Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)

Don't buy in a new estate

1234579

Comments

  • Posts: 18,752 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I cannot grasp why anybody would be jealous of someone living in a council house.

    I would much prefer to own my own house.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,800 ✭✭✭ Markcheese


    I don't disagree that problem residents / neighbours need problem management - but that counts in all housing types -


    So someone is happy to concentrate the problem cases - in someone else's neighbourhood - most tenants in council or former council estates don't deserve to have all the problem cases dumped on them -

    Actually the former council estates in Dublin that are now half million euro houses are they to be exempt from having problem cases because of the current value of the houses -

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users Posts: 287 ✭✭ Jmc25


    It's a difficult one. On taxation - we can't really tax low earners much more or there'd simply be no incentive to work in low paid employment.

    On welfare - if we cut it to increase the incentive to work even at higher levels of taxation on lower incomes, poverty would increase and some (not all) recipients would seriously struggle to maintain even a basic standard if living.

    Overall, in terms of income and taxation, it generally pays to be in employment Vs on welfare.

    On housing - the balance that exists between being in low paid employment and on welfare isn't there. On the housing front it is quite clearly more beneficial to be on welfare so you can essentially have means of zero and apply for HAP or social housing.

    I'd even go further and say in some cases it's better to be on welfare than in relatively well paid employment when it comes to housing costs.

    So yeah, in terms of housing at least, you could argue the social contract is broken.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,493 ✭✭✭ HerrKuehn


    I agree it is difficult, I don't think it will be solved either. That is why I don't believe in the country in the longer term. If I ask myself, will Ireland be more like Switzerland say, with good services and social system, in 20 years? I would say definitely not. We don't have the culture here to achieve that. It is all much shorter term thinking. If Homer Simpson ran for sanitation commissioner here he would be shoo-in.

    I am one of the ones doing better, but I have to say if they are looking at increasing taxes I am planning on working abroad as a remote contractor.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭ Redkite200


    Have you been back lately? Just wondering as all I see since moving back to Ireland recently is once lovely and quaint villages and small towns being ruined by the introduction of fairly big and largely ugly new developments/ housing estates despite such small communities not having the basic local services that should be required before such projects are built. Does anyone else feel this way? I'm going a bit off topic here granted and I know houses have to be built somewhere and lots of people are crying out for them but some seem to be to the detriment of some of our nicest villages and small towns while the surrounding countryside is getting eaten up by contractors. That's my admittedly cynical view. Not a comment on social housing, just on the sort of carefree approach to planning in this country.



  • Registered Users Posts: 630 ✭✭✭ tjhook


    I think a key consideration is the question of why social housing exists, and what are our (society's) responsibilities in this area?

    I'd like to see a graduated solution rather than what we have today.

    Firstly, any of us can fall on hard times, and it benefits us all to give people a helping hand in such circumstances. So I'd like to see social welfare being related to your pre-unemployment income, for some period of time. I.e. you can stay in your own home and meet commitments while you get back on your feet. Your commitments/outgoings are likely to be related to the income you had before your situation changed for the worse. And you were likely paying into the tax bucket in relation to your income. I don't know for how long this should last, but an initial suggestion would be a significant portion of your income for a year, then maybe reducing for another year.

    Then, at some stage, it has to be recognised that things are taking longer to change for the better. It's not feasible to keep the original home if payments can't be made on it, but there should still an effort to support people to get back on their feet. At that stage I can see a big benefit to having social housing integrated with private housing. Maybe this phase lasting up to a few years.

    Finally, there has to be acceptance that somebody is unlikely to become self-sufficient. That they are likely to need society's support on an ongoing basis. I definitely wouldn't be in the "throw them onto the street" camp, but I think at this stage it's fair enough to consider dedicated areas of social housing. Cheap but livable. And other supports (education etc) available for those who do desire a move back into the workforce.

    Editing to add: I'm only really talking about social housing here, I think affordable housing is a separate area



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,094 ✭✭✭✭ javaboy


    If the council has 700k to spend on buying second homes, it would be nice to see them knocking on random doors in 4-500k estates and offering the owners 6-700k for their house. The owner can then trade up to a 6-700k house.

    The social housing recipient still gets a decent house.

    The council would only buy a set percentage of houses across various areas so no clustering of social housing.

    The people who sold their 500k house for 700k feel great because they got some of their taxes back, weren't leapfrogged by someone who hasn't paid as much into the system, and now live in a nicer house/area.

    The new neighbours who lived in the 700k estate already are less irritated because the gap in what they paid/are paying for their house vs their new neighbours is not as wide.

    It preserves the notion that working harder is more rewarding.



  • Registered Users Posts: 303 ✭✭ .42.


    We’re affordable housing attached to the tax payer in anyway when being built?


    A three-bedroom house in Ballymun has sold for €325,000, an increase of more than 90 per cent on its purchase price when it was bought under an affordable housing scheme less than four years ago.

