Right to a house?

jm08 · 22-12-2017 12:00AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Because they have jobs and families already.

Dropping several hundred untrained and unemployed people into a village will work you think?

Seriously tell me, will that succeed?

You wouldn't drop several hundred untrained or unemployed people into the same village, mostly because there wouldn't be any accommodation for that number.

Ear to the Ground included a piece on some Cork village which was suffering badly from emigration where the local people themselves got together to do something about it. One of the things they did was build about 12 houses for old people who were living out in the country on their own (the money was borrowed and loan guaranteed by the local development organisation themselves), they bought a building which now has a restaurant/coffee shop with a local person who is a chef running it (they are booked out up to 14th Feb), and they also have a creche/playschool with about 25 kids in it.

As for the transport issue - more than likely there would be transport to any major town where there would be work. For example, there is a bus service that starts in Portumna at about 6am and heads to Dublin via town like Tullamore and ends up in UCD, Belfield every week day. There are several of those kinds of busses every day around the country. Most people do have cars down the country, but then its cheaper to live down there so they would be able to afford their own car.

Quin_Dub · 22-12-2017 01:19AM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No. That's mostly mythical.

Where ever you reside or where you became homeless; that's the council you apply to. One council can't allocate homes from another.
Also to move down the country you need apply for special schemes, it's not an option on the table when you go on the housing list.
Also, if you are offered a home and turn it down because of location, you are penalised. It's not something that happens as often as apologists claim.

I would dearly love to see numbers on who won't work yet claims welfare and those who turn down homes because of location.

This is something that absolutely should change..

Absolutely no reason why someone shouldn't be able to be offered a home within a reasonable commuting distance from their desired location - That's what people buying their own homes have to do..

What's wrong with somebody applying to Fingal Council and being offered a place just over the border in Meath or from Limerick being offered housing in North Tipp or Clare for example??

Anything up to ~1hr away in all directions should be perfectly legitimate.. And to be honest, they should have to provide fairly strong reasons why they want to stay in a particular place too.

People move house all the time and their kids change schools etc. , that shouldn't be any different for someone looking for state funded accommodation.

MayoSalmon · 22-12-2017 01:48AM

Morally, you have no right to demand housing off me and likewise I have no right to demand housing of you.

Now I may recognise your necessity and provide charity

22-12-2017 01:57AM

jm08 wrote: »

You wouldn't drop several hundred untrained or unemployed people into the same village, mostly because there wouldn't be any accommodation for that number.

Ear to the Ground included a piece on some Cork village which was suffering badly from emigration where the local people themselves got together to do something about it. One of the things they did was build about 12 houses for old people who were living out in the country on their own (the money was borrowed and loan guaranteed by the local development organisation themselves), they bought a building which now has a restaurant/coffee shop with a local person who is a chef running it (they are booked out up to 14th Feb), and they also have a creche/playschool with about 25 kids in it.

As for the transport issue - more than likely there would be transport to any major town where there would be work. For example, there is a bus service that starts in Portumna at about 6am and heads to Dublin via town like Tullamore and ends up in UCD, Belfield every week day. There are several of those kinds of busses every day around the country. Most people do have cars down the country, but then its cheaper to live down there so they would be able to afford their own car.

Well no sh1t sherlock but that is what Eric WAS suggesting, so maybe read the comments previously rather than jumping right in

22-12-2017 02:15AM

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Morally, you have no right to demand housing off me and likewise I have no right to demand housing of you.

Now I may recognise your necessity and provide charity

You have no right to demand a primary/secondary/third level education off of me.

Or roads, ambulance, policing, Max €100 medicines, children's allowance, college grant, public healthcare, consular assistance etc etc etc

It's called society and we (generally) live in a society who looks after the more vulnerable.

As for your charity, aren't you great, think of that the next time you send your kid to school for free (even private schools have state paid teachers), or drive anywhere, it's society.

I got to laugh; based on both average and median salaries I would earn more than most people posting here and I can tell you right now I could easily afford to be hit with more taxes, to fund a social housing programme. Because an investment in a countries citizens is never a waste.

