Dividing housing by income makes sense.

Pmacv1

Birds of a feather, should stick together. Why are the government determined to force mixed income housing down the throats of the hardworking of the nation?

corner of hells

Pmacv1 wrote: »

Birds of a feather, should stick together. Why are the government determined to force mixed income housing down the throats of the hardworking of the nation?

Welcome to AH , Boards , I'll be your guide this evening.

sondagefaux

Income, of course, being fixed for life...

Pmacv1

sondagefaux wrote: »

Income, of course, being fixed for life...

Nope it's not, however if you can't afford a certain area, tough luck. Live were you can afford.

sondagefaux

Pmacv1 wrote: »

Nope it's not, however if you can't afford a certain area, tough luck. Live were you can afford.

Your ability to spot sarcasm is on a par with your sense of fair play.

Fair play!

Huntergonzo

Gonna need more context OP, are you talking about specific legislation (eg Part V planning) or is it a personal situation whereby you've recently had some 'rough' neighbours move in or what's the craic?

Pmacv1

sondagefaux wrote: »

Your ability to spot sarcasm is on a par with your sense of fair play.

Fair play!

What's unfair about living where you can afford? Something that's actually really unfair is buying a house only for the government to pile a bunch of a layabouts in beside you

Salary Negotiator

If I get a raise does my neighbour have to sell up and move?

Seems pretty harsh on her, she has the house lovely.

Fr_Dougal

1/10

PinotNero

Pmacv1 wrote: »

Birds of a feather, should stick together. Why are the government determined to force mixed income housing down the throats of the hardworking of the nation?

How do you feel about the dole OP?

Pmacv1

PinotNero wrote: »

How do you feel about the dole OP?

Fine with the dole. I don't want to live around people who are on it long term though.

jimmycrackcorm

I wonder what the logic is of an estate being built of ten million euro houses, that one or two of them being handed over for practically nothing to lifelong social welfare recipients.

The approach that should be taken is that the government should build large scale housing that provides a percentage of that for social housing but also a percentage to be sold privately at a discount for affordable housing to private buyers. It both provides a means for lower paid workers to get housing and gives the level of integration that's needed socially.

Forcing the councils to purchase more expensive private housing to fulfill this is a waste of money. Also it's not fair on private buyers who pay huge mortgages to have no choice when it comes to having very antisocial neighbours placed beside them.

Pmacv1

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I wonder what the logic is of an estate being built of ten million euro houses, that one or two of them being handed over for practically nothing to lifelong social welfare recipients.

The approach that should be taken is that the government should build large scale housing that provides a percentage of that for social housing but also a percentage to be sold privately at a discount for affordable housing to private buyers. It both provides a means for lower paid workers to get housing and gives the level of integration that's needed socially.

Forcing the councils to purchase more expensive private housing to fulfill this is a waste of money. Also it's not fair on private buyers who pay huge mortgages to have no choice when it comes to having very antisocial neighbours placed beside them.

Why not build dedicated estates for social housing? Then of the tenants destroy the area, that's their problem.

Better Than Christ

Plenty of hard-working people live in social housing. Although I suspect they're not the 'type' of people that the OP would like to live next to...

Pmacv1

Better Than Christ wrote: »

Plenty of hard-working people live in social housing. Although I suspect they're not the 'type' of people that the OP would like to live next to...

No there isn't. If they worked hard, they could afford to purchase/rent their own place, rather than turning to the government for handouts.

Huntergonzo

Better Than Christ wrote: »

Plenty of hard-working people live in social housing. Although I suspect they're not the 'type' of people that the OP would like to live next to...

I worked for an organisation that owned and maintained social houses, there were roughly 4000 tenants and 78% were unemployed.

Now obviously you have to factor in OAPs, the disabled and those who were just being dishonest about their employment status but while undoubtedly some were hard working, a large portion were laying around living off benefits.

Pmacv1

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I worked for an organisation that owned and maintained social houses, there were roughly 4000 tenants and 78% were unemployed.

Now obviously you have to factor in OAPs, the disabled and those who were just being dishonest about their employment status but while undoubtedly some were hard working, a large portion were laying around living off benefits.

Of course there is. Anyone who is able bodied, and on the dole long-term, is a worthless wretch.

scamalert

So OPs suggestion is basically we should build ghettos :rolleyes:


nice trolling, on new account.

frag420

Pmacv1 wrote: »

Of course there is. Anyone who is able bodied, and on the dole long-term, is a worthless wretch.

