Imagine rejecting a 600k house

LuasSimon

kenmm wrote: »

You can't be both - not these days.

Scumbag thief or hardworking tax payer, what is it now?

Scumbag thiefs have all the rights....no places for hardworking tax payers in modern Ireland.

end of the road

Pkiernan wrote: »

You're absolutely right.

It isnt free.

Its costs hard working taxpayers a fortune.

it actually doesn't cost us a fortune, not having it certainly does however.

LuasSimon wrote: »

Scumbag thiefs have all the rights....no places for hardworking tax payers in modern Ireland.

incorrect on both counts.
everyone of us have equal rights.

Eric Cartman

The Unbearables wrote: »

Thats right. People like me who work hard paying tax and live in social housing.

Only 20% of social housing tenants work, its very much an edge case scenario these days

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Only 20% of social housing tenants work, its very much an edge case scenario these days

Surely the solution is to up the amount allowed to be earned and give more social housing to lower paid workers (incl immigrants)??


Thus taking money away from landlord and into small retailers/local econmy?

Eric Cartman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Surely the solution is to up the amount allowed to be earned and give more social housing to lower paid workers (incl immigrants)??


Thus taking money away from landlord and into small retailers/local econmy?

The answer is to triage social housing and only make premium / city based social housing available to those 20% who work , the next set would be sent to more rural areas where they are allowed to remain aslong as they stay conviction free, addiction free and make sure their kids attend school 95% of the time. Then the third traunch would be effectively like a soft prison for the problem tenants with all the support and counselling services concentrated in one area to provide help but at the same time rigorous policing to prevent polite society being impacted by the crimes.

Immigrants should have to wait 10 years before even getting on the list to wait for social housing. We should not be importing those who cant support themselves

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The answer is to triage social housing and only make premium / city based social housing available to those 20% who work , the next set would be sent to more rural areas where they are allowed to remain aslong as they stay conviction free, addiction free and make sure their kids attend school 95% of the time. Then the third traunch would be effectively like a soft prison for the problem tenants with all the support and counselling services concentrated in one area to provide help but at the same time rigorous policing to prevent polite society being impacted by the crimes.

Immigrants should have to wait 10 years before even getting on the list to wait for social housing. We should not be importing those who cant support themselves

I dont see point in moving people with no jobs,to an area,where there are no jobs tbh....its a logic i cant follow.....provide training/education and people will work,the percent who wont work is v.small imo



From what i can see its the crimes of the likes of anglo irish bank/ffg golden circle have affected everyone much more tbh

Eric Cartman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I dont see point in moving people with no jobs,to an area,where there are no jobs tbh....its a logic i cant follow.....provide training/education and people will work,the percent who wont work is v.small imo



From what i can see its the crimes of the likes of anglo irish bank/ffg golden circle have affected everyone much more tbh

The percentage who do work is very small, the idea that most in social housing will just ‘get jobs’ is false , even in 2018 coming up on the cusp of full employment it was still only 20% worked , it was 18% in 2017.

Why do we have to keep treating those 20% who do work like crap and forcing them to live beside those who dont and will never work.

That banker/anglo stuff is all just whataboutery if we could stay on topic

kenmm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The answer is to triage social housing and only make premium / city based social housing available to those 20% who work , the next set would be sent to more rural areas where they are allowed to remain aslong as they stay conviction free, addiction free and make sure their kids attend school 95% of the time. Then the third traunch would be effectively like a soft prison for the problem tenants with all the support and counselling services concentrated in one area to provide help but at the same time rigorous policing to prevent polite society being impacted by the crimes.

Immigrants should have to wait 10 years before even getting on the list to wait for social housing. We should not be importing those who cant support themselves

kenmm

LuasSimon wrote: »

Scumbag thiefs have all the rights....no places for hardworking tax payers in modern Ireland.

Thanks for making my point!

The Unbearables

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The percentage who do work is very small, the idea that most in social housing will just ‘get jobs’ is false , even in 2018 coming up on the cusp of full employment it was still only 20% worked , it was 18% in 2017.

Why do we have to keep treating those 20% who do work like crap and forcing them to live beside those who dont and will never work.

That banker/anglo stuff is all just whataboutery if we could stay on topic

At least 80% in my estate work. Hard workers just like any other estate in the country.

