Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The cost of travelling to work is becoming unsustainable

Options
1234689

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    TheAnalyst_
    Registered Users Posts: 1,371 ✭✭✭TheAnalyst_


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    why would you even bother driving 1.5km?
    It's a nicer way to start the day cocooned in my expensive sports car. I also like to have my car at work if I want to drive to the beach for lunch.


  • Options
    #153
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    TheAnalyst_ wrote:
    It's a nicer way to start the day cocooned in my expensive sports car.

    Aongus? :D


  • Options
    #154
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    It absolutely is. It adresses issues of homelessness, poverty, social exclusion.

    How many houses are needed for this 3rd option that addresses the issues you mention?

    (we'll ignore there are underlying issues that result in homelessness in most cases)


  • Options
    #155
    lucernarian
    Registered Users Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    Augeo wrote: »
    Enough social housing as a 3rf option will never be built.
    If we resort to that too many will get on the gravy train.

    As you say there's a huge number of low income workers. Being on low income & being handed a council house isn't a solution to anything from a big picture viewpoint.
    Except commoditising homes as though they were a thing of value is not very sensible and isn't serving us well. A greater proportion of public-owned social welfare housing, where its appropriately built (NOT what Ballymun was built as), would be very good IMO. It should also tie in with very good public transport and amenities, and also not be too far from employment generators.


  • Options
    #156
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    All well and good in theory but people forget that Ireland has a large amount of people that are experts at putting the hand out.

    If being on low income gets a house handed to you than the numbers requiring housing will be vast.

    "Except commoditising homes as though they were a thing of value is not very sensible" - as long as most people have to pay rent or a mortgage a home is a thing of value.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    lucernarian
    Registered Users Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    Augeo wrote: »
    All well and good in theory but people forget that Ireland has a large amount of people that are experts at putting the hand out.

    If being on low income gets a house handed to you than the numbers requiring housing will be vast.

    "Except commoditising homes as though they were a thing of value is not very sensible" - as long as most people have to pay rent or a mortgage a home is a thing of value.
    Sorry - should have fleshed out what I meant by "value". IMO homes shouldn't be regarded as commodities. I think the concept of purely-private and for-profit leasing of housing is actually rather bad for society and the people who have to endure such conditions. The facilitation of this is almost like a transfer payment from people who have no choice but to pay this money, into the hands of private investors of one kind or another.

    As for the actual subject of this thread, we really ought to look towards reducing or eliminating car taxes and shift it to fuel taxation. The costs should be even more closely linked to usage and less for simply having it and using it infrequently.

    Alas, unless our counterparts up north and in London move similarly, there'll only be more fuel smuggling.


  • Options
    #158
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users Posts: 12,113 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    lucernarian wrote: »
    Sorry - should have fleshed out what I meant by "value". IMO homes shouldn't be regarded as commodities. I think the concept of purely-private and for-profit leasing of housing is actually rather bad for society and the people who have to endure such conditions. The facilitation of this is almost like a transfer payment from people who have no choice but to pay this money, into the hands of private investors of one kind or another.

    As for the actual subject of this thread, we really ought to look towards reducing or eliminating car taxes and shift it to fuel taxation. The costs should be even more closely linked to usage and less for simply having it and using it infrequently.

    Alas, unless our counterparts up north and in London move similarly, there'll only be more fuel smuggling.

    A home should be a home. My first experience of this was in the mid/late 90s in a Dublin "Suburb" - AKA in a different county. I listened to all the new home owners talking about how their houses had increased in value. I asked them if they sold up where would they move to? Further out they replied, to make a killing. Then I asked about quality of life? Blank looks. Hadn't a clue what I was talking about. Some moved on and some stayed and cashed in via a remortgage. Neither has any quality of life now for a variety of reasons. Circa 2009 and negative equity. Moan moan and moan. What does it matter, if that little house is your home. But we stopped doing "homes" in Ireland. We started doing "property projects".

    The obsession with owning land/house/property in Ireland is perhaps the reason we are at the title of this thread. The irish themselves created this "unsustainability".