More social housing built means more general housing stock and higher disposable income for those in these houses.
More housing stock means less pressure on the private rental market, meaning lower rents for all you poor renters complaining that "they are getting houses for free". Having them as your competition with Rent Allowance is causing a false floor in the cost of rents, as well as just more people to bid against.

Lower private rents also mean less one off landlords and more houses back into the market for purchase.

The lack of social housing is the KEY reason for the rental crisis we are seeing and in the long term (over 70 or so years) social housing does pay for itself per unit.

Right now we are losing out to other countries in Europe as there is no way of attracting people to work here because there is no where for them to live.

How is extra housing a bad thing I might ask? "But they get it for less than me" boo hoo.
The cost of social housing is absolutely nothing compared to what we are going to have to pay in terms of compensation for the Tracker Mortgage crimes, or the general bank bail out.

Target your ire where it should be, at the upper levels of business and wealth. We pay taxes to service the debt landed on us, how many houses would have been built with 10% of the bail out of unsecured bonds?
They are talking €1,000,000,000 for the tracker fund, where will that come from? How many houses is that?

But no, you keep targetting a tiny percentage of that cost in social builds, and a further tiny percentage of that defrauding the system.

And if your private rent is too high, take it up with your gouging landlord.
Mortgage rate too high? Take it up with your 2% rate adding bank (Vs European rates)

Wheeliebin30 · 22-12-2017 06:22AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You have no right to demand a primary/secondary/third level education off of me.

Or roads, ambulance, policing, Max €100 medicines, children's allowance, college grant, public healthcare, consular assistance etc etc etc

It's called society and we (generally) live in a society who looks after the more vulnerable.

As for your charity, aren't you great, think of that the next time you send your kid to school for free (even private schools have state paid teachers), or drive anywhere, it's society.

I got to laugh; based on both average and median salaries I would earn more than most people posting here and I can tell you right now I could easily afford to be hit with more taxes, to fund a social housing programme. Because an investment in a countries citizens is never a waste.

More social housing built means more general housing stock and higher disposable income for those in these houses.
More housing stock means less pressure on the private rental market, meaning lower rents for all you poor renters complaining that "they are getting houses for free". Having them as your competition with Rent Allowance is causing a false floor in the cost of rents, as well as just more people to bid against.

Lower private rents also mean less one off landlords and more houses back into the market for purchase.

The lack of social housing is the KEY reason for the rental crisis we are seeing and in the long term (over 70 or so years) social housing does pay for itself per unit.

Right now we are losing out to other countries in Europe as there is no way of attracting people to work here because there is no where for them to live.

How is extra housing a bad thing I might ask? "But they get it for less than me" boo hoo.
The cost of social housing is absolutely nothing compared to what we are going to have to pay in terms of compensation for the Tracker Mortgage crimes, or the general bank bail out.

Target your ire where it should be, at the upper levels of business and wealth. We pay taxes to service the debt landed on us, how many houses would have been built with 10% of the bail out of unsecured bonds?
They are talking €1,000,000,000 for the tracker fund, where will that come from? How many houses is that?

But no, you keep targetting a tiny percentage of that cost in social builds, and a further tiny percentage of that defrauding the system.

And if your private rent is too high, take it up with your gouging landlord.
Mortgage rate too high? Take it up with your 2% rate adding bank (Vs European rates)

Ok so.

How many social houses do you want built?

Cost analysis please including where the money will come from seems you have it all sorted.

Jim2007 · 22-12-2017 07:56AM

The lack of social housing is the KEY reason for the rental crisis we are seeing and in the long term (over 70 or so years) social housing does pay for itself per unit.

No, a housing policy that relies on people taking on huge amounts of debt or social services to put a roof over their head is the KEY reason for the rental crisis! It has never worked, indeed it has never worked in any country and has resulted in people suffering serious financial loss as a consequence.

pgj2015 · 22-12-2017 08:00AM

oceanman wrote: »

That's where the real problem lies....not with the homeless, but nobody wants to address that problem, least of all the government. The rich get richer...

that is not a problem, fair play to the rich for getting richer, its better than sitting around doing nothing, having as many kids as you want even though you live in a hotel (at the tax payers expense) and then whingeing and moaning that the government wont give you a free 6 bed house beside your family.

