Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

3 holidays a year in local authority estate

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Limpy wrote: »
    I agree that if you improve your financial situation you should pay more. Maybe a payslips reviews every couple of years.

    When people get a council house they usually stay for life. The kids go to the local school, make friend's in the area. It wouldn't be practical to get someone to move considering that.

    You're not asking anyone to move, you're saying pay what you can afford. Same as anyone in the private market does.

    I have a close relative who does rent reviews in DCC and some of the stories would shock you in terms of the incomes of some tenants and how much rent they owe, nevermind getting them to pay the market rent price.


  • Options
    #93
    Limpy
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 1,105 ✭✭✭Limpy


    There was a fella on another thread yesterday living with the misses 34 years without declaring it. He wanted to know could he Keep the house as the wife forgot to put his name down.


  • Options
    #94
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,376 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    Are people really complaining about people in social housing working and being able to afford holidays? The mind boggles.


  • Options
    #95
    mick087
    Registered Users Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭mick087


    I don't think there is free housing for anyone unless you are unemployed or have a disability.

    Nothing wrong with people going on to be successful, once they pay the rent that would be assessed by corporation or a a local authoity.

    Don't matter if you go on holidays 10 times per year once you pay your rent and and are a good tenant then its fine to do as you want.

    They would of got these places when they was on low incomes. I say the issue folk have is the fact someone might pay 400 a month in rent when someone else for a place in same area is paying close to 2000. This is because they are renting private

    Im a big believer in social housing and we should be building more. We should all have a option of social housing or private.
    There can be much unnecessary jealousy towards anyone living on corporation estates.

    I agree with you about a cap, but on private landlords rent in line with local the authoity rents. Of course this will never happen.

    Quite simply there are not enough state owned homes being built. Don't try to move people already living in such places build more.


  • Options
    #96
    Limpy
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 1,105 ✭✭✭Limpy


    I think most agree now that moving people out is not feasible.

    The council don't even evict bad tenants never good ones.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Rodney Bathgate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,445 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    Limpy wrote: »
    There was a fella on another thread yesterday living with the misses 34 years without declaring it. He wanted to know could he Keep the house as the wife forgot to put his name down.

    She ‘forgot’ each year for 34 years because by ‘forgetting’ she avoided an increase in her rent when his income was taken account of.

    Fraud.


  • Options
    #98
    Jinglejangle69
    Registered Users Posts: 7,241 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69


    Rodney Bathgate wrote: »
    She ‘forgot’ each year for 34 years because by ‘forgetting’ she avoided an increase in her rent when his income was taken account of.

    Fraud.

    Rampant in this country.

    Fully backed by deniers and a left wing media.


  • Options
    #99
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,376 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    When they buid the affordable shared ownership housing in Ireland similar to this

    https://www.gov.uk/affordable-home-ownership-schemes/shared-ownership-scheme


    I guarantee you there will be posts saying, this fella they work with, know from the pub, general gossip: It will be along the line of how the fella has a 50% shared ownership of a really nice house and has had 3 holidays to Disney world Florida, its not fair they should be made buy the other equity in the house.

    Any housing with any sort of subsidy will have people giving out and saying its not fair.


  • Options
    #100
    riclad
    Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    They only give houses to people who have 2 children. There is an income ceiling, but once you get a house, you can earn as much as you like. Outside Dublin some councils give houses to people on disability allowance.
    Most women with 2 children do not earn a high income. It can take 7 to 10 years to get a house.
    As long as you pay the rent the council will not evict you.
    How would you change the system,?
    Eg if you earn over 15k you have to leave the housing list.


  • Options
    #101
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ush1 wrote: »
    So do away with the higher rate on income tax so. Your reasoning is ridiculous.
    I'm so tired of this culture of punching down.

    Studies show that the marginal rate of income tax is not a disincentive to work. Common sense would tell you that *evicting someone from their home*, if they get a promotion, is a disincentive to work.

    People grumble when council tenants don't work, and they grumble when they do work. They can't do anything right.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Rodney Bathgate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,445 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    As usual you are changing the goal posts. Not to mention comments like ‘class traitor’.


  • Options
    #103
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,840 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    rents should be twenty to twenty five percent of income for a start and deduct at source... Now just imagine, with all the extra revenue, you could actually start providing more social and affordable housing...

    By far the biggest beneficiaries of this insane system are those in social housing, paying nothing...


  • Options
    #104
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    rents should be twenty to twenty five percent of income for a start and deduct at source... Now just imagine, with all the extra revenue, you could actually start providing more social and affordable housing...

    By far the biggest beneficiaries of this insane system are those in social housing, paying nothing...

    I actually don't think anyone here objects to that. 25% of income would be fair enough, if it were done 'vertically', kind of like the marginal tax rate.


  • Options
    #105
    El Tarangu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭El Tarangu


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    They get their houses because, at the time, they were on low incomes and needed housing. The last time this came up, someone showed the requirements - they aren't easy. You have to be a very low earner, with no other options.

