Skihunta13 wrote: » I said you know 1 decent council estate family. My point is as soon as you introduce council houses into a private estate you seriously devalue all houses in that estate. House should gain in value. What makes it worse is the cause of your house being devalued only pays €40 pr week. No they will neverown the house but whats the advantage in that when it will be valued well below market value!
limnam wrote: » Wheeliebin30 stated most council houses are now owned by the people living in them, you can't buy a council house unless you're in full time employment like any other mortgage. So it seems like the vast majority are people who deserved to be looked after. Glad to see you're coming around on this. Working class people have kids Middle class people have kids. upper class people have kids. But you think one set is doing it just for a house? nonsense. Do you really think having 3/4 kids and multiplying your children's allowance is it profitable business? You obviously don't have kids. The add on per child on SW doesn't come anywhere close enough to the real cost of raring a child. Maybe we should stop giving children's allowance to bono and Micheal O'Leary and people who genuinely don't need the money. But lets just keep having a crack at "poor" people for having children. The neck of them.
LexieOnRale wrote: » There's plenty of girls I went to school with who have 2/3 kids, no jobs and in receipt of benefits. These wouldn't be rough people either. There's 1 girl I know, 1 day older than me (I'm late 20s) who's pregnant with her 6th child and has NEVER worked and declares herself single on her Facebook page. She was in primary and secondary school with me and it's very much her following in her parents footsteps. She's in a 4 bed house, regularly complaining about the local council not meeting her needs by finding her/housing her in a larger home. I mean where do you really go from there? The people who actually got jobs and established careers for themselves from my year have maybe 1 child or are just recently married and have not yet had any children. Children's allowance should be capped at 2 children. No grants for maternity bags, buggies or cots. If you cannot afford the basics then maybe wait until you can.
Samaris wrote: » The selling of council houses was a problem, albeit not for the very passing sensation of "that's so unfair". It was part of the house-buying act under Thatcherism and was seen as a boost to spreading wealth in terms of ability to own a valuable asset through part of the community that had little chance of it otherwise. That gives a boost to people later when it comes to, say, educating their children, and ultimately ends up good for society. The problem is that it resulted in far less houses available for those who needed them in a new generation. And the houses that were left tended to be pretty undesirable for one reason or another (including poor access to services, to employment and/or to schools), with the better ones being bought up by tenants as was their right. Those who were left or who came into the system from a new generation, got a very raw deal. That resulted in a massive need for new social housing and when housing -was- sold on, as housing is in general, the "first refusal" clause for the council resulted in many council houses being leased to the council from private landlords. Which is a bit daft. It wasn't a bad idea in theory, but it really didn't work well in practice. An objection of "it's not fair, they get more help than I do!" is a pretty shallow argument against it though.
limnam wrote: » It's a nice story, but a few girls you went to school with getting "knocked up" doesn't mean people are doing this in order to get a house. As I said the add on to SW per child is relatively small, compared to the actual amount required to raise a child. People from all backgrounds have kids. What's your plan? credit checks before people have sex?
LexieOnRale wrote: » People can have sex and reproduce all they like, just not while sucking off the publics teat. Have all the kids you like but don't be going with your hand out looking for taxpayers coin. If it's like you say and people don't do this to be housed then surely there won't be a problem when it's not met
LexieOnRale wrote: » And there's no proof that they're not doing it because it's the lifestyle they've grown up with, the same mentality of their parents that this is how life is. You have as many children as you like as you don't have to concern yourself with the responsibility of housing them or providing for them
limnam wrote: » You're making that assumption after saying there's no proof. You're talking rubbish. Everyone of them will have their own set of circumstances. It's too easy to throw them all into the same bucket and come up with this nonsensical argument. As I said before, if it's such an easy life. Try it on for size. Lets know how you get on.
LexieOnRale wrote: » No thanks, there's more to life than sitting at home scratching my balls waiting for handouts.
Samaris wrote: » Funny how people only seem to know council estate residents where no-one works and they're all scamming the system. All of the people I can think of from council housing estates in my home town (generally parents of people I went to school with who lived in the council estates in the town) work pretty hard in generally low-paying jobs to provide for their families. My anecdotal evidence against someone else's anecdotal evidence, sure. But I guess they don't count, everyone knows that only the middle class and above who work every day for a living deserve help from the State. If they're going to work in low-paying jobs, they deserve all they get, ofc. At least society is consistent in one respect. There's always contempt for the poorer people in society.
