Welfare recipients can become landlords soon

People need to stop treating people who avail of social welfare for whatever reason as bottom feeders who need to be constantly subservient and apologetic for the fact they may have hit on hard times.

....just build the fcuking houses already!

I'm just going to copy and paste what I wrote in another thread on this non-issue

"Regarding pensioners those on the contributionary pension who owe thier own home or have a council/AHB house can do this already without penalty from the social welfare. It has an affect for those on the non contributionary pension in that they won't be means assessed.

I don't begrudge them at all. I know a few pensioners in large council houses who have actively been in contact with the council to downsize them to small houses but the council have no suitable stock. There's a huge amount of 3 and 4 bed council houses with one or two over 65's living there. IMHO we should be more concerned about that issue.

The only welfare recipients this actually really affects are those on "allowance" payments such as disability allowance but those numbers are small, the big one is Jobseekers allowance. All welfare recipients on "Benefit" payments are not means assessed.

The big issue here is for the private landlords of those "allowance" welfare recipients on HAP, RAS or rent allowance. While those tenants could previously sublet a room (if not forbidden by the rental agreement) they probably wouldn't do so because loosing money from thier welfare payment.

However rent allowance is basically a thing of the past replaced by HAP and RAS. These schemes are administered by the local council and not the DEASP (welfare) There may be a financial impact reducing the RAS or HAP payment because of the increase of household income. The same council rules on income should apply here regardless of the social welfare change of policy. So TBH the incentive may not be all that good as you may think.

TBH the announcement sounds like the government half arsed attempt of trying to tackle 2 issues , housing and inflation rises for social welfare low income earners. It gives the latter an option of getting more money. The reality is most already had that option and didn't choose to take it, they probably won't now so it's affect on housing is probably going to be next to zero. But the government can say , look at what we did to help."

i know a chap thats thinking of leaving Ukraine's have his house until they need it, you have to admire his generosity, but......

In your OP you were worrying that there wasn't the resources to do an assessment, and now you're saying that assessments should be done across the board (without any regard to the resources it would take). You're all over the place on this one, and you clearly didn't know any of the facts about the issue before you jumped in with two feet. It's clear your problem is just with welfare recipients being given even the smallest financial leeway.

You should read/watch JG Ballard's High-Rise

You're the one who started the thread just because you heard that welfare recipients were going to be entitled to the allowance. I'm only focusing on your lack of knowledge of the whole situation. You've gone from complaining about a specific scheme that a handful of welfare recipients will be able to make use of, to an entire overhaul of the whole domestic rental regulatory framework and system - and all because you heard a few people on the dole, disability or state pensions would be allowed take in a Ukrainian in need that's willing and able to pay their way for accommodation, and not have their welfare cut off.

I suppose, Single Maaaas will only have one kid now, as it's more profitable to rent the rest of the house, than have more sprogs

Sorry you're talking through your arse here. The government treats everyone the same. There are financial cut off points for the susi grant. They apply to everyone. If the income of your parents is above that then your mum and dad aren't doing that bad.

Welfare payment aren't based on household income. It's based on the joint income of an individual and thier partner. If one partner is working and the other on an "allowance" social welfare payment then the "allowance" payment is means assessed. This again applies to everyone in the state. If one person is working and the other is on a "benefit" payment there is no means assessment. So if your father is getting means assessed he hasn't enough prsi contribution due to lack of recent work and is a long term social welfare recipient who's time on a benefit payment is up and was moved to an allowance.

You're sisters income wouldn't affect your father's social welfare payment, this is a fact. Your sisters income would only have an impact on the household in one situation and that's where your parents where social tenants with either the council or an AHB. In that situation rent is rightly based on household income , it's the same for all people on in council and AHB housing.

So it seems to me your annoyed that your social welfare and possibly council/AHB housing dependent family earned too much for you to get another welfare payment in the form of the susi grant.

Then you go on to give out about people getting free houses and 14k on top, nothing stopping your parents doing it.

The scheme isn't specific to renting a room to any Nationality.

Also you are equating 2 completely different things.

Neither scenario would be "punished" now for a change in circumstances.

Again you are equating 2 completely different things.

It's an incentivization scheme that already existed and has now been expanded.

There is nothing stopping the younger couple benefiting from the same scheme.