3 holidays a year in local authority estate

kenmm

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Ridiculous.

As taxpayers we have a right to question how our taxes are being spent.

Jog on if you don’t like that.

btw - are you married? Do you get any tax credits? Any other rebates? Did you take the mortgage breaks offered during COVID? How about medical allowance?

If so would you mind telling us how much tax you paid in total? - based on your logic - I need to know if you paid less tax than I did, then I am entitled to know where those tax credits you may have received go?

Rodney Bathgate

kenmm wrote: »

btw - are you married? Do you get any tax credits? Any other rebates? Did you take the mortgage breaks offered during COVID? How about medical allowance?

If so would you mind telling us how much tax you paid in total? - based on your logic - I need to know if you paid less tax than I did, then I am entitled to know where those tax credits you may have received go?

Anyone defending these people (especially the 60% in arrears) is most likely a beneficiary of the states incompetence here, so I don’t think I’ll bother providing those details.

But thanks for asking.

GreeBo

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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.

So you have 1 council house available, and two candidates.
1) Who earns €40K / year
2) One who is on the dole but if given a house within 3 years would be earning €40k/year.

In 3 years time, why does 2) deserve a house more than 1)?

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

So you have 1 council house available, and two candidates.
1) Who earns €40K / year
2) One who is on the dole but if given a house within 3 years would be earning €40k/year.

In 3 years time, why does 2) deserve a house more than 1)?

Because (2) probably needs a home in order to be able to make personal progress?

Why can't they both have houses? Houses are not a finite resource, we can build thousands of them and still the sky won't fall in.

GreeBo

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Because (2) probably needs a home in order to be able to make personal progress?

Why can't they both have houses? Houses are not a finite resource, we can build thousands of them and still the sky won't fall in.

Ah, so you are on a total windup again. Could have saved everyone some time if you mentioned that in your first post.

If you have the time you might let us know who pays for these houses?

mick087

[QUOTE=Riflecreek;113982086
People should be evicted if they can't pay the rent.[/QUOTE]


What would be the reason they cannot pay?
Where do they go once evicted?

mick087

Deleted User wrote: »

Pay rent or out you go should be the norm. Too much pussyfooting around some chancers.

Well at least your to the point which i can not say is bad.
But i wouldnt agree on the out you go part.

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

Ah, so you are on a total windup again. Could have saved everyone some time if you mentioned that in your first post.

If you have the time you might let us know who pays for these houses?

I'm genuinely curious about this, do you really think I'm winding you up just because I say we should build more social housing? What exactly did I say that's winding you up? I really thought this was just a boring chat about housing resources, it kind of bothers me that building houses for people should be a controversy.

kenmm

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Anyone defending these people (especially the 60% in arrears) is most likely a beneficiary of the states incompetence here, so I don’t think I’ll bother providing those details.

But thanks for asking.

So if someone disagrees or questions you, or points out that there may be some doubt over what you read in the papers is 'a beneficiary of the states incompetence'.


For what is worth, I pay far, far more into the system than I get out if it. Unfortunately that means having to accept there are a wide range of ridiculous views out there, a lot of which I disagree with.

Thingymebob

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm genuinely curious about this, do you really think I'm winding you up just because I say we should build more social housing? What exactly did I say that's winding you up? I really thought this was just a boring chat about housing resources, it kind of bothers me that building houses for people should be a controversy.

You’ve avoided the question. There’s supposedly a need for 138,000 social houses according to ‘Rebuilding Ireland’. They cost €250,000 to build each. That’s €34,500,000,000 (yes, count the zeros). Genuinely where do you think we’re going to get the money for this?

I’m fed up with being expected to pay taxes to create an unbalanced utopian paradise where I go to work support my own family and pay taxes while the neighbour sits at home all day and waits for his hand out. Oh, but he gives me a cheery wave from the taxi on the way to the airport. I’m not quite sure why he needs a holiday from the life of Reilly but there you go.

If you want a home, go out to work. Any support is temporary, not permanent and that includes access to social housing. Compare workers on equal salaries, one with a mortgage or market rent, one with a social housing property. Why should one be placed at an advantage over another? They shouldn’t! If you aren’t able to better yourself in two years, then you’ve wasted your opportunity, move out.

mariaalice

Thingymebob wrote: »

You’ve avoided the question. There’s supposedly a need for 138,000 social houses according to ‘Rebuilding Ireland’. They cost €250,000 to build each. That’s €34,500,000,000 (yes, count the zeros). Genuinely where do you think we’re going to get the money for this?