    Subsequently, you can go on to build a business and grow as a person, economically speaking. That's the ideal, why should that be punished? That's an example of social-housing working. Isn't it good? Give people a platform and let them build successful lives. What's the problem?

    There is one (maybe two) TDs living in council houses; why should someone who earns six figures have their housing needs subsidised by people earning a fraction of that? Why should someone who can easily afford to provide for their own housing needs take up a council house that could go to someone else who is not so fortunate?


  • Options
    #106
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    I'm so tired of this culture of punching down.

    Studies show that the marginal rate of income tax is not a disincentive to work. Common sense would tell you that *evicting someone from their home*, if they get a promotion, is a disincentive to work.

    People grumble when council tenants don't work, and they grumble when they do work. They can't do anything right.

    Nobody is getting evicted, why are you continuing with this disingenuous strawman? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #107
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ush1 wrote: »
    Nobody is getting evicted, why are you continuing with this disingenuous strawman? :rolleyes:

    I'm lost here. Isn't the whole thrust of this thread that people on comfortable incomes should not be living in council houses?

    How do you get them out of council houses, except by evicting them?

    Look I completely agree that it's a bad state of affairs when public resources are allocated to people who no longer need them. But the alternative to that is to evict people when they make progress in life. Only the most hardened of sociopaths would consider that to be feasible/ desirable.


  • Options
    #108
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    I'm lost here. Isn't the whole thrust of this thread that people on comfortable incomes should not be living in council houses?

    How do you get them out of council houses, except by evicting them?

    Look I completely agree that it's a bad state of affairs when public resources are allocated to people who no longer need them. But the alternative to that is to evict people when they make progress in life. Only the most hardened of sociopaths would consider that to be feasible/ desirable.

    No it isn't the alternative, the alternative is they pay market price for their rent. Or if they buy the house, pay full market price.


  • Options
    #109
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    I'm lost here. Isn't the whole thrust of this thread that people on comfortable incomes should not be living in council houses?

    How do you get them out of council houses, except by evicting them?

    Look I completely agree that it's a bad state of affairs when public resources are allocated to people who no longer need them. But the alternative to that is to evict people when they make progress in life. Only the most hardened of sociopaths would consider that to be feasible/ desirable.

    No, we think that the house should be given to someone who needs it and not to someone who doesn't.

    It's social housing. If you want a house for life that's yours, then get the cash and buy private

    Or

    Change the system and remove the private aspect but increase taxes to allow for social housing for everyone and the rent is taken at source by % of income. This would also mean now private sector workers becoming public sector workers of course but the profit for the few aspect being removed


  • Options
    #110
    Rodney Bathgate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,445 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    We are talking about lawful evictions. An eviction can happen for any number of lawful reasons. But yes, let’s use emotive language like ‘sociopaths’ to describe a property owner who needs to sell his rental property because he can’t afford to keep it. Or the property owner who want to let their offspring or even a parent live in their rental property.


  • Options
    #111
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,376 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    Ush1 wrote: »
    No it isn't the alternative, the alternative is they pay market price for their rent. Or if they buy the house, pay full market price.

    Where do people on low to modest incomes in jobs in areas with high rents and high house prices live if they can't buy or rent within a 50k radius of their job?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ush1 wrote: »
    No it isn't the alternative, the alternative is they pay market price for their rent. Or if they buy the house, pay full market price.
    Put this into a real scenario for me.

    Say I'm a bus-driver, earning 40k per year. I take a promotion that offers a 5k pay-rise, and you're now going to double my rent, from 15% of income to 30% (probably as much as 35%, at market rates).

    Well I'd be stupid to take that promotion. You're punishing work. Tell me what I'm missing here.


  • Options
    #113
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Put this into a real scenario for me.

    Say I'm a bus-driver, earning 40k per year. I take a promotion that offers a 5k pay-rise, and you're now going to double my rent, from 15% of income to 30%.

    Well I'd be stupid to take that promotion. You're punishing work. Tell me what I'm missing here.

    Not sure where to start.

    First of all as I said to you previously, EVERYONE is punished for work! Unless you're proposing to abolish the higher rate of PAYE??

    Second, I'll give you a real world example of a DCC tenant in 4k of arrears who was a lecturer on 110k at his last rent review.

    Finally and most importantly, you may not realise but the "class traitor" is closer to home. I respect people who fall on hard times, I respect them enough that when they are financially stable that they are treated equally and exposed to cogs of taxation and a warts and all economy. I wouldn't pat their head and tell them don't worry about market rates, that's for bigger boys to pay. When you get a helping hand and are back on your feet, it's now your responsibilty to help others who were in the same tough spot.

    The bigotry of low expectations, remember that. I would assume that bus driver would take that promotion because that's what most people bettering themselves would do.


