Idbatterim wrote: » Right, so the plan is to build expensive social housing at great expense, and then let them pay virtually nothing for it? Meaning that other people that have paid way more than their fair share are paying for it and meaning way less accommodation can be provided for other people that are on the list or wouldnt qualify for it Basically give many , many who dont work a lottery ticket and FCUK the others?
is_that_so wrote: » Well thank you for that very unique view of the world.
smurgen wrote: » The fine gaelers would probably tell ya that our homeless mortality rate and teenage dismembering rate is in line with that of other countries like that's meant to be good enough or some sort of reassurance.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Are you confused by the term 'workers'? If I may, you really are just phoning it in these days.
smurgen wrote: » We'll be paying anyways. As it stands we're housing emergency accommodation in hotels due to fine Gael policy not to build social housing.propping up their hotelier friends. With increased social housing it will mean that there'll be more housing supply that will reduce aggregate rents. Even for those of us working or asses off.
Odhinn wrote: » Where, in that article, did he 'advocate letting people decide not to work'?
Matt Barrett wrote: » Not in that article. FYI one of the top Jobbridge lads was using them more than every other business to fill his offices with tax payer paid jobbridge staff. I suppose the tax payer giving free labour to private business is cool. Beats giving people a job right?
Plumbthedepths wrote: » I know this may prove troublesome for you but can you point out in the article you linked where he advocates for letting people decide whether to work or not. I tried but I can't find it.
blanch152 wrote: » JobBridge was one of a number of schemes which worked very effectively to get those outside the workforce back to being contributors to society. Those who opposed it, as Paul Murphy did, were essentially advocating for letting people decide not to work.
Plumbthedepths wrote: » Oh so you believe he was advocating for people to decide whether to work or not. Just your opinion so. That's grand.
Water John wrote: » The problem with, common sense, is that, it isn't very common.
blanch152 wrote: » To be fair, the evidence to back up my opinion is there.
LeinsterDub wrote: » Ryan never suggested taking your "dirty diesel" is was a suggestion you'd have the option to use a car from the pool. Car pooling seems to work in Dublin, why can't it work in other towns?
JohnnyFlash wrote: » No, I’m not confused. It’s in Marx, dude. If you are able to work then you work. Lads certainly wouldn’t have the leisure of sitting around on their hole all day giving out about stuff. To each according to their need and all that. It’s not even obscure socialist doctrine, dude. If I may, you’re coming across as increasingly hysterical. No website or indeed politics should make someone so angry.
is_that_so wrote: » Like what?
'Far from perfect' JobBridge scheme to be scrapped - Leo Varadkar Social Protection Minister Leo Varadkar has announced that he is to set-up a consultation process with a view to finding a replacement programme which will begin in the middle of next year. The minister was speaking at the publication of a new report on JobsBridge which found that while most participants had a positive experience, the scheme was abused by some employers.
Matt Barrett wrote: » The current plan is an expense on expensive apartment leases and buying for the same people. These people will be housed. Do you want to build our own for them or lease and buy for them? That's the options.
boggerman1 wrote: » I’m a farmer so another reason for the green cult to hate me.i need my car to do my business and from time to time I could need my car in an emergency be it a cow calving and I away from farm to getting medicine from vets etc.where the hell would car pooling work for me.car pooling might work in Dublin but you also have the dart,luas,train and buses.heard another green candidate on the radio this evening saying that money shouldn’t be spent in mayo on road improvements.the rest of Ireland does deserve to have safe roads as much as inside the m50.until the greens come into the real world they will be for the birds
Idbatterim wrote: » wont happen, if you agree with building more social housing, fine. But and another poster really nailed this, there is going to be a never ending and growing conveyor belt of people looking for social housing, because its so cheap and the rental market is so insane, there is no middle ground, get state housing for as good as free, or pay a fortune for mostly poor standard accommodation, even if you are low income worker...
Kivaro wrote: » Social housing. Social housing. Social housing. That seems to be the dominant issue for the electorate based on the main TV3 (Virgin) News coverage at 5:30 pm this evening. They had TV cameras following politicians knocking at doors during work hours on a Wednesday, which is probably why social housing came up at the doorsteps. The Labour’s party plan is to spend €16bn over five years to build 80,000 social and affordable houses. Sinn Fein wants to build 100,000 social houses. This does not matter for the overwhelming majority of voters, except for the fact that they will be paying for these fanciful policies if either of these parties get into a coalition government.
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » We do need a housing solution. The current mechanism of forcing 10 or 20 percent of private housing for social needs doesn't work on many levels. At its most absurd a private development of ten million euro houses, that one or two goes to people on the dole is ridiculous. The basic idea is ok, ie mixed development but private development should be left to those that can afford it. What a government should be doing is repurposing NAMA, now that it's job is done, to build housing at scale for both affordable and social purposes. NAMA can borrow at the lowest rates, build at economies of scale and ordinary workers can choose to buy at affordable prices along with delivering social housing for those that need it. But doing so, I think NAMA could even make a profit for the tax payer. Everyone gets what they need.
smurgen wrote: » So your suggestion for the taxpayer is to keep paying sky high rents and keep having their tax revenue gobbled up.great.
Idbatterim wrote: » I totally agree, they should be put in state built housing, pay appropriate rents, actually pay them and the housing stock should never be sold off! of course, as they have been sitting on their hands for years, it will obviously take years to be able to wean themselves off private housing or hotels etc. In all likelihood, it will never happen... Honestly matt, because we agree on a lot. Housing I would see as the new health, there are now going to be two black holes , instead of one. They wont change the system, its an idiotic system, but it wont happen... I am looking forward to seeing how it all pans out, but this is what I predict, with a need for big infrastructure spending, health a black hole and housing is going to become a black hole, they dont want to increase taxes, and the only one I would agree with, would be a site value tax. the way I see it, they are going to have barely any money for welfare increases,even with the booming economy. looks like FFG are in agreement with the grey vote fiver... I think they have given themselves virtually no room to maneuver
smurgen wrote: » Thank God Leo and Fine Gael are going after the big fish anyway https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/only-300000-recouped-since-welfare-cheat-ads-campaign-was-launched-38855706.html 300k should cover Dara Murphy's double jobbing cost, inflated expenses of Alan Farrell and a golden handshake for Maria Bailey.
saabsaab wrote: » No. Not at all, they will have to co-operate with any main party in Government. What's loopy is leaving things as they are as we go off the cliff.
Lackey wrote: » Taxing average Irish joe into oblivion is not going to change the factshttps://gulfnews.com/p...572250802844?slide=9 Irish Children came up with better ideas than the greens.
Idbatterim wrote: » https://eirigi.org/latestnews/2019/8/7/government-housing-policy-explained-part-three-# 900,000,000 a year spent on HAP in 2019. Matt they will have a world class health service, before the notion of them no longer renting private property becomes a reality! You know what, I reckon I have better odds of guessing the euro millions numbers for the next draw, than them EVER doing anything fundamentally different with housing. We have large immigration, we have rip off housing for hundreds of thousands, we have virtually free housing for many (I am blaming the system here, you are right). So how many homes, would actually have to be built, to get us off private interest dependency? while the lists grow every day and we have a skilled labour shortage. As I write this, I feel I should just discuss something else, as what we are discussing, is such fantasy land stuff in this country!