22-12-2017 08:41AM

Jim2007 wrote: »

No, a housing policy that relies on people taking on huge amounts of debt or social services to put a roof over their head is the KEY reason for the rental crisis! It has never worked, indeed it has never worked in any country and has resulted in people suffering serious financial loss as a consequence.

I think that you need to, nice and slowly, read what I wrote. We have a lack of affordable rental accommodation, which social builds would correct.
The lack is driving up rents (gouging at that wonderful aspiration of "market rate"), higher rent yields drives several things including, but not limited to
Speculators buying stock
More one off landlords
Higher unit price
Lower unit availability for owner/occupation
Again higher unit price

(and cycle)

Social housing would begin to relieve that pressure and break the current cycle but the government is made up of landlords (TDs need to begin disclosure of business interests) and also will not interfere in the inflation of property related taxes

Chips Lovell · 22-12-2017 10:11AM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

This is something that absolutely should change..

Absolutely no reason why someone shouldn't be able to be offered a home within a reasonable commuting distance from their desired location - That's what people buying their own homes have to do..

Agreed. We're in the middle of a housing crisis and there's people all over the country having to make compromises. Sure, it's nice to get somewhere in the area you want to live, but a roof over ones head ought to be the priority.

tringle · 22-12-2017 10:36AM

Everyone should have a roof over their head but I don't believe anyone has the "right to a house" and in particular the mini palaces that some people are now demanding. We talk about how homelessness and the housing crisis are at their greatest ever. But are they really...they are greater than the 90s and 00s but I don't believe greater than before that. We just counted differently then, you were homeless only if you lived on the streets.

Most houses I have lived in were accommodating at least two families. I was born in the late 60s and lived in inner city Dublin in 60s and 70s. At the time it was normal when you got married to move in with a family member and usually it was a bed in the sitting room not a spare bedroom. We lived in a two bedroom Victorian terrace with my great grandfather. When he died my aunt moved in, we were 4 parents and 3 children in a two bedroom house with no bathroom and a toilet in the yard. Older people on our street whose families had moved away took in lodgers. By today's counting half of these families would be homeless.

The young couples and families today expect too much from accommodation. We built a new house and tried to let our small family 3 bedroom home (in a rural village). One couple with two babies said it was too small as it didn't have a separate dining room to use as a playroom. Another single mother with a four year old wanted a new couch as it was only a two seater and she wanted a three seater. I get annoyed that as a landlord I was expected to provide microwave/ hoover/toaster/kettle. I don't have a microwave myself and the house had no carpets....use a brush. (No longer ours now so don't have to deal with any more demanding prima donnas).

I am now a boomerang parent. Adult son lives with me. Daughter, son in law and baby moving in with us in January as their rental property has been repossessed and nowhere else in the village available. Other adult daughter lives and works in Dublin, she has just moved in with her grandparents as private renting and houseshares way to expensive and also to be able to help care for her grandmother. Again all of these could be considered homeless and go moaning to the council but isn't helping each other what family is about.

Everyone has the right to a roof over their head and a warm safe bed but some need to lower their expectations to fit their means. Social housing lists need to be looked at and culled of all those who have refused an offer of reasonable accommodation. It should also be possible to look at what the local community will gain from housing a family, will they work, will they contribute to the community, will they support local shops and businesses.

I don't think moving the permanently unemployed families from cities to villages is the solution but maybe a version of it could be looked at. I know two families who were a sucess of the rural relocation programme early 90s. Other options such as more decentralization of businesses and services should be looked at. The greater Dublin area does not need more industrial estates and warehouses.

I am saddened this Christmas that there are children staying in emergency accommodation but angry that for some of these children it is purely the fault of the parent, that the expect to be housed as a right.

22-12-2017 10:44AM

tringle wrote: »

Everyone should have a roof over their head but I don't believe anyone has the "right to a house" and in particular the mini palaces that some people are now demanding. We talk about how homelessness and the housing crisis are at their greatest ever. But are they really...they are greater than the 90s and 00s but I don't believe greater than before that. We just counted differently then, you were homeless only if you lived on the streets.

