"None of our children on the list are getting these houses"

Gatling

The family in the paper has 18 ,17 ,16 year olds

So in the next two to three years there will be 5 adults and 3 kids living together ,
Pretty obvious option the adult siblings move out and rent rooms away from mammy and daddy , which means they would be able to take a 3 bed house ,
But I'd Hazard a guess that the adult siblings will eventually move pregnant girlfriend into mammie and daddies and they would want an even bigger house to accommodate the kids and grandkids

AulWan

zell12 wrote: »

The Sinnotts, who are renting with the help of the HAP in Kilmore Co Wexford, have six kids aged between 3 and 18
Family-of-eight on housing waiting list for 12 years hit out at 'inconsistency' in policies
Wexford family of eight tell of struggle to get suitable council house

I am not anti-social housing at all, but WHY keep having more and more children when you have no stable accommodation for the ones you already have?

12 years on the housing list yet they have a 3 year old child? How many more of their six children were born after they went on the housing list? All three in that photo look under the age of 12. (Edit, I just noticed they are 12, 11 and 3).

This is where I draw my personal line. I think its utterly selfish to continue expanding your family when you haven't a secure home to give the children already have.

Now they have sized themselves out of a three bed home as the council rules state that children of the opposite sex cannot share a bedroom over the age of 10 and expect a four bed, and they are complaining to the media?

Idbatterim

the absolute hilarity is, if the state offered many women like margaret cash a free E50 voucher, they would have their tubes tied!

AulWan

Idbatterim wrote: »

the absolute hilarity is, if the state offered many women like margaret cash a free E50 voucher, they would have their tubes tied!

In fairness to the Sinnotts, they are (or were) both working. The article says self-employed.

But its not the County Council's fault that they went on to have child #4,5, and 6.

BanditLuke

Great to see these wonderful people having children. We desperately need to encourage people to have bigger families

AulWan

BanditLuke wrote: »

Great to see these wonderful people having children. We desperately need to encourage people to have bigger families

It's not fair to the kids.

12 moves in 16 years and no secure home is no way to grow up.

Antares35

AulWan wrote: »

I am not anti-social housing at all, but WHY keep having more and more children when you have no stable accommodation for the ones you already have?

12 years on the housing list yet they have a 3 year old child? How many more of their six children were born after they went on the housing list? All three in that photo look under the age of 12. (Edit, I just noticed they are 12, 11 and 3).

This is where I draw my personal line. I think its utterly selfish to continue expanding your family when you haven't a secure home to give the children already have.

Now they have sized themselves out of a three bed home as the council rules state that children of the opposite sex cannot share a bedroom over the age of 10 and expect a four bed, and they are complaining to the media?

Because it's their right and the government should house them cause they're entitled blah de blah

Idbatterim

Antares35 wrote: »

Because it's their right and the government should house them cause they're entitled blah de blah

isnt it going to get seriously interesting now? the politicians create this situation, they encourage it. the media wouldnt dare ever criticise these muppets for popping out tons of kids they cant support. So you have this ever building bubble, that is going to explode. They are going to have to do something about it, cap child benefit or the amount of beds you can get or welfare or something, something has to be done to stop it. the cost of these kids to the state is enourmous, maternity hospital and pay (if they were working), child benefit, free health care now to a certain age, education. Social housing, then they pop out a few and the cycle continues...

Gatling

AulWan wrote: »

It's not fair to the kids.

12 moves in 16 years and no secure home is no way to grow up.

Claimed 12 moves .

Idbatterim

I think its going to take another few years to manifest, before it becomes apparent to government, just how problematic a cradle to grade welfare state is, given that they throw in free housing for many...

Galwayguy35

Gatling wrote: »

Here's another one man trying to inherit his mothers council house after she passed away,this particular house is part of estate for OAPs


http://www.echo.ie/news/article/man-62-faces-eviction-by-county-council

So he "didn't think" to tell the council his mother died, seems like a rather important thing to forget about you'd imagine.

