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
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    atilladehun
    Registered Users Posts: 1,566 ✭✭✭atilladehun


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    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.
    That's what is happening now, but the state pay a landlord on behalf of the Tennant.


  • Options
    #63
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Does anyone have a figure for the cost of social housing, per standalone unit, when you exclude VAT? What ballpark figure are we talking here?


  • Options
    #64
    Limpy
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 1,105 ✭✭✭Limpy


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Does anyone have a figure for the cost of social housing, per standalone unit, when you exclude VAT? What ballpark figure are we talking here?

    The government paid 500k per unit recently. 30 unit's in a large development.


  • Options
    #65
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Limpy wrote: »
    The government paid 500k per unit recently. 30 unit's in a large development.

    Where was this? Give us a link


  • Options
    #66
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    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.

    Yes because it's for me to pay for your kids even though I stopped at 3, you continue as long as you want and society will continue to upgrade your house.

    You get up the yard, there's another ****ing mansion for free up it!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    atilladehun wrote: »
    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.

    Build houses for the poor. Who pays for these houses?

    Like I said, you want communism then say it. You want socialism, say it.

    However, as that requires a change in system, what happens to the schmucks that's have bought houses already? Will the state buy them back?


  • Options
    #68
    Limpy
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 1,105 ✭✭✭Limpy


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Where was this? Give us a link



    Actually.61 units. Crazy money though.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/cairn-homes-to-sell-61-apartments-at-former-rt%C3%A9-lands-for-social-housing-1.4270911


  • Options
    #69
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Limpy wrote: »
    I think you mean socialism not communism.

    No, I meant communism. Because it's state controlled. If it was just houses big given way to those that want them, that's socialism but either way


  • Options
    #70
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    Yes because it's for me to pay for your kids even though I stopped at 3, you continue as long as you want and society will continue to upgrade your house.

    You get up the yard, there's another ****ing mansion for free up it!

    I think it's sad how people who are probably deserving of social housing sometimes turn against those who have earned it, I won't use the term 'class traitor' lightly, but it's a theme that seems to run right across Irish society.


  • Options
    #71
    Limpy
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 1,105 ✭✭✭Limpy


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    Build houses for the poor. Who pays for these houses?

    Like I said, you want communism then say it. You want socialism, say it.

    However, as that requires a change in system, what happens to the schmucks that's have bought houses already? Will the state buy them back?

    What used to happen in Soviet countries was if you owned a property you could only buy a new or bigger one if you relinquished the current one to the state.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Limpy
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 1,105 ✭✭✭Limpy


    Limpy wrote: »
    Actually.61 units. Crazy money though.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/cairn-homes-to-sell-61-apartments-at-former-rt%C3%A9-lands-for-social-housing-1.4270911


    The documentation put a value of €521,377 on the two-bed apartments and €472,797 on the one-bed apartments


  • Options
    #73
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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

    Youre view is that only the people that start above the threshold for a council house should be punished.

    If theres 2 families, 1 earning 41k a year and the other earning 43k , the first family gets a council house in an estate while the 2nd family doesnt qualify so when they move in to the house next door thats privately owned, they now have to pay 1500-2k a month rent, for the same house. Over time, both get promoted/pay rises and both are now earning 55k. Family 2 are still paying their 1500-2k a month rent (or whatever it may now be gone up to), whereas family 1 are on their council rent of a lot less.

    Why are family 2 punished?Why should they not be paying the same rent?


  • Options
    #74
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    I think it's sad how people who are probably deserving of social housing sometimes turn against those who have earned it, I won't use the term 'class traitor' lightly, but it's a theme that seems to run right across Irish society.

    Why have you turned a thread about council house tenants earning more than the threshold for a council house and the prospect of charging them accordingly into trying to say people are against council house tenants.


  • Options
    #75
    atilladehun
    Registered Users Posts: 1,566 ✭✭✭atilladehun


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    Build houses for the poor. Who pays for these houses?

