Family of seven sleep in Garda station Mod note post one

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ergo the house isn’t free because it’s owned by the council, unless the occupants are paying a mortgage on it. Otherwise the occupants do not own the property.

The house is owned by a landlord that the council pays rent to , you clown

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The people who are accommodated in the units by the council can’t afford them either?

Exactly, begs the question why they have such high level finishes really doesn't it?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not for me it doesn’t. Whoever built the units would have been expected to build them to modern standards if they were to sell at all. The council buys them, owns them, and rents them out. The tenants never own the properties, they sign a tenancy agreement either with the council, or if there are a housing agency managing the tenancy on the councils behalf, that’s who are supposed to maintain the property and make sure the tenants are adhering to their tenancy agreement. Standard stuff like.

Modern standards is not chrome fittings, granite worksurfaces, expensive tiles, sanitary ware, etc... Those are extra.

Just on the other thing you mentioned, tenants often do get the option to buy the property from the council at a subsidised rate. I believe after a certain number of years.

Ush1 wrote: »

Modern standards is not chrome fittings, granite worksurfaces, expensive tiles, sanitary ware, etc... Those are extra.

We have different standards I guess.

Just on the other thing you mentioned, tenants often do get the option to buy the property from the council at a subsidised rate. I believe after a certain number of years.

Yep, we were over that when it was brought up already about all the single mothers in one council estate. I’m still in shock Joe.

Ush1 wrote: »

Why post on the thread if you don't care where your tax money is going?

I do care where my tax money is going, I just don’t care how other people choose to live their lives. They’re two different things.

Ush1 wrote: »

We likely do, but the thing is I work and pay for my differing standards.

I do too, and that has nothing to do with the council buying properties and renting them to people who need accommodation.

Couple of posts up, poster made a point about the residents in a small council housing estate all being single mothers with televisions, Sky tv and American fridges no less! I was shocked, only thing for it might be to call Joe Duffy and complain.

Ush1 wrote: »

No they are one and the same when tax money is funding how some people choose to live there lives. This isn't complicated stuff. "Standard", to use your own terminology.

They aren’t one and the same because tax taken at source is money you never see anyway, and you have no choice whatsoever in how or where it is spent by Government. Government chooses to fund welfare, housing, education, health and so on, and doesn’t interfere or intervene in private citizens lives to the degree you would wish them to. I wouldn’t want them to either, as that would give them the right to interfere and intervene not just in the lives of people you would wish them to intervene in, but it gives them the right to intervene in your life and my life in ways other people would wish them to interfere and intervene according to their standards. I’d rather not give Government that kind of power tbh, and it would be rather foolish of anyone to advocate doing so.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They aren’t one and the same because tax taken at source is money you never see anyway, and you have no choice whatsoever in how or where it is spent by Government. Government chooses to fund welfare, housing, education, health and so on, and doesn’t interfere or intervene in private citizens lives to the degree you would wish them to. I wouldn’t want them to either, as that would give them the right to interfere and intervene not just in the lives of people you would wish them to intervene in, but it gives them the right to intervene in your life and my life in ways other people would wish them to interfere and intervene according to their standards. I’d rather not give Government that kind of power tbh, and it would be rather foolish of anyone to advocate doing so.

I have a choice with my vote, but what you are talking about is largely irrelevant. I "see" the money being spent on roads, hospitals, public services. I also "see" the money being spent on frivolous things such as expensive finishes for council tenants.

This is nothing to do with government power and personal sovereignty, it's to do with the attitude of people who abuse a system and politicians who don't want to deal with a backlash of changing such a system in such a way that abuse can be lessoned.

I'll reiterate, if you don't care where your tax money goes, why post on the thread? You seem to be circling round this point in obtuse ways.

BBFAN wrote: »

So you can only post on this thread if you're outraged??

I'm a taxpayer and not in the slightest pissed off at this situation because 1.5% of my taxes go towards the social welfare bill, a pittance considering I hope to make it to old age and collect the state pension.

Great, you're happy with the current situation. However I'm not seeing the counter arguments for the points people are making in this thread?

Yours seems to be, well it doesn't bother me?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I don’t see the problem there. If people cannot afford housing, they may qualify to be placed on the housing list and may be placed in a modern unit as opposed to sub-standard accommodation which would cost the council even more in repairs and maintenance to bring it up to modern standards.

The things I listed are not "modern standards". They are not the building fabric, they are the finishes. They are not regulated in the same way as the structure of the property. It is optional for the government to spend more money on it.

Again, if you have no problem, I don't see why were talking? Many people do and don't think it's fair that it can be advantageous to pursue social housing.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It has everything to do with you not bothering to read posts. Me, earlier -

I'm reading the post you replied to me with, which is patently wrong.

Not for me it doesn’t. Whoever built the units would have been expected to build them to modern standards if they were to sell at all. The council buys them, owns them, and rents them out. The tenants never own the properties, they sign a tenancy agreement either with the council, or if there are a housing agency managing the tenancy on the councils behalf, that’s who are supposed to maintain the property and make sure the tenants are adhering to their tenancy agreement. Standard stuff like.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not circling around your point, I’ve addressed it directly -





That you didn’t like the answer you got isn’t my problem.

You being incorrect is not me "not liking" the answer. I'm just pointing out you're wrong.

Ush1 wrote: »

The things I listed are not "modern standards". They are not the building fabric, they are the finishes. They are not regulated in the same way as the structure of the property. It is optional for the government to spend more money on it.

And like I already said, and I thought we had agreed - we have different ideas about what are and aren’t modern standards. This all arose out of your friend being jealous that they couldn’t afford either to rent or buy a property that was finished to modern standards, standards that people who can afford to rent or buy the property would expect as standard in 2018.

Again, if you have no problem, I don't see why were talking? Many people do and don't think it's fair that it can be advantageous to pursue social housing.

The thread is more specific than that though. I don’t have a problem with anyone pursuing social housing, I don’t agree that it is particularly advantageous over paying for ones own private accommodation, not least of all the fact that you don’t have to deal with people who feel you don’t deserve to live in modern standard accommodation, but also because you have to deal with idiots who think they’re paying for your tv. Do you have any idea how cheap TVs are nowadays? I went down to Tesco about three weeks ago to buy batteries for the tv remote, came home with a 50” Phillips tv. I figured I might as well. THAT’S how cheap they are.

I'm reading the post you replied to me with, which is patently wrong.

Then you’re wilfully misinterpreting that post too. You’re quite aware I wasn’t talking in that post about tenants who choose to buy the properties you were referring to from the council, but tenants who sign tenancy agreements, which are clearly not the same as having a mortgage agreement with the council.