He's a fresh looking 62 living in the capital which has the best job opportunities in the country.

Another sponger looking to game the system.

macwal

Kivaro wrote: »

Don't we have the highest number of people on disability in the EU too?
Entire generations of families who do not want to work; yet expect to be housed in the locations needed by workers the most. And don't forget their other entitlements of free medical cards, free travel, free, free, free.
There is also the correlation of these very same people through their criminality and anti-social behaviour causing havoc and stress to the working people who are paying for their entitled lifestyle.

If an alien came down from Space, this scenario would be very difficult to explain.

I agree entirely, but seriously, what can be done? The damage has been accumulating for decades. Whenever there are rumblings of changes afoot, you get the socialist, liberal types coming in screaming the loudest, and nowadays with social media, it's even louder and instant.


It would take decades to reverse, but I can't see it happening. The only real chance of a change is if an asteroid hits. This coronavirus is too piss-weak to make a difference, and besides, the ones it would need to wipe are the ones who are home all day, getting their groceries home-delivered.

end of the road

Idbatterim wrote: »

isnt it going to get seriously interesting now? the politicians create this situation, they encourage it. the media wouldnt dare ever criticise these muppets for popping out tons of kids they cant support. So you have this ever building bubble, that is going to explode. They are going to have to do something about it, cap child benefit or the amount of beds you can get or welfare or something, something has to be done to stop it. the cost of these kids to the state is enourmous, maternity hospital and pay (if they were working), child benefit, free health care now to a certain age, education. Social housing, then they pop out a few and the cycle continues...

most of those costs are sunk costs that have to be paid regardless of whether wellfare dependants exist or not.
social housing, maternity care, education, etc all need to exist and be funded.

Idbatterim wrote: »

I think its going to take another few years to manifest, before it becomes apparent to government, just how problematic a cradle to grade welfare state is, given that they throw in free housing for many...

the politicians are aware it's a small problem, however they have to spend wisely on this issue, and if throwing a few quid to these people is the lowest cost option, which i suspect it might actually be, then i'm afraid that is what has to be done.

pinkyeye

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So he "didn't think" to tell the council his mother died, seems like a rather important thing to forget about you'd imagine.

He's a fresh looking 62 living in the capital which has the best job opportunities in the country.

Another sponger looking to game the system.

Ah come on, to be fair, what's to be gained in evicting this man into homelessness at 62, he'll have to be housed in emergency accommodation anyway.

It's a one bedroom property so it's not like he's depriving anyone of a place to live?

AulWan

pinkyeye wrote: »

Ah come on, to be fair, what's to be gained in evicting this man into homelessness at 62, he'll have to be housed in emergency accommodation anyway.

It's a one bedroom property so it's not like he's depriving anyone of a place to live?

I agree IF he and his mother went about things properly when he moved in.

By properly I mean they declared him as living there and filled in the necessary forms to apply to have him included on the tenancy - meaning his income was assessed for rent purposes.

If he just moved in, without doing the above, then he is not a tenant, and has no right to stay.

Those one-bedroom places for OAPs are like gold dust and he should not just jump ahead of someone else on the queue for one (and there are queues of older people who want to downsize) if he was never officially accepted as a tenant.

Eric Cartman

end of the road wrote: »

there are a small number of such people yes.

The number of working aged people who have never made a single prsi contribution is over 43,000 (and that excludes disabled and carers before anyone starts)

So thats our minimum number. So what makes it not worth caring about 43,000 people damaging society, would 43,000 rapists, 43,0000 burglars, 43,000 paedophiles be an issue, why is 43,000 minimum spongers acceptable.

end of the road

AulWan wrote: »

I agree IF he and his mother went about things properly when he moved in.

By properly I mean they declared him as living there and filled in the necessary forms to apply to have him included on the tenancy - meaning his income was assessed for rent purposes.

If he just moved in, without doing the above, then he is not a tenant, and has no right to stay.

