Family of seven sleep in Garda station Mod note post one

Thatnastyboy · 01-10-2018 12:38PM

BBFAN wrote: »

What exact points would you like me to argue?

All I can see is name calling. There's no arguing with that?

I'm not sure what people are expecting.

It's been said a couple of times that I'm not contributing.

How on earth is it contributing to be calling people names and making up stories?

Can I have a go?

To paraphrase you - "The solution to the current housing crisis is to build more houses"

I would like to argue these points:

Should the construction of these units be funded by public or private investment?

If private - are there restrictions on how many can be sold to private buyers, if so, what is the split social/affordable/private, and how are the social/affordable units funded? Is the devloper allowed to make a profit from this undertaking? If not, what is the incentive to invest?

If public - will there be a split social/affordable/private - or all social? Where is the funding to come from for this proposal - will it be through increased taxation or cuts elsewhere? How are these units to be divvied out, who gets them, why do they get them, and what are the parameters for qualifying for them? How do you feel about the potential social/private divide that could arise from having segregated communities (i.e. - fully council vs fully private estates/towns)?

Further to the parameters for qualifying for a social house - what incentives are there for a low/middle income earner to privately purchase a house and pay a large mortgage for 30-35 years while living next door to a person who earns a few hundred/thousand less p.a. and qualifies for a socially provided house costing them many 000s less thus leaving person 1 with a much lower disposable income and standard of living.

One eyed Jack · 01-10-2018 12:50PM

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

Further to the parameters for qualifying for a social house - what incentives are there for a low/middle income earner to privately purchase a house and pay a large mortgage for 30-35 years while living next door to a person who earns a few hundred/thousand less p.a. and qualifies for a socially provided house costing them many 000s less thus leaving person 1 with a much lower disposable income and standard of living.

The incentive for the low/middle income earner to privately purchase a house is that they now have property rights. Who’s living in the property next to them is none of their fcuking business :pac:

BBFAN · 01-10-2018 12:51PM

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

Can I have a go?

To paraphrase you - "The solution to the current housing crisis is to build more houses"

I would like to argue these points:

Should the construction of these units be funded by public or private investment?

If private - are there restrictions on how many can be sold to private buyers, if so, what is the split social/affordable/private, and how are the social/affordable units funded? Is the devloper allowed to make a profit from this undertaking? If not, what is the incentive to invest?

If public - will there be a split social/affordable/private - or all social? Where is the funding to come from for this proposal - will it be through increased taxation or cuts elsewhere? How are these units to be divvied out, who gets them, why do they get them, and what are the parameters for qualifying for them? How do you feel about the potential social/private divide that could arise from having segregated communities (i.e. - fully council vs fully private estates/towns)?

Further to the parameters for qualifying for a social house - what incentives are there for a low/middle income earner to privately purchase a house and pay a large mortgage for 30-35 years while living next door to a person who earns a few hundred/thousand less p.a. and qualifies for a socially provided house costing them many 000s less thus leaving person 1 with a much lower disposable income and standard of living.

That's a lot of questions when the thread is essentially about Margaret Cash but I'll give them a go.

I don't claim to have all the answers to the housing problem and neither does anyone typing away here on Boards this morning.

Funding-Is already in place, they announce it every year in the budget but it's just the same money as last year because they haven't actually gotten anywhere with building and therefore haven't spent the money.

Mix-I have no problem with council housing being 100% that, I was brought up in a council estate, had no traumatising effect on me. Definitely better than being dragged from hotel to hotel or private rented house to another.

Incentive for middle income earners in buying their own house is so they'll have the security of a property paid off in their old age and something to leave to their children or other family. Not sure what other incentive you want? Nobody is forced to buy a house. The main reason Irish people do is for security in their old age. If it's viewed as an investment property then I couldn't care less what incentive those people have if I'm honest.

Anyway, all of this is way off topic.

Maybe you could answer some questions:

1. Why do posters feel that Ms Cash is personally responsible for their misery?

2. What's your solution to the housing problem? Other than move everyone to Laois because that's just silly.

3. Why the need to attack anyone who disagrees with your point of view?

4. Where have I defended any of Ms Cash's more dubious actions? Other than to call out blatant lies people made up about her?