    Like I said, you want communism then say it. You want socialism, say it.

    However, as that requires a change in system, what happens to the schmucks that's have bought houses already? Will the state buy them back?

    The same people who are currently paying for the rent of accommodation to landlords and vulture funds. We're currently paying to house the poor. We're just being ripped off by vulture funds in a constricted market.

    There are examples of decent social housing in Netherlands Denmark Germany Belgium Austria and Italy. We don't have to invent it. It can exist in a modern democracy.


  • Options
    #76
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    If theres 2 families, 1 earning 41k a year and the other earning 43k , the first family gets a council house in an estate while the 2nd family doesnt qualify so

    OK lets stop right there.

    I am not defending the regime as it is, I'm defending the principle of council-provided accommodation, in general. The specifics can be worked out by city planners. My point is fairly simple: accommodation should be means-tested, and once means-tested, occupants should have a right to remain in their homes even if they make a success of their lives.

    It's very straightforward, and probably quite sensible. Social housing intends to allow people to become successful, it does not punish success.


  • Options
    #77
    November Golf
    Registered Users Posts: 973 ✭✭✭November Golf


    Rodney Bathgate wrote: »
    Instead they are being ‘rewarded’ for the rest of their lives with cheap rent based on eligibility years or decades earlier. They will never be charged market rent or anywhere near it.

    Expecting them to pay market rent if they can afford it is not ‘punishment’, it is a fact of life for many people.

    Far better to make the house available to someone else who is in need of the same helping hand so they have the same opportunity to build a successful life.

    We don’t have unlimited social housing and we cannot afford to have it, so if you can afford to leave it you should be leaving it. (Made leave it.)

    1. The rent is means tested and reviewed. The more you earn the more you pay.

    2. Market rents are far to high, and would be higher if not for the fact that social housing takes people out of the private rental market.

    3. You cant honestly judge another peoples circumstances based on spectulation and rumour. If a person has been on low income for a number of years, getting a better paying jobs may lead to a higher standard of living but it doesnt happen immediately and there is no guarentee of job security or a sucessful life either.

    4. To say we can't afford social housing is a silly agrument to make. Government expenditure has more to do with voting potential than affordabilty.


  • Options
    #78
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    occupants should have a right to remain in their homes even if they make a success of their lives.
    .


    You keep going back to people getting kicked out of houses. No one is saying that.

    Its a matter of them paying market rate for a house, the same as other people in the estate that are earning the same money but expected to pay much higher rents.


  • Options
    #79
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Mike Foxtrot wrote: »
    1. The rent is means tested and reviewed. The more you earn the more you pay..

    Up to what ceiling?


  • Options
    #80
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Derrick Echoing Supper wrote: »
    Lots of threads here about free houses for people who don't work i wondered what people think of people who have businesses and live in a local authoity estate.

    I know some who can go on holidays three times a year and surely could buy a house but are in local authority houses. They are decent people do work and do pay rent and do not get into trouble or cause trouble.

    A friend of mine lives there. She says the area is a nice area and people work if they can some on FAS schemes, some are unable due to genuine medical issues but no one there causes any trouble.

    I don't know how they got the houses isn't there an income ceiling?




    Personally, I think they should buy elsewhere and leave the locl authority houses to those who cannot have this level of income. But i am not bitter about it and it does not bother me much. They do work hard. I am just curious what people think

    And yet you posted about it?


  • Options
    #81
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Limpy wrote: »
    What used to happen in Soviet countries was if you owned a property you could only buy a new or bigger one if you relinquished the current one to the state.

    There was no ownership as such and plenty of countries outside the ussr were communist.

    Romania for example. Bedroom for parents, children on a pull out in the sitting room.

    But anyway, it's neither here nor there is it?

    The question is what do we do. I'm asking if you support a house for everyone courtesy of the state and if so, what about current owners


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    You keep going back to people getting kicked out of houses. No one is saying that.

