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

1235

Comments

  • #122
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    mariaalice wrote: »
    It still dose not answer the question of market rates in rent being equal to 60% or 70% of low or modest incomes or is your argument that if people are doing it in the private rental sector then it should be the same in the social rental sector?

    Seriously, will you read the bloody thread


  • #123
    lickalot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 85 ✭✭lickalot


    mariaalice wrote: »
    Where do people on low to modest incomes in jobs in areas with high rents and high house prices live if they can't buy or rent within a 50k radius of their job?

    Within a 50K radius? Ah here. That is absolutely nothing.

    There's people commuting two hours or more one way to Dublin every day, some people three or more.

    You buy a house where you can afford to.


  • #124
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    I'm lost here. Isn't the whole thrust of this thread that people on comfortable incomes should not be living in council houses?

    Youre not lost, youre ignoring posts that dont suit. Ive said it 2 or 3 times now. The discussion is about them being charged a proper rate when they start earning enough to.


  • #125
    nigeldaniel
    Registered Users Posts: 1,332 ✭✭✭nigeldaniel


    3 holidays a year! what's that going to cure. Once a year is fine but to be frank I see no point in going off to foreign parts myself.

    Dan.



  • #126
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    mariaalice wrote: »
    Where do people on low to modest incomes in jobs in areas with high rents and high house prices live if they can't buy or rent within a 50k radius of their job?

    A couple who are both in jobs earning 22k each dont qualify for a council house. The people in your scenario can do whatever the ones in my scenario are doing now probably.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Put this into a real scenario for me.

    Say I'm a bus-driver, earning 40k per year. I take a promotion that offers a 5k pay-rise, and you're now going to double my rent, from 15% of income to 30% (probably as much as 35%, at market rates).

    Well I'd be stupid to take that promotion. You're punishing work. Tell me what I'm missing here.

    What about this real scenario. What if im already a bus driver on 43k a year. I dont qualify for the house in the first place so have no choice but to go rent privately.

    How is that any fairer?


    and it wouldnt be a sudden doubling of your rent, youd already be up near the rate anyway at that stage under a fairer system where it was a percentage of your pay broadly in line with normal rent rates.


  • #128
    corks finest
    Registered Users Posts: 8,628 ✭✭✭corks finest


    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.......

    Doubt that honestly


  • #129
    Rodney Bathgate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,445 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    corks finest wrote: »
    Doubt that honestly

    Why exactly?

    60% of Dublin social housing tenancies are in arrears (as of January 2020), so many aren’t spending their money on their rent... not hard to imagine that at least one of that 60% could afford a holiday home in Turkey. Probably could afford to pay cash (ie no mortgage) if he has been ‘saving’ his rent money.


  • #130
    corks finest
    Registered Users Posts: 8,628 ✭✭✭corks finest


    Rodney Bathgate wrote: »
    Why exactly?

    60% of Dublin social housing tenancies are in arrears (as of January 2020), so many aren’t spending their money on their rent... not hard to imagine that at least one of that 60% could afford a holiday home in Turkey. Probably could afford to pay cash (ie no mortgage) if he has been ‘saving’ his rent money.

    Hopefully the exception rather than the rule,I cut my cloth ,but don't begrudge anyone making a go of life,big question really is why the **** aren't the government building enough social/ affordable housing?
    That would sort out the poor devils in the middle who will never afford a huge mortgage,and more 🠠s left for those on local authority lists


  • #131
    Rodney Bathgate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,445 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    corks finest wrote: »
    Hopefully the exception rather than the rule,I cut my cloth ,but don't begrudge anyone making a go of life,big question really is why the **** aren't the government building enough social/ affordable housing?
    That would sort out the poor devils in the middle who will never afford a huge mortgage,and more 🠠s left for those on local authority lists

    Fool me one shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me maybe?

    With 60% of current tenancies in arrears (in Dublin) before COVID-19 I can understand why there might be a reluctance to add more capacity and be ‘fooled again’. Throwing good money after bad comes to mind.

    The current renting model is clearly not fit for purpose. The rent needs to be taken at source. Either from social welfare payments or from payroll. With actual consequences for non payment.

    It is ridiculous that it was allowed to get to this point of 60% in arrears. That 60% must be having a good laugh at the rest of us. And people want the government / local authority to let more take advantage of us in the same way.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    corks finest wrote: »
    Doubt that honestly

    The bit about the house in Turkey? Doubt away. He was a plumber (now retired) and his wife worked too.

    A cap on rent of 15% of the highest earner leaves a lot of free cash that would be otherwise sucked up by a mortgage or private rent.

    Using the TD example, on what €85k or so is it?Their partner could be on similar money. Youre talking 15% of that (the TD)income as the rent cap. Thats €12,750 , or the equivalent of a mortgage of a little over €1,000 a month. Where as a couple earning a combined salary of half of that one salary could be paying €1500-€2,000 a month in rent easily.


  • #133
    riclad
    Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    The current system we have is it costs 250k to build one council house. We are going into a recession maybe for 2 years,
    Tax revenue will fall, welfare spending is rising due to covid crisis. I do, nt expect a big rise in no if social houses being built per year.
    Maybe 1000,s of shops or small business, s will close. Airlines may lay off 1000s of employees.
    We are an open economy, we depend on tourism and exports to keep the economy going.
    One problem is as long as they pay the rent
    one person can stay in a 3 bed council house.
    While there mothers with 2 kids living in a hotel for years
    There's 100s of empty boarded up flats owned by the council in dublin.
    I presume they are waiting to be upgraded or decorated


  • #134
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    What about this real scenario. What if im already a bus driver on 43k a year. I dont qualify for the house in the first place so have no choice but to go rent privately.

    How is that any fairer?

    It isn't. Guess what? Life isn't fair. There is an obvious unfairness in the lack of social housing, nobody disputes that.

    There should be better access to social housing, but you shouldn't be evicted if you become successful, although you should be paying more than 15%-of-income in rent, maybe 30%.

    Is any of this really controversial? Or will some people not be satisfied until they see people evicted for getting a promotion?


  • #135
    Rodney Bathgate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,445 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    You would have to wonder how many of the successful people in social housing are among the 60% of tenancies in arrears.


  • #136
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    https://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-council-5-4956180-Jan2020/

    DCC owed 33 million in rent arrears.

    Number of tenants owing 27k just for their house alone, largest single dept 38k!

    There are no tenants paying the maximum weekly rent of €423.

    Only one tenant has been evicted for rent arrears since 2014.

    Tis a good read if you feel a bit groggy today.


  • #137
    mick087
    Registered Users Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭mick087


    Ush1 wrote: »
    https://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-council-5-4956180-Jan2020/

    DCC owed 33 million in rent arrears.

    Number of tenants owing 27k just for their house alone, largest single dept 38k!

    There are no tenants paying the maximum weekly rent of €423.

    Only one tenant has been evicted for rent arrears since 2014.

    Tis a good read if you feel a bit groggy today.

    Laughable evict the poorest in society.
    Where they going to put them?

    How my are not working? don't go into that i note.


  • #138
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Riflecreek wrote: »
    People should be evicted if they can't pay the rent.
    For sure, but that's not the point of this thread.

    This thread is a place where people come to complain about council tenants going to work and paying their rent, and basically doing all the right things. Evict them!


  • #139
    Rodney Bathgate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,445 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    For sure, but that's not the point of this thread.

    This thread is a place where people come to complain about council tenants going to work and paying their rent, and basically doing all the right things. Evict them!

    Yeah, some people prefer to ‘reward’ them at the expense of others.


  • #140
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    mick087 wrote: »
    Laughable evict the poorest in society.
    Where they going to put them?

    How my are not working? don't go into that i note.

    Sorry, could I get that again in English please?


  • #141
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,624 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    A thread on social housing for working people and no one mentioned Vienna? For shame


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    For sure, but that's not the point of this thread.

    This thread is a place where people come to complain about council tenants going to work and paying their rent, and basically doing all the right things. Evict them!

    Your threads are brutal to be fair.


  • #143
    Thingymebob
    Registered Users Posts: 115 ✭✭Thingymebob


    If a tenants situation improves, they should have to pay full market rent. If a tenant wants security, they can get a mortgage and buy a property at full market price. Subsidising a few at the expense of many isn’t fair, it isn’t right, and it isn’t acceptable.

    We work full time, didn’t have a honeymoon (or a big wedding), skipped holidays for 5 years (we left the country once for a weekend for a wedding), and scrimped and saved to get our deposit. since we’ve brought, 6 properties in our estate were sold by a private investor to a AHB. The existing tenants had to vacate - all good working families. One family had to leave their jobs and relocate to live with family with Longford, two families left the country as they couldn’t find new places, one family is now sharing a place with another family and paying more rent, and the other two we’ve lost touch with (I helped them at the RTB as the notice period was wrong). Only one of the new families that replaced them is working, and we’ve had the guards here constantly as three of the six families are troublemakers. As they’re on social, they’re paying about €40/wk rent each when our mortgage is €1045/mth They’re all driving nice cars, on holidays several times a year etc when we can’t afford a weeks all inclusive as we have to support ourselves... so our estate has changed for the worse for no good reason that I can see. I genuinely can’t see any reason why a social welfare claimant or social housing tenant should have a better lifestyle than a honest worker. Rents should go to market rate after two years, and if you e not taken steps within that two years to improve yourself so that you be self supporting, then that’s your fault - not joe taxpayers. Too many game the system, yet then we read of elderly on trollies in hospital or care hours being cut for disabled kids. That’s because there’s too many entitled spongers who outnumber the squeezed workers

    (And yes, there needs to be better audits on the rich too)


  • #144
    kenmm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,698 ✭✭✭kenmm


    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

    Why don't you go and knock on a few doors and ask them about their income and if they can afford the house they are in and if they are in receipt of any benefits.


    Pop back and let us know how it goes. Or maybe keep your nosey beak out or other people affairs?


  • #145
    hurler32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 451 ✭✭hurler32


    Thingymebob wrote: »
    If a tenants situation improves, they should have to pay full market rent. If a tenant wants security, they can get a mortgage and buy a property at full market price. Subsidising a few at the expense of many isn’t fair, it isn’t right, and it isn’t acceptable.

    We work full time, didn’t have a honeymoon (or a big wedding), skipped holidays for 5 years (we left the country once for a weekend for a wedding), and scrimped and saved to get our deposit. since we’ve brought, 6 properties in our estate were sold by a private investor to a AHB. The existing tenants had to vacate - all good working families. One family had to leave their jobs and relocate to live with family with Longford, two families left the country as they couldn’t find new places, one family is now sharing a place with another family and paying more rent, and the other two we’ve lost touch with (I helped them at the RTB as the notice period was wrong). Only one of the new families that replaced them is working, and we’ve had the guards here constantly as three of the six families are troublemakers. As they’re on social, they’re paying about €40/wk rent each when our mortgage is €1045/mth They’re all driving nice cars, on holidays several times a year etc when we can’t afford a weeks all inclusive as we have to support ourselves... so our estate has changed for the worse for no good reason that I can see. I genuinely can’t see any reason why a social welfare claimant or social housing tenant should have a better lifestyle than a honest worker. Rents should go to market rate after two years, and if you e not taken steps within that two years to improve yourself so that you be self supporting, then that’s your fault - not joe taxpayers. Too many game the system, yet then we read of elderly on trollies in hospital or care hours being cut for disabled kids. That’s because there’s too many entitled spongers who outnumber the squeezed workers


    The people not working are already 1000 euro ahead of you by not working, and getting the same house for micky mouse money . Maybe they have the right idea , a free house and decent welfare for no hassle or work etc.
    Anyone in modest employment is only wasting their time if they have a mortgage as well.


  • #146
    kenmm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,698 ✭✭✭kenmm


    I wonder - if we done a quick poll of those who complain about these perceived injustices (and without evidence, it can only be perception and opinion) and how they voted in the last 5 elections what would we see??


  • #147
    mick087
    Registered Users Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭mick087


    Riflecreek wrote: »
    Your attitude is what results in people taking advantage of the system.

    People should be evicted if they can't pay the rent.




    Do you know why they cannot afford the rent?
    Where do they go once evicted?


  • #148
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    mick087 wrote: »
    Do you know why they cannot afford the rent?
    Where do they go once evicted?

    Pay rent or out you go should be the norm. Too much pussyfooting around some chancers.


  • #149
    Rodney Bathgate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,445 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    kenmm wrote: »
    Why don't you go and knock on a few doors and ask them about their income and if they can afford the house they are in and if they are in receipt of any benefits.


    Pop back and let us know how it goes. Or maybe keep your nosey beak out or other people affairs?

    Ridiculous.

    As taxpayers we have a right to question how our taxes are being spent.

    Jog on if you don’t like that.


  • #150
    Jurgen Klopp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,807 ✭✭✭Jurgen Klopp


    Jesus all that owed in arrears from 6 in every 10

    The amount of workers, disabled and pensioners I know who would only love the opportunity for a house and who would pay on time and they are left waiting years :(


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    kenmm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,698 ✭✭✭kenmm


    Rodney Bathgate wrote: »
    Ridiculous.

    As taxpayers we have a right to question how our taxes are being spent.

    Jog on if you don’t like that.

    :D

    You are right. Ridiculous. Go through the proper channels and stop adding to the mass hysteria. Making up all sorts of stories and assumptions.

    "We have a right" - the sense of entitlement is often attributed to the great unwashed who exist only to live from the state wile turning down house after house, job after job, but its prevalent in all our society.

    It's all "Oh Mary said she say this couple go on a holiday and they had a van with a company name on it so they must be running a company and scamming the system because one of them neighbours there is claiming benefits, so the whole estate are chancers"

    It all sounds like a bunch of curtain twitching childish BS based of speculation and gossip.


Advertisement