Councillor gets social and housing sorted. Met with protests.

Boggles

Eric Cartman wrote: »

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp11eoi/cp11eoi/lfnmfl/


And it indicates that nigerian, indian, bangladesh and arab immigrants have far higher unemployment rates than irish or eu migrants.

Jesus, if you go any further with those goal posts you'll be in the car park. :pac:

No one is arguing that if you come here and spend years in DP, the work force participation rates are not lower, there has been multiple studies on it.

It's more nuanced then "dirty feckless fordiners".

There were 347,233 non-Irish nationals in labour force in April 2016 with a participation rate of 73.9 per cent. EU nationals had the highest participation rate at 76.8 per cent, whereas for those from countries outside the EU, it was 64.3 per cent.

Central Statistics Office's Labour Force Survey measures the labour force aged 15-74. Ireland's current LFPR is 62.1 per cent

Eric Cartman

Boggles wrote: »

Jesus, if you go any further with those goal posts you'll be in the car park. :pac:

That stat includes the migrants for ireland though...
from the same cso page :

“Among the Irish group the labour force participation rate was 76.8 per cent while among non-Irish it was almost 10 percentage points lower at 67.4 per cent”

and in theory we cant kick out our own wasters but shouldnt let their ones in so the rate should be up around the 90s , for croatian men the participation rate is over 90%

s7ryf3925pivug

Goal should be cheap, basic, high efficiency, high density apartments available to everyone, regardless of finances, property of the state. The private sector should cater to people who want to spend money in something better than that.

Boggles

Eric Cartman wrote: »

That stat includes the migrants for ireland though... and in theorywe cant kick out our own wasters but shouldnt let their ones in so the rate should be up around the 90s , for croatian men the participation rate is over 90%

We should definitely be aiming to increase our work participation rate.

But that would involve increasing and revamping social protections and maybe someone taking an honest stab at fixing the health service.

Beta Ray Bill

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Child benefit is an income stream at the moment, we need to convert it entirely to tax credits to stop the unemployed having kids and encourage only those who work to have children.

I get what you're saying completely.

But the change needs to be fluid and transparent as opposed to being a blunt instrument.

IE we start off by saying something like:
In 11 months time, the government will only pay child benefit for the first two children, any 3rd+ child born after today+11 months will no longer be eligible for child support.

IE existing people are not affected by this, people who are currently expecting their 3rd+ child are not affected by this. People who want to have 1 or 2 kids are not affected by this.
Only those who plan to increase the number of kids they have to 3 or greater and are not currently expecting are affected by this.

This will slowly stem the tide, it will take about 5 years to see the change, but it would be the most effective long term change we've ever had.

Eric Cartman

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

I get what you're saying completely.

But the change needs to be fluid and transparent as opposed to being a blunt instrument.

IE we start off by saying something like:
In 11 months time, the government will only pay child benefit for the first two children, any 3rd+ child born after today+11 months will no longer be eligible for child support.

IE existing people are not affected by this, people who are currently expecting their 3rd+ child are not affected by this. People who want to have 1 or 2 kids are not affected by this.
Only those who plan to have 3 or more and currently have less than 3 with no third child on the way are affected by this.

This will slowly stem the tide, it will take about 5 years to see the change, but it would be the most effective long term change we've ever had.

We should he saying “in 11 months time we’re not going to be handing out money for kids to the unemployed going forward, heres free condoms”
Having a child isnt a right and the unemployed shouldnt be having children

Beta Ray Bill

Eric Cartman wrote: »

We should he saying “in 11 months time we’re not going to be handing out money for kids to the unemployed going forward, heres free condoms”
Having a child isnt a right and the unemployed shouldnt be having children

Aye, but now you've gone from my idea which was smooth a fluid and wouldn't be met with much resistance to your change which is blunt and will be met with a lot of resistance (And probably wouldn't get through any government)

In 5 years time my change will be able to be extended further to 1 child (if deemed necessary).

Changes like these take time, to introduce.
Good long term plans are far more effective than a slash grab approach.

We both want the same thing.


EDIT: Just to add, the problem we have now is about 30 years in the making. It's not going to be solved in a few months, it will take years to fix. It's extremely complicated and needs to be tackled on multiple fronts

markodaly

riffmongous wrote: »

Why can't the state build the houses themselves? It can be done successfully, *if it's done properly*

I've always been a fan of the Viennese approach to housing and only a few months ago there was an exhibition on it in Dublin too. It would require a huge change in practices across society of course (it was achieved in the 20/30s in Vienna) but it is proven to work



http://www.newsfour.ie/2019/06/revolutionising-housing-with-vienna-model/

No real issue with that but the issue is
a) we would need to implement Austrian type rents
b) we would need to implement Austrian type taxes
c) we would need to implement Austrian type rules

In other words, rents for social housing would be higher, property taxes would be higher to pay for it and we would need to be much more strict on nonpayments, fraud and anti-social behavior.

