nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Scrap Rent Allowance

Joko

Rent allowance should be scrapped. It is keeping rents at a ridiculously high level and is hurting those on low wages like myself who are actually trying to contribute to this country. Rents in Dublin are still a fortune and it is because this handout scheme has created a floor in the market.

In 2011 the Government paid €500m in rent to landlords for 94,000 social welfare tenants living in private apartments and houses.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0116/rent.html

500,000,000euro/94,000 = €5,319

I focking hate this government handout society we have become.

Why on earth would pyjama girl take a minimum wage job when she gets €9,776 on the dole and free accommodation.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

RobbingBandit

"let the bears pay the bear tax,I pay the Homer tax."

yellowlabrador

In other European countries, properties are let unfurnished, usually with a minimum term of 3 years. The rent increases are set by the local government and is index linked. Usually the walls are painted white before you move in and tenants decorate to their own taste. Kitchens are sparse, with a sink unit and maybe a cupboard. Floors are parquet or tiles.
The rents are much lower and landlords don't have to supply furniture. Surely, if no rent supplement was necessary, people moving into rented accommodation could be given a once in a lifetime grant to buy furniture essentials, after that they would be on their own.
I think there would b advantages to both landlord and tenant under such a system, as people might stay many years in one property, only moving if their requirements changed. My family live in Belgium and most move every 9 to 12 years with some friends living in the same property for 40 years or more.

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

Very, very srange reasoning here. You're saying that cutting rent allowance forces rent down, when in actual fact cutting rent allowance simply brings rent prices closer to what they would be if it wasn't for the landlord dole keeping them up artificially.

If I may use an analogy,

"Drink driving is good, because whenever the Guards implement an anti drink driving campaign it brings road deaths down."

Can you see the problem with this line of reasoning now?

If you are in favour of no rent allowance at all, that would be logical. I do see the need for it.

K-9

Chain_reaction wrote: »

I presume you've never heard it referred to as the landlords dole either so. No need to call any one an idiot over it though.

I didn't call you an idiot because you'd never heard it...

Not bitter per say. Only when RA tenants live in nicer houses than I do.. Which I have seen a lot of but then again theres an AWFUL lot of RA tenants living in complete **** holes with horrors for landlords.

Indeed, doesn't explain how hard it can be to get landlords who actually accept this landlords dole.

yellowlabrador wrote: »

In other European countries, properties are let unfurnished, usually with a minimum term of 3 years. The rent increases are set by the local government and is index linked. Usually the walls are painted white before you move in and tenants decorate to their own taste. Kitchens are sparse, with a sink unit and maybe a cupboard. Floors are parquet or tiles.
The rents are much lower and landlords don't have to supply furniture. Surely, if no rent supplement was necessary, people moving into rented accommodation could be given a once in a lifetime grant to buy furniture essentials, after that they would be on their own.
I think there would b advantages to both landlord and tenant under such a system, as people might stay many years in one property, only moving if their requirements changed. My family live in Belgium and most move every 9 to 12 years with some friends living in the same property for 40 years or more.

Probably would be classed as Government interference in the free market. I maybe wrong but we had something like that in the 50's and 60's, it was scrapped and RA is compensation for those who couldn't afford the free market.

ohwell

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The crazy thing is that many people are better off or at least as well of if they don't bother working.

Nuts, I know.

Really? Huh? Do you have actual figures to back up your assertion or is this just something you heard? Tell you what, do the figures for a couple on SW and the do the figures for a couple working a MINIMUM wage job - never mind above minimum or average, just minimum. Then add on x amount for med cards and rent allowance for the SW couple, and when you've done all that you'll still see that the MINIMUM wage couple are still better off than the couple on SW.

I've done the figures, could post them here but couldn't be bothered to root them out again to be honest. So, you add up all the figures and you'll see what you are saying is simply incorrect.

ohwell

Joko wrote: »

Yes but no property will go below 875euro for rent. And why should they, the government has set the floor of the market. They are distorting competition with this subsidy.

I suggest you check the various accommodation sites again because I see plenty under €875pm.

Monty Burnz

ohwell wrote: »

Really? Huh? Do you have actual figures to back up your assertion or is this just something you heard?

You don't need to break out your figures - the ESRI released a study on this in 2011, and found that 3.4% of the unemployed (or about 15,000 people) would be better off on the dole. But there was a major flaw in their study in that they assumed that if someone on the dole found work, they would earn at least 2/3 of the average industrial wage. This means that they are comparing people to the type of work they are (on average) trained for, not what kind of work they can get. They are comparing whether you would be better off on the average industrial wage (.67 * €35486.88 in 2011 = €23,776.20), not the minimum wage (€14,500). Nearly 10k of a difference.