Galwayguy35 wrote: » But that's the thing, the middle classes who work and generate tax that pays for all these things get nothing from the State.
Samaris wrote: » I'll be happy enough if I can afford to pay out my own housing cost (and get a house out of it at the end).
Galwayguy35 wrote: » We have one of the most generous welfare systems in the world for a country our size, yet come budget night the RTE audience will be filled with people whinging they didn't get enough in welfare increases. Welfare was never meant to be a lifestyle choice, it's time to root out the people who see it as such and help those tho lost their jobs through no fault of their own and are genuinely looking for work.
limnam wrote: » The peasants in the working classes manage to generate a few quid in tax also.
ziggyman17 wrote: » give it a rest..........
LexieOnRale wrote: » There's plenty of girls I went to school with who have 2/3 kids, no jobs and in receipt of benefits. These wouldn't be rough people either. There's 1 girl I know, 1 day older than me (I'm late 20s) who's pregnant with her 6th child and has NEVER worked and declares herself single on her Facebook page. She was in primary and secondary school with me and it's very much her following in her parents footsteps. She's in a 4 bed house, regularly complaining about the local council not meeting her needs by finding her/housing her in a larger home. I mean where do you really go from there?
LexieOnRale wrote: » Children's allowance should be capped at 2 children. No grants for maternity bags, buggies or cots. If you cannot afford the basics then maybe wait until you can.
Wheeliebin30 wrote: » Ireland has the highest rate of jobless generational households in Europe. Work that one out. But it's a tiny number according to some here. Head firmly buried in the sand.
Galwayguy35 wrote: » We have one of the most generous welfare systems in the world for a country our size, yet come budget night the RTE audience will be filled with people whinging they didn't get enough in welfare increases.
Galwayguy35 wrote: » Welfare was never meant to be a lifestyle choice, it's time to root out the people who see it as such
Galwayguy35 wrote: » help those tho lost their jobs through no fault of their own and are genuinely looking for work.
end of the road wrote: » well she is unlikely to get any more then a 4 bed so she has gone as far as she can go. not practical in reality. the children will suffer. maybe it could be done for future situations but not current ones, but even then the risk is far to great for what we would want to achieve. the number who do not wish to work is a tiny number. that is a fact. most currently in reseat of wellfare do wish to work, but even now they're isn't enough work to go around as companies aren't investing as much in creating jobs. as things pick up, and more and more work comes on stream the unemployment rate will fall further. ireland will never have a 0% unemployment/100% employment rate. ireland also has to improve it's services so that the country will become more attractive to investers/job creaters. head firmly buried in the sand.
LexieOnRale wrote: » I disagree with this. When we were just becoming adults, the recession hit and where I am from was badly hit. This meant a lot of people my age, but older/bit younger have lived about 10 years or most of their adult life in receipt of social welfare. They've become used to living on X amount and learned they can have a pretty decent life (or at least know no better). They're used to having their days to themselves to play their Xbox, sit in their mas, go for long walks etc. That's been their entire adult life. Their housing is heavily subsidised, they can survive just fine on benefits and have all the time in the world to sit looking at each other. A guy I know got put on a ce scheme and gets an extra 20 a week and regularly puts up how he's going to work his 1 euro per hour job (he works 19.5 hours a week) So if by some miracle someone will hire them after 10 years doing nothing they're going to be on min wage, lets be realistic. So someone's who's getting 370 euro (2 people on the claim and ce scheme extra) the girlfriends minding kids cash in hand, rent allowance covers half their rent and he has time to play football/Xbox/go for long walks -- why would he want to take a full time job, work 40 hours a week coming out with the same if not less money and have to pay full rent? They're not simple. It doesn't make sense. I agree maybe sometimes they might like the idea of working but if they do find work they tend not to last very long because they're too accustomed to their old life and there's no incentive for them to take care of themselves
LexieOnRale wrote: » If you allow yourself become unemployable you should not become a burden on the state
