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
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    CrankyHaus wrote: »
    I'd argue that it improves Council Estates overall if you ensure that people who are gainfully employed can stay living there when their situation improves. While it does consume a public resource in a way that prevents it from helping the most needy I think the benefits outweigh the positives.

    They dont have to move out, they just have to pay market rate of rent.


  • Options
    #33
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    If someone were denigrating my childhood home in this way, implying that my parents were layabouts and slackers, I'd be fuming. In my primary school, I think approx half the boys lived in social housing, it carried absolutely no stigma, nor should it have had.

    This thread is literally the opposite. Its about people working and living in council houses.


  • Options
    #34
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    This thread is literally the opposite. Its about people working and living in council houses.

    It's about denigrating people who work hard and live in council houses, as far as I can make out.

    I don't know if the OP fully appreciates what would happen if you started to disincentivise work.

    Look, I have as many criticisms of the social-welfare system as the next man. I think it can reward idleness and doesn't manage to intervene in destructive life-habits in the way that it should. But punishing industriousness would be a colossal mistake. The whole point is to give people a platform to do their very best.


  • Options
    #35
    McGinniesta
    Registered Users Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭McGinniesta


    santa ponsa and courtown don't count


  • Options
    #36
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

    I don't know if the OP fully appreciates what would happen if you started to disincentivise work. .

    Expecting people to pay in line with what their peers pay isnt disincentivising work.

    Having an artificially low cap on rent encourages people to stay in housing that is needed for people that cant afford rent and gives them an unfair advantage.
    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    But punishing industriousness would be a colossal mistake. The whole point is to give people a platform to do their very best.

    How is it punishing them? If 2 families each have a combined income of 60k but 1 is in a council house while the other has to pay 2 grand a month in rent, the only one being punished is the private renter.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    lickalot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 85 ✭✭lickalot


    Its pretty easy to get away now for a week.

    Get flights to nearly anywhere now in Europe for 50 quid by using the likes of skyscanner.
    Stay in a dirt cheap hotel.
    Drink cheep beer all week.

    Its not rocket science. Some people are too stupid to book separately and do a bit of research.

    They get absolutely shafted by travel agents.


  • Options
    #38
    Limpy
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 1,105 ✭✭✭Limpy


    When you own your own home and a council owned house in your estate is giving to a family who works it means your prayers are answered. They can take 5 holidays if they want, I'l water the plants and feed the dog while they are gone for them too.


  • Options
    #39
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Expecting people to pay in line with what their peers pay isnt disincentivising work.

    Having an artificially low cap on rent encourages people to stay in housing that is needed for people that cant afford rent and gives them an unfair advantage.



    How is it punishing them? If 2 families each have a combined income of 60k but 1 is in a council house while the other has to pay 2 grand a month in rent, the only one being punished is the private renter.

    I think it comes down to a simple question -- what is the objective of social housing?

    You can give people a roof over their heads, basic shelter, by putting them up in B&Bs, so it has to be more than that. It's stability, right?

    And you want to take away that stability as soon as they earn a decent living? Well the obvious reaction will then be to stay in a low-paying job, because why lose your house for a few extra quid per week?

    The solution is more social housing, lots of it. Imagine all those thousands of people in emergency accommodation, starting businesses and hiring people, and contributing to our economy. That'd be great. Social housing isn't the problem, the problem is a lack of it.


  • Options
    #40
    Rodney Bathgate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,445 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    Some people are very sensitive. To question social housing policy is to denigrate those that benefit from it. Great way to shutdown discussion.


  • Options
    #41
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    I think it comes down to a simple question -- what is the objective of social housing?
    .

    To house people who cant afford to do it otherwise themselves.

    When you then can afford to, you should either move on and do so, or be charged a normal rent.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

    And you want to take away that stability as soon as they earn a decent living? Well the obvious reaction will then be to stay in a low-paying job, because why lose your house for a few extra quid per week?
    .