Can we do all those in Ireland? I would like to think so, but in reality, we wont and we are backward in some ways.

Palmach

Horsebox9000 wrote: »

Seriously... I'm baffled by this
https://twitter.com/ohnofalafel/status/1191471042109284352

What do people think?

https://twitter.com/1GaryGannon/status/1191344958286041089

I can hear all the skanger accents in the background. Clearly PBP and Solidarity supporters.

markodaly

bubblypop wrote: »

I grew up in social housing & while I'm not opposed to it at all, I believe social housing should stay property of the state.
Social housing is needed to house people who cannot house themselves for whatever reasons.
It should not be used to allow people to buy those houses at much reduced prices.
I say this as someone who grew up in it & my mother bought her council house.

Agreed. Social houses should NOT be sold off for a song after 10 or 20 years where a profit can be made on it.
It should remain the property of the LA or the state, where when or if the people living there can afford to a) move out or b) buy it for the market price or c) buy elsewhere once their financial position improves.

The idea of the state giving people forever homes is a cancer on the minds of the idle.
By all means give the people a roof over their heads if they are stuck but dont give them a capital windfall paid for by the taxpayer.

DeconSheridan

Affordable Housing €310,000 (what a joke) not to mention solicitor fees, taxes, getting the house furnished and gas, esb turned on, house insured etc.

Topgear on Dave

DeconSheridan wrote: »

Affordable Housing €310,000 (what a joke) not to mention solicitor fees, taxes, getting the house furnished and gas, esb turned on, house insured etc.

Prime city centre location. Right beside the Pheonix park / Luas / Heuston. Short walking distance to O'Connell street.

Its the bargain of a lifetime.

James Brown

Eric Cartman wrote: »

agreed, but the solution is to tell them they can't have dublin. thats what theyre holding out for.

That's not quite true.
You get three options when you apply. Too many refusals, you lose your spot. Of course they want to live where they are from.

Horsebox9000 wrote: »

This x100000000
My partner is German and works in social services here and she couldn't believe how self centred many of the people she encountered here have been. She's worked in this field in a few countries and says Ireland is definitely unique and not for good reasons

People availing of social services are doing so because they are eligible. What they do or want to do within that criteria is natural and legal. If you or her have issues it's with the system.


The big problem, as visible on this thread and many like it is people are looking to blame the most vulnerable or the chancer of the week in the Indo over and above the policy makers and government we have who created the need and are completely responsible. We are responsible for our own actions but we can only move within the criteria and environment they have set. All, IMO, to protect their interests while placating paddy. Any tax payer with a problem is looking at Margret Cash or who ever, perfect for the lads.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

Agreed. Social houses should NOT be sold off for a song after 10 or 20 years where a profit can be made on it.
It should remain the property of the LA or the state, where when or if the people living there can afford to a) move out or b) buy it for the market price or c) buy elsewhere once their financial position improves.

The idea of the state giving people forever homes is a cancer on the minds of the idle.
By all means give the people a roof over their heads if they are stuck but dont give them a capital windfall paid for by the taxpayer.

Flawed baloney as per MarkO.

People who buy are living in those homes. We don't have an extra family looking for social housing because the house gets sold.
The whole point is it's for people who can't afford the market rate, (I know you get confused at this bit).
How can you be idle and buying a house from anyone? You need a mortgage.
The housing crisis effects everyone, mostly, the majority, working tax payers on low incomes.

James Brown

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Child benefit is an income stream at the moment, we need to convert it entirely to tax credits to stop the unemployed having kids and encourage only those who work to have children.

Capped at two kids. After that you're on your own. And that's very generous.

LillySV

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that is a disgusting way to refer to children.
They're just kids, it's not their fault they were born into that.

Childcare is so expensive in Ireland because of insurance, it's nothing to do with the wages of childcare workers themselves, they are paid sweet f**k all.



That's a good idea.
But it needs to be incentivised.
IE keep child benefit at X but make available a tax credit valued at X+Y, so you get more if you're working.