    Its a matter of them paying market rate for a house, the same as other people in the estate that are earning the same money but expected to pay much higher rents.

    What's the point of social housing if it simply mirrors the vagaries of the market? The whole point is to provide a platform for vulnerable tenants, and to let them flourish.

    I don't see the point of charging them above-cost rent. Why would you want to do that, unless you're some kind of mean-spirited bollox (not you personally)?


  • Options
    #83
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    What's the point of social housing if it simply mirrors the vagaries of the market? The whole point is to provide a platform for vulnerable tenants, and to let them flourish.

    I don't see the point of charging them above-cost rent. Why would you want to do that, unless you're some kind of mean-spirited bollox (not you personally)?

    When you get to the point that you are earning the same as people that are able to pay the rents in houses in the same estate, youre not the vulnerable anymore and need to stand on your own two feet ( by either moving on to clear the house for a vulnerable person, or paying the rate)

    At that stage all you are doing by keeping the council rents low is punishing the neighbours that are paying the full rate because they're in a private rental.


  • Options
    #84
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    When you get to the point that you are earning the same as people that are able to pay the rents in houses in the same estate, youre not the vulnerable anymore
    Is that what this is about?

    You're renting in an estate and you're annoyed that your neighbours might be paying a lower rent?

    I'm all for having a logical debate on the utility of social housing, but not going to try to assuage your personal gripes against your neighbour, sorry.


  • Options
    #85
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Is that what this is about?

    You're renting in an estate and you're annoyed that your neighbours might be paying a lower rent?

    I'm all for having a logical debate on the utility of social housing, but not going to try to assuage your personal gripes against your neighbour, sorry.

    No. I m not a renter, either private or council. I just have opinions on things.

    Youve spent so much energy not answering a point in multiple posts. You could have just addressed it.


  • Options
    #86
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    No. I m not a renter, either private or council. I just have opinions on things.

    Youve spent so much energy not answering a point in multiple posts. You could have just addressed it.

    OK, so neither of us actually have any experience of social housing, and here we are debating its merits or demerits.

    This is wasting everybody's time. Lets see if anyone who actually knows about social housing wants to talk about it.


  • Options
    #87
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    OK, so neither of us actually have any experience of social housing, and here we are debating its merits or demerits.

    This is wasting everybody's time. Lets see if anyone who actually knows about social housing wants to talk about it.

    The only waste of time is you dragging this out instead of just answering it.

    Theres lots of things that go on in the country that I'm sure both of us comment on without having experience of.


  • Options
    #88
    elstingeo
    Registered Users Posts: 75 ✭✭elstingeo


    They could of obtained the house whilst they were earning very little and then could have gained greater employment.

    The problem is the lack of social housing available and being built. The problem is not those living in it bettering themselves.

    Why would someone want to better themselves and own their own house eventually if they knew they were going to be sent packing?

    Families have outgoings. It’s hard to find a house or get a deposit for a mortgage saved up. You can’t just judge all people that live in social housing like that.

    Maybe they inherited money, the house or other circumstances also.

    If a person or family has the security of their own home then that’s a huge thing to have behind them also.


  • Options
    #89
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    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?



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

    So do away with the higher rate on income tax so. Your reasoning is ridiculous.


  • Options
    #90
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    OK lets stop right there.

    I am not defending the regime as it is, I'm defending the principle of council-provided accommodation, in general. The specifics can be worked out by city planners. My point is fairly simple: accommodation should be means-tested, and once means-tested, occupants should have a right to remain in their homes even if they make a success of their lives.

    It's very straightforward, and probably quite sensible. Social housing intends to allow people to become successful, it does not punish success.

    Agreed and the means testing and rent caps should extend right up to full market price. Good man.

    No "fairer" way really.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Limpy
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 1,105 ✭✭✭Limpy


    Ush1 wrote: »
    Agreed and the means testing and rent caps should extend right up to full market price. Good man.

    No "fairer" way really.

    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.


Advertisement