A key issue in measuring replacement rates is what level of earnings should be assumed for those who are not currently in paid work. One approach is to use a particular gross earnings level – such as (some proportion of) average industrial earnings – as the prospective earnings for all those not currently in work. This approach is often used in the context of “example household” calculations. For example, the OECD produces estimates of replacement rates at average wages and at 67 per cent of average earnings. However, this takes no account of the variation between individuals in the wages that they can reasonable expect to earn in the labour market. For example, the same wage is used for someone who has dropped out of school with no qualifications and for a graduate. Empiricalstudies employing micro data to examine incentive effects and search behaviour typically use a predicted wage which takes into account such individual characteristics. This is the concept used in our microsimulation approach (following earlier work by Callan et al. 1994). Potential earnings for the unemployed are predicted on the basis of their age, sex, educational qualifications and marital status. There is a well‐established correlation between these variables and potential earnings. Our analysis suggests that the average potential earnings of the unemployed in Ireland – predicted on the basis ofthe above characteristics – are close to two‐thirds of average wages.

REPLACEMENT RATES
As noted earlier, much attention is given to calculations of replacement rates for specific families (sometimes termed “example households”). The most well known and systematic application of this approach is found in OECD publications, such as TaxingWages, with further detail provided in the OECD’s online databases. Initially, OECD focused on the measurement of the tax/benefit position of the average production worker. This approach was further developed to look at the position of workers at different proportions of average economy wide earnings – 67%, 100% and 150%. Now Taxing Wages also includes family benefits paid as cash transfers – some of which are income‐tested. The main publication deals with 8 household types which differ by income level and household composition e.g., a single earner couple on average wages, or single person on 67% of average wages. As the OECD says, these data on tax burdens and cash benefits “are widely used in academic research and the preparation and evaluation of social economic policy‐making”.

And in spite of this 10k difference in the assumed wage they would earn over minimum wage, still 15,000 people or so would be better off on the dole. Given this acknowledgement:

Replacement rates are also sensitive to assumptions regarding the wage which an unemployed person can earn

...and the likely distribution of the curve, reducing the assumed income by 10k or so per family unit would see further tens of thousands of people (in addition to the acknowledged 15,000) better off on the dole in actuality. I wouldn't be surprised by any number between 50,000 and 100,000.

Without access to their numbers, I can't give an exact figure - but hopefully, you'll agree that I've demonstrated what I claimed; many people would be better off on the dole rather than working.

gurramok

Dole is only one part of welfare.

If you are a single parent, you're entitled to OPFP plus benefits. As discussed to death on boards before, its worthwhile staying on welfare in the cities if receiving OPFP unless you found a really well paid job which would cover similar rent and childcare costs.

Nothingbetter2d

Dubit10 wrote: »

You do know not everyone on rent allowance wears PJ's right?

i just wear boxers when im in bed.

Bubblefett

When I was forced out of work I was living in rented accommodation. I spent all of my savings paying my rent for 6 months while I desperately looked for a job. Savings I had previously been keeping as a deposit for a house back when I thought I'd never have the misfortune of being out of work.
When my account was emptied with not enough for another months rent I applied for rent allowance.
I was lucky that my landlord agreed to accept rent allowance as there were no other accommodation in the area under the max rent allowed that would accept it. If she had said no I would have been homeless as I had nowhere else to go and no one to stay with.
In my experience rent allowance is not an easy thing to get and landlords generally do not like taking it.

fishy fishy

Joko wrote: »

Rent allowance should be scrapped. It is keeping rents at a ridiculously high level and is hurting those on low wages like myself who are actually trying to contribute to this country. Rents in Dublin are still a fortune and it is because this handout scheme has created a floor in the market.

500,000,000euro/94,000 = €5,319

I focking hate this government handout society we have become.

Why on earth would pyjama girl take a minimum wage job when she gets €9,776 on the dole and free accommodation.

ah, have another burger, you'll feel better

inqizitve

rent allowance should be phased out in certain circumstances and only used as a temporary measure, in place should be a better more affordable child care system to enable mothers to work. It would also phase out the LPA as earned wages would be in place of it.
Its a natural human instinct to provide for you children so i do believe if given half the chance most who are claiming benefits would prefer to earn it themselves.

billybudd

inqizitve wrote: »

rent allowance should be phased out in certain circumstances and only used as a temporary measure, in place should be a better more affordable child care system to enable mothers to work. It would also phase out the LPA as earned wages would be in place of it.
Its a natural human instinct to provide for you children so i do believe if given half the chance most who are claiming benefits would prefer to earn it themselves.