Grab All Association

WiMAX a comin’ across the nation

Eric Cartman

The Unbearables wrote: »

At least 80% in my estate work. Hard workers just like any other estate in the country.

must be a much older estate, and your anecdote is sadly against government housing data which shows 60% are completely welfare dependent , 20% work fully and are not welfare dependent, 10% use a mix of welfare and work , the rest are retirees or 'other'

the fact of it is the majority (and its 60%, not 51) so the sizeable majority of social housing tenants are unemployed and living off the state entirely.

kenmm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

must be a much older estate, and your anecdote is sadly against government housing data which shows 60% are completely welfare dependent , 20% work fully and are not welfare dependent, 10% use a mix of welfare and work , the rest are retirees or 'other'

the fact of it is the majority (and its 60%, not 51) so the sizeable majority of social housing tenants are unemployed and living off the state entirely.

Just to be clear, unemployed is not the same as using welfare. So although it is a majority, we would need more of a breakdown to be able to take meaning from those figures.

It's no surprise that the housing that's there to help those most in needs is being used by..wait for it.. those most in need.

It doesn't mean to say everyone is work shy, lazy, socially delinquent or whatever other reason you want to use to classify people into these shanty towns you want to build.

Eric Cartman

kenmm wrote: »

Just to be clear, unemployed is not the same as using welfare. So although it is a majority, we would need more of a breakdown to be able to take meaning from those figures.

It's no surprise that the housing that's there to help those most in needs is being used by..wait for it.. those most in need.

It doesn't mean to say everyone is work shy, lazy, socially delinquent or whatever other reason you want to use to classify people into these shanty towns you want to build.

I posted the full breakdown earlier in this thread, over 60% of social houses derive all of their income from social welfare, it means they are unemployed and only in receipt of welfare.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114158113&postcount=35

kenmm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I posted the full breakdown earlier in this thread, over 60% of social houses derive all of their income from social welfare, it means they are unemployed and only in receipt of welfare.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114158113&postcount=35

Unemployed is normally used to refer to those that are able to work, but are not.

Social welfare covers everyone who is not working but also includes retired, sick, disabled etc.

Further breakdown of the 60 would be required as I think most people would be happy for there tax money to be used to out a roof over the sick.

(And let's not go straight to tired old stereotypes about yer wan that's pumping out kids to get benefits, or forever homes etc it's getting boring at this stage)

Eric Cartman

kenmm wrote: »

Unemployed is normally used to refer to those that are able to work, but are not.

Social welfare covers everyone who is not working but also includes retired, sick, disabled etc.

Further breakdown of the 60 would be required as I think most people would be happy for there tax money to be used to out a roof over the sick.

(And let's not go straight to tired old stereotypes about yer wan that's pumping out kids to get benefits, or forever homes etc it's getting boring at this stage)

ahh the classic "they're all retired and carers and disabled" , luckily the document thats from breaks down that pensions are under 'other' as is disability payment , social welfare for that category is lone parents and working age supports only. so its still over 60% only 12.8% are retired / disabled

kenmm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

ahh the classic "they're all retired and carers and disabled" , luckily the document thats from breaks down that pensions are under 'other' as is disability payment , social welfare for that category is lone parents and working age supports only. so its still over 60% only 12.8% are retired / disabled

Didn't say all, I was clarifying the terminology.

It's easy to misrepresent data in such circumstances.

Edit: I can't see where it states disabled are included in the 'other'.
What is homemaker? That's looking after children, right?

James Brown

kenmm wrote: »

Finding work 'off the books', dodgy expense claims or other ways around tax is more acceptable if you pay a mortgage or have two cars in the drive.

The wealthier you are the more acceptable it is.

We should not be buying houses to use as social rentals. End of story.

Eric Cartman

kenmm wrote: »

Finding work 'off the books', dodgy expense claims or other ways around tax is more acceptable if you pay a mortgage or have two cars in the drive.

yes, because you're fiddling to keep your own earned money, not to keep the money you're taking out of the fund for the most vulnerable in society.

welfare Fraud / choosing not to work / false disability etc.. is morally 100x worse than tax evasion.

Yurt2

Eric Cartman wrote: »

yes, because you're fiddling to keep your own earned money, not to keep the money you're taking out of the fund for the most vulnerable in society.

welfare Fraud / choosing not to work / false disability etc.. is morally 100x worse than tax evasion.

Tax evasion is just as illegal as welfare fraud, and is likely a lot more prevalent. If you're fiddling on taxes you should be tracked down and prosecuted by revenue just as an individual committing social welfare fraud are.

If you like living in a developed country, get used to the idea of taxes, and you better get used to the idea of paying them honestly.