Most houses I have lived in were accommodating at least two families. I was born in the late 60s and lived in inner city Dublin in 60s and 70s. At the time it was normal when you got married to move in with a family member and usually it was a bed in the sitting room not a spare bedroom. We lived in a two bedroom Victorian terrace with my great grandfather. When he died my aunt moved in, we were 4 parents and 3 children in a two bedroom house with no bathroom and a toilet in the yard. Older people on our street whose families had moved away took in lodgers. By today's counting half of these families would be homeless.

The young couples and families today expect too much from accommodation. We built a new house and tried to let our small family 3 bedroom home (in a rural village). One couple with two babies said it was too small as it didn't have a separate dining room to use as a playroom. Another single mother with a four year old wanted a new couch as it was only a two seater and she wanted a three seater. I get annoyed that as a landlord I was expected to provide microwave/ hoover/toaster/kettle. I don't have a microwave myself and the house had no carpets....use a brush. (No longer ours now so don't have to deal with any more demanding prima donnas).

I am now a boomerang parent. Adult son lives with me. Daughter, son in law and baby moving in with us in January as their rental property has been repossessed and nowhere else in the village available. Other adult daughter lives and works in Dublin, she has just moved in with her grandparents as private renting and houseshares way to expensive and also to be able to help care for her grandmother. Again all of these could be considered homeless and go moaning to the council but isn't helping each other what family is about.

Everyone has the right to a roof over their head and a warm safe bed but some need to lower their expectations to fit their means. Social housing lists need to be looked at and culled of all those who have refused an offer of reasonable accommodation. It should also be possible to look at what the local community will gain from housing a family, will they work, will they contribute to the community, will they support local shops and businesses.

I don't think moving the permanently unemployed families from cities to villages is the solution but maybe a version of it could be looked at. I know two families who were a sucess of the rural relocation programme early 90s. Other options such as more decentralization of businesses and services should be looked at. The greater Dublin area does not need more industrial estates and warehouses.

I am saddened this Christmas that there are children staying in emergency accommodation but angry that for some of these children it is purely the fault of the parent, that the expect to be housed as a right.

Excellent post. I think it’s a generation thing. Young people want it all and want it now, with as little effort on their own part.

Seth Brundle · 22-12-2017 11:19AM

Fann Linn wrote: »

It's not really a social housing problem when people in private rented accommodation are paying 50% of their income on rent.
It's a private rental problem which the govt won't address.

...and how can they fix it quickly?

Idbatterim · 22-12-2017 12:05PM

kbannon wrote: »

...and how can they fix it quickly?

Just editing this post. As I re read again and you said how can they fix it quickly. Whack up lpt, might force those with extra bedrooms to rent them out, thus making better use of ACcomodation. Politically they will never do that though.

Other quick fix in my opinion. Allow studio or apartments to rear of properties. These new wooden units are the last word in luxury compared to many of the "legal" hovels people are renting. Allow them for perhaps five years, at which point, their legality would be reviewed. But five years would be enough to pay for these units comfortably, I would imagine Alf also obviously generate a decent profit for the property owner. Thanks

Allow higher density. Smaller units. Single aspect apartments. Rezone more land. That is stuff they actually would do / are contemplating.

get Nama Involved, it can accesss money at near zero interest. Perhaps even get it to be a state house building scheme. Builders can tender for the entire project or break it up into phases / zones of large and they could tender for that. The builders margin doesn't need to be as large when there is no risk, which there wouldn't be with the state as client...

server down · 22-12-2017 12:18PM

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Ok so.

How many social houses do you want built?

Cost analysis please including where the money will come from seems you have it all sorted.

The cost of state or council social housing will be offset by

1) the rent coming in &
2) the reduction in payments of private rent.

The costs would be the repayments on a 30+ year loan.

The biggest mistake ever made was selling off council houses. Imagine a landlord who had paid off his mortgages and was making money off rent. He has obligation to house his tenants. That’s fine. He is housing them. Then he sells off the houses at below market rents but has to pay the decendents of the tenants to rent privately. Over time that rent subsidy increases as private rent increases. He loses both the rent coming in and now has to pay ever increasing money out.