The childcare model in Ireland is a remnant of a time when the Catholic church ruled. IE It's the woman's job to look after the kids and it's the mans job to work and there is to be no kids outside of marriage.
This doctrine is completely incompatible with the way Ireland is today.
The way we think about parenting has to change.
In Nordic countries for example everything is usually (50/50) If a couple have kids and a house and the relationship breaks down, what they usually do is rent a 2nd 1 bed apartment between them, and rotate parenting duties, so the kids stay in their home.
This is so different to what we do here which is:
Man goes and works, has the kids on the weekend. Woman goes on the HAP, or council house or homeless list or what ever you want to call it, because there is no way she can earn enough to pay for childcare, a house, food etc

I think it's also important to remember that there isn't a €50k P/A job for everyone.
There are jobs out there that just don't pay that, yet the middle class use the service they provide heavily (Fast food is a great example of this)

What I meant was that If you continue paying more and more incentives to the unemployed to do nothin, they will continue to do nothing and a lot of their kids will follow the same path....

they should be trying to help the worker more and make the work pay.. one way is to reduce the cost of childcare for the worker .... make it worthwhile to work ...
in regard to why childcare is so expensive ... never mentioned anything about the reason ... all I want is to make the cost of childcare cheaper for the worker

Idbatterim

Stop increasing cash payment for the likes of child benefit. The pr*cks must forget who vote them in , it’s not Margaret cash , it’s not water charge protestors etc. they may be useless , but there isn’t another credible party ( many people feel ) just do it ! They’d be more likely to win votes and get respect rather then the pathetic , “ won’t somebody think of the children” politics that they all fall over themselves for !

Horsebox9000

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's not quite true.
You get three options when you apply. Too many refusals, you lose your spot. Of course they want to live where they are from.



People availing of social services are doing so because they are eligible. What they do or want to do within that criteria is natural and legal. If you or her have issues it's with the system.


The big problem, as visible on this thread and many like it is people are looking to blame the most vulnerable or the chancer of the week in the Indo over and above the policy makers and government we have who created the need and are completely responsible. We are responsible for our own actions but we can only move within the criteria and environment they have set. All, IMO, to protect their interests while placating paddy. Any tax payer with a problem is looking at Margret Cash or who ever, perfect for the lads.

You completely misread my point. Nothing against people who avail of the services

James Brown

Horsebox9000 wrote: »

You completely misread my point. Nothing against people who avail of the services

Not entirely, I said 'if'.
What does 'and not for good reasons' mean so?

99nsr125

maxsmum wrote: »

Yes and none of them need free or cheap housing in a prime city centre location. Nurses, guards, teachers working in the city should get priority for this housing. There is no inviolable right to be 'housed' where you grew up. I for one will never be able to buy a house where I grew up, let alone be given one.

What about the paramedics and firefighters and doctors ?

Or maybe public lands should be used for the public good. Providing security for the people that are not as lucky as us.

padd b1975

Boggles wrote: »

That isn't how it works.

Anyway do you think or boom bust housing market is good practice?

Ireland has had one boom and bust cycle in its history.

One.

Topgear on Dave

Matt Barrett wrote: »

People who buy are living in those homes. We don't have an extra family looking for social housing because the house gets sold.
The whole point is it's for people who can't afford the market rate, (I know you get confused at this bit).
How can you be idle and buying a house from anyone? You need a mortgage.
The housing crisis effects everyone, mostly, the majority, working tax payers on low incomes.

I never thought you would be in favour of the privatisation of state assets Matt, but I learn something new every day here. :pac::D

DeconSheridan

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Prime city centre location. Right beside the Pheonix park / Luas / Heuston. Short walking distance to O'Connell street.

Its the bargain of a lifetime.

A bargain.. :rolleyes: I know of a guy who bought in an estate, he was first buyer! they couldn't sell the rest and gave them out for F all to everyone and anyone. I do feel for his predicament being the only one paying back a 300,000 mortgage. Dont be that guy!

Idbatterim

99nsr125 wrote: »

What about the paramedics and firefighters and doctors ?

Or maybe public lands should be used for the public good. Providing security for the people that are not as lucky as us.

“ lucky “ or maybe they never lifted a finger a day in their lives ...

This might sound a bit 'futuristic/police state' etc. but considering pretty much every legitimate service or product can be purchased without cash, would it not make more sense to swap the entire Social Welfare system over to a card-based system?

This would knock a lot of the illegal activities on the head, as you can't buy drugs or pay someone to do dodgy stuff or nixers without some explanation as to why they'd be receiving money off you, and you could review people's spending, so when they rock up to the Community Welfare Officer looking for money for a communion dress or new Fridge, the Officer can say "but hang on, you have enough money to buy that already" or "but you've spent €x on alcohol this month, and a fridge will only cost €y, so we'll only give you €z towards it, get your act together".

(and so forth).


Naturally the scheme would become redundant as people would figure ways around it, or if you could simply withdraw cash from a bank it'd be spoiled, but nonetheless it'd make things more traceable and stamp out certain illegal activities.

