Don't buy in a new estate

I don't disagree that problem residents / neighbours need problem management - but that counts in all housing types -

So someone is happy to concentrate the problem cases - in someone else's neighbourhood - most tenants in council or former council estates don't deserve to have all the problem cases dumped on them -

Actually the former council estates in Dublin that are now half million euro houses are they to be exempt from having problem cases because of the current value of the houses -

It's a difficult one. On taxation - we can't really tax low earners much more or there'd simply be no incentive to work in low paid employment.

On welfare - if we cut it to increase the incentive to work even at higher levels of taxation on lower incomes, poverty would increase and some (not all) recipients would seriously struggle to maintain even a basic standard if living.

Overall, in terms of income and taxation, it generally pays to be in employment Vs on welfare.

On housing - the balance that exists between being in low paid employment and on welfare isn't there. On the housing front it is quite clearly more beneficial to be on welfare so you can essentially have means of zero and apply for HAP or social housing.

I'd even go further and say in some cases it's better to be on welfare than in relatively well paid employment when it comes to housing costs.

So yeah, in terms of housing at least, you could argue the social contract is broken.

Very Fair comment.

I can also see that some people could feel somewhat annoyed that they may work in say Dun Laoighre and can only afford to live in Arklow or similar (2+ hrs of driving each day).

Yet someone who has no employment and thus little reason to be stationed in Dun Laoighre (beyond sentimental rubbish) gets to take a house in that area. Especially when said workers tax is paying the bill.

I know its not a realistic approach but I'd rather support the worker to live close to work and let the non worker live further away.

Social housing en masse has a bad name and people can argue all they want but historically areas of mass social housing turn into the sh1t heaps of the country. People can elaborate on reasons why but nobody can argue with reality.

I think a key consideration is the question of why social housing exists, and what are our (society's) responsibilities in this area?

I'd like to see a graduated solution rather than what we have today.

Firstly, any of us can fall on hard times, and it benefits us all to give people a helping hand in such circumstances. So I'd like to see social welfare being related to your pre-unemployment income, for some period of time. I.e. you can stay in your own home and meet commitments while you get back on your feet. Your commitments/outgoings are likely to be related to the income you had before your situation changed for the worse. And you were likely paying into the tax bucket in relation to your income. I don't know for how long this should last, but an initial suggestion would be a significant portion of your income for a year, then maybe reducing for another year.

Then, at some stage, it has to be recognised that things are taking longer to change for the better. It's not feasible to keep the original home if payments can't be made on it, but there should still an effort to support people to get back on their feet. At that stage I can see a big benefit to having social housing integrated with private housing. Maybe this phase lasting up to a few years.

Finally, there has to be acceptance that somebody is unlikely to become self-sufficient. That they are likely to need society's support on an ongoing basis. I definitely wouldn't be in the "throw them onto the street" camp, but I think at this stage it's fair enough to consider dedicated areas of social housing. Cheap but livable. And other supports (education etc) available for those who do desire a move back into the workforce.

Editing to add: I'm only really talking about social housing here, I think affordable housing is a separate area

We’re affordable housing attached to the tax payer in anyway when being built?

A three-bedroom house in Ballymun has sold for €325,000, an increase of more than 90 per cent on its purchase price when it was bought under an affordable housing scheme less than four years ago.

The house built by housing co-operative Ó Cualann Cohousing Alliance went on the market two weeks ago for €250,000 a mark-up of almost 50 per cent on its original sales price of €170,000.

What % is the clawback on profit?

never mind

This would result in a clawback payment of €57,353

You've won the thread with that one.

Fundamentally it's about fairness, which is all anyone wants for everyone. It is patently not fair for those who take responsibility for themselves and do all the right things to have to play Russian roulette in this way with regard to social housing in new estates.

And that applies to workers in social housing too who also face these problems.

The same posters complains all the time about social housing, it's a perennial topic on boards in several shapes and forms but there is one point that always gets missed, who complains the loudest?. In an estate of houses selling 500-700k, you may get someone saying F me some of them are very rough ( something I have heard someone say about the social housing in their estate) but they don't really have an issue with the social houseing it's not relevant to them they come from families who have been middle class for generations they are secure and comfortable with themselves, it's those who have scraped in by their fingernails who look down those in social housing.

To be honest if the house is the same as the private house then I can understand why people would be jealous. Let's take SDCC for example: The minimum rent of a council house is €23 per week or 10% of the households net income (source: sdcc.ie - differential rent scheme).

If you buy the same house with a mortgage over 20 years (purchase price €300k) you are paying easily €1500 p.m. (excluding insurances etc).

You also have to factor in maintenance costs over the years.

What happens if you loose your job and can't pay the mortgage? The banks take ownership of the house. If you loose your job while living in a council house your rent will be reduced by the council. The only advantage of owning a house is that you have an asset for your kids.

Scrapped

We like to do things different in Ireland. A mate of mine works on a nearby estate, the poverty spec houses are the ones a couple are paying for themselves.

The top spec houses are the ones bought by the council/ charities. A lot of the extras are so the tenants can't possibly sue the council!

Yes.

I face a marginal tax rate of approx 60%.

My relations claim welfare, although not entitled, and do a nixer. As a result, they drive a vehicle that I could only dream about, not afford.

I am not jealous of them, I don't want their life.

But, I do not want to subsidise their lifestyle with my taxes.