Eric Cartman

Yurt! wrote: »

Tax evasion is just as illegal as welfare fraud, and is likely a lot more prevalent. If you're fiddling on taxes you should be tracked down and prosecuted by revenue just as an individual committing social welfare fraud are.

If you like living in a developed country, get used to the idea of taxes, and you better get used to the idea of paying them honestly.

the issue is currently tax evaders are tracked down, named and shamed in a publicly available list and theres multiple arms of revenue to investigate and prosecute. Many have ended up in prison.

there are no lists of convicted welfare fraudsters, they receive slaps on the wrist, rarely have to pay it back and the investigation and enforcement is lacklustre.

I wish the government would go after welfare fraud as hard as they do tax evasion, let alone the 100x more resources should be dedicated to it imo.

James Brown

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the issue is currently tax evaders are tracked down, named and shamed in a publicly available list and theres multiple arms of revenue to investigate and prosecute. Many have ended up in prison.

there are no lists of convicted welfare fraudsters, they receive slaps on the wrist, rarely have to pay it back and the investigation and enforcement is lacklustre.

I wish the government would go after welfare fraud as hard as they do tax evasion, let alone the 100x more resources should be dedicated to it imo.

Its lack of interest. A few hundred thousand or million fiddled by often pillars of the community is more salacious.

AFAIK they do. I've never seen stats on these welfare ninjas. I've no doubt theres an element but the numbers are anecdotal.

Yurt2

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the issue is currently tax evaders are tracked down, named and shamed in a publicly available list and theres multiple arms of revenue to investigate and prosecute. Many have ended up in prison.

there are no lists of convicted welfare fraudsters, they receive slaps on the wrist, rarely have to pay it back and the investigation and enforcement is lacklustre.

I wish the government would go after welfare fraud as hard as they do tax evasion, let alone the 100x more resources should be dedicated to it imo.

So is welfare fraud. An acquaintance of mine worked in the investigations unit of the Department of Social Protection for a time and its very well resourced according to her.

False on the second point, they are not shy about hauling people who have committed fraud before courts, and you can read about the cases in the paper if the papers choose to report on them (not exactly sexy cases but that's up to the editor).

Tax evasion is not 100 times more morally acceptable than any other fraud you care to mention. It's illegal.

The Unbearables

Love my social house and the security it provides. Great country tbh.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the issue is currently tax evaders are tracked down, named and shamed in a publicly available list and theres multiple arms of revenue to investigate and prosecute. Many have ended up in prison.

Only small time tax evaders are.....ffg literally spent millions of tax defending apples right to evade paying tax



Hopefully that particular circus will run out of road soon

christy c

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Only small time tax evaders are.....ffg literally spent millions of tax defending apples right to evade paying tax



Hopefully that particular circus will run out of road soon

There is a difference between evasion and avoidance.

If you think spending millions was bad, you must be horrified by the complete idiots who wanted to billions that didn't belong to us. Imagine how stupid we would have looked if we did that?

christy c

christy c wrote: »

There is a difference between evasion and avoidance.

If you think spending millions was bad, you must be horrified by the complete idiots who wanted to billions that didn't belong to us. Imagine how stupid we would have looked if we did that?

Why do i have to pay tax,so the government can fight legal cases for billion dollar corporations,apple have enough money,let them.fight it


This deosnt seem right way to run a country to me anyway

christy c

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why do i have to pay tax,so the government can fight legal cases for billion dollar corporations,apple have enough money,let them.fight it


This deosnt seem right way to run a country to me anyway

Well the initial ruling had said that we (Ireland) had given illegal state aid to Apple. Our elected governments disagreed, and appealed. Seems logical to me.

christy c

christy c wrote: »

Well the initial ruling had said that we (Ireland) had given illegal state aid to Apple. Our elected governments disagreed, and appealed. Seems logical to me.

We are running a 20 billon deficit this year,apple have 200 billion in cash reserves (and more power to em).......

I do not see how anyone can think us spending millions in this sceario to assit apple in not paying tax is logical,wise or prudent......someone somewhere must have gotten a serious wedge in a brown envelope imo

christy c

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We are running a 20 billon deficit this year,apple have 200 billion in cash reserves (and more power to em).......

I do not see how anyone can think us spending millions in this sceario to assit apple in not paying tax is logical,wise or prudent......someone somewhere must have gotten a serious wedge in a brown envelope imo

Its very logical as I said, Ireland was accused of illegality, and decided to appeal. How much our defecit is or how much cash Apple have is irrelevant, given our current dependence on FDI and that the institutions of the state did not believe it was owed.