Well hello crime wave.

There really isnt enough jobs to go around, welfare is essential at this moment in time but sure for the future things do need to change, but first money has to be properly managed and accounted for by state agencies and it needs to start at the top and come down to the bottom.

suicide_circus

Joko wrote: »

the government has set the floor of the market. They are distorting competition with this subsidy.

Yes. The majority of landlords I have dealt with are workshy profiteering miserly scumbags.

G.muny

Thats easy for you to say but I get rent allowance because I lost my job and at 25 had to move home to live in an unsafe enviorment (my brother is violent) I spent months living on someone sofa while I was acessed to be put on the housing list because I literally had no where else to go.

They checked everything, went into my backround, made sure I really had no where else to go. I am not scamming the system, I am actively looking for work and if I can't find it I am going back to college in Sept to hopefully make myself more employable.

The real problem in this country is the absolute shame put on good honest people who find themselves in difficult positions and need to get social welfare. It is not a nice feeling standing in that line waiting to sign on and hear the utter garbage people spout about "if you have a problem get a job". Like I haven't done everything in my power to find one and showed up at umpteen interviews knowing more than 50 other people where going for the same position. Why should I feel ashamed? I done nothing wrong? The fact you have a job and are lucky enough to afford to pay your rent doesn't make you better than me.......it makes you luckier than me.

I am not saying you haven't worked hard to get where you are but the country is full of people, just as smart and just as qualified who can not get a job due to the state of the economy and maybe they aren't as good at doing interviews as you are or highligthing their skills but not everyone on social welfare payments are scammers and most of them don't want to be.

What do you propose I done? Stayed in an enviorment where I was literally scared for my life or become homeless?

micropig

G.muny wrote: »

Thats easy for you to say but I get rent allowance because I lost my job and at 25 had to move home to live in an unsafe enviorment (my brother is violent) I spent months living on someone sofa while I was acessed to be put on the housing list because I literally had no where else to go.

They checked everything, went into my backround, made sure I really had no where else to go. I am not scamming the system, I am actively looking for work and if I can't find it I am going back to college in Sept to hopefully make myself more employable.

The real problem in this country is the absolute shame put on good honest people who find themselves in difficult positions and need to get social welfare. It is not a nice feeling standing in that line waiting to sign on and hear the utter garbage people spout about "if you have a problem get a job". Like I haven't done everything in my power to find one and showed up at umpteen interviews knowing more than 50 other people where going for the same position. Why should I feel ashamed? I done nothing wrong? The fact you have a job and are lucky enough to afford to pay your rent doesn't make you better than me.......it makes you luckier than me.

I am not saying you haven't worked hard to get where you are but the country is full of people, just as smart and just as qualified who can not get a job due to the state of the economy and maybe they aren't as good at doing interviews as you are or highligthing their skills but not everyone on social welfare payments are scammers and most of them don't want to be.

What do you propose I done? Stayed in an enviorment where I was literally scared for my life or become homeless?

There should be no shame. Life sometimes throw up circumstances beyond our control and it's how we deal with that counts. that's what social welfare is there for, to give a hand up.

More needs to be done in this country to generate employment, then most people would only be on rent allowance short term.

Interesting enough over on another thread the discussion was in favour of people earning over €40,000 keeping their rent allowance.

Casillas

Evil, evil unemployed you bankrupted Ireland, not bankers, TD's, Mahon Tribunal solicitors, crooked Ministers, tax evaders....

OneArt

If the dole is 198 a week or something, that should be enough for rent/bills when you're living with housemates. Sure it's not a lot of money but you can survive on it. I lived on less when I was working and living in Dublin.

Monty Burnz

Casillas wrote: »

Evil, evil unemployed you bankrupted Ireland, not bankers, TD's, Mahon Tribunal solicitors, crooked Ministers, tax evaders....

Yeah, the dole spongers during the bubble didn't bankrupt us. They just leached off us while hundreds of thousands of non-nationals poured into the country to take the opportunities that they couldn't be arsed taking. And that only cost us billions.

cgarrad

Casillas wrote: »

Evil, evil unemployed you bankrupted Ireland, not bankers, TD's, Mahon Tribunal solicitors, crooked Ministers, tax evaders....