  • Options
    #159
    lucernarian
    Registered Users Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    Again, sorry for going off topic. I've no problem with individuals owning a home and treating it as an investment for life. My issue is with private landlords making money off the backs of people needing a home, who have no chance of social housing due to the poor way this country has been run, or haven't enough money to buy their home full stop.


  • Options
    #160
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,362 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    TheAnalyst_ wrote: »
    Ultimately if you have only yourself to blame. You have the power to change yoru situation. If a 2 hour commute each way to the midlands is your only solution then suck it up.

    I drive 1.5km to my job. It takes a few minutes in city traffic. I have free parking and pay no motor tax or tax on my fuel. It makes my life a daily pleasure.
    I did the sums and left Ireland years ago and I always crack a smile when my old mates whatsapp group is alight about 3 hour delays on the m50.

    Why would you drive 1.5km? Your may laugh at your mates now but it sounds like your on track for a heart attack


  • Options
    #161
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,362 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    lucernarian wrote: »
    Again, sorry for going off topic. I've no problem with individuals owning a home and treating it as an investment for life. My issue is with private landlords making money off the backs of people needing a home, who have no chance of social housing due to the poor way this country has been run, or haven't enough money to buy their home full stop.

    Private landlords provide a service and give people homes, how do you feel about shop keepers making a profit off people's needs to eat or utility companies making s profit off people who need to keep food frozen etc


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    BuffyBot
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 24,924 Mod ✭✭✭✭BuffyBot


    Let's try to veer back towards the topic..


  • Options
    #163
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,479 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    The thing a lot of people never account for when commuting is their time value as well. Driving for 90 minutes (say) is expensive enough as it is but if you value your time it starts getting really off the wall. At least with PT you can read a book or do a crossword and get some entertainment value, or cycling can count as exercise time as well but even if you value you time at minimum wage (never mind any more) commuting time starts adding up very quickly!


  • Options
    #164
    afatbollix
    Registered Users Posts: 4,046 ✭✭✭afatbollix


    My brother in law commutes into London each day. A 90 min trip each way and costs over £500 a month or about £6K a year. He says its hard to get a seat on the train in the morning its that busy!

    They are thinking of selling up and moving up north. We sometimes don't know how good we have it.


  • Options
    #165
    ClovenHoof
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,121 ✭✭✭ClovenHoof


    This government seems to be hell bent on destroying rural Ireland and locating as many jobs in Dublin as possible


    I hope this is a joke. I really do.


  • Options
    #166
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users Posts: 12,113 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    ClovenHoof wrote: »
    I hope this is a joke. I really do.

    You'd swear rural Ireland was back in famine times the way some go on.


  • Options
    #167
    Heisenberg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,511 ✭✭✭Heisenberg1


    OP do you have taxsaver train ticket? I seen somewhere that you can avail of station car parking for a cost of €220 per year if you have one of those tickets would that help you out?

    https://www.taxsaver.ie/Taxsaver-Car-Parking-Offer-2016/


  • Options
    #168
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,616 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    You'd swear rural Ireland was back in famine times the way some go on.
    just one example - the government have announced they are using public money to provide broadband to people who have chosen to live in places where provision of services is going to be more expensive. certainly not all those people have chosen to live a mile from the nearest village, but many have, and the rest of us have to subsidise that choice.


  • Options
    #169
    mikeym
    Registered Users Posts: 3,985 ✭✭✭mikeym


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You don't get free travel on the dole. Only if you are an OAP, disabled or a carer for either.

    Theres plenty of scumbags on the Luas that have free travel passes that dont look disabled.

    Some of them make a bit of money on the side dealing drugs on the Luas.

    Total slap in the face to the honest worker.


  • Options
    #170
    Nomis21
    Registered Users Posts: 1,409 ✭✭✭Nomis21


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    just one example - the government have announced they are using public money to provide broadband to people who have chosen to live in places where provision of services is going to be more expensive. certainly not all those people have chosen to live a mile from the nearest village, but many have, and the rest of us have to subsidise that choice.

    By choosing to move out of the city and go live in a remote place these people free up space in the city for people who need to live there for work.

    We would not deny them electricity or water. Broadband makes it possible to live in a remote place. I would not be living where I am now without a broadband connection as I am 100 kilometres from the nearest city and knew no one around here when I moved.