    You keep saying about taking it away. Charging them a rent they can afford is not taking it away.

    Why should people in private rental accommodation earning the same money have to pay more for the same house?


  • Options
    #43
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    To house people who cant afford to do it otherwise themselves.

    When you then can afford to, you should either move on and do so, or be charged a normal rent.

    Alright, so if I'm earning 400 quid a week, and managing to pay rent and feed my family on that income, I'm not going to take an offer with a slight pay-rise because that will send us into the private market with all the instability this implies.

    This is not rocket science. You cannot punish people for bettering themselves, when the WHOLE POINT is to better themselves. You see that, surely?
    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    You keep saying about taking it away. Charging them a rent they can afford is not taking it away.

    But their rent does increase as their income grows. That's already happening.


  • Options
    #44
    elperello
    Registered Users Posts: 14,406 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Jack five nights a week in pub spending €100 a week. Salt of the earth working class entitled to council house.

    Joe saves his €100 a week and spends it on 3 holidays a year. Chancer who should be moved out.


  • Options
    #45
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Alright, so if I'm earning 400 quid a week, and managing to pay rent and feed my family on that income, I'm not going to take an offer with a slight pay-rise because that will send us into the private market with all the instability this implies.

    This is not rocket science. You cannot punish people for bettering themselves, when the WHOLE POINT is to better themselves. You see that, surely?

    You seem to have a low opinion of people in council houses...........

    and again, its not sending them anywhere. Its charging the same rent they would have to pay and people earning the same as them are expected to pay.

    The discussion is clearly about people who qualify for a council house and then go on to have earnings above the threshold. The family next door who never earned below the threshold but now that they both earn the same are punished because they are in private rental accommodation.


  • Options
    #46
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    You seem to have a low opinion of people in council houses...........

    and again, its not sending them anywhere. Its charging the same rent they would have to pay and people earning the same as them are expected to pay.

    I'm open to correction on this, but according to Mr. Google, rents are charged at 15% of your income. Certainly, I think that could/should rise up to 25%, depending on the income bracket. But they absolutely should not be charged in line with market rates, otherwise what's the point of trying to improve your lot in life?

    You'd probably be better off on the Dole. And nobody wants that.


  • Options
    #47
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    otherwise what's the point of trying to improve your lot in life?
    .

    Whats the point of anyone doing it so? Everyone should just stay in low paid jobs and get a council house.


  • Options
    #48
    Thingymebob
    Registered Users Posts: 115 ✭✭Thingymebob


    If the cost of housing my family was only 12% of my assessable income, I’d probably have a holiday home in Turkey too. Other countries reassess regularly, and it’s a hand up not a hand out so it shouldn’t be a final solution. And selling them off at all - let alone a discount - should be permanently outlawed.

    https://www.fingal.ie/sites/default/files/2019-03/Differential%20Rent%20Scheme.pdf

    The problem is, people focus too much on their entitlements and too little on their responsibilities

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2513521/Bob-Crow-says-moral-duty-leave-council-house-despite-generous-salary.html


  • Options
    #49
    atilladehun
    Registered Users Posts: 1,566 ✭✭✭atilladehun


    The problem is at the other end. Stop driving the economy on property. We've a limited supply of land and we will always have to house people. Stop making a race where people have to work their brains out just to pay for a home.

    If we build enough social housing we won't have all these crappy rentals and vulture companies taking money from our country.

    This is the sort of divide and conquer rubbish that doesn't help the country be a better place.


  • Options
    #50
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    elperello wrote: »
    Jack five nights a week in pub spending €100 a week. Salt of the earth working class entitled to council house.

    Joe saves his €100 a week and spends it on 3 holidays a year. Chancer who should be moved out.

    I think they are both scum that should be taken out back, of their council house, and then beaten with a sock full of batteries. Every night until they get they asses in gear


    I jest of course, should be snooker balls


  • Options
    #51
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    atilladehun wrote: »
    The problem is at the other end. Stop driving the economy on property. We've a limited supply of land and we will always have to house people. Stop making a race where people have to work their brains out just to pay for a home.