Thank you.

Ush1 · 01-10-2018 12:58PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, think you're still confused between finishings and construction standards.

The only thing disengenous or plain ignorant, is stating that a council tenant will never own a council property.

Ush1 · 01-10-2018 01:00PM

BBFAN wrote: »

What exact points would you like me to argue?

All I can see is name calling. There's no arguing with that?

I'm not sure what people are expecting.

It's been said a couple of times that I'm not contributing.

How on earth is it contributing to be calling people names and making up stories?

I don't mind if you argue or not. Saying essentially "who cares" seems to be wasting your own time on a subject you aren't interested in.

BBFAN · 01-10-2018 01:01PM

Ush1 wrote: »

I don't mind if you argue or not. Saying essentially "who cares" seems to be wasting your own time on a subject you aren't interested in.

I didn't say I wasn't interested. I said the fact that 1.5% of my taxes go on the social welfare bill doesn't fill me with rage. There's a difference.

Ush1 · 01-10-2018 01:05PM

BBFAN wrote: »

I didn't say I wasn't interested. I said the fact that 1.5% of my taxes go on the social welfare bill doesn't fill me with rage. There's a difference.

Okay, doesn't fill me with rage either.

NasserShammaz · 01-10-2018 01:07PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t think you understand how a person is assessed for a need for housing. The criteria aren’t based on their morals, or lack thereof; they’re assessed on their need for housing. It’s that simple, and because there is no queue, there is no queue to skip. It’s called a housing list, not a housing queue.

Whether or not she and her family do or do not meet your particular criteria to qualify as homeless is neither here nor there, realistically speaking. She already meets the criteria as set down in Irish legislation, as do many, many people like her in similar circumstances, whatever about their character and whether they’re a likeable person or not, that’s entirely irrelevant.

OK lets say on first assessment its purely based on need etc etc.. as you say.

It is only a matter of time before other factors come into play. Respect for you neighbours, community local area brining your kids up to respect others and leading by example.If you fail to do this and are evicted for any of the following non payment of rent/utilities/anti social behaviour/criminal activity then your access to the housing list is removed and you should be placed in alternative housing ie hostels with the rest of the dregs and left there till you can demonstrate an improvement in your behaviour.

Spitting out kids does not prove your need for housing buts does prove need for reproductive health education

One eyed Jack · 01-10-2018 01:13PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Yeah, think you're still confused between finishings and construction standards.

The only thing disengenous or plain ignorant, is stating that a council tenant will never own a council property.

I’m not confused at all. The things you mentioned I would expect as standard in Ireland in 2018 in any property whether it be private rented accommodation or property owned by the council and rented to tenants who are on the housing list. The idea of housing people in sub-standard accommodation is not a modern standard, and I think it’s a good thing that at least one council department are being responsible with the funding they’re receiving from Government and haven’t chosen to piss it down the drain.

Ush1 · 01-10-2018 01:17PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not confused at all. The things you mentioned I would expect as standard in Ireland in 2018 in any property whether it be private rented accommodation or property owned by the council and rented to tenants who are on the housing list. The idea of housing people in sub-standard accommodation is not a modern standard, and I think it’s a good thing that at least one council department are being responsible with the funding they’re receiving from Government and haven’t chosen to piss it down the drain.

Well in that case you are very much confused, because it's not standard in private rental accommodation and if you ever find yourself renting you're likely in for a rude awakening.

You think landlords choose very expensive finishes for rental properties?

Thatnastyboy · 01-10-2018 01:41PM

BBFAN wrote: »

Anyway, all of this is way off topic.

Maybe you could answer some questions:

1. Why do posters feel that Ms Cash is personally responsible for their misery?

2. What's your solution to the housing problem? Other than move everyone to Laois because that's just silly.

3. Why the need to attack anyone who disagrees with your point of view?

4. Where have I defended any of Ms Cash's more dubious actions? Other than to call out blatant lies people made up about her?

Thank you.

1. Because she is a prime example of the absolute worst cases that the DSP and councils/corporations have to deal with - yet she is being lauded as some kind of hero.