I’m fed up with being expected to pay taxes to create an unbalanced utopian paradise where I go to work support my own family and pay taxes while the neighbour sits at home all day and waits for his hand out. Oh, but he gives me a cheery wave from the taxi on the way to the airport. I’m not quite sure why he needs a holiday from the life of Reilly but there you go.

If you want a home, go out to work. Any support is temporary, not permanent and that includes access to social housing. Compare workers on equal salaries, one with a mortgage or market rent, one with a social housing property. Why should one be placed at an advantage over another? They shouldn’t! If you aren’t able to better yourself in two years, then you’ve wasted your opportunity, move out.

How do you have a society with low or modestly paid worker, retail, support staff, care workers, child care worker all functioning societies have to have them. How are they suppose to house themselves with out support?

I ist so illligocial, in their head it make sense but they do not make the connection as they drop their daughter off to the creach to be looked after staff that are paid 12 euro and hour and on the way home they went in to the supermarket to get two steaks at the butcher counter served by staff who are earning 12 euro and hour.

And nonsensical answers that they can move to north kildare and have a 70k commute each way, are just that a nonsensical answer.

Thingymebob

If you want a better quality of life, then you need to upskill so you can progress and earn more money. If you want to sit at the bottom forever, then that’s going to mean your choices are limited. I do think that childcare is underpaid (even though we don’t have kids) and perhaps more government run crèches would be an idea, but equally, if you’re a retail assistant, do courses get yourself up to supervisor and manager level. Lidl and Aldi pay their manager well. I’ve personally not stopped studying in over ten years. I’ve gained a undergrad and masters and two diplomas. My income has gone up by almost 40%

If you’ve got two couples, both start out with the same secondary education; one couple study while working (No grants as part study), the other simply works in low wage jobs. In five years, couple one has finished studying and their incomes are up, while couple two has only had a small increase due to wage agreements. In ten years, couple one has saved for their deposit but has foregone the all inclusive holidays, the brand new phones etc, the big nights out every weekend - they don’t know what a hangover is They’ve kept studying, upskilling themselves. The second couple are going on holidays 3 times a year, new iPhones, cars on PCP etc, they apply for social housing as they’re sick of living with Ma& Da. They end up living next to each other in the same estate, recognise each other from school. Now couple one are paying a mortgage, theyve got a credit union loan for their college fees, have older model cars but paid for and have had two holidays in the last decade. Couple two pay maybe a 20th of what couple one pay on a mortgage and are waving as they head off on their next sunny break, still in the same job, having done nothing to improve - whose the bigger fool? Because couple one have worked their arses off Only to arrive at the same position as couple two, who’ve been kicking back and enjoying life.
There’s very few people who are deserving of a permanent home at €40 a week. Mortgage affordability is supposed to be calculate on 33% of your gross income (that was the formula applied to our application) so social housing tenants should be paying 33% of their income.

mariaalice

Thingymebob wrote: »

If you want a better quality of life, then you need to upskill so you can progress and earn more money. If you want to sit at the bottom forever, then that’s going to mean your choices are limited. I do think that childcare is underpaid (even though we don’t have kids) and perhaps more government run crèches would be an idea, but equally, if you’re a retail assistant, do courses get yourself up to supervisor and manager level. Lidl and Aldi pay their manager well. I’ve personally not stopped studying in over ten years. I’ve gained a undergrad and masters and two diplomas. My income has gone up by almost 40%

If you’ve got two couples, both start out with the same secondary education; one couple study while working (No grants as part study), the other simply works in low wage jobs. In five years, couple one has finished studying and their incomes are up, while couple two has only had a small increase due to wage agreements. In ten years, couple one has saved for their deposit but has foregone the all inclusive holidays, the brand new phones etc, the big nights out every weekend - they don’t know what a hangover is They’ve kept studying, upskilling themselves. The second couple are going on holidays 3 times a year, new iPhones, cars on PCP etc, they apply for social housing as they’re sick of living with Ma& Da. They end up living next to each other in the same estate, recognise each other from school. Now couple one are paying a mortgage, theyve got a credit union loan for their college fees, have older model cars but paid for and have had two holidays in the last decade. Couple two pay maybe a 20th of what couple one pay on a mortgage and are waving as they head off on their next sunny break, still in the same job, having done nothing to improve - whose the bigger fool? Because couple one have worked their arses off Only to arrive at the same position as couple two, who’ve been kicking back and enjoying life.
There’s very few people who are deserving of a permanent home at €40 a week. Mortgage affordability is supposed to be calculate on 33% of your gross income (that was the formula applied to our application) so social housing tenants should be paying 33% of their income.