Good to see someone hit the nail on the head. Useless dole bums that cant get a job want to blame everyone.

Bankers, TD's, Mahon Tribunal solicitors all still at work and pay massive tax for the true scam that is the social welfare system yet the fools who paid for houses the now cant afford want to offload the blame on them????

No one knocked on my door to buy a house, far as I heard you had to request a mortgage.

As for rent allowance they should be given UNHCR tents. That would get their creative juices flowing...

ohwell

inqizitve wrote: »

rent allowance should be phased out in certain circumstances and only used as a temporary measure, in place should be a better more affordable child care system to enable mothers to work. It would also phase out the LPA as earned wages would be in place of it.
Its a natural human instinct to provide for you children so i do believe if given half the chance most who are claiming benefits would prefer to earn it themselves.

A more affordable childcare system, great idea, where'll the money come from for it - oh yeah, the money you save getting rid of rent allowances you can instead pay to private enterprises for subsidised childcare places, wow, brilliant idea

Or would you prefer State run kindergartens? Either way what you'll be taking away with one hand you'll be giving away with the other. And incase you didn't notice there are hundreds of thousands unemployed.....

By all means get rid of rent allowance, instead use the houses and apartments on NAMA's books as social housing and engage on a massive social housing building project. Until then, the rent allowance ain't going nowhere. If the State won't provide social housing by buying them or building them then rent allowance will remain.

ohwell

OneArt wrote: »

If the dole is 198 a week or something, that should be enough for rent/bills when you're living with housemates. Sure it's not a lot of money but you can survive on it. I lived on less when I was working and living in Dublin.

Oh, era, when I was a young boy we ate grass and walked to school without shoes, oh them were the days.........

Casillas

cgarrad wrote: »

Good to see someone hit the nail on the head. Useless dole bums that cant get a job want to blame everyone.

Bankers, TD's, Mahon Tribunal solicitors all still at work and pay massive tax for the true scam that is the social welfare system yet the fools who paid for houses the now cant afford want to offload the blame on them????

No one knocked on my door to buy a house, far as I heard you had to request a mortgage.

As for rent allowance they should be given UNHCR tents. That would get their creative juices flowing...

Right, I suggest you look at this chart of unemployment figures in Ireland, taking note of the low unemployment during the boom years. Feel free to hit me back with FACT;

http://www.indexmundi.com/ireland/unemployment_rate.html

Logical Fallacy

cgarrad wrote: »

Good to see someone hit the nail on the head. Useless dole bums that cant get a job want to blame everyone.

Bankers, TD's, Mahon Tribunal solicitors all still at work and pay massive tax for the true scam that is the social welfare system yet the fools who paid for houses the now cant afford want to offload the blame on them????

No one knocked on my door to buy a house, far as I heard you had to request a mortgage.

As for rent allowance they should be given UNHCR tents. That would get their creative juices flowing...

So much "retarded" in one post.

I can actually feel the gravity well it's causing pulling my head forward towards my desk!

And *thunk*

Alan 1990

OneArt wrote: »

If the dole is 198 a week or something, that should be enough for rent/bills when you're living with housemates. Sure it's not a lot of money but you can survive on it. I lived on less when I was working and living in Dublin.

Not everyone in the country lives with 'housemates' some people actually have a family to support so you reckon 198 would cut it? Shopping, insurance tax diesel/petrol (if you own a car) bills and Rent included?
ha good luck with that!!

Casillas

Alan 1990 wrote: »

Not everyone in the country lives with 'housemates' some people actually have a family to support so you reckon 198 would cut it? Shopping, insurance tax diesel/petrol (if you own a car) bills and Rent included?
ha good luck with that!!

It's even worse then that;

The Jobseeker’s allowance maximum rate for those over 25 is €188. The 2012 maximum rate for people aged 18-21 is €100 and for those between the ages of 22-24 is €144.

stupidusername

Dublin City centre has a max rent of €300 allocated. If you search for accommodation with a max of €300, what you get are shared rooms. Anybody here want to share a room?

I don't snore, swearz

shangri la

Da fook u on about ya big culchie. Come o ere n sey dat to me face.

Warper

God some threads are so so braindead

guitarzero

I was renting - 250euro p/m + bills and I didnt take rent allowance. I know 2 other people who dont. I think its too much and hurting the tax payer. Maybe I'm wrong.