Tell us how you really feel, stop sitting on the fence!!

Pmacv1

scamalert wrote: »

So OPs suggestion is basically we should build ghettos :rolleyes:


nice trolling, on new account.

Who turns these areas into ghettos? The people who live there. If they can't be trusted with free accommodation, why should they be trusted around actual contributers to society?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Pmacv1 wrote: »

What's unfair about living where you can afford? Something that's actually really unfair is buying a house only for the government to pile a bunch of a layabouts in beside you

It must be almost a week since an attempted dole bashing thread.

Must try harder.

Pmacv1

Gabriella Alive Trefoil wrote: »

It must be almost a week since an attempted dole bashing thread.

Must try harder.

Notice you're not addressing any points that I made, and simply dismissing it as "dole bashing" when it's clearly about housing.

Varik

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I wonder what the logic is of an estate being built of ten million euro houses, that one or two of them being handed over for practically nothing to lifelong social welfare recipients.

The approach that should be taken is that the government should build large scale housing that provides a percentage of that for social housing but also a percentage to be sold privately at a discount for affordable housing to private buyers. It both provides a means for lower paid workers to get housing and gives the level of integration that's needed socially.

Forcing the councils to purchase more expensive private housing to fulfill this is a waste of money. Also it's not fair on private buyers who pay huge mortgages to have no choice when it comes to having very antisocial neighbours placed beside them.

Used to be that the developer could choose to pay instead of giving the council a % of the built property, but now they don't but they don't give it free and the council can choose to take other properties instead in exchange.

Developer build some mansions, and then instead of the council getting their 10% they choose to take other properties for the same value.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

If I get a raise does my neighbour have to sell up and move?

Seems pretty harsh on her, she has the house lovely.

Also, what happens if somebody on a low income inherits a house in a nice area?

It’s almost as if the blatant WUM OP hasn’t thought this through. :pac:

SEPT 23 1989

Don’t worry about them OP they are not worrying about you

Pmacv1

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Don’t worry about them OP they are not worrying about you

Of course they're not. They don't care as long as the tax payer keeps feeding them.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Pmacv1 wrote: »

Notice you're not addressing any points that I made, and simply dismissing it as "dole bashing" when it's clearly about housing.

Ok.

I don't like rising to an obvious attempt to wind up in to dole bashing, but you're alternative stigmatises at least two generations and leads to a division our society should be driving to remove.

That better?

Always Tired

We've had this thread already OP get a life

Pmacv1

Gabriella Alive Trefoil wrote: »

Ok.

I don't like rising to an obvious attempt to wind up in to dole bashing, but you're alternative stigmatises at least two generations and leads to a division our society should be driving to remove.

That better?

If people don't want to live beside each other, why force them? And it doesn't really cause division considering lower income and higher income families generally wouldn't mix anyway.

SEPT 23 1989

Pmacv1 wrote: »

Of course they're not. They don't care as long as the tax payer keeps feeding them.

What would you have us do with them Mein Fuhrer?

looksee

Pmacv1 wrote: »

Birds of a feather, should stick together. Why are the government determined to force mixed income housing down the throats of the hardworking of the nation?

You don't need a comma after feather.

I grew up in social housing (called council houses those days). Both my parents were very hardworking.

scamalert

this thread is going to trash so why not :pac:

Pmacv1

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

What would you have us do with them Mein Fuhrer?

Why don't they get a job, like the majority of the population do?

Pmacv1

looksee wrote: »

You don't need a comma after feather.

I grew up in social housing (called council houses those days). Both my parents were very hardworking.

What did they do for a living?

SEPT 23 1989

Pmacv1 wrote: »

Why don't they get a job, like the majority of the population do?

Maybe they don’t want one

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Pmacv1 wrote: »

Why don't they get a job, like the majority of the population do?

Who says they will be unemployed? Social housing is not exclusively for the unemployed.

But, facts get in the way of the wind-up, don't they?

Class snobbery is a very ugly trait.

Pmacv1

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Maybe they don’t want one

Fine. Let them starve. Poverty is a great motivator.

Pmacv1

Gabriella Alive Trefoil wrote: »

Who says they will be unemployed? Social housing is not exclusively for the unemployed.

But, facts get in the way of the wind-up, don't they?

Class snobbery is a very ugly trait.

What's bad about class division? Lower class don't want to mix with upper, just as upper don't want to mix with lower. So what's the problem with classes living separate lives, in separate communities?

Ted_YNWA

mod

And we reach the end of this week's edition of dole bashing.