2. I don't have one, but I also don't think we have as big or the same kind of a crisis as being made out, we have a general supply issue, which has caused inflated prices/rents. Once the supply catches up, prices will level out and fall.

3. I haven't, I may have zoned in on a few poorly made points by certain posters in an attempt to highlight the fallacies in their posts alright. And their choice of champion for their cause (Ms Cash)

4. I don't recall saying you did, however I do recall saying you have not offered any contribution - which you hadn't, up to the point of your (unquoted in this post) answers given above.

One eyed Jack · 01-10-2018 01:41PM

NasserShammaz wrote: »

OK lets say on first assessment its purely based on need etc etc.. as you say.

It is only a matter of time before other factors come into play. Respect for you neighbours, community local area brining your kids up to respect others and leading by example.If you fail to do this and are evicted for any of the following non payment of rent/utilities/anti social behaviour/criminal activity then your access to the housing list is removed and you should be placed in alternative housing ie hostels with the rest of the dregs and left there till you can demonstrate an improvement in your behaviour.

Spitting out kids does not prove your need for housing buts does prove need for reproductive health education

I’m sorry mate, I genuinely can’t make head nor tails of what you’re driving at there other than agreeing with me that the housing list is based on need, and if you do have children (if you think anyone is spitting out kids then you definitely need reproductive health education), you’re generally regarded as a higher priority need for accommodation than a single person with no dependents.

The bit in the middle I don’t know whether you’re stating that a person is removed from the housing list for any of the above reasons, or whether you’re suggesting they should be. People can be disqualified from the housing list (not too sure there’s an extensive list like you’ve given, but I’ve known it to happen), but again, your assessment of housing need isn’t based upon your behaviour (though again I have known some people doing assessments who take a particular delight in that sort of moralising over people because it makes them feel better), but there is an appeals process and so on, and there are some amazing people working in housing and homeless services who are always helpful, they aren’t all incapable miserable shìtes.

The whole “dregs and hostels till they can demonstrate an improvement in their behaviour” stuff sounds like something out of a Dickens novel :pac:

Graces7 · 01-10-2018 01:45PM

NasserShammaz wrote: »

OK lets say on first assessment its purely based on need etc etc.. as you say.

It is only a matter of time before other factors come into play. Respect for you neighbours, community local area brining your kids up to respect others and leading by example.If you fail to do this and are evicted for any of the following non payment of rent/utilities/anti social behaviour/criminal activity then your access to the housing list is removed and you should be placed in alternative housing ie hostels with the rest of the dregs and left there till you can demonstrate an improvement in your behaviour.

Spitting out kids does not prove your need for housing buts does prove need for reproductive health education

inhuman workhouse mentality of the dark ages that we got rid of many decades ago thankfully

Graces7 · 01-10-2018 01:47PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m sorry mate, I genuinely can’t make head nor tails of what you’re driving at there other than agreeing with me that the housing list is based on need, and if you do have children (if you think anyone is spitting out kids then you definitely need reproductive health education), you’re generally regarded as a higher priority need for accommodation than a single person with no dependents.

The bit in the middle I don’t know whether you’re stating that a person is removed from the housing list for any of the above reasons, or whether you’re suggesting they should be. People can be disqualified from the housing list (not too sure there’s an extensive list like you’ve given, but I’ve known it to happen), but again, your assessment of housing need isn’t based upon your behaviour (though again I have known some people doing assessments who take a particular delight in that sort of moralising over people because it makes them feel better), but there is an appeals process and so on, and there are some amazing people working in housing and homeless services who are always helpful, they aren’t all incapable miserable shìtes.

The whole “dregs and hostels till they can demonstrate an improvement in their behaviour” stuff sounds like something out of a Dickens novel :pac:

we are on the same page on this; back to the workhouse mentality..

freshpopcorn · 01-10-2018 01:47PM

BBFAN wrote: »

Maybe you could answer some questions:

1. Why do posters feel that Ms Cash is personally responsible for their misery?

2. What's your solution to the housing problem? Other than move everyone to Laois because that's just silly.

3. Why the need to attack anyone who disagrees with your point of view?

4. Where have I defended any of Ms Cash's more dubious actions? Other than to call out blatant lies people made up about her?