So you are judging people who stay in retail, delivery driving, low skill factory work, bar staff, care work because they have not 'improved' themselves, completely illogical society has to have those job and they are all low or modest paying and in Dublin and surrounding areas would not allow you to purchase a home.

mick087

Thingymebob wrote: »

You’ve avoided the question. There’s .

You’ve avoided the question. There’s supposedly a need for 138,000 social houses according to ‘Rebuilding Ireland’. They cost €250,000 to build each. That’s €34,500,000,000 (yes, count the zeros). Genuinely where do you think we’re going to get the money for this?
Rubbish it would cost for a decent 3 or 4 bed house 150 000. who ever said it costs 250000 is telling lies.

I’m fed up with being expected to pay taxes to create an unbalanced utopian paradise where I go to work support my own family and pay taxes while the neighbour sits at home all day and waits for his hand out. Oh, but he gives me a cheery wave from the taxi on the way to the airport. I’m not quite sure why he needs a holiday from the life of Reilly but there you go.
Maybe your children might need help one day maybe your gran kids might need a hand out as you put it.

If you want a home, go out to work. Any support is temporary, not permanent and that includes access to social housing. Compare workers on equal salaries, one with a mortgage or market rent, one with a social housing property. Why should one be placed at an advantage over another? They shouldn’t! If you aren’t able to better yourself in two years, then you’ve wasted your opportunity, move out.
Support should there for who ever needs it for as long as they need it.

There shouldn't be an advantage, private landlords need more regulation a fixed rent in line with city council rent charges would be good.

Thingymebob

mariaalice wrote: »

So you are judging people who stay in retail, delivery driving, low skill factory work, bar staff, care work because they have not 'improved' themselves, completely illogical society has to have those job and they are all low or modest paying and in Dublin and surrounding areas would not allow you to purchase a home.

They should be an entry level stepping stone - if you’re still doing the same job after 20 years at minimum wage then you shouldn’t be surprised if you can’t afford to live in a city centre location in a 3 bed semi and instead have to commute from 50km away The jobs are essential but it’s not essential that the same person does them for 40 or 50 years

Thingymebob

mick087 wrote: »

Rubbish it would cost for a decent 3 or 4 bed house 150 000. who ever said it costs 250000 is telling lies.

SCSI estimate the cost of a 3 bed semi at €330,500. If you take off the marketing and sales costs, it’s down to €322,293

https://www.scsi.ie/documents/get_lob?id=885&field=file

mick087 wrote: »

Maybe your children might need help one day maybe your gran kids might need a hand out as you put it.

We don’t have any kids, and we’re both only children. I had cancer but had to work through treatment and rely on savings. We can’t afford fertility treatment as we have to pay our own accommodation etc We’re not getting a free ride

mick087 wrote: »

Support should there for who ever needs it for as long as they need it.

The problem is (and what you seem determined to ignore) too many don’t need it, they’re taking it anyway as it’s a lifestyle choice. That means money that could be legitimately spent better elsewhere. If I had to choose where my last euro was going, it would be to the disabled, to caregivers, or to healthcare. It sure as hell wouldn’t be to the feckless who want a free house for life at the expense of the taxpayer

mick087 wrote: »

There shouldn't be an advantage, private landlords need more regulation a fixed rent in line with city council rent charges would be good.

I’d disagree. It’s too hard to get tenants with arrears or anti social behaviour out. If they’re damaged the property, you’ve got a better chance of finding an 18ct nugget in a KFC box than getting the compensation from the tenant

mick087

Thingymebob wrote: »

SCSI estimate the cost of a 3 bed semi at €330,500. If you take off the marketing and sales costs, it’s down to €322,293

https://www.scsi.ie/documents/get_lob?id=885&field=file

This is nonsense and rubbish, not you or you view dont get me wrong your entilted to that. But this buidding a house will cost 333000. They are scaremongering making out it costs this much. If its not scaremongering then something sinsister is going on with who ever is building these homes.

andekwarhola

I was brought up in a local authority house and I'm furious that we never availed of our 3 holidays a year. Is there some way I can get them backdated?

kenmm

andekwarhola wrote: »

I was brought up in a local authority house and I'm furious that we never availed of our 3 holidays a year. Is there some way I can get them backdated?

Your folks were probably too busy running multiple businesses and coming up with new ways to scam the system.

You are a scumbag of the highest order, don't you know???

fatboy69

The policy needs to focus on building affordable housing, not social housing. I do think long term tenants should be given a reduction to buy their council house. Id imagine over time they have improved the house substantially and kept the maintenance and building in good condition.

If a family are earning above 40k, they can afford a mortgage but the rents are so crippling they havnt a change.

The state should set up a building company, not for profit. This would allow for apprentices to complete training . Keep the threshold under 60k per family and it hitting the working poor