That’s what we did.

server down · 22-12-2017 12:20PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Excellent post. I think it’s a generation thing. Young people want it all and want it now, with as little effort on their own part.

Utter rubbish. Houses were cheaper back in the day, more people could afford them, people bought those houses at a younger age. Rent was cheaper. Deposits were less Those who could never afford a house could get more easily available council housing rather than the less secure private housing.

recedite · 22-12-2017 12:28PM

There is no quick fix. Quick fix is just the politician's BS way of feeding the homeless industry monster with more money. Hotels "modular housing" "rapid build housing" etc.. these all have the stink of lobbyists about them. Fine for emergencies, but we need a proper solution.

Build more social housing, or pay private contractors to do it. But these houses should be fairly basic, separate to private housing, and not in the best locations. Otherwise whats the point? There is no incentive for anyone to pay a mortgage or rent privately.
Starting now, it will take up to 5 years to build proper council houses. But then, if we had started 5 years ago, it would be done by now. Only let the tenants buy out the houses and pass them on to their kids after they have paid the equivalent of full market value (with credit for rent paid over the years as if it had been a mortgage).

Forget about twiddling around with the people on tracker mortgages. Cut standard mortgage interests rates for everybody to the ECB base rate; 2%. The ECB lends out the money at that rate, just pass it on direct to the consumer via a state bank. That makes houses twice as affordable straight away.
Fewer people then require social housing.

Remove the tax incentives for hoarding development land. Instead of the Property Tax, slap on a Site Valuation Tax instead for all land in the state. That makes it uneconomical to sit on development land. More houses get built, rents fall as a consequence.

Chips Lovell · 22-12-2017 12:41PM

Increasing the amount of money people can borrow doesn't make houses more affordable, it just makes them more expensive, which is what happened in the last boom.

oxygen · 22-12-2017 01:02PM

recedite wrote: »

There is no quick fix. Quick fix is just the politician's BS way of feeding the homeless industry monster with more money. Hotels "modular housing" "rapid build housing" etc.. these all have the stink of lobbyists about them. Fine for emergencies, but we need a proper solution.

Build more social housing, or pay private contractors to do it. But these houses should be fairly basic, separate to private housing, and not in the best locations. Otherwise whats the point? There is no incentive for anyone to pay a mortgage or rent privately.
Starting now, it will take up to 5 years to build proper council houses. But then, if we had started 5 years ago, it would be done by now. Only let the tenants buy out the houses and pass them on to their kids after they have paid the equivalent of full market value (with credit for rent paid over the years as if it had been a mortgage).

Forget about twiddling around with the people on tracker mortgages. Cut standard mortgage interests rates for everybody to the ECB base rate; 2%. The ECB lends out the money at that rate, just pass it on direct to the consumer via a state bank. That makes houses twice as affordable straight away.
Fewer people then require social housing.

Remove the tax incentives for hoarding development land. Instead of the Property Tax, slap on a Site Valuation Tax instead for all land in the state. That makes it uneconomical to sit on development land. More houses get built, rents fall as a consequence.

Those areas would be similar to ghettos and projects, we shouldn't look to be creating\expanding these areas of disenfranchisements. I hate the thoughts of moving a family with children to a rough neighbourhood because the market value is cheaper so it benefits landlords and private home owners. What chance are we giving that child? We sending them a very specific message.

Providing social housing in the same location as private housing gives everyone an equal opportunity to be a part of our society as a whole. We shouldn't be looking to move “undesirables” to the outskirts of Tallaght or commuting from Carlow etc etc. There are always going to be a small contingent who look to “milk” the system, that’s unavoidable. But in providing fair, good, accessible social housing gives people a chance to get a leg up and become a working tax paying member of society. Its economically sound, its just not economically sound for landlords or private developers.

mikep · 22-12-2017 01:28PM

Interesting move by DCC here..looks like the plan to mix social and private housing isn't really a runner..
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/private-developer-gives-discount-to-dublin-city-council-on-block-of-apartments-for-social-housing-trade-off-819948.html

tringle · 22-12-2017 02:05PM

server down wrote: »

Utter rubbish. Houses were cheaper back in the day, more people could afford them, people bought those houses at a younger age. Rent was cheaper. Deposits were less Those who could never afford a house could get more easily available council housing rather than the less secure private housing.