Those one-bedroom places for OAPs are like gold dust and he should not just jump ahead of someone else on the queue for one (and there are queues of older people who want to downsize) if he was never officially accepted as a tenant.

money is going to have to be spent doing all of the things to evict him, and then house him in emergency accommodation.
this is a complete waste of money in this case.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The number of working aged people who have never made a single prsi contribution is over 43,000 (and that excludes disabled and carers before anyone starts)

So thats our minimum number. So what makes it not worth caring about 43,000 people damaging society, would 43,000 rapists, 43,0000 burglars, 43,000 paedophiles be an issue, why is 43,000 minimum spongers acceptable.

it's not about acceptability, but about whether we can justify extra cost to get them to contribute in some way. the likely answer i would suspect, is probably not, the money could be better spent.
rapists, burglers, paedophiles are a direct threat to society, so are not comparible, and the costs to deal with them are justified by the fact that by not dealing with them, we are putting society at risk.

AulWan

end of the road wrote: »

money is going to have to be spent doing all of the things to evict him, and then house him in emergency accommodation.
this is a complete waste of money in this case..

If he is not legally a tenant already, then so be it.

Jinglejangle69

Idbatterim wrote: »

isnt it going to get seriously interesting now? the politicians create this situation, they encourage it. the media wouldnt dare ever criticise these muppets for popping out tons of kids they cant support. So you have this ever building bubble, that is going to explode. They are going to have to do something about it, cap child benefit or the amount of beds you can get or welfare or something, something has to be done to stop it. the cost of these kids to the state is enourmous, maternity hospital and pay (if they were working), child benefit, free health care now to a certain age, education. Social housing, then they pop out a few and the cycle continues...

What party will stop this in your opinion?

You voted SF.

Who want to increase social housing in New estates to 20% and build 100,000 social houses.

Make your ****en mind up or else stop ranting here everyday about free houses.

Kivaro

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The number of working aged people who have never made a single prsi contribution is over 43,000 (and that excludes disabled and carers before anyone starts)

So thats our minimum number. So what makes it not worth caring about 43,000 people damaging society, would 43,000 rapists, 43,0000 burglars, 43,000 paedophiles be an issue, why is 43,000 minimum spongers acceptable.

We keep hearing that it's only a "tiny" amount who are screwing the rest of us. But if we add the numbers who very briefly worked and indeed paid PRSI and decided that working was a mugs game, we are easily in the 6 figures of people who behave as if they are incapacitated children needing every support possible.
And how are many Travellers are there in the country? I do not believe the 30K number. The vast majority of them are on disability just because they are part of an ethnic minority. And then we have the new economic migrants who welfare-shopped our fine little country?

Maybe it is time for a worldwide recession and an exodus of multinationals from the country, so that the EU can finally take control of Ireland's spiraling welfare bill and give the socialists in the country a reality check.

Galwayguy35

pinkyeye wrote: »

Ah come on, to be fair, what's to be gained in evicting this man into homelessness at 62, he'll have to be housed in emergency accommodation anyway.

It's a one bedroom property so it's not like he's depriving anyone of a place to live?

His mother died a year and a half ago, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest maybe he could have been honest with the council in that period of time and also have got himself a job.

Idbatterim

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

What party will stop this in your opinion?

You voted SF.

Who want to increase social housing in New estates to 20% and build 100,000 social houses.

Make your ****en mind up or else stop ranting here everyday about free houses.

Of course no party will stop this here. Certainly not fg or fg lite as they should now be called, the only right wing thing about them is now supporting rip off housing!

What’s your issue with the free house rants ? You living in one of them ?

ThunbergsAreGo

Idbatterim wrote: »

Of course no party will stop this here. Certainly not fg or fg lite as they should now be called, the only right wing thing about them is now supporting rip off housing!

What’s your issue with the free house rants ? You living in one of them ?

Well u voted for a party that openly wants to massively increase the "free" house stock and increase welfare by 10 percent.

