. There we have it.
We want to go back to victorian times of extreme judgementalism and dividing people into "deserving poor" "undeserving poor"

Who's poor? Not Ms. Cash.

Tell us why you support choosing to keep children homeless.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

What makes you think that they’re not paying LPT or aren’t liable for it? A property has to be on the point of collapse before it’s exempt. Lack of water and electricity aren’t enough.

Passing opinion as fact?

Where did you get that nugget of information from?

sexmag

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Passing opinion as fact?

Where did you get that nugget of information from?

There are other instances that people have a house vacent, a big issue for Irish people these daus is inherited houses from deceased parents,not only do they have to pay a massive amount of inheritance tax but they would then have to pay further tax for it to be vacent or they have to rent it out thus becoming these desipised landlords you are all referring too,you are penalizing people even further for the death of their parents and they can't win either way

Johnny Dogs

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Passing opinion as fact?

Where did you get that nugget of information from?

Passing knowledge as fact.

Graces7

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ah ok. There we have it.
We want to go back to victorian times of extreme judgementalism and dividing people into "deserving poor" "undeserving poor"

and the y all in those days ended up in the dreaded "workus"..

McMurphy

sexmag wrote: »

There are other instances that people have a house vacent, a big issue for Irish people these daus is inherited houses from deceased parents,not only do they have to pay a massive amount of inheritance tax but they would then have to pay further tax for it to be vacent or they have to rent it out thus becoming these desipised landlords you are all referring too,you are penalizing people even further for the death of their parents and they can't win either way

Firstly, I don't depsise anyone, but I think it's interesting that you feel someone with property (which we were told is an asset ref LPT) can afford to have sitting idle, but going back to your first analogy about inheriting a house.

How is this any different to a working person or couple who were taxed on every cent they earned in order to gather up a deposit to buy their home, maybe pay stamp duty on it, and vat on all the goods and services associated with owning and running a home, and then have to pay an annual recurring property tax because the property they own and live in is "an asset"

Yet someone who inherits property, can afford to have it sitting unused in the midst of a housing and homeless crises, possibly increasing in value every week should escape this tax?

Ditto for those with vast land banks.

You can't have it both ways, either a property is an asset or it is not.

Sh1t or get off the pot.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

Passing knowledge as fact.

No it's not really, the LPT exemption rules were posted earlier and there was no mention to your facts/knowledge.

Saying something is fact doesn't make it so.

Johnny Dogs

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

No it's not really, the LPT exemption rules were posted earlier and there was no mention to your facts/knowledge.

Saying something is fact doesn't make it so.

Ah, but I KNOW what I’m talking about. Can’t beat a bit of knowledge.

sexmag

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ah ok. There we have it.
We want to go back to victorian times of extreme judgementalism and dividing people into "deserving poor" "undeserving poor"

And what's wrong with that? What's wrong with rewarding people who put the effort in to help society and penalizing those that don't?

Job seekers is cut if people don't make an effort to gain employment, the same methods should be applied to people in this circumstance, ms. Cash in this instances has refused housing,has had 7 children all while unemployed and to best of my knowledge has not meaningfully contributed to society where as people who have say 4 kids live in a 2 be house, have 1 working parent,pay their social rent and are not in arrears, these people deserve to be upgraded in my opinion as they are doing right by society

Lord Glentoran

Re O’Connell Bridge, does the Garda Traffic Division have water cannon as a tool to ensure the free flowing of traffic and public transport? It should. Reclaim the Streets.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah, but I KNOW what I’m talking about. Can’t beat a bit of knowledge.

You clearly don't though.

Putting lipstick on a pig still leaves you with a pig, same thing with polishing a turd.

Throw up your source there sure and back up your claim.

Johnny Dogs

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You clearly don't though.

Putting lipstick on a pig still leaves you with a pig, same thing with polishing a turd.

Throw up your source there sure and back up your claim.

I won’t. It’d be an exercise in futility as you still wouldn’t believe me!

sexmag

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Firstly, I don't depsise anyone, but I think it's interesting that you feel someone with property (which we were told is an asset ref LPT) can afford to have sitting idle, but going back to your first analogy about inheriting a house.

Firstly apologies if it can across that way but I wasn't implying you despise anyone personally, just the general consensus is landlords= bad

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

How is this any different to a working person or couple who were taxed on every cent they earned in order to gather up a deposit to buy their home, maybe pay stamp duty on it, and vat on all the goods and services associated with owning and running a home, and then have to pay an annual recurring property tax because the property they own and live in is "an asset"

Yet someone who inherits property, can afford to have it sitting unused in the midst of a housing and homeless crises, possibly increasing in value every week should escape this tax

Its not,however people who inherit houses haven't nesseraly asked for it for it bit in some cases can be worse off by being given one,people who want to purchase houses are aware of what they are getting themselves into,by adding a tax to a "vacent" property you force people to become landlords and as such currently they will charge the market rate and that's not helping anyone

TheDoc

Think it would be great if people just confidently and honestly stood for what they are actually having issue with.

Just like the water tax was really an issue with people on social welfare and low income having to pay a tax , this was a protest or “movement” about people not being able to buy a house or being slammed by growing rent in Dublin

And that’s a totally valid thing to be annoyed about. But it annoys me how people take these really emotive topics like homelessness, and basically use that for the drive of their issue.

I didn’t see it commented on at all in the aftermath. Too many people are using homelessness as the driver for their own issues, not being strong enough to proclaim it’s not about homelessness at all

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

I won’t. It’d be an exercise in futility as you still wouldn’t believe me!

You are talking nonsense. Park it up and stop embarrassing yourself.

sexmag wrote: »

Firstly apologies if it can across that way but I wasn't implying you despise anyone personally, just the general consensus is landlords= bad

Apology accepted.