Why? Wages were much lower, I know my dad worked and had less disposable income than families on social welfare now. We shared houses because there were no houses available. A two bedroomed house was perfectly suitable to raise a family of 8 in...now a 2 bedroom house is barely acceptable to a couple.

MayoSalmon · 22-12-2017 02:56PM

I know should be moving them into areas like Blackrock and the sort...they will all rid themselves of the behaviours that make them so called "undesirables" within a week or two. Equality achieved!

James Brown · 22-12-2017 03:16PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, that certainly seems to be the case from looking at the figures. I haven't seen or heard an alternative credible explanation.

A growing population, less people able to afford rent, less people able to get by. There's lots of reasons.
Can you support people refusing homes and still been given hotel rooms with any stats from CSO?
It should be noted people are made two offers so it stands to reason they'll refuse one, but what ever makes good hay.

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

The state is there to give an education, keep hospitals open, install law and order etc.

Its not there to give people handouts from the cradle to the grave, its not sustainable in this day and age.

Everyone able bodied needs to contribute to the pot.

Completely agree.
What's happening is people are saying those in need, including working tax payers, are being neglected.
The comeback is stories about welfare lifers and people lying. So it can get confusing. Nobody as far as I can tell is supporting 'free money' or the mythical 'free house' to people who purposefully avoid work and try play the system. That's just attempts at taking the discussion off road.

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Ok so.

How many social houses do you want built?

Cost analysis please including where the money will come from seems you have it all sorted.

As many as it takes for the market to cool.

Funding;
Re-purpose Fine Gael's developer friendly €5.35 billion 'Social Housing' Strategy to make it a Social Housing strategy.

Re-purpose the developers friendly Bank NAMA and it's €70bn in loans at more favourable rates than other banks are willing to offer.

Make no mistake, the state is in the house building business, mostly for supporting private builds. The difference is we have housing stock to show and we recoup via rents over time with Social.

An increase in housing construction to create a functioning housing market and we are targeting the construction of 25,000 new homes every year by 2020.
47,000 new social housing units through a €5.35 billion Social Housing Strategy.
We will work together – and those with other good ideas – to address the consequences of the devastating construction bubble and the property crash.
https://www.finegael.ie/our-priorities/housing-homelessness/

Ireland's controversial new "bad bank" has overnight become one of the biggest property banks in the world after it completed the acquisition of developers' loans worth more than €70bn (£59bn).
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/dec/20/ireland-nama-banks-property-loans

Using money reclaimed from bust developers to fund developers at better rates than other banks. Only in Ireland.
But hey, lets tell stories about young ones complaining about wall paper.

recedite · 22-12-2017 04:09PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Increasing the amount of money people can borrow doesn't make houses more affordable, it just makes them more expensive, which is what happened in the last boom.

And why was it called a boom? Because lots of houses got built. Because there was a good profit in building them.

The problems arose when banksters lent people more money than they could afford to repay, and charged interest rates way above the ECB base rate. Those are separate issues, which should be addressed separately.

mikep wrote: »

Interesting move by DCC here..looks like the plan to mix social and private housing isn't really a runner..
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/private-developer-gives-discount-to-dublin-city-council-on-block-of-apartments-for-social-housing-trade-off-819948.html

Its good to see the voice of reason starting to prevail at last...

Dublin City Council's Deputy Chief Executive Brendan Kenny said the deal is a first of its kind.
"At the end of the day, our job is to get housing units. There's a housing crisis in the city at the moment," he said.
"We think this is a better deal. We do have problems mixing social housing into private developments. There's tension there [with private residents]. It is better for us, in this situation, to have a full development," he added.

oxygen wrote: »

Those areas would be similar to ghettos and projects, we shouldn't look to be creating\expanding these areas of disenfranchisements. I hate the thoughts of moving a family with children to a rough neighbourhood because the market value is cheaper so it benefits landlords and private home owners. What chance are we giving that child? We sending them a very specific message.