Thank you.

To answer your questions.
1. I'm not really miserable. However I think if we had less families over reliant on the state. We'd have more money for education, health services, helping vulnerable people.
2. Apart from moving people out of Dublin which is a realistic option in my opinion.
I'd also cut down big time on the standard of finish required for houses.
Council/social housing would be fire safe, insulated, have rads, kitchen sink, doors and bathroom.
However all finishes, kitchen appliances, flooring(apart from the bathroom) would be up to you.
I'd of course be open to grants every so often for vulnerable people but I'd have stricter regulations on how the money is spent.
There is also an issue with people having large families who are over reliant on the state. This is something that needs to be addressed. Why do people continue to have kids when they are struggling. Do we need birth control to be more accesssabily for example or is it a class that we could see introduced in school. About the cost of raising a family.
3. I don't believe I have attacked Ms Cash.
4.I don't think this question is relevant to me.

One eyed Jack · 01-10-2018 01:54PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Well in that case you are very much confused, because it's not standard in private rental accommodation and if you ever find yourself renting you're likely in for a rude awakening.

You think landlords choose very expensive finishes for rental properties?

Ahh look, this is getting beyond silly now. I’m in for no rude awakening because not only am I renting myself, I’ve also refurbished plenty of rental properties, and what you’re describing is fairly standard stuff for modern accommodation in 2018.

I don’t trust you know any better than I do what goes through any landlords mind, I’ve known some people that hadn’t a clue how to be a landlord, and some people whom are excellent landlords and know exactly how to maximise the potential of their investment.

Sticking 8 people into a bedsit has never been a good investment for any amateur landlord who thinks it’s the best way to get the most profit out of their investment.

PlaneSpeeking · 01-10-2018 02:15PM

Graces7 wrote: »

[/B]

we are on the same page on this; back to the workhouse mentality..

I wouldn't brag too strongly about that.

When you've removed yourself from the high horse there perhaps you can answer this: why is it that Ms Cash and her ilk should be housed minutes away from their school (which is a joke in and of itself) whilst hard working, law abiding taxpayers have 20 hours of commuting per week.

How is that right ?

BBFAN · 01-10-2018 02:26PM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I wouldn't brag too strongly about that.

When you've removed yourself from the high horse there perhaps you can answer this: why is it that Ms Cash and her ilk should be housed minutes away from their school (which is a joke in and of itself) whilst hard working, law abiding taxpayers have 20 hours of commuting per week.

How is that right ?

100s of thousand of people live minutes from their children's school.

Just because you don't doesn't mean all the other "hard working, law abiding taxpayers" don't.

You make an assumption that everyone working is in the same situation as yourself.

One eyed Jack · 01-10-2018 02:34PM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I wouldn't brag too strongly about that.

When you've removed yourself from the high horse there perhaps you can answer this: why is it that Ms Cash and her ilk should be housed minutes away from their school (which is a joke in and of itself) whilst hard working, law abiding taxpayers have 20 hours of commuting per week.

How is that right ?

Hmmm... :pac:

But seriously though, how is it Ms. Cash’s or anyone else’s problem that some people choose to commute 20 hours per week? Are they also incapable of taking personal responsibility for the consequences of their bad decisions or does that just go one way?

Why shouldn’t Ms. Cash be able to campaign for herself and her family be accommodated close to where her children are attending school? What’s that got to do with anyone else who chooses whatever for themselves?

PlaneSpeeking · 01-10-2018 02:39PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hmmm... :pac:

But seriously though, how is it Ms. Cash’s or anyone else’s problem that some people choose to commute 20 hours per week? Are they also incapable of taking personal responsibility for the consequences of their bad decisions or does that just go one way?

Why shouldn’t Ms. Cash be able to campaign for herself and her family be accommodated close to where her children are attending school? What’s that got to do with anyone else who chooses whatever for themselves?

Yeah because it's a "choice" ffs.

Absolutely zero clue about real life you have.

freshpopcorn · 01-10-2018 02:52PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hmmm... :pac:

But seriously though, how is it Ms. Cash’s or anyone else’s problem that some people choose to commute 20 hours per week? Are they also incapable of taking personal responsibility for the consequences of their bad decisions or does that just go one way?

