Should we stop building social housing?

Mad_maxx

Tony EH wrote: »

Because we followed the Thatcherite model.

Anytime you hear that dopey term uttered, you know your dealing with a sloganeering parrot devoid of independent thought

NSAman

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

OK for e.g. Mags Cash has dozens of convictions and 8 kids, and got a 4 bed house for free recently, exactly where she wanted. Say she does another job on Penney's, you put the 9 of them out on the streets?

So what is your solution to the issue?

Give her a 4 bedroomed house and another 600 convictions and let them keep the house and hope she pays the rent from Robbing Pennys?

Sorry I know I am being flippant but there seems to be an entitlement complex amongst some. There are no consequences for their actions.

Perhaps Ms. Cash should have the children taken and adopted, Lord knows they may have a better future outlook...

Thelonious Monk

NSAman wrote: »

So what is your solution to the issue?

Give her a 4 bedroomed house and another 600 convictions and let them keep the house and hope she pays the rent from Robbing Pennys?

Sorry I know I am being flippant but there seems to be an entitlement complex amongst some. There are no consequences for their actions.

Perhaps Ms. Cash should have the children taken and adopted, Lord knows they may have a better future outlook...

I would imagine the kids are beyond repair already, will be interesting to see how many of the male ones end up in jail, and how young the females are when they get pregnant.
Anyway, we should be housing Cash as is yes, because we've no other choice really, but the solution would be to stop producing people like this in the first place through education and opportunities and better social workers etc etc.
I know it sounds wishy washy but I really believe it's the only way these social problems can be fixed.
I don't think this Government or any Irish Government ever will be able to change a lightbulb never mind solve complex social problems like the many we have in Ireland, so I expect the amount of f*ck ups needing housing will just keep increasing and we'll have to keep giving them free houses.

Also - imagine taking kids off a mother for adoption - there'd be absolute uproar. That isn't something that can be done. Poor mother who was never given a chance raised in traveller poverty etc etc and now we're taking her kids. So that's a no go too.
You need to look at this realistically.

Earthsnotflat

mariaalice wrote: »

Are you resentfull of the working poor becaue they get additional state support which they get because their income is low?

Yes I am resentful but because I am the working poor in comparison with someone getting social house.
And I've probably heard one too many story of people playing the system... My complaint is , I guess, if you're honest and do everything to maintain yourself you're treated as one well off when it's far from truth, how can families be left with no choice but to go to moneylenders to pay for food, school etc, working families I mean. How my family income compares with other earning the same but having fraction of costs thanks to subsidised housing. It's going to backfire badly for society as incentive to work is not there. There are many people on welfare working officially part time and the rest is untaxed income.
That's why it's so hard for so called squized middle, because that's what they are.

Mad_maxx

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

So what do you do with them? Put a load of already poor people who aren't even capable of getting a job or proper education out on the street? That'll go down well wont it.

Have a little more faith in people, they aren't stupid, just ruined by a system which views demanding nothing of some people ( not even basic law abiding civility) as virtuous.

NSAman

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I would imagine the kids are beyond repair already, will be interesting to see how many of the male ones end up in jail, and how young the females are when they get pregnant.
Anyway, we should be housing Cash as is yes, because we've no other choice really, but the solution would be to stop producing people like this in the first place through education and opportunities and better social workers etc etc.
I know it sounds wishy washy but I really believe it's the only way these social problems can be fixed.
I don't think this Government or any Irish Government ever will be able to change a lightbulb never mind solve complex social problems like the many we have in Ireland, so I expect the amount of f*ck ups needing housing will just keep increasing and we'll have to keep giving them free houses.

I actually agree with you on this.

I honestly do not know where you can start to fix these issues, but someone HAS to start somewhere. Do I trust any government or government departments to solve this issue? Absolutely not.

So this leads to a problem that will become worse as time goes on.

I know we are all giving our opinions on things in a discussion forum and that accounts for ZIP in the real world, but to me it seems that personal accountability is something that has to be made mandatory.

Will that happen? In a pigs eye it will....

Mad_maxx

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

OK for e.g. Mags Cash has dozens of convictions and 8 kids, and got a 4 bed house for free recently, exactly where she wanted. Say she does another job on Penney's, you put the 9 of them out on the streets?

Of course

Deebles McBeebles

NSAman wrote: »

I actually agree with you on this.

I honestly do not know where you can start to fix these issues, but someone HAS to start somewhere. Do I trust any government or government departments to solve this issue? Absolutely not.

So this leads to a problem that will become worse as time goes on.

I know we are all giving our opinions on things in a discussion forum and that accounts for ZIP in the real world, but to me it seems that personal accountability is something that has to be made mandatory.

Will that happen? In a pigs eye it will....

We are all in agreement that the government will never fix the issues mentioned so what else can you do? Keep plodding along as is or make an example of someone are the only alternatives I can think of.