    The house built by housing co-operative Ó Cualann Cohousing Alliance went on the market two weeks ago for €250,000 a mark-up of almost 50 per cent on its original sales price of €170,000.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 62,184 Mod ✭✭✭✭ L1011


    The seller will have to pay a clawback, as stated in the article.



  • Registered Users Posts: 303 ✭✭ .42.


    What % is the clawback on profit?

    never mind

    This would result in a clawback payment of €57,353



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,493 ✭✭✭ HerrKuehn


    The article mentions between 115k-150k profit for the seller.



  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 62,184 Mod ✭✭✭✭ L1011


    The clawback is based on discount not profit; this (should/used to, at least - there was such a long time between the old and current schemes) ensures that it has to be paid even if the house is sold for a paper loss.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,098 ✭✭✭✭ Kermit.de.frog


    You've won the thread with that one.

    Fundamentally it's about fairness, which is all anyone wants for everyone. It is patently not fair for those who take responsibility for themselves and do all the right things to have to play Russian roulette in this way with regard to social housing in new estates.

    And that applies to workers in social housing too who also face these problems.



  • Registered Users Posts: 796 ✭✭✭ Viscount Aggro


    Heard a story about a couple bought a place in Hunters Wood, Ballycullen.

    He called next to ask about keeping the noise down.

    Later that night a big gas canister got put thru their window.

    They ended up moving shortly afterwards.

    You have to realise .. most people are skangers, and the tax and welfare system encourages it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,386 ✭✭✭✭ mariaalice


    The same posters complains all the time about social housing, it's a perennial topic on boards in several shapes and forms but there is one point that always gets missed, who complains the loudest?. In an estate of houses selling 500-700k, you may get someone saying F me some of them are very rough ( something I have heard someone say about the social housing in their estate) but they don't really have an issue with the social houseing it's not relevant to them they come from families who have been middle class for generations they are secure and comfortable with themselves, it's those who have scraped in by their fingernails who look down those in social housing.

    Post edited by mariaalice on


  • Registered Users Posts: 559 ✭✭✭ MSVforever


    I have a solution. Let's create a few highrise tower blocks for social housing on the outskirts of the cities/towns like in mainland Europe which provides basic housing needs, i.e. a roof over your head.

    If you want to better yourself and get a 3 bed semi then you know what do. This keeps the cost down and there won't be any begrudgery from people working their back sides off for a mortgage.



  • Registered Users Posts: 559 ✭✭✭ MSVforever


    To be honest if the house is the same as the private house then I can understand why people would be jealous. Let's take SDCC for example: The minimum rent of a council house is €23 per week or 10% of the households net income (source: sdcc.ie - differential rent scheme).

    If you buy the same house with a mortgage over 20 years (purchase price €300k) you are paying easily €1500 p.m. (excluding insurances etc).

    You also have to factor in maintenance costs over the years.

    What happens if you loose your job and can't pay the mortgage? The banks take ownership of the house. If you loose your job while living in a council house your rent will be reduced by the council. The only advantage of owning a house is that you have an asset for your kids.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 659 ✭✭✭ Fred Cryton


    This is actually the solution. 100% social estates out of sight and out of mind. And if they want something better they can work for it. But impossible to say in modern times.



  • Posts: 18,752 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I notice the opposite.

    posters complaining that big council estates lead to issues also don't believe that social housing should be mixed with private estates.

    you would wonder where these posters think social housing should go!



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭ brainboru1104


    It's not jealousy. It's the notion that we have to work hard to save and earn enough to buy our own place, all while having our hard earned salaries garnished to give a free house to the family next door who contribute nothing other than pumping out children.



  • Registered Users Posts: 303 ✭✭ .42.




  • Posts: 18,752 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    But that is jealousy!

    If you want their life, you too can not work and apply for council housing.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,884 ✭✭✭ enricoh


    We like to do things different in Ireland. A mate of mine works on a nearby estate, the poverty spec houses are the ones a couple are paying for themselves.

    The top spec houses are the ones bought by the council/ charities. A lot of the extras are so the tenants can't possibly sue the council!



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭ brainboru1104


    I don't think you know what jealousy is. I don't want their life. I want them to take responsibility for their own. I don't want to subsidize their lifestyle choice.

    It's easy to understand.



  • Posts: 18,752 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Someone has something you don't have in your eyes.

    They got something for 'free', something you had to work for.

    that's jealousy, and I don't understand it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭ brainboru1104


    Still not jealousy. I'm not sure how to help you with this. I blame our education system.


    I'm sensing that you are one of the people who benefit from my labour. That makes sense.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,429 ✭✭✭✭ Geuze


    Yes.

    I face a marginal tax rate of approx 60%.

    My relations claim welfare, although not entitled, and do a nixer. As a result, they drive a vehicle that I could only dream about, not afford.

    I am not jealous of them, I don't want their life.

    But, I do not want to subsidise their lifestyle with my taxes.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement