3 holidays a year in local authority estate

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

Lots of threads here about free houses for people who don't work i wondered what people think of people who have businesses and live in a local authoity estate.

I know some who can go on holidays three times a year and surely could buy a house but are in local authority houses. They are decent people do work and do pay rent and do not get into trouble or cause trouble.

A friend of mine lives there. She says the area is a nice area and people work if they can some on FAS schemes, some are unable due to genuine medical issues but no one there causes any trouble.

I don't know how they got the houses isn't there an income ceiling?



Personally, I think they should buy elsewhere and leave the locl authority houses to those who cannot have this level of income. But i am not bitter about it and it does not bother me much. They do work hard. I am just curious what people think

Mrs OBumble

Derrick Echoing Supper wrote: »

Lots of threads here about free houses for people who don't work i wondered what people think of people who have businesses and live in a local authoity estate.

I know some who can go on holidays three times a year and surely could buy a house but are in local authority houses. They are decent people do work and do pay rent and do not get into trouble or cause trouble.

A friend of mine lives there. She says the area is a nice area and people work if they can some on FAS schemes, some are unable due to genuine medical issues but no one there causes any trouble.

I don't know how they got the houses isn't there an income ceiling?



Personally, I think they should buy elsewhere and leave the locl authority houses to those who cannot have this level of income. But i am not bitter about it and it does not bother me much. They do work hard. I am just curious what people think

There's an income limit fro getting the house.

Once someone has it, though, uts theirs fir life irrespective of income.

freshpopcorn

I suppose if they kicked people out on the street for working and maybe having a bit of cash people maybe less likely to work.

They get their houses because, at the time, they were on low incomes and needed housing. The last time this came up, someone showed the requirements - they aren't easy. You have to be a very low earner, with no other options.

Subsequently, you can go on to build a business and grow as a person, economically speaking. That's the ideal, why should that be punished? That's an example of social-housing working. Isn't it good? Give people a platform and let them build successful lives. What's the problem?

Rodney Bathgate

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

They get their houses because, at the time, they were on low incomes and needed housing. The last time this came up, someone showed the requirements - they aren't easy. You have to be a very low earner, with no other options.

Subsequently, you can go on to build a business and grow as a person, economically speaking. That's the ideal, why should that be punished? That's an example of social-housing working. Isn't it good? Give people a platform and let them build successful lives. What's the problem?

Instead they are being ‘rewarded’ for the rest of their lives with cheap rent based on eligibility years or decades earlier. They will never be charged market rent or anywhere near it.

Expecting them to pay market rent if they can afford it is not ‘punishment’, it is a fact of life for many people.

Far better to make the house available to someone else who is in need of the same helping hand so they have the same opportunity to build a successful life.

We don’t have unlimited social housing and we cannot afford to have it, so if you can afford to leave it you should be leaving it. (Made leave it.)

Rodin

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Instead they are being ‘rewarded’ for the rest of their lives with cheap rent based on eligibility years or decades earlier. They will never be charged market rent or anywhere near it.

Expecting them to pay market rent if they can afford it is not ‘punishment’, it is a fact of life for many people.

Far better to make the house available to someone else who is in need of the same helping hand so they have the same opportunity to build a successful life.

We don’t have unlimited social housing and we cannot afford to have it, so if you can afford to leave it you should be leaving it.

Should be a 6monthly/ yearly reassessment of means

Rodney Bathgate

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Instead they are being ‘rewarded’ for the rest of their lives with cheap rent based on eligibility years or decades earlier. They will never be charged market rent or anywhere near it.

Expecting them to pay market rent if they can afford it is not ‘punishment’, it is a fact of life for many people.

Far better to make the house available to someone else who is in need of the same helping hand so they have the same opportunity to build a successful life.

We don’t have unlimited social housing and we cannot afford to have it, so if you can afford to leave it you should be leaving it.

Part of the problem with social-housing availability is that we made the ridiculous decision to allow it to be sold. I think that's stupid, but stability of tenure is important.

If you punish people for making a success of their lives, by taking away their house, you're creating a massive disincentive to work.

As far as I know, rent is linked to income, which is good. Apart from the opportunity to purchase, I think social housing has been a success. The first thing anyone needs when they're starting to build their lives is a stable, affordable home.

Guy:Incognito

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Subsequently, you can go on to build a business and grow as a person, economically speaking. That's the ideal, why should that be punished?

Because there isnt an infinite supply. Social housing should be a "when you need it "thing, not a "forever house". As already stated, raise rents to what they should be for private renters for those that an afford it.

A guy I used to work with lived in a council house . This enabled him to have a holiday home in Turkey.......

Rodney Bathgate

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Part of the problem with social-housing availability is that we made the ridiculous decision to allow it to be sold. I think that's stupid, but stability of tenure is important.

If you punish people for making a success of their lives, by taking away their house, you're creating a massive disincentive to work.

As far as I know, rent is linked to income, which is good. Apart from the opportunity to purchase, I think social housing has been a success. The first thing anyone needs when they're starting to build their lives is a stable, affordable home.

I don’t accept it is a punishment as I said. I think most would agree.

Rent is linked to income but as I also said, the max rent the pay is no where near market rent.

Social welfare and other schemes are there to tide you over when in need. Social housing should be the same. The system doesn’t continue to pay JSA/JSB when someone becomes employed and successful, no reason that social housing should be different in this specific scenario.

Guy:Incognito

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Subsequently, you can go on to build a business and grow as a person, economically speaking. That's the ideal, why should that be punished? That's an example of social-housing working. Isn't it good? Give people a platform and let them build successful lives. What's the problem?

What about the people that cant get a council house but then this means they have to spend much more of their income on private rent and then cat afford to start a business. Why should they be punished?

Zebra3

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Because there isnt an infinite supply. Social housing should be a "when you need it "thing, not a "forever house". As already stated, raise rents to what they should be for private renters for those that an afford it.

A guy I used to work with lived in a council house . This enabled him to have a holiday home in Turkey.......

Yep, same with a family being given a big council house and years later the widow living alone in it.

Move her to smaller place.

If anyone has a problem with this, then go out and buy your own.

This is why you shouldn't be allowed buy a council house and there should be a size limit. Sensible people stop having children of they can't afford more bedrooms.

I would also look at a limit on social housing in terms of time period but I admit that may be messy. Otherwise people just won't bother getting jobs, etc and we're no further along in solving the issue.

CrankyHaus

I'd argue that it improves Council Estates overall if you ensure that people who are gainfully employed can stay living there when their situation improves. While it does consume a public resource in a way that prevents it from helping the most needy I think the benefits outweigh the positives.

There are also plenty of more egregious and pressing issues with how social housing stock is allocated. I just don't believe too many business owners in council houses is a real problem.
If Council Estates were full of people jetting off to the Seychelles with no space for left for actual needy cases the problem may need a solution.

Fann Linn

Whatever about the monetary limits for rural counties, I think the max wage cap for Dublin, Kildare etc is approx €45k depending on family size. So any lad working in average jobs in factories, retail, services, even PS is well entitled to avail of social housing.

Stovepipe

Three holidays a year? easy if you are telling lies about your earnings or are up to your neck in debt or you have had an inheritance or got a redundancy. A lot of people go to cheap destinations in Spain and Portugal; a week for two in a cheap hotel in either country is well affordable. You'd be surprised how many Irish people own property abroad; apartments or apart-hotels in Spain were quite cheap a decade or two ago and lots of people bought them.

CrankyHaus

CrankyHaus wrote: »

I'd argue that it improves Council Estates overall if you ensure that people who are gainfully employed can stay living there when their situation improves. While it does consume a public resource in a way that prevents it from helping the most needy I think the benefits outweigh the positives.

There are also plenty of more egregious and pressing issues with how social housing stock is allocated. I just don't believe too many business owners in council houses is a real problem.
If Council Estates were full of people jetting off to the Seychelles with no space for left for actual needy cases the problem may need a solution.

It's more common that you think.

Pick a council estate, any council estate and have a walk around. You will see taxis, company Vans (not always the owner to be fair) but a good few are. some pretty nice spec cars as well.