Ms Cash and people in similar situations is setting a bad example for kids/teenagers growing up. They are also eating up tax payers money which could be spent else where.
Somebody who is commuting twenty hours a week is doing there best to keep down a job and contribute. People who commute these distances generally live as close as possible to work due to finical reasons. If they could get a job closer to home in their chosen field they would but commuting is generally there only option.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why shouldn’t Ms. Cash be able to campaign for herself and her family be accommodated close to where her children are attending school? What’s that got to do with anyone else who chooses whatever for themselves?

Of course she should be able to campaign but if you campaign for something it doesn't mean you deserve it or are entitled to it.

One eyed Jack · 01-10-2018 02:57PM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Yeah because it's a "choice" ffs.

Absolutely zero clue about real life you have.

It is a choice! What is it if it isn’t a choice then? No matter who you’re talking about, whether it’s yourself or anyone else, they have a choice as to whether or not they want to do a 20 hour a week commute to their current place of employment. They are not actually being forced by anyone else to do anything they do not want to do.

As for who has or hadn’t a clue about real life, I’m not the person complaining and saying it’s not right that I have to commute 20 hours a week to work and that someone else doesn’t even have to work or pay for anything, etc. What do you want anyone else to do to improve your circumstances? Expecting anyone else should give a sugar makes you no different to Ms. Cash expecting help from everyone else.

You could help out Ms. Cash, and she could help you out, y’know, I’m sure if you put your heads together you’d find you had more in common than you don’t. You’re right as far as I go though - I don’t have any clue about your perspective of what you call “real life”, any more than I suspect you have any clue about Ms. Cash’s perspective on what she might call “real life”.

As for what ideas I may or may not have about “real life”, you wouldn’t know them either unless you knew me personally, which you don’t. Amen to that, eh? :pac:

Lollipops23 · 01-10-2018 03:03PM

I was discussing the current situation with my mother the other day; she was one of 6 kids and of those 6 people, 5 of them (inc my mam) married people in social housing. It was totally normal back then.

Know how many of them ended up in social housing themselves? Zero. Even the ones like my parents (retail workers) who didn't earn big money, scrimped and saved to buy houses.

This doesn't appear to be the way anymore; so many people who were raised in council housing just repeat the cycle. No attempting to get a foot in the regular system that the majority of us do. Don't know why there's been such a change.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 01-10-2018 03:05PM

What are you on about? It’s a choice to put in 20 hours a week of a commute before doing a minutes work? Sounds more like having self respect and a nessessity to me. I can assure you I didn’t commute for years full of joy that I had at least two hours of a commute to look forward to before starting work. I did it because my life isn’t free, and it’s not funded by the taxpayers. I unfortunately didn’t have time to stand outside the dail and demand a house within a few minutes walk to my job.

It’s a persons choice to not continue with education, to not enhance their chances of having a career, and to have child after child after child that they’re incapable of supporting. As a woman in her 20s Margaret cash is not under the care or responsibility of anyone else, and she should have to deal with the repercussions of her choices, just like the working people have to deal with the repercussions of theirs. They choose to go to work, they get rode for it.

BBFAN · 01-10-2018 03:08PM

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I was discussing the current situation with my mother the other day; she was one of 6 kids and of those 6 people, 5 of them (inc my mam) married people in social housing. It was totally normal back then.

Know how many of them ended up in social housing themselves? Zero. Even the ones like my parents (retail workers) who didn't earn big money, scrimped and saved to buy houses.

This doesn't appear to be the way anymore; so many people who were raised in council housing just repeat the cycle. No attempting to get a foot in the regular system that the majority of us do. Don't know why there's been such a change.

Do you think two retail workers on minimum wage now would be able to buy a house?

There's your answer. Times have changed. Prices have changed, bank restrictions are tighter than ever.

Fr_Dougal · 01-10-2018 03:11PM

Graces7 wrote: »

[/B]

we are on the same page on this; back to the workhouse mentality..

Did they have workhouses over in the UK?

If memory serves me right, and forgive me if I have you confused with someone else, are you not from the UK and came over here and were given social welfare and social accommodation?

