Social houses in my estate

kildare.17hmr

Zamboni wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with social housing to help those in genuine need but surely a citizen who has paid taxes, and put in years of work should have better accomodation than a citizen who doesn't work or pay taxes?

take the post above from bubuz as an example, no fault of his own finds himself in this situation and had no choice to quit his job. Why does he and his family not deserve a nice house? Alot of people now in this situation its not their fault, alot have worked all their lives and lost their job. Most estates have social housing.

kildare.17hmr

crimebuster wrote: »

so who pays the new house tax of 100 euro a year for these social house??

the home owner and it is up to them to try get it back from tenants the same as private rent id imagine

MagicMarker

Zamboni wrote: »

Of course I realise that but do they really need to be in the same level of accomodation?
Because by doing so, we remove one of the incentives to work and have a career.

Great stuff.

While we're at it we can provide a lower level of healthcare for them, and a shít schools for their kids.

crimebuster

if less people spunged off of the country we would have a better health care system and school system.

Zamboni

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

take the post above from bubuz as an example, no fault of his own finds himself in this situation and had no choice to quit his job. Why does he and his family not deserve a nice house? Alot of people now in this situation its not their fault, alot have worked all their lives and lost their job. Most estates have social housing.

Why does bubuz deserve a nice house exactly?
I feel for him and his family and if it is genuinely assessed that he can't work he deserves assistance by the state.
And should rightly be funded by the taxpayer.
But a 'nice house'? The only people who deserve a nice house are the people who put the graft in and earned one.

crimebuster

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

the home owner and it is up to them to try get it back from tenants the same as private rent id imagine

so that means that they dont pay the new tax either, sur ill maintain their garden during the summer for them aswell

ebixa82

Zamboni wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with social housing to help those in genuine need but surely a citizen who has paid taxes, and put in years of work should have better accomodation than a citizen who doesn't work or pay taxes?

It is clear that the recession has created a whole new section of people dependent on social housing and welfare.

It was pretty simple during the boom. Because there was so much work out there the general public could be divided into two classes:

1) Those who were willing to work:
-Upper, Middle and Working class

2) Those who were happy to live and scrounge off the state

Now, unfortunately a significant number of those that were in (1) find themselves dependent on the state and are being treated the same as those in (2) irrespective of how much income tax they paid. This is pretty unjust.

There are plenty of hard working people, who have paid tens upon tens, if not hundreds of 1,000s in taxes over the course of their working life. Should these be entitled to more than the scroungers? Of course!

However, it would be impossible to create a two tiered system of social welfare housing. If, for example, you only allowed the scroungers into older, poorer quality estates these would soon turn into ghettoes, destroyed by crime and drugs. And that would create a whole new set of problems for society.

kildare.17hmr

Zamboni wrote: »

Of course I realise that but do they really need to be in the same level of accomodation?
Because by doing so, we remove one of the incentives to work and have a career.

familys are put in accommodation that is suitable, ie 3/4 kids and 2 adults they need a big house. I

if that is taking away anyone's incentive to work or have a career they have the wrong attitude to begin with.

MagicMarker

Look, these were meant to be affordable housing, obviously no one can afford to buy them so it's either let them sit there empty of give them to people who need them while getting some kind of income for them.

Besides, somehow I don't think the OP bought a 4 bed semi in Dalkey. Just because he's a private owner doesn't mean his estate his some kind of utopia.

kildare.17hmr

crimebuster wrote: »

so that means that they dont pay the new tax either, sur ill maintain their garden during the summer for them aswell

do ya know what im bowing out of this thread because i really could not be bothered listening to your and a few others ****e talk anymore.
I really hope you dont find yourself in a situation where you need help from the social, im sure the fall would really hurt

Raskolnikov

MagicMarker wrote: »

some social housing dotted around the estate isn't going to make much of a difference.

It might not make much of a difference to you, but a lot of people will simply run a mile if there is any decent amount of social housing in an estate.

A friend of mine is in a similar situation, living in a new estate where Affordable Housing has turned to Social Housing. Within a week, just about every house in the row had a satellite dish hanging off it :pac:

Crazy Horse 6

crimebuster wrote: »

ah beats being a scrounger

You do realise people in social housing have jobs right.

Zamboni

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

familys are put in accommodation that is suitable, ie 3/4 kids and 2 adults they need a big house. I

if that is taking away anyone's incentive to work or have a career they have the wrong attitude to begin with.

Nonsense.

There are familys living in plush council housing in South Dublin properties whilst many a taxpayer is living in crap rented accomodation working their asses off to pay the taxes to provide for these familys.

The problem with the Irish population is we have become a bunch of 'entitled' morons where the people who contribute to society are less equal than those who take.
Where is the incentive to work when the default housing/income limit is roughly the same as if you don't work?

MagicMarker

Zamboni wrote: »

Nonsense.

There are familys living in plush council housing in South Dublin properties whilst many a taxpayer is living in crap rented accomodation working their asses off to pay the taxes to provide for these familys.

The problem with the Irish population is we have become a bunch of 'entitled' morons where the people who contribute to society are less equal than those who take.
Where is the incentive to work when the default housing/income limit is roughly the same as if you don't work?

Once again you're ignoring the fact that most of these people DO work.

Zamboni

MagicMarker wrote: »

Once again you're ignoring the fact that most of these people DO work.

No I am not.
But if they are working they clearly don't earn enough to be in the same level of acommodation as somebody who earns more than them.