    If we build enough social housing we won't have all these crappy rentals and vulture companies taking money from our country.

    This is the sort of divide and conquer rubbish that doesn't help the country be a better place.

    So... Communism?

    I'm not knocking it but call it what it is


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Jurgen Klopp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,807 ✭✭✭Jurgen Klopp


    One thing I wondered as well.

    I've seen before where a single person is given a 2 bed house as it's all that's available at the time.

    If the person has the second bedroom free and wished to move in a relative or friend who was also on the list would that be possible? Wouldn't it hit 2 birds with one stone for the council?

    I'm talking about officially adding them obviously


  • Options
    #53
    elperello
    Registered Users Posts: 14,406 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    So... Communism?

    I'm not knocking it but call it what it is

    Social housing is not Communism.


  • Options
    #54
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Whats the point of anyone doing it so? Everyone should just stay in low paid jobs and get a council house.

    Well no, because graduate starting salaries are actually pretty decent, and most graduates don't want to live in a semi-d in Finglas, frankly.

    Council houses are the very least that we can do for people whose circumstances have led them to some nadir in life. A council house is a lifeline, it's a promise of stability. It is so destructive when you try and take it off them, just when they're making a success of their lives.

    Why are you so against the basic premise that people should never be punished for their success?


  • Options
    #55
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    elperello wrote: »
    Social housing is not Communism.

    Automatic houses for all, paid by the state is not seen outside of communism.

    Ask anyone who grew up in communist nations and that's one of the most common memories.


  • Options
    #56
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Well no, because graduate starting salaries are actually pretty decent, and most graduates don't want to live in a semi-d in Finglas, frankly.

    Council houses are the very least that we can do for people whose circumstances have led them to some nadir in life. A council house is a lifeline, it's a promise of stability. It is so destructive when you try and take it off them, just when they're making a success of their lives.

    Why are you so against the basic premise that people should never be punished for their success?

    No, an apartment is the least we can do. An apartment that won't be upgraded because they continue to have kids.

    And you are punishing people for their success by denying them the same freeby


  • Options
    #57
    atilladehun
    Registered Users Posts: 1,566 ✭✭✭atilladehun


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    So... Communism?

    I'm not knocking it but call it what it is

    No. But not knife edge capitalism for things that should be a human right.

    Well planned social housing that is not outrageous but is functional.

    You cannot own any other property. If you want to upgrade then you move on.

    The state could build warm small houses at a controlled rate instead of paying landlords top market rate for kips.


  • Options
    #58
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    No, an apartment is the least we can do. An apartment that won't be upgraded because they continue to have kids.
    So a tenement?

    What do you want? 3 or 4 or more kids in a 2-bed apartment, that would be a success to you? Get up the yard would you.


  • Options
    #59
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,843 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    It's an extreme here , free housing for some and other poor people totally screwed paying outrageous rents and taxes to fund the lottery wins of free council housing, now with top locations and a rated homes. No lpt , no management fee etc. Its a total disgrace....


  • Options
    #60
    Limpy
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 1,105 ✭✭✭Limpy


    I think you mean socialism not communism.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    atilladehun
    Registered Users Posts: 1,566 ✭✭✭atilladehun


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    No, an apartment is the least we can do. An apartment that won't be upgraded because they continue to have kids.

    And you are punishing people for their success by denying them the same freeby

    What's actually happening is we are currently punishing people who are working hard. There's a chokehold on property by people and companies who use it to make a profit.

    Renting to poor people and having the state paying makes your home more expensive and unaffordable because of the demand for property by wealthy people who see it as a family investment and the even wealthier funds etc.

    Build houses for the poor.
    Get profit makers out of the system.
    Prices relax
    Every ounce of our working effort doesn't have to go into paying for the house.
    It's not that simple but it's better than we have at the moment.


Advertisement