As mentioned above, it's a kick in the teeth for those that didn't have an attitude of "well sure I'll just wait for it to be handed to me" and went out and grafted but sees now left with a large mortgage or rent and just about living.

Fann Linn

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

It's more common that you think.

Pick a council estate, any council estate and have a walk around. You will see taxis, company Vans (not always the owner to be fair but a fair few are. some pretty nice spec cars as well.

As mentioned above, it's a kick in the teeth for those that didn't have an attitude of "well sure I'll just wait for it to be handed to me" and went out and grafted but sees now left with a large mortgage or rent and just about living.

PCPs!

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What about the people that cant get a council house but then this means they have to spend much more of their income on private rent and then cat afford to start a business. Why should they be punished?

They shouldn't be. In reality, they are punished, but that's because we have made a decision, as an electorate, not to prioritise building houses.

It would be worse again if you effectively prohibited innovation by kicking people out of their homes once they started to earn a decent living. The whole POINT of social-housing is to allow people to flourish.

The solution is more social housing, ideally charging the tenants for the cost of construction, not a few dozen houses a year.

Pinoy adventure

Sure you get penalized for saving a few bob every week and trying too better yourself & life.

Fann Linn

Fann Linn wrote: »

PCPs!

I don't know what that means

Fann Linn

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I don't know what that means

It means cars are cheap.

Stovepipe

Many council houses were sold off for relatively small money, even going back to the 70s. They were often offered to Corpo staff or long time reliable renters for well below market rate. All of my Uncles were Corpo staff and got their house in the 70s, having been renters, back when it was considerably harder to get a mortgage. A couple are still in the same houses and others, including my dad, moved onto private houses when they got the chance. The Corpo got fed up of constantly maintaining huge housing stocks and being constantly moaned at by the tenants so they offloaded as many houses as possible.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

They get their houses because, at the time, they were on low incomes and needed housing. The last time this came up, someone showed the requirements - they aren't easy. You have to be a very low earner, with no other options.

Subsequently, you can go on to build a business and grow as a person, economically speaking. That's the ideal, why should that be punished? That's an example of social-housing working. Isn't it good? Give people a platform and let them build successful lives. What's the problem?

in the situation I know of they had the businesses when they moved in.

Jurgen Klopp

Is it true every child in a family has to have their own bedroom, so if you've parents and 3 kids they need a 4 bed etc?

Like I was thinking if I had say 3 kids and was offered a 2 bed and stick in a single and a some bunk beds be better than nothing especially if at risk of homelessness

At the very least give the tenants the option, I know some want their forever home type of thing but plenty would rather a tight fit in a council where you have security of tenancy as well as comfort if your income goes down your rent is reassessed

freshpopcorn

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

Is it true every child in a family has to have their own bedroom, so if you've parents and 3 kids they need a 4 bed etc?

From my understanding you are allowed to have two kids in a room but you may not be able to mix genders.

Stovepipe

Stovepipe wrote: »

Many council houses were sold off for relatively small money, even going back to the 70s. They were often offered to Corpo staff or long time reliable renters for well below market rate. All of my Uncles were Corpo staff and got their house in the 70s, having been renters, back when it was considerably harder to get a mortgage. A couple are still in the same houses and others, including my dad, moved onto private houses when they got the chance. The Corpo got fed up of constantly maintaining huge housing stocks and being constantly moaned at by the tenants so they offloaded as many houses as possible.

It was a bit more ideological than that. In the UK, Thatcher decided that the sale of public housing would be a good incentive for residents to have a 'stakeholding' (abominable word) in their communities. The theory was that it would improve standards across social-housing estates that had sprung up all across Britain.

We eagerly jumped off that cliff with Thatcher, except, it turned out that there was no real benefit for communities. The only real benefit was for people who wanted to speculate on properties or lease them, especially in inner-city locations and other areas of strategic importance.

The sale of public housing was one of the most egregious planning mistakes of our lifetime.

Rodney Bathgate

freshpopcorn wrote: »

From my understanding you are allowed to have two kids in a room but you may not be able to mix genders.

Gender or sex?

Jurgen Klopp

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

Is it true every child in a family has to have their own bedroom

No.

freshpopcorn

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Gender or sex?

Alright
you can have two boys or two girls in a room but it's something I heard on the radio so I don't know how true it it.

Where are all the people who grew up in council estates?

There must be hundreds of you active on this website. We often forget how normal it was to live in local-government-supplied housing, whether on an estate or even in the countryside.

If someone were denigrating my childhood home in this way, implying that my parents were layabouts and slackers, I'd be fuming. In my primary school, I think approx half the boys lived in social housing, it carried absolutely no stigma, nor should it have had.

Rodney Bathgate

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Alright
you can have two boys or two girls in a room but it's something I heard on the radio so I don't know how true it it.

Only joking, we know what you meant.

Guy:Incognito

CrankyHaus wrote: »

I'd argue that it improves Council Estates overall if you ensure that people who are gainfully employed can stay living there when their situation improves. While it does consume a public resource in a way that prevents it from helping the most needy I think the benefits outweigh the positives.

They dont have to move out, they just have to pay market rate of rent.

Guy:Incognito

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

If someone were denigrating my childhood home in this way, implying that my parents were layabouts and slackers, I'd be fuming. In my primary school, I think approx half the boys lived in social housing, it carried absolutely no stigma, nor should it have had.

This thread is literally the opposite. Its about people working and living in council houses.

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

This thread is literally the opposite. Its about people working and living in council houses.

It's about denigrating people who work hard and live in council houses, as far as I can make out.

I don't know if the OP fully appreciates what would happen if you started to disincentivise work.

Look, I have as many criticisms of the social-welfare system as the next man. I think it can reward idleness and doesn't manage to intervene in destructive life-habits in the way that it should. But punishing industriousness would be a colossal mistake. The whole point is to give people a platform to do their very best.

McGinniesta

santa ponsa and courtown don't count

Guy:Incognito

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I don't know if the OP fully appreciates what would happen if you started to disincentivise work. .

Expecting people to pay in line with what their peers pay isnt disincentivising work.

Having an artificially low cap on rent encourages people to stay in housing that is needed for people that cant afford rent and gives them an unfair advantage.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But punishing industriousness would be a colossal mistake. The whole point is to give people a platform to do their very best.

How is it punishing them? If 2 families each have a combined income of 60k but 1 is in a council house while the other has to pay 2 grand a month in rent, the only one being punished is the private renter.

lickalot

Its pretty easy to get away now for a week.

Get flights to nearly anywhere now in Europe for 50 quid by using the likes of skyscanner.
Stay in a dirt cheap hotel.
Drink cheep beer all week.

Its not rocket science. Some people are too stupid to book separately and do a bit of research.

They get absolutely shafted by travel agents.

Limpy

When you own your own home and a council owned house in your estate is giving to a family who works it means your prayers are answered. They can take 5 holidays if they want, I'l water the plants and feed the dog while they are gone for them too.

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Expecting people to pay in line with what their peers pay isnt disincentivising work.

Having an artificially low cap on rent encourages people to stay in housing that is needed for people that cant afford rent and gives them an unfair advantage.



How is it punishing them? If 2 families each have a combined income of 60k but 1 is in a council house while the other has to pay 2 grand a month in rent, the only one being punished is the private renter.

I think it comes down to a simple question -- what is the objective of social housing?

You can give people a roof over their heads, basic shelter, by putting them up in B&Bs, so it has to be more than that. It's stability, right?

And you want to take away that stability as soon as they earn a decent living? Well the obvious reaction will then be to stay in a low-paying job, because why lose your house for a few extra quid per week?

The solution is more social housing, lots of it. Imagine all those thousands of people in emergency accommodation, starting businesses and hiring people, and contributing to our economy. That'd be great. Social housing isn't the problem, the problem is a lack of it.

Rodney Bathgate

Some people are very sensitive. To question social housing policy is to denigrate those that benefit from it. Great way to shutdown discussion.

Guy:Incognito

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I think it comes down to a simple question -- what is the objective of social housing?
.

To house people who cant afford to do it otherwise themselves.

When you then can afford to, you should either move on and do so, or be charged a normal rent.

Guy:Incognito

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

And you want to take away that stability as soon as they earn a decent living? Well the obvious reaction will then be to stay in a low-paying job, because why lose your house for a few extra quid per week?
.

You keep saying about taking it away. Charging them a rent they can afford is not taking it away.

Why should people in private rental accommodation earning the same money have to pay more for the same house?

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

To house people who cant afford to do it otherwise themselves.

When you then can afford to, you should either move on and do so, or be charged a normal rent.

Alright, so if I'm earning 400 quid a week, and managing to pay rent and feed my family on that income, I'm not going to take an offer with a slight pay-rise because that will send us into the private market with all the instability this implies.

This is not rocket science. You cannot punish people for bettering themselves, when the WHOLE POINT is to better themselves. You see that, surely?

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You keep saying about taking it away. Charging them a rent they can afford is not taking it away.

But their rent does increase as their income grows. That's already happening.

elperello

Jack five nights a week in pub spending €100 a week. Salt of the earth working class entitled to council house.

Joe saves his €100 a week and spends it on 3 holidays a year. Chancer who should be moved out.

Guy:Incognito

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Alright, so if I'm earning 400 quid a week, and managing to pay rent and feed my family on that income, I'm not going to take an offer with a slight pay-rise because that will send us into the private market with all the instability this implies.

This is not rocket science. You cannot punish people for bettering themselves, when the WHOLE POINT is to better themselves. You see that, surely?

You seem to have a low opinion of people in council houses...........

and again, its not sending them anywhere. Its charging the same rent they would have to pay and people earning the same as them are expected to pay.

The discussion is clearly about people who qualify for a council house and then go on to have earnings above the threshold. The family next door who never earned below the threshold but now that they both earn the same are punished because they are in private rental accommodation.

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You seem to have a low opinion of people in council houses...........

and again, its not sending them anywhere. Its charging the same rent they would have to pay and people earning the same as them are expected to pay.

I'm open to correction on this, but according to Mr. Google, rents are charged at 15% of your income. Certainly, I think that could/should rise up to 25%, depending on the income bracket. But they absolutely should not be charged in line with market rates, otherwise what's the point of trying to improve your lot in life?

You'd probably be better off on the Dole. And nobody wants that.

Guy:Incognito

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

otherwise what's the point of trying to improve your lot in life?
.

Whats the point of anyone doing it so? Everyone should just stay in low paid jobs and get a council house.

Thingymebob

If the cost of housing my family was only 12% of my assessable income, I’d probably have a holiday home in Turkey too. Other countries reassess regularly, and it’s a hand up not a hand out so it shouldn’t be a final solution. And selling them off at all - let alone a discount - should be permanently outlawed.

https://www.fingal.ie/sites/default/files/2019-03/Differential%20Rent%20Scheme.pdf

The problem is, people focus too much on their entitlements and too little on their responsibilities

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2513521/Bob-Crow-says-moral-duty-leave-council-house-despite-generous-salary.html

atilladehun

The problem is at the other end. Stop driving the economy on property. We've a limited supply of land and we will always have to house people. Stop making a race where people have to work their brains out just to pay for a home.

If we build enough social housing we won't have all these crappy rentals and vulture companies taking money from our country.

This is the sort of divide and conquer rubbish that doesn't help the country be a better place.

elperello

elperello wrote: »

Jack five nights a week in pub spending €100 a week. Salt of the earth working class entitled to council house.

Joe saves his €100 a week and spends it on 3 holidays a year. Chancer who should be moved out.

I think they are both scum that should be taken out back, of their council house, and then beaten with a sock full of batteries. Every night until they get they asses in gear


I jest of course, should be snooker balls

atilladehun

atilladehun wrote: »

The problem is at the other end. Stop driving the economy on property. We've a limited supply of land and we will always have to house people. Stop making a race where people have to work their brains out just to pay for a home.

If we build enough social housing we won't have all these crappy rentals and vulture companies taking money from our country.

This is the sort of divide and conquer rubbish that doesn't help the country be a better place.

So... Communism?

I'm not knocking it but call it what it is