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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Social Housing - Rent Means Test

124

Comments

  • #92
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Ush1 wrote:
    No issue, apart from the huge number of people on waiting lists who ya know, actually can't afford private accommodation but I'm sure they're begrudgers anyway.


    There is always waiting lists. Up to the government to address the lack of housing NOT someone who is fortunate to have the security of a L.A. house.


  • #93
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    El Weirdo wrote: »
    So ghettos for all the povs, yeah? Because that's what you're asking for. And we all know how well that works out.

    Why do you assume because some people will have to pay more that it will produce ghettos?

    As I said if you like the house and area and can afford the market rate, that's what you should pay.


  • #94
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Ush1 wrote:
    I'm saying what it set by the max set by the authority is obviously too low. I'm not asking tenants to overpay, I'm saying authorities should be asking for more if the tenant can afford it.


    Well then, by your own admission your issue is with the L.A. and housing authorities.


  • #95
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,646 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    Ush1 wrote: »
    I'm saying what it set by the max set by the authority is obviously too low. I'm not asking tenants to overpay, I'm saying authorities should be asking for more if the tenant can afford it.

    How about this?


  • #96
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    There is always waiting lists. Up to the government to address the lack of housing NOT someone who is fortunate to have the security of a L.A. house.

    There will always be more houses to build, why not go full nanny state and everybody gets a subsidised home?

    It is up to the government that those genuinely in need get help and are prioritised.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    Well then, by your own admission your issue is with the L.A. and housing authorities.

    Yes, I never said otherwise.:confused:


  • #98
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Ush1 wrote:
    There will always be more houses to build, why not go full nanny state and everybody gets a subsidised home?

    Sure , submit a detailed proposal to the Housing Minister .


  • #99
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    El Weirdo wrote: »
    How about this?

    It's an interesting idea, and certainly better than the current situation.


  • #100
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    Sure , submit a detailed proposal to the Housing Minister .

    I think it's you who wants to submit that particular proposal comrade.


  • #101
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,797 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Ush1 wrote:
    It's an interesting idea, and certainly better than the current situation.


    Ronan Lyons is probably one of the best Economists writing about this serious problem, many of his ideas make perfect sense


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Ush1 wrote:
    I think it's you who wants to submit that particular proposal comrade.


    Why I don't benefit from social housing, I did once. I own my own home now, wanting to see others miserable is not my thing.


  • #103
    Diceicle
    Registered Users Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭Diceicle


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    So what? Once they are honouring the terms of their tenancy with the L.A. there is no issue except with the feelings of those who begrudge the security of tenure and favourable rent L.A. tenants have. What do you want equality of misery?

    So then they are occupying a home that could be used to house someone in a more needy situation than theirs.


  • #104
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    Why I don't benefit from social housing, I did once. I own my own home now, wanting to see others miserable is not my thing.

    I genuinely don't know what you're on about but I have to laugh at paying what pretty much everyone else has to pay is seeing others miserable.

    Surely keeping a house from someone more needy is exactly seeing others miserable?


  • #105
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Diceicle wrote:
    So then they are occupying a home that could be used to house someone in a more needy situation than theirs.

    No, once they are a bidding by their tenancy agreement they are entitled to occupy their home and to live in the community they are part of.


  • #106
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Ush1 wrote:
    I genuinely don't know what you're on about but I have to laugh at paying what pretty much everyone else has to pay is seeing others miserable.


    What??


  • #107
    Diceicle
    Registered Users Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭Diceicle


    Citizens who are in social housing, who can afford market rates are basically bed-blockers prolonging the misery of more needy families through their selfish actions it would seem....


  • #108
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,646 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    But wouldn't pushing more people into the private rented sector just push up already crazy prices?


  • #109
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    No, once they are a bidding by their tenancy agreement they are entitled to occupy their home and to live in the community they are part of.

    That's not what the poster said. Read it again.


  • #110
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Ush1 wrote:
    Surely keeping a house from someone more needy is exactly seeing others miserable?

    So sitting tenants are the guilty party here. You could have said that from the start and saved so much time and effort on your behave. Basically no L.A. has a right to put down riots or become part of a community? Gotcha.


  • #111
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Diceicle wrote:
    Citizens who are in social housing, who can afford market rates are basically bed-blockers prolonging the misery of more needy families through their selfish actions it would seem....

    The mask slips......


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    What??

    What don't you understand exactly? I'm saying I think it's fair for people who can afford to pay their way, to pay their way and to help people genuinely in need.

    Controversial I know, mad stuff Ted!


  • #113
    Chinasea
    Registered Users Posts: 1,568 ✭✭✭Chinasea


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    Council houses don't usually come with flooring, much less furniture.

    The only rents i saw which were that low were for some unfortunate Brits who got only a tiny pension from there and weren't entitled to state pension here.

    Actually they do:

    https://www.tuathhousing.ie/development/

    The issue is with the fact that 2016 saw €73 MILLON in rent arrears in local authority housing.

    What a sham all round.

    Rent as low as €14.00 per week. Fully furnished "Turn Key" brand new.


  • #114
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    El Weirdo wrote:
    But wouldn't pushing more people into the private rented sector just push up already crazy prices?


    Sash no place for that kind of logic.


  • #115
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Ush1 wrote:
    What don't you understand exactly? I'm saying I think it's fair for people who can afford to pay their way, to pay their way and to help people genuinely in need.

    What you think is irrelevant as you don't set rental policy for the LA's.


  • #116
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    So sitting tenants are the guilty party here. You could have said that from the start and saved so much time and effort on your behave. Basically no L.A. has a right to put down riots or become part of a community? Gotcha.

    Yeah, totally lost me now.

    I'm not blaming tenants, I've said that already, I'm blaming policies that allow people, as an example given earlier, on 80k to get a subsidised home.


  • #117
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Housing people without the ability to house themselves is a good thing. But it can't end there.

    People working hard, earning the average industrial wage and paying huge rents with no possibility of either buying their own home or having safe and secure leases for their rentals while subsidising others in society is wrong. Plain wrong.

    Taking from group A and giving to group B while group A are on a knife edge is profoundly unjust and the hallmark of a dysfunctional society.


  • #118
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,797 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    suicide_circus wrote:
    Taking from group A and giving to group B while group A are on a knife edge is profoundly unjust and the hallmark of a dysfunctional society.


    Or are there more complex causes at play here?


  • #119
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    El Weirdo wrote: »
    But wouldn't pushing more people into the private rented sector just push up already crazy prices?

    As I said the government could charge market rates.

    It's a different argument really about rental prices. You can link that to planning restrictions etc...


  • #120
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,646 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    Chinasea wrote: »
    Actually they do:

    https://www.tuathhousing.ie/development/

    The issue is with the fact that 2016 saw €73 MILLON in rent arrears in local authority housing.

    What a sham all round.

    Rent as low as €14.00 per week. Fully furnished "Turn Key" brand new.

    That's poorly worded. Turnkey does not mean that it comes with sofas, beds, white goods, etc.

    Also, that's not local authority.

    Also, as has been explained, very, very few (if any) tenants will be on the minimum rent.

    Also, you haven't told me exactly which part of my first post in this thread is bull.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    Or are there more complex causes at play here?

    Loads of causes at play.


    Those that find themselves in a position to live off their own efforts need to be looked after by the state that they fund. That is no happening currently.


Advertisement