Mad_maxx

the beer revolu wrote: »

Because having hordes of people with behavioural problems living on the streets will be great for society?
Again, I ask, where?
On your street?

A system where there is no real consequence to engaging in feckless delinquency is toxic for society.

The liberals have failed miserably yet still demand to define what is best practice, staggering arrogance

Mad_maxx

Earthsnotflat wrote: »

Yes I am resentful but because I am the working poor in comparison with someone getting social house.
And I've probably heard one too many story of people playing the system... My complaint is , I guess, if you're honest and do everything to maintain yourself you're treated as one well off when it's far from truth, how can families be left with no choice but to go to moneylenders to pay for food, school etc, working families I mean. How my family income compares with other earning the same but having fraction of costs thanks to subsidised housing. It's going to backfire badly for society as incentive to work is not there. There are many people on welfare working officially part time and the rest is untaxed income.
That's why it's so hard for so called squized middle, because that's what they are.

The difference is you ( unlike the work shy welfare lifers) are not officially " vulnerable" according to the liberal do gooders who dominate media and policy in this area.

It's about an aprooved narative

the beer revolu

Mad_maxx wrote: »

A system where there is no real consequence to engaging in feckless delinquency is toxic for society.

The liberals have failed miserably yet still demand to define what is best practice, staggering arrogance

OK, so you don't know where to put these people?

Oh, and who are these liberals?
The government's?

Mad_maxx

the beer revolu wrote: »

OK, so you don't know where to put these people?

Oh, and who are these liberals?
The government's?

If you live in social housing yet either opt to be a deadbeat tenant ( stop paying the pittance rent) or be a public nuisance, you can live under a bridge as far as I'm concerned, these are not victims, they are degenerates, we need to stop indulging them

Policy in many areas is heavily influenc
ed by unelected individuals and groups.

In the area of the welfare state, left wing policy has dominated for decades

Ush1

You always need the carrot AND the stick. Sometimes more stick is needed.

nthclare

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

We are all in agreement that the government will never fix the issues mentioned so what else can you do? Keep plodding along as is or make an example of someone are the only alternatives I can think of.

Keep plodding along or just not read the news and listen to the radio...

Ignorance is bliss, work with what one has rather than coveting thou neighbors goods.

Put money away, do night courses, learn how to make more money, have smaller families.

If you cannot afford it tough Sh1T.

Can't beat them join them.

Write a novel, make new music...

Choice is yours really, one can't change others only themselves.

I'm breaking even and honestly I couldn't give a ****, cut my cloth according to measure.

Cliché I know but call a spade a spade

Thelonious Monk

Mad_maxx wrote: »

If you live in social housing yet either opt to be a deadbeat tenant ( stop paying the pittance rent) or be a public nuisance, you can live under a bridge as far as I'm concerned, these are not victims, they are degenerates, we need to stop indulging them

You still haven't told us what to do with these people!

Mad_maxx

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

You still haven't told us what to do with these people!

Have you a mouse in your pocket?

Who is this "us"?

I flat out reject the Liberal aprooved establishment consensus when it comes to these people, I'm concerned with tackling their anti social delinquent behaviour, I believe in this instance that involves evicting deadbeat tenants who cause a nuisance in their communities. You are concerned about what happens these people after that.

They already had a safety net, you want an endless number of nets under them.

Thelonious Monk

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Have you a mouse in your pocket?

wtf?

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Who is this "us"?

I flat out reject the Liberal aprooved establishment consensus when it comes to these people, I'm concerned with tackling their anti social delinquent behaviour, I believe in this instance that involves evicting deadbeat tenants who cause a nuisance in their communities. You are concerned about what happens these people after that.

They already had a safety net, you want an endless number of nets under them.

Us - as in the rest of society, Government etc.
Of course I'm concerned what happens people after that. Do you think we should just let people live on the streets if they break certain rules of social housing tenancy? You could have 1000s of families roaming the streets.
If you said more hands on social work dedicated to problematic families it might sound like a realistic attempt at a solution.

Tony EH

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Anytime you hear that dopey term uttered, you know your dealing with a sloganeering parrot devoid of independent thought

You keep telling yourself that sonny.

greenbicycle

we should make people work for their social housing. people should be designated jobs in their community, street sweeping, maintenance, community watch patrols (i can already see the arguments against this one but social welfare recipient doesn't equal criminal) teaching the elderly how to use digital devices, childminding, cooking dinners for meals on wheels, anything that needs doing!

then you have the argument that they just wont get out and do the jobs but I think that if they dont they should be removed from their nice house and we should have communal housing, such as the housing that has already been planned and may be build for sale to those that are willing to pay money for. or perhaps there would be detention centres the likes that are used for asylum seekers.

there should also be proper investigations into income. how can someone on social welfare afford to have a two week holiday in the summer ( not saying this is the norm at all but it certainly happens) I cant even dream of a holiday like that. how are they able to have the top of the range runners and expensive phones and tablets. if they can afford stuff like that they should be contributing more to their rent until they are paying market value rent like the rest of us.