So your actions don't really tally with your free house rants. You voted for more free houses and state dependence in many areas of life

end of the road

Kivaro wrote: »

We keep hearing that it's only a "tiny" amount who are screwing the rest of us. But if we add the numbers who very briefly worked and indeed paid PRSI and decided that working was a mugs game, we are easily in the 6 figures of people who behave as if they are incapacitated children needing every support possible.
And how are many Travellers are there in the country? I do not believe the 30K number. The vast majority of them are on disability just because they are part of an ethnic minority. And then we have the new economic migrants who welfare-shopped our fine little country?

Maybe it is time for a worldwide recession and an exodus of multinationals from the country, so that the EU can finally take control of Ireland's spiraling welfare bill and give the socialists in the country a reality check.

the EU are never going to take control of ireland under any circumstances.
there is no support for it within ireland and there is no support for it within the EU government structures or among the membership.
it would also require MEPS to vote for it which is not going to happen.

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

His mother died a year and a half ago, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest maybe he could have been honest with the council in that period of time and also have got himself a job.

got himself a job where?
do you think employers generally rush out to employ someone who is 62?

Idbatterim

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Well u voted for a party that openly wants to massively increase the "free" house stock and increase welfare by 10 percent.

So your actions don't really tally with your free house rants. You voted for more free houses and state dependence in many areas of life

look, if FFG are all for the welfare state and rip off housing. SF didnt mention raising welfare anywhere, if they plan on doing what they said they would, they wouldnt have the cash to do it anyway. So I can vote for a party that might do something about housing and will likely be the same on the welfare state OR go back to the tried and failed, what a hard choice :rolleyes:

BanditLuke

Idbatterim wrote: »

Of course no party will stop this here. Certainly not fg or fg lite as they should now be called, the only right wing thing about them is now supporting rip off housing!

What’s your issue with the free house rants ? You living in one of them ?

There are no free houses. Everybody in council housing pays rent to the council based on their earnings including me. You know this yet you continue to bring up "free housing".

Galwayguy35

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So he "didn't think" to tell the council his mother died, seems like a rather important thing to forget about you'd imagine.

He's a fresh looking 62 living in the capital which has the best job opportunities in the country.

Another sponger looking to game the system.

Don’t you just love unelected community activists supporting these chancers.

AulWan

AulWan wrote: »

I agree IF he and his mother went about things properly when he moved in.

By properly I mean they declared him as living there and filled in the necessary forms to apply to have him included on the tenancy - meaning his income was assessed for rent purposes.

If he just moved in, without doing the above, then he is not a tenant, and has no right to stay.

Those one-bedroom places for OAPs are like gold dust and he should not just jump ahead of someone else on the queue for one (and there are queues of older people who want to downsize) if he was never officially accepted as a tenant.

If they went about it as you suggest, he’d not be allowed stay there as it’s a one bed property. Not suitable for a family of 2.

Gatling

BanditLuke wrote: »

There are no free houses. Everybody in council housing pays rent to the council

Not everyone no ,

Thousands don't , when you consider how low rents actually are in council housing there is zero excuse for it ,rents should be increased and not just by €3 pw either and those who don't pay slán find your own place to rent at your own cost

ThunbergsAreGo

Idbatterim wrote: »

look, if FFG are all for the welfare state and rip off housing. SF didnt mention raising welfare anywhere, if they plan on doing what they said they would, they wouldnt have the cash to do it anyway. So I can vote for a party that might do something about housing and will likely be the same on the welfare state OR go back to the tried and failed, what a hard choice :rolleyes:

So it's not their manifesto that stated (almost a 20 percent increase)

"Bringing weekly working age social welfare rates in line with the MESL entails increasing the maximum personal rate to €245 and the Qualified Child Increase to €48.50 for children under 12 and €82.40 for children aged 12 and over. The estimated full year cost of implementing these measures is €1.8 billion."

You also weren't aware of the mix of houses they were providing, just listening to the broad strokes, like most of the country (to be fair). But when you are so vocal on certain issues, you really should understand you have voted FOR the things you decry