Kermit.de.frog

Time limited food stamps as the main welfare distribution in the USA seems to make people very motivated to get work for some bizarre reason.

They don't put up with cradle to grave welfare sh!t there.

Mrs Cash would be actually street homeless (or quite possibly dead) over there and that's no exaggeration! You are just not allowed live that lifestyle without the consequences.

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

This might sound a bit 'futuristic/police state' etc. but considering pretty much every legitimate service or product can be purchased without cash, would it not make more sense to swap the entire Social Welfare system over to a card-based system?

This would knock a lot of the illegal activities on the head, as you can't buy drugs or pay someone to do dodgy stuff or nixers without some explanation as to why they'd be receiving money off you, and you could review people's spending, so when they rock up to the Community Welfare Officer looking for money for a communion dress or new Fridge, the Officer can say "but hang on, you have enough money to buy that already" or "but you've spent €x on alcohol this month, and a fridge will only cost €y, so we'll only give you €z towards it, get your act together".

(and so forth).


Naturally the scheme would become redundant as people would figure ways around it, or if you could simply withdraw cash from a bank it'd be spoiled, but nonetheless it'd make things more traceable and stamp out certain illegal activities.

it probably wouldn't stamp out anything in reality. probably just cost us a fortune trying to admin it.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Time limited food stamps as the main welfare distribution in the USA seems to make people very motivated to get work for some bizarre reason.

apparently they actually don't in reality.
those who do not want to work still do not work.
for those who do there are greater opportunities, regardless of skill or lack of, and there will be employers who aren't fussy and will be willing to give people a chance as long as they can show they deserve it.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

They don't put up with cradle to grave welfare sh!t there.

Mrs Cash would be actually street homeless (or quite possibly dead) over there and that's no exaggeration! You are just not allowed live that lifestyle without the consequences.

yes and they end up throwing away money that could be better spent trying to deal with the consequences of the system they have.
i suspect that if we implemented american style systems here in ireland we would be bankrupt quite quickly.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Flawed baloney as per MarkO.

People who buy are living in those homes. We don't have an extra family looking for social housing because the house gets sold.
The whole point is it's for people who can't afford the market rate, (I know you get confused at this bit).
How can you be idle and buying a house from anyone? You need a mortgage.
The housing crisis effects everyone, mostly, the majority, working tax payers on low incomes.

Bit of a ramble there Matt.

I am sorry, but if you are advocating giving people up to a 50% discount on a house, paid for by the tax payer, then you can take a hike.

Social housing is that, social housing, not a shortcut to own a 400,000 house for 200,000 paid over 25 years, while the guy next door has to foot the entire bill and then subsidise the family next door. In no universe is that fair.

I understand that there may be limited cases where property can be sold, but it should be done so, where the tax payer recoups costs at a minimum and it should be sold at market rates, not a huge discount.

Regardless, if we are to take the European model and not the UK/Irish model, the property will remain in the hands of the LA/State. We need to chill a little on property ownership in this country. Owning a property is not a 'right' and its highly amusing that some people point to Austrian provisioning of social housing as a plus, but then with a straight face advocate selling off these units for a song under a UK/Irish framework, because that is how we always did it here....

You cant have your cake and eat it too.

BattleCorp

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Mrs Cash would be actually street homeless (or quite possibly dead) over there and that's no exaggeration! You are just not allowed live that lifestyle without the consequences.

She'd be nothing of the sort. She'd have to get up off her hole and look after herself. Whether or not she would do that legally is another matter.

Boggles

Jaysus I'd swear some people are in danger of choking on their begrudgery.

Estates which have a high uptake on tenant purchase schemes have little to no anti social behavior where the opposite is true in terms of estates that are just been rented.

I've seen this first hand growing up in my own locality and it still rings true today.

We also have the problem where 1000s of vacant or boarded up social houses remain unused, 2 main reasons being, no one will dare move there and they are so neglected that it is not economical to repair them.

Councils routinely sell off stock on the private market and for good reasons.

Mate of mine bought one a couple of years for a very good price, it was a very good price for a reason he had to put in 1 and half times the purchase price just to make the house safe and livable doing the majority of the work himself.

Now the only reason he even thought of buying the house was because it was in an estate where the majority of people had purchased their homes, if it wasn't the only thing happening that house was steel shuttering on the doors and windows.

Allowing tenant purchases is an inherently good thing, I know from first hand experience and I'd hazard a guess that long term for "DE TAX PAYER" (which also includes the person buying the home which seems to be forgotten) it's cheaper.

But above all costs, it's value is immeasurable.