Tony EH

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The liberals...

Oh dear.

Another child that's been looking at too much American internet politics. :pac:

RocketRaccoon

Dya know what drives me insane? There's a new estate going up in my town, 30+ houses which will be given to people on a waiting list. The vast majority of these people are scum who have never worked a day in their lives.

Meanwhile myself and my wife are both working full time with 3 kids, paying extortionate rent which ensure we can't save for a deposit. Where is the fairness in this type of situation?

Thelonious Monk

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

The vast majority of these people are scum who have never worked a day in their lives.

How do you know this about them?

RocketRaccoon

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

How do you know this about them?

Facebook.

I've seen at least 5 people saying they have gotten one of them. As I said, I know not everyone in there will be scum, my post was questioning the fairness.

One girl in particular (early 20s, 3 kids, never worked, no father around for the kids) has been asking for months/years for local landlords who will accept haap. Yet she will now basically be gifted a brand new house.

the beer revolu

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Have you a mouse in your pocket?

Who is this "us"?

I flat out reject the Liberal aprooved establishment consensus when it comes to these people, I'm concerned with tackling their anti social delinquent behaviour, I believe in this instance that involves evicting deadbeat tenants who cause a nuisance in their communities. You are concerned about what happens these people after that.

They already had a safety net, you want an endless number of nets under them.

It's not my liberal bleeding heat that's concerned for these people. I'm concerned for society.
I'll ask you again, do you want these people living in a tent on your street?
If not where do you suggest they go?
They have to go somewhere.

RocketRaccoon

the beer revolu wrote: »

It's not my liberal bleeding heat that's concerned for these people. I'm concerned for society.
I'll ask you again, do you want these people living in a tent on your street?
If not where do you suggest they go?
They have to go somewhere.

Again, what do the vast majority of the people in social housing actually do for society? Nothing, nothing whatsoever.

Gunmonkey

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Dya know what drives me insane? There's a new estate going up in my town, 30+ houses which will be given to people on a waiting list. The vast majority of these people are scum who have never worked a day in their lives.

Meanwhile myself and my wife are both working full time with 3 kids, paying extortionate rent which ensure we can't save for a deposit. Where is the fairness in this type of situation?

Well unfortunately welfare lifers are wrapped in a nice fuzzy blanket of zero personal responsibility and any criticism you could level at them would be met with "Dey have nuthing, no jobs or nuthin! Youve got a job ya complaining bollix and if ya cant afford a house its because ye didnt work hard enuff and are lazy! Just get a bettur job and stop lookin down on people!"

As for how to solve this whole debacle, as said earlier it has to be the carrot or the stick! The carrot being even more supports and funding, with no guarantee they will avail of them and the stick being reductions to welfare payments seeing as you cant evict them, which will be hit back with howls of anger at "stealing money from de most vulnerable".

But unfortunately this requires a willing base who want to actually change for the better.....but you can imagine the reaction to having to receive less and endure the same hardships and ****e the rest of us have to would be!

Gatling

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Yes and if you're a working couple with kids earning over 36k (between you) you dont qualify.

Actually up to 42 ,000 will qualify you for social housing in Dublin

Turquoise Hexagon Sun

I'm all for social housing but just building more of it is a short term solution to a long term problem. Why are people going on social housing? Why aren't they going in to the rental market at least? What can we do to stop the number of people applying for social housing?

I know good people that benefit from social housing but there's also self-entitled tossers out there with no intention of ever trying to be self-sufficient and they think the world owes them a living.

This pisses me off as I struggle with rent and can't afford to buy but I work hard and pay taxes. I scrape by while others benefit.

I'm not a huge fan of the goverment being everyone's daddy either. People need to take responsibility and sort their lives out. Stop expecting hand-outs. Nothing wrong with a hand. Nothing wrong with accepting some help. But EXPECTING it all the time at the detriment of the tax payer is taking the piss.

What incentives are there for people to break free from daddy government and fend for themselves?

the beer revolu

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Again, what do the vast majority of the people in social housing actually do for society? Nothing, nothing whatsoever.

What is you point?
Are you advocating extermination of these people?
If not, where do they go if not in social housing?
Are you OK with increasing the amount of people living on the streets?
I'm not, but for selfish reasons. It makes the streets less safe and less pleasant.

GarIT

The council's need to start acting on complaints. I've seen situations where the council received their 600th complaint about a tenant and agree to threaten them with eviction that they won't follow through for the 100th time in the hopes this time it will get them to change.

5 complaints from at lease 3 different households in the immediate vicinity should be enough to get a council tenant evicted with no more questions asked.