  • Options
    #114
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,376 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    https://www.gov.uk/affordable-home-ownership-schemes/shared-ownership-scheme

    I think the above is a great idea although not without its problems, I would abloushe nearly all the present social housing systems except for disable or older people.

    In the new system, everyone getting social housing except for the above would have purchases some equity in the house after the first year of renting could be as low 20% equity and 80% rent from a social housing association and over time purchases more equity or not if they do not want to.


  • Options
    #115
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    mariaalice wrote: »
    Where do people on low to modest incomes in jobs in areas with high rents and high house prices live if they can't buy or rent within a 50k radius of their job?

    Have you read the thread?


  • Options
    #116
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ush1 wrote: »
    Not sure where to start.

    First of all as I said to you previously, EVERYONE is punished for work! Unless you're proposing to abolish the higher rate of PAYE??
    You're not going to get some apology for the marginal tax-rate from me. I hate it. I 100% agree that it's a bad system, nevertheless, it hasn't been shown to be a disincentive to work. Evicting people from their homes once they hit a certain income level -- that's an obvious disincentive to work.

    Finally and most importantly, you may not realise but the "class traitor" is closer to home. I respect people who fall on hard times, I respect them enough that when they are financially stable that they are treated equally and exposed to cogs of taxation and a warts and all economy. I wouldn't pat their head and tell them don't worry about market rates, that's for bigger boys to pay.
    That's an admirable stance. The only problem is that these people are now paying a sh1tload of tax, and are more than paying their way. The average council tenant has probably repaid the cost of their home. If they are particularly successful, they may have paid for it twice or three times over.

    Can we all stop punching down? Can we not punish people when they do well? Can we just build more social housing, since it seems to be working, and can we finally get rid of this class-based hatred which has invaded our society like some gruesome infection?


  • Options
    #117
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    You're not going to get some apology for the marginal tax-rate from me. I hate it. I 100% agree that it's a bad system, nevertheless, it hasn't been shown to be a disincentive to work. Evicting people from their homes once they hit a certain income level -- that's an obvious disincentive to work.

    They wouldn't be evicted, they would have to pay the market rate of rent. That's the last time I'll be saying that because it's just weird at this stage.
    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    That's an admirable stance. The only problem is that these people are now paying a sh1tload of tax, and are more than paying their way. The average council tenant has probably repaid the cost of their home. If they are particularly successful, they may have paid for it twice or three times over.

    Who isn't paying a lot of tax? I'm kind of lost as to what your point is now. Council houses are a lot more expensive to maintain, many are quite old and not up to modern standards, it was actually a big driver for trying to sell them off and local authorities were going broke with the maintainence.
    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Can we all stop punching down? Can we not punish people when they do well? Can we just build more social housing, since it seems to be working, and can we finally get rid of this class-based hatred which has invaded our society like some gruesome infection?

    Very weird argument from the modern left to say can we not punish people when they do well. Sounds positively Trump-like. Everybody gets punished, death and taxes and all that...


  • Options
    #118
    Rodney Bathgate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,445 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    The average council tenant has probably repaid the cost of their home.

    I’d love to see the evidence of this.

    Given that a significant percentage of social housing recipients are in arrears it makes it even more implausible.

    From January 2020:
    Dublin City Council, which is the country’s largest local authority, currently has 24,574 rented tenancies which provide a home to just under 67,000 individuals.

    The latest figures show around 60% of tenants are in arrears with over 5% of tenants owing at least €7,000.
    If they are particularly successful, they may have paid for it twice or three times over.

    Let’s look at this claim.
    the highest weekly rent charge registered as €265.87.

    If we assume a value of EUR 250,000, then it would take almost 18 years at the maximum weekly rent for them to pay 250k. So 54 years going by your 3 times over claim.

    Do you stand by that comment?


  • Options
    #119
    Rodney Bathgate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,445 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-council-5-4956180-Jan2020/%3famp=1
    The weekly rent is determined in accordance with the council’s 2019 Differential Rent Scheme which is linked to household income and is calculated at 15% of the household’s biggest earner.

    This puts to bed claims that many social housing tenants pay ‘market rate’.

    How many private rents are paying 15% of the households biggest earner?


  • Options
    #120
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,376 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    Rodney Bathgate wrote: »
    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-council-5-4956180-Jan2020/%3famp=1



    This puts to bed claims that many social housing tenants pay ‘market rate’.

    How many private rents are paying 15% of the households biggest earner?

    It still dose not answer the question of market rates in rent being equal to 60% or 70% of low or modest incomes or is your argument that if people are doing it in the private rental sector then it should be the same in the social rental sector?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Rodney Bathgate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,445 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    mariaalice wrote: »
    It still dose not answer the question of market rates in rent being equal to 60% or 70% of low or modest incomes or is your argument that if people are doing it in the private rental sector then it should be the same in the social rental sector?

    A particular poster made ridiculous claims. It helps disprove those claims.


Advertisement