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.

3 holidays a year in local authority estate

Options
  • 07-07-2020 5:05pm
    #1
    80j2lc5y7u6qs9
    Closed Accounts Posts: 957 ✭✭✭


    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


«13456

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,671 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    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

    There's an income limit fro getting the house.

    Once someone has it, though, uts theirs fir life irrespective of income.


  • Options
    #3
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users Posts: 30,185 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    I suppose if they kicked people out on the street for working and maybe having a bit of cash people maybe less likely to work.


  • Options
    #4
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    They get their houses because, at the time, they were on low incomes and needed housing. The last time this came up, someone showed the requirements - they aren't easy. You have to be a very low earner, with no other options.

    Subsequently, you can go on to build a business and grow as a person, economically speaking. That's the ideal, why should that be punished? That's an example of social-housing working. Isn't it good? Give people a platform and let them build successful lives. What's the problem?


  • Options
    #5
    Rodney Bathgate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,445 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    They get their houses because, at the time, they were on low incomes and needed housing. The last time this came up, someone showed the requirements - they aren't easy. You have to be a very low earner, with no other options.

    Subsequently, you can go on to build a business and grow as a person, economically speaking. That's the ideal, why should that be punished? That's an example of social-housing working. Isn't it good? Give people a platform and let them build successful lives. What's the problem?

    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.)


  • Options
    #6
    Rodin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    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.

    Should be a 6monthly/ yearly reassessment of means


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.

    Part of the problem with social-housing availability is that we made the ridiculous decision to allow it to be sold. I think that's stupid, but stability of tenure is important.

    If you punish people for making a success of their lives, by taking away their house, you're creating a massive disincentive to work.

    As far as I know, rent is linked to income, which is good. Apart from the opportunity to purchase, I think social housing has been a success. The first thing anyone needs when they're starting to build their lives is a stable, affordable home.


  • Options
    #8
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

    Subsequently, you can go on to build a business and grow as a person, economically speaking. That's the ideal, why should that be punished?

    Because there isnt an infinite supply. Social housing should be a "when you need it "thing, not a "forever house". As already stated, raise rents to what they should be for private renters for those that an afford it.

    A guy I used to work with lived in a council house . This enabled him to have a holiday home in Turkey.......


  • Options
    #9
    Rodney Bathgate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,445 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Part of the problem with social-housing availability is that we made the ridiculous decision to allow it to be sold. I think that's stupid, but stability of tenure is important.

    If you punish people for making a success of their lives, by taking away their house, you're creating a massive disincentive to work.

    As far as I know, rent is linked to income, which is good. Apart from the opportunity to purchase, I think social housing has been a success. The first thing anyone needs when they're starting to build their lives is a stable, affordable home.

    I don’t accept it is a punishment as I said. I think most would agree.

    Rent is linked to income but as I also said, the max rent the pay is no where near market rent.

    Social welfare and other schemes are there to tide you over when in need. Social housing should be the same. The system doesn’t continue to pay JSA/JSB when someone becomes employed and successful, no reason that social housing should be different in this specific scenario.


  • Options
    #10
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

    Subsequently, you can go on to build a business and grow as a person, economically speaking. That's the ideal, why should that be punished? That's an example of social-housing working. Isn't it good? Give people a platform and let them build successful lives. What's the problem?

    What about the people that cant get a council house but then this means they have to spend much more of their income on private rent and then cat afford to start a business. Why should they be punished?


  • Options
    #11
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,851 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Because there isnt an infinite supply. Social housing should be a "when you need it "thing, not a "forever house". As already stated, raise rents to what they should be for private renters for those that an afford it.

    A guy I used to work with lived in a council house . This enabled him to have a holiday home in Turkey.......

    Yep, same with a family being given a big council house and years later the widow living alone in it.

    Move her to smaller place.

    If anyone has a problem with this, then go out and buy your own.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    This is why you shouldn't be allowed buy a council house and there should be a size limit. Sensible people stop having children of they can't afford more bedrooms.

    I would also look at a limit on social housing in terms of time period but I admit that may be messy. Otherwise people just won't bother getting jobs, etc and we're no further along in solving the issue.


  • Options
    #13
    CrankyHaus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,281 ✭✭✭CrankyHaus


    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.

    There are also plenty of more egregious and pressing issues with how social housing stock is allocated. I just don't believe too many business owners in council houses is a real problem.
    If Council Estates were full of people jetting off to the Seychelles with no space for left for actual needy cases the problem may need a solution.


  • Options
    #14
    Fann Linn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    Whatever about the monetary limits for rural counties, I think the max wage cap for Dublin, Kildare etc is approx €45k depending on family size. So any lad working in average jobs in factories, retail, services, even PS is well entitled to avail of social housing.


  • Options
    #15
    Stovepipe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    Three holidays a year? easy if you are telling lies about your earnings or are up to your neck in debt or you have had an inheritance or got a redundancy. A lot of people go to cheap destinations in Spain and Portugal; a week for two in a cheap hotel in either country is well affordable. You'd be surprised how many Irish people own property abroad; apartments or apart-hotels in Spain were quite cheap a decade or two ago and lots of people bought them.


  • Options
    #16
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.

    There are also plenty of more egregious and pressing issues with how social housing stock is allocated. I just don't believe too many business owners in council houses is a real problem.
    If Council Estates were full of people jetting off to the Seychelles with no space for left for actual needy cases the problem may need a solution.

    It's more common that you think.

    Pick a council estate, any council estate and have a walk around. You will see taxis, company Vans (not always the owner to be fair) but a good few are. some pretty nice spec cars as well.

    As mentioned above, it's a kick in the teeth for those that didn't have an attitude of "well sure I'll just wait for it to be handed to me" and went out and grafted but sees now left with a large mortgage or rent and just about living.


  • Options
    #17
    Fann Linn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    It's more common that you think.

    Pick a council estate, any council estate and have a walk around. You will see taxis, company Vans (not always the owner to be fair but a fair few are. some pretty nice spec cars as well.

    As mentioned above, it's a kick in the teeth for those that didn't have an attitude of "well sure I'll just wait for it to be handed to me" and went out and grafted but sees now left with a large mortgage or rent and just about living.

    PCPs!


  • Options
    #18
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    What about the people that cant get a council house but then this means they have to spend much more of their income on private rent and then cat afford to start a business. Why should they be punished?

    They shouldn't be. In reality, they are punished, but that's because we have made a decision, as an electorate, not to prioritise building houses.

    It would be worse again if you effectively prohibited innovation by kicking people out of their homes once they started to earn a decent living. The whole POINT of social-housing is to allow people to flourish.

    The solution is more social housing, ideally charging the tenants for the cost of construction, not a few dozen houses a year.


  • Options
    #19
    Pinoy adventure
    Registered Users Posts: 984 ✭✭✭Pinoy adventure


    Sure you get penalized for saving a few bob every week and trying too better yourself & life.


  • Options
    #20
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Fann Linn wrote: »
    PCPs!

    I don't know what that means


  • Options
    #21
    Fann Linn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    I don't know what that means

    It means cars are cheap.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Stovepipe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    Many council houses were sold off for relatively small money, even going back to the 70s. They were often offered to Corpo staff or long time reliable renters for well below market rate. All of my Uncles were Corpo staff and got their house in the 70s, having been renters, back when it was considerably harder to get a mortgage. A couple are still in the same houses and others, including my dad, moved onto private houses when they got the chance. The Corpo got fed up of constantly maintaining huge housing stocks and being constantly moaned at by the tenants so they offloaded as many houses as possible.


  • Options
    #23
    80j2lc5y7u6qs9
    Closed Accounts Posts: 957 ✭✭✭80j2lc5y7u6qs9


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    They get their houses because, at the time, they were on low incomes and needed housing. The last time this came up, someone showed the requirements - they aren't easy. You have to be a very low earner, with no other options.

    Subsequently, you can go on to build a business and grow as a person, economically speaking. That's the ideal, why should that be punished? That's an example of social-housing working. Isn't it good? Give people a platform and let them build successful lives. What's the problem?
    in the situation I know of they had the businesses when they moved in.


  • Options
    #24
    Jurgen Klopp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,807 ✭✭✭Jurgen Klopp


    Is it true every child in a family has to have their own bedroom, so if you've parents and 3 kids they need a 4 bed etc?

    Like I was thinking if I had say 3 kids and was offered a 2 bed and stick in a single and a some bunk beds be better than nothing especially if at risk of homelessness

    At the very least give the tenants the option, I know some want their forever home type of thing but plenty would rather a tight fit in a council where you have security of tenancy as well as comfort if your income goes down your rent is reassessed


  • Options
    #25
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users Posts: 30,185 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    Jurgen Klopp wrote: »
    Is it true every child in a family has to have their own bedroom, so if you've parents and 3 kids they need a 4 bed etc?

    From my understanding you are allowed to have two kids in a room but you may not be able to mix genders.


  • Options
    #26
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Stovepipe wrote: »
    Many council houses were sold off for relatively small money, even going back to the 70s. They were often offered to Corpo staff or long time reliable renters for well below market rate. All of my Uncles were Corpo staff and got their house in the 70s, having been renters, back when it was considerably harder to get a mortgage. A couple are still in the same houses and others, including my dad, moved onto private houses when they got the chance. The Corpo got fed up of constantly maintaining huge housing stocks and being constantly moaned at by the tenants so they offloaded as many houses as possible.
    It was a bit more ideological than that. In the UK, Thatcher decided that the sale of public housing would be a good incentive for residents to have a 'stakeholding' (abominable word) in their communities. The theory was that it would improve standards across social-housing estates that had sprung up all across Britain.

    We eagerly jumped off that cliff with Thatcher, except, it turned out that there was no real benefit for communities. The only real benefit was for people who wanted to speculate on properties or lease them, especially in inner-city locations and other areas of strategic importance.

    The sale of public housing was one of the most egregious planning mistakes of our lifetime.


  • Options
    #27
    Rodney Bathgate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,445 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    From my understanding you are allowed to have two kids in a room but you may not be able to mix genders.

    Gender or sex? :(


  • Options
    #28
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Jurgen Klopp wrote: »
    Is it true every child in a family has to have their own bedroom
    No.


  • Options
    #29
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users Posts: 30,185 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    Rodney Bathgate wrote: »
    Gender or sex? :(

    Alright
    you can have two boys or two girls in a room but it's something I heard on the radio so I don't know how true it it.


  • Options
    #30
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Where are all the people who grew up in council estates?

    There must be hundreds of you active on this website. We often forget how normal it was to live in local-government-supplied housing, whether on an estate or even in the countryside.

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Rodney Bathgate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,445 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    Alright
    you can have two boys or two girls in a room but it's something I heard on the radio so I don't know how true it it.

    Only joking, we know what you meant.


Advertisement