Jesus Christ will we start giving every student 500 points in their Leaving Cert too?
We've clearly swapped work ethic for entitled ethic.

bubbuz

Zamboni wrote: »

Why does bubuz deserve a nice house exactly?
I feel for him and his family and if it is genuinely assessed that he can't work he deserves assistance by the state.
And should rightly be funded by the taxpayer.
But a 'nice house'? The only people who deserve a nice house are the people who put the graft in and earned one.

I never said I deserved a nice house, was just putting my point across that not everyone in social housing are scroungers, I worked and paid taxes since the age of 16 and used to run a business employing 8 people and would give my right arm to be back working.... never claimed a penny till my run of bad luck. I just think people should open their eyes a bit more and realise that there are many people out there who HATE relying on government handouts.

Zamboni

bubbuz wrote: »

I never said I deserved a nice house, was just putting my point across that not everyone in social housing are scroungers, I worked and paid taxes since the age of 16 and used to run a business employing 8 people and would give my right arm to be back working.... never claimed a penny till my run of bad luck.

I never said you did bubbuz.
Some socialist from Kildare said that.
I hope things work out for you.

Aenaes

On the subject of the 3 cars in your estate, your local authority has the power to have them removed and be scrapped. This applies if they are not taxed or considered to be hazardous waste (scrap metal).

MagicMarker

Zamboni wrote: »

No I am not.
But if they are working they clearly don't earn enough to be in the same level of acommodation as somebody who earns more than them.

Jesus Christ will we start giving every student 500 points in their Leaving Cert too?
We've clearly swapped work ethic for entitled ethic.

Define work ethic? Does someone who sits at a desk 9 hours a day for 60k a year have a better work ethic than someone who cleans the office for 9 hours a day for 20k a year?

The only one oozing self-entitlement here is you with your continued insinuation that people in social housing lack work ethic, don't work and are generally lazy layabouts who contribute nothing to society.

Zamboni

MagicMarker wrote: »

Define work ethic? Does someone who sits at a desk 9 hours a day for 60k a year have a better work ethic than someone who cleans the office for 9 hours a day for 20k a year? .

In your example, who should have better accomodation?

Snakeblood

MagicMarker wrote: »

Define work ethic? Does someone who sits at a desk 9 hours a day for 60k a year have a better work ethic than someone who cleans the office for 9 hours a day for 20k a year?

The only one oozing self-entitlement here is you with your continued insinuation that people in social housing lack work ethic, don't work and are generally lazy layabouts who contribute nothing to society.

It's not entirely unreasonable that someone on 60 grand a year should have a better l(financial) quality of life than someone on 20. Why would anyone bother going to college if they were just going to end up in the same position as if they dropped out and worked cleaning an office, despite the fact that they generate more money, pay more tax and contribute more to the economy. The rosy glow of accomplishment isn't as good as money.

ebixa82

Zamboni wrote: »

In your example, who should have better accomodation?

The 60k'er as they are paying way more tax.

El Weirdo

Zamboni wrote: »

There are familys living in plush council housing in South Dublin properties whilst many a taxpayer is living in crap rented accomodation working their asses off to pay the taxes to provide for these familys.

Well if these families are in unsuitable accommodation and are unable to afford suitable accommodation, then maybe they should apply for social housing.

That's what it's there for.

Zamboni

MagicMarker wrote: »

The only one oozing self-entitlement here is you with your continued insinuation that people in social housing lack work ethic, don't work and are generally lazy layabouts who contribute nothing to society.

You are out of order here.
I haven't insinuated anything of the sort.
I simply firmly believe that you get what you work for.

p

crimebuster wrote: »

it must be nice paying 30 euro a week for the same house i pay over 1000 euro a month for, i take it that you are on the gravy train too!!

Send them all to the mines I say, especially the children, their little hands are better for delicate work. They need to work for every single penny -- no good can possibly come from trying to create a more equal society!

MagicMarker

Zamboni wrote: »

In your example, who should have better accomodation?

It's not a question of who should have better accommodation, it's a question of who can. Generally the person earning more will have the better accommodation, but if the person earning less can get it for cheaper then fair fúcking playing to them.

Like has already been said, the houses in the OP's estate were for affordable housing, this is clearly not viable at the minute so I have absolutely no problem with those houses going to people who need them. Would you prefer they were just left empty? Would you prefer it if a family was denied a home simply because they don't earn enough in your opinion?

Bandana boy

MagicMarker wrote: »

You realise not everyone in social housing is a 'scrounger'?

By Definition they are though,
The OP meant it in a dergogatory fashion but they are "scrounging" of the state.

El Weirdo

Bandana boy wrote: »

By Definition they are though,
The OP meant it in a dergogatory fashion but they are "scrounging" of the state.

Whereas you are using it in a complimentary fashion?

Bandana boy

No just stating that the very definition of scrounging is Begging or borrowing with no intention to pay back.This is what applying for a state hand out is.

Now I am not suggesting we do not have a social protection net ,in fact the opposite.
We as a society have decided to protect those who cannot protect themselves. If you cannot afford to provide for yourself or your family and you ask the state ,we will close the gap to help you survive.
This is not purely philanthropic, Many studies have proven that abandoning those at the bottom is detrimental to the society as a whole.

That said using words like deserve and earn around state aid are not factual and scrounging as negative as it might seem is.

ronan45

Was discussing this with a friend of mine at the weekend. He paid nearly 400,000 Euro for a house (not including stamp duty) at the peak of the boom.
Now in the interim both houses either side of him and behind him have been sold and used as social housing. What irks him is that while he sweats about paying his mortgage each month he comes home and theres his neighbours chilling out in the sun with cans having a whale of a time lol parties at weekends
Not bad ! I think the house behind him are refugees

SWEET if you can get it !
Im sure if he looses his job the government will give him the house for free too though