  • Options
    #171
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users Posts: 12,113 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    mikeym wrote: »
    Theres plenty of scumbags on the Luas that have free travel passes that dont look disabled.

    Some of them make a bit of money on the side dealing drugs on the Luas.

    Total slap in the face to the honest worker.

    Junkies are considered disabled. I know how you feel, but that's the reality of it. For example, one day you could consider yourself fine. Then you could decide to present at a psychiatric wing of a hospital claiming you are suicidal. Sign yourself in. Tell the doc how you apparently or actually feel. Done deal for social and FTP.

    I only use a local bus now and again. Im the only one paying. The rest are OAPS and those that are "disabled". It ranges from the obvious to lots of youngsters with iPhones, Smart phones and bag loads of shopping. There is a wanton waste of money within the social welfare system.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,616 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Nomis21 wrote: »
    By choosing to move out of the city and go live in a remote place these people free up space in the city for people who need to live there for work.
    and those who work in the city pay for them to do so.
    i've no issue with people who need to live in the countryside doing so. but if you choose to do it, the rest of us are subsidising that choice.


  • Options
    #173
    Nomis21
    Registered Users Posts: 1,409 ✭✭✭Nomis21


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    and those who work in the city pay for them to do so.
    i've no issue with people who need to live in the countryside doing so. but if you choose to do it, the rest of us are subsidising that choice.

    I think if someone retires from work at 66 years old and is occupying a property in the city centre of Dublin they should get every encouragement to move into a remote area as they are benefiting society in the city and also by moving to a remote area they contribute financially to an area which likely is in need of some financial input.


  • Options
    #174
    n97 mini
    Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    Nomis21 wrote: »
    We would not deny them electricity or water. Broadband makes it possible to live in a remote place.

    I would have no issue with people living in remote locations if they bore all the costs of doing so themselves. But they don't, instead they are subsidised by transfers from urban areas. One has to only look at the LPT system to see how one half of the population is funding the others half's living standards.


  • Options
    #175
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    and those who work in the city pay for them to do so.
    i've no issue with people who need to live in the countryside doing so. but if you choose to do it, the rest of us are subsidising that choice.

    Most things in the country side are cheaper. For everything else there are urban residents to subsidise.


  • Options
    #176
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,247 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    n97 mini wrote: »
    I would have no issue with people living in remote locations if they bore all the costs of doing so themselves. But they don't, instead they are subsidised by transfers from urban areas. One has to only look at the LPT system to see how one half of the population is funding the others half's living standards.
    Every person who chooses not to live in a remote location adds to the competition for accommodation in large urban centres. You can't have it both ways...


  • Options
    #177
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    endacl wrote: »
    Every person who chooses not to live in a remote location adds to the competition for accommodation in large urban centres. You can't have it both ways...

    Who is having things both ways, the person who expects cheaper housing and subsidised internet or the person who expects cheaper housing and more expensive internet?


  • Options
    #178
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,980 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Nomis21 wrote: »
    I think if someone retires from work at 66 years old and is occupying a property in the city centre of Dublin they should get every encouragement to move into a remote area as they are benefiting society in the city and also by moving to a remote area they contribute financially to an area which likely is in need of some financial input.

    What? hive off old people into rural isolation?

    Sounds like a horrendous policy

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #179
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,616 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    psinno wrote: »
    Most things in the country side are cheaper. For everything else there are urban residents to subsidise.
    so it's cheaper to have old people living in out of the way places - where water, electricity, broadband, waste disposal, general transport, etc., are more expensive to provide?


  • Options
    #180
    n97 mini
    Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    endacl wrote: »
    Every person who chooses not to live in a remote location adds to the competition for accommodation in large urban centres. You can't have it both ways...

    The answer is to build more sustainable accommodation in urban areas, especially Dublin where there is ample opportunity to build upwards, not to move people out to locations needing subsidies.

    The notion of moving retirees away from major hospitals at a time of their lives when they'll most need it is completely daft.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,980 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    psinno wrote: »
    Most things in the country side are cheaper.

    What evidence have you for this?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



Advertisement