That is just sanctimonious nonsense. I know a guy who grew up in a notorious block of flats, but he was brought up well by a single parent, and went on to do well at school. A warm secure home and a free education provided by the state. This is what it should be all about; equal opportunity. Not equal lifestyle for all.
Low income and middle income workers don't expect to be moved into the the same areas and houses that are occupied by high income earners. So why should they be landed with a neighbour who doesn't work at all, yet has been given the same or better lifestyle? Worse still, somebody who might have anti-social behaviours.

FreudianSlippers · 22-12-2017 04:13PM

server down wrote: »

How is the welfare state causing people to be poor? The taxes were raised to pay for the bank bailouts. Private sector rent is impoverishing people. Not social welfare.

We spend more than twice as much per annum on social services alone than servicing debt; 3 times as much on social services and health.

The alternative would have been much worse.

server down · 22-12-2017 04:24PM

tringle wrote: »

Why? Wages were much lower, I know my dad worked and had less disposable income than families on social welfare now. We shared houses because there were no houses available. A two bedroomed house was perfectly suitable to raise a family of 8 in...now a 2 bedroom house is barely acceptable to a couple.

How far back was this? The early 19C? It’s no way that was common a generation ago. Also a two bedroom is a two bedroom. How many kids you have is up to you.

The actual statistics are that 80% of people owned their houses by the end of the 80s, early 90s

James Brown · 22-12-2017 04:27PM

oxygen wrote: »

Those areas would be similar to ghettos and projects, we shouldn't look to be creating\expanding these areas of disenfranchisements. I hate the thoughts of moving a family with children to a rough neighbourhood because the market value is cheaper so it benefits landlords and private home owners. What chance are we giving that child? We sending them a very specific message.

Providing social housing in the same location as private housing gives everyone an equal opportunity to be a part of our society as a whole. We shouldn't be looking to move “undesirables” to the outskirts of Tallaght or commuting from Carlow etc etc. There are always going to be a small contingent who look to “milk” the system, that’s unavoidable. But in providing fair, good, accessible social housing gives people a chance to get a leg up and become a working tax paying member of society. Its economically sound, its just not economically sound for landlords or private developers.

Great point.
The market value of publicly owned land shouldn't even come into it. It's the land that has value for what it can provide, selling it off has a lot to do with us being where we are. Also if you put a family in an area with a stigma attached, poor quality schools and little to no infrastructure, it in the least will make it difficult for people to try get ahead.

server down · 22-12-2017 04:27PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

We spend more than twice as much per annum on social services alone than servicing debt; 3 times as much on social services and health.

The alternative would have been much worse.

A lot of that social welfare - the majority - is pensions.

It doesn’t matter that the “alternative was worse”. The banking led collapse is why we have higher taxes and are constrained in our spending. It’s also why developers are thin on the ground. We are poor because of badly regulated financial capitalism.

NIMAN · 22-12-2017 04:31PM

tringle wrote: »

A two bedroomed house was perfectly suitable to raise a family of 8 in...now a 2 bedroom house is barely acceptable to a couple.

Many 'rules' now exist that wouldn't have back in the 70s or 80s.

If you have a mix of boys and girls among your children, they need to have separate bedrooms, isn't that right? A girl wouldn't be expected to share a bedroom with her brother?

Add to this, its only a matter of time before we hear of some claimant say they have 3 children, a boy, a girl and another who doesn't want to be seen as either, so they need 3 additional bedrooms for that.

I might say it tongue in cheek, but watch this space.

James Brown · 22-12-2017 04:53PM

NIMAN wrote: »

Many 'rules' now exist that wouldn't have back in the 70s or 80s.

If you have a mix of boys and girls among your children, they need to have separate bedrooms, isn't that right? A girl wouldn't be expected to share a bedroom with her brother?

Add to this, its only a matter of time before we hear of some claimant say they have 3 children, a boy, a girl and another who doesn't want to be seen as either, so they need 3 additional bedrooms for that.

I might say it tongue in cheek, but watch this space.

And you feel there'll be sufficient amounts of this kind of situation for it to have a big effect or are we just looking to assign fault anywhere we can?

Right to a house?

Comments