One eyed Jack · 01-10-2018 03:20PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Ms Cash and people in similar situations is setting a bad example for kids/teenagers growing up. They are also eating up tax payers money which could be spent else where.
Somebody who is commuting twenty hours a week is doing there best to keep down a job and contribute. People who commute these distances generally live as close as possible to work due to finical reasons. If they could get a job closer to home in their chosen field they would but commuting is generally there only option.

This is going to go nowhere quick because you’re measuring someone’s values as a parent with someone’s values as an employee. I measure people by a third standard - whether they’re a miserable person or not, is the determinant of how much they contribute to society. If they’re constantly miserable and complaining about other people and what other people have that they don’t and it’s not fair, it’s not right, all the rest of it, they’re not contributing anything to society. If they’re actually doing something to help themselves, then they are contributing to society. My standard too kinda skips the whole argument about whether children benefit more from their parents staying at home rather than being outside the home in employment, unable to commit to one or the other.

Of course she should be able to campaign but if you campaign for something it doesn't mean you deserve it or are entitled to it.

Yeah, I’d absolutely agree with you there, if it wasn’t something they weren’t entitled to already. However criticising anyone for receiving something to which anyone is entitled provided they qualify, is just silly. It would be different if Ms. Cash were campaigning for something she and her family weren’t entitled to, but they are, and the council have no choice but to seek to provide it for her. Well, of course they have a choice, but I’m just pointing out that the council don’t have a choice in the same way the claim is made that people don’t have any choice but to commute to their place of employment. Having held many positions in various industries over the last 20 years, not once have I ever been in a position where I had no choice but to stay where I was in the position I was in rather than seek to do better for myself, and if that’s the standard is expected of Ms. Cash, then I think it’s only right that we should all be expected to adhere to that standard. Otherwise we have no right to complain about Ms. Cash’s double standards.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 01-10-2018 03:25PM

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Did they have workhouses over in the UK?

If memory serves me right, and forgive me if I have you confused with someone else, are you not from the UK and came over here and were given social welfare and social accommodation?

They had workhouses from the 17th century but they differed greatly from the Irish incarnation of the institution - also called The Spike in England and Wales.

A quote from a history of the British Workhouse - "in areas such as the provision of free medical care and education for children, neither of which was available to the poor in England living outside workhouses until the early 20th century, workhouse inmates were advantaged over the general population which was a dilemma the Poor Law authority never managed to reconcile". It's quite an interesting piece of history to read up on, as it shows the stark difference between the attitudes of the British authorities to the destitute in England, Scotland and Wales and those in Ireland.

PlaneSpeeking · 01-10-2018 03:29PM

[QUOTE=Jada Putrid Starboard;108230943W]hat are you on about? It’s a choice to put in 20 hours a week of a commute before doing a minutes work? Sounds more like having self respect and a nessessity to me. I can assure you I didn’t commute for years full of joy that I had at least two hours of a commute to look forward to before starting work. I did it because my life isn’t free, and it’s not funded by the taxpayers. I unfortunately didn’t have time to stand outside the dail and demand a house within a few minutes walk to my job.

It’s a persons choice to not continue with education, to not enhance their chances of having a career, and to have child after child after child that they’re incapable of supporting. As a woman in her 20s Margaret cash is not under the care or responsibility of anyone else, and she should have to deal with the repercussions of her choices, just like the working people have to deal with the repercussions of theirs. They choose to go to work, they get rode for it.[/QUOTE]

Apparently so Shoes me old china!!!!

Who knew ? I thought it was because I worked in Dublin and could either live in a box for twice what I pay for a nice gaff, OR commute my ass off.

Hobson's Choice (or Sophie's) perhaps!!

Lollipops23 · 01-10-2018 03:30PM

BBFAN wrote: »

Do you think two retail workers on minimum wage now would be able to buy a house?

There's your answer. Times have changed. Prices have changed, bank restrictions are tighter than ever.

Well the like for like then- 2 people earning 25/26k per annum each. They'd still find it next to impossible to get on the property ladder.

Family of seven sleep in Garda station Mod note post one

Comments