And not at all, I don't think all landlords are bad. Perhaps (like the vintners) They have too much sway in our parliament, but that is for another days argument.

Its not,however people who inherit houses haven't nesseraly asked for it for it bit in some cases can be worse off by being given one,people who want to purchase houses are aware of what they are getting themselves into,by adding a tax to a "vacent" property you force people to become landlords and as such currently they will charge the market rate and that's not helping anyone

So they can sell up? Leave the landlording malarkey to the professional landlords?

I stand over my opinion, if you are comfortable enough to have acquired property that you can afford to have sitting idle in the midst of a housing and homeless crises then this property should be taxed.

I cannot for the life of me see how anyone that agrees with the government introduced lpt should have any problems with this concept whatsoever.

If you own a property live in it, sell it, or rent it. There's a homeless and housing crisis after all.

What's the argument with that?

Edgware

sexmag wrote: »

There are other instances that people have a house vacent, a big issue for Irish people these daus is inherited houses from deceased parents,not only do they have to pay a massive amount of inheritance tax but they would then have to pay further tax for it to be vacent or they have to rent it out thus becoming these desipised landlords you are all referring too,you are penalizing people even further for the death of their parents and they can't win either way

They get 310000 first without any tax liability then pay 33% of anything above that.
I will take that deal anytime its going

hmmm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

This is sheer utter drivel and nonsense. Social housing in this country is not entirely for free in this country. People living in social housing pay rent. When they work they pay a higher rent proportionate to their wages.

"Rent" for social housing is a joke.
http://www.publicpolicy.ie/local-authority-rent-arrears/

"A quarter of Local Authority tenancies (11,870 or 26 per cent) across Dublin are in rent arrears to the value of more than 12 weeks rent. Forty-three per cent of tenancies (19,576) are not in arrears. Over half (57 per cent) of all tenancies are in arrears."

You need a different plan for how you are going to pay for this, because the occupants sure aren't going to be.

Hitman3000

hmmm wrote:

"Rent" for social housing is a joke.

Really? I left the council house i was renting in May 2004 after buying my present home. My weekly rent to the council at the time was 114 euro a week. 25 per cent of my gross weekly income at the time. Council rents have not fallen. Do you even know what you are talking about ?

hmmm

TheDoc wrote: »

Think it would be great if people just confidently and honestly stood for what they are actually having issue with.

And that’s a totally valid thing to be annoyed about. But it annoys me how people take these really emotive topics like homelessness, and basically use that for the drive of their issue.

Yes, stand up proud and say it. I don't work, and I want a free house. Make your case openly and honestly.

There are a relatively small number of people who are genuinely beyond caring for themselves, and I don't think anyone begrudges them social housing.

There is a group who have run into misfortune, and they should also be helped. People who have worked all their lives and have contributed, but can't afford the current rents.

There are a larger group who have made bad or feckless choices in life and who have come to expect over the years that somehow everyone else needs to pay for these choices. Able bodied people in an economy approaching full employment, shouting about how they are entitled to a house.

The problem is how do we as a society help groups 1 & 2, when group 3 are in the mix and well able to play the cute hoor game and force themselves to the top of the list?

hmmm

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Really? I left the council house i was renting in May 2004 after buying my present home. My weekly rent to the council at the time was 114 euro a week. 25 per cent of my gross weekly income at the time. Council rents have not fallen. Do you even know what you are talking about ?

I've posted statistics, all you have are anecdotes.

Hitman3000

hmmm wrote:

I've posted statistics, all you have are anecdotes.

I've posted my experience of renting a council house. Differential rent is a feature of council tenancy. I paid 25 per cent of my gross earnings including a set sum as my partner was also in employment. You have linked to a newspaper article, again what is your knowledge of a council tenancy?

hmmm

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You have linked to a newspaper article, again what is your knowledge of a council tenancy?

Ah here, I'm not going to debate anything with someone posting anecdotes.

Anyone on the pro social housing side who have read the statistics and believe that local authority rent collection is a process which works well?

Hitman3000

hmmm wrote:

Ah here, I'm not going to debate anything with someone posting anecdotes.

That's fine, you clearly know nothing about what constitutes a council tenancy but are unwilling to admit it. ; )

Hitman3000

hmmm wrote:

Anyone on the pro social housing side who have read the statistics and believe that local authority rent collection is a process which works well?

Other than you, who has suggested said rental collection works well? I believe commercial water charges also have a rather poor collection rate. Deduction at source would be far more efficient.

Guy:Incognito

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Really? I left the council house i was renting in May 2004 after buying my present home. My weekly rent to the council at the time was 114 euro a week. 25 per cent of my gross weekly income at the time. Council rents have not fallen. Do you even know what you are talking about ?

Would you have gotten a private rented house for €494 a month?


I'll go for the hat trick now. How come the group's are not screaming for a few half finished ghost estates in the country to be cpod and finished for the homeless? Surely it's the quickest and easiest way? Or are they above moving to the country?

Hitman3000

Guy:Incognito wrote:

Would you have gotten a private rented house for €494 a month?

No idea. When we were given the house we had very little although working. Our first weekly rent was 25 pounds in 99. Some training courses resulted in me getting a better job higher wages rent climbed in proportion to wage. Saved for a deposit and bought our house in 2004. Despite the bs posted here the majority of council tenants meet their obligation to the council.
My mortgage in 2004 was roughly 550euro.

Hitman3000

Guy:Incognito wrote:

I'll go for the hat trick now. How come the group's are not screaming for a few half finished ghost estates in the country to be cpod and finished for the homeless? Surely it's the quickest and easiest way? Or are they above moving to the country?

Where are these ghost estates and then ask yourself why noone thought of this before?