Why is rent allowance so generous?

Gatling

gurramok wrote: »

Thats uncalled for. The OP in my opinion has a problem where a social welfare recipient "family" are entitled to bid for the same properties in the private rental market as a worker, especially when the property is in a middle class area. As you know we all work to live and earn money to live in a nice area as a reward

I have experienced this problem before and stated it on boards. Before the present rise in rents a couple of years ago, I had to compete with RS applicants for a house in Castleknock above all places, how is that justified??
The DCC treated the whole Dublin(DCC) area as one when classifying rates of RS rather than say rates for Blanch were lower than in Castleknock as Castleknock was "posher" [/url]

Keep the poor in the poor areas and leave the posh areas to the wannnbe posh types boom Boom

gurramok

Gatling wrote: »

Keep the poor in the poor areas and leave the posh areas to the wannnbe posh types boom Boom

What?

Why should RS recipients be kept or incentivised to live in the most expensive areas on taxpayers money?

Bannasidhe

gurramok wrote: »

What?

Why should RS recipients be kept or incentivised to live in the most expensive areas on taxpayers money?

Well if they are obliged to move - why not ship them out to which ever part of the country has the lowest rents?

There is a cap set which is the maximum - RS will cover this minus recipient's contribution. That cap sets the up most limit but there is no guarantee that will be accepted by the powers that be. So that is one restriction on those on RS competing with those who arn't.

Then there are the landlords who refuse to accept RS. Another restriction.

So when some has a house/flat and are in receipt of RS that means the rent is less than the cap set and the landlord is one of the few who accepts rent allowance.

Of course if there was enough LA housing the State wouldn't need to pay rent to private landlords in the first place.
Perhaps the monies spent on RS should instead be used to build LA housing or purchase (like 'we' don't own it already) NAMA stock and use that as LA housing.

LA tenants on SW do pay rent - the amount is determined by income so those would be going to the LA and the construction industry would get a shot in the arm/NAMA would get some of those property off their books/'ghost' estates could be finished and filled.

Gatling

gurramok wrote: »

What?

Why should RS recipients be kept or incentivised to live in the most expensive areas on taxpayers money?

You mean the 5% of tax payer's who contribute the majority of the share of taxes

Unfortunately there's not enough LA housing to go round so if people want to live in certain areas thats there choice nobody else's ,
Even better , make them live in the bedsits that aren't fit for human habitation to make tax payers feel better

fussyonion

So many people have a problem with RA but why don't you direct your anger/annoyance at the government/social welfare etc?
They're the ones issuing it!

gurramok

Nothing do with moving them to the farthest end of the country. I think you're not from Dub but I can explain that a RS recipient can live within the limit in Blanch instead of Castleknock for example, what i'm saying is that the welfare is there to live within Dublin and not be shipped as you put it to the lowest rental area in the country.

What treehouse was saying its simply not fair that RS recipients can compete with workers for accommodation in moderate to expensive areas, that is simply not fair with subsidised accommodation. And yes the welfare careerists make matters worse for genuine welfare claimants by simply having large families and having the taxpayer to fund said lifestyle all legally.

And those NAMA ghost estates and apartments in cities are useless for LA housing. The first are creating ghettos and the second are simply not built to cater for families.

Gatling

For instance county council's have a major shortage of 3-4 bed room property's
There thousands of 3-4 bed houses occupied by one person ,now due to the nature of council houses aren't just for Christmas there for life ,people who got 3/4 bed property's based off having 4 kids they won't give up the 3-4 beds now that all there kids have grown up and moved out and in alot of cases now have there own LA housing ,
I think once your kids have grown up and moved on you should automatically be rehoused in 1 bed apartment's and free up housing for families ,but that will never happen here

desaparecidos

ABajaninCork wrote: »

*Sigh*. Here we go again...

Why IS the RA so generous? Is it because the cost of renting anywhere, especially in the capital is so bloody expensive? :rolleyes: In a lot of cases, it doesn't even cover the rent asked for by the landlord. And did the OP know that tenants on RA have to pay at least E35 weekly as a contribution? No, I thought not.

I expect the OP would rather have them live in a tent.

35 a week??? How do the poor yokes cope!!! Rent is so "bloody expensive" because rent allowance is the artificial floor.

So not only am I paying for other peoples rent, but in doing so it keeps my own rent more expensive than it should be.

Funny how any questioning of benefits is always meet with tidal wave of abuse. I guess a lot boards users are unemployed.

Bannasidhe

gurramok wrote: »

Nothing do with moving them to the farthest end of the country. I think you're not from Dub but I can explain that a RS recipient can live within the limit in Blanch instead of Castleknock for example, what i'm saying is that the welfare is there to live within Dublin and not be shipped as you put it to the lowest rental area in the country.

What treehouse was saying its simply not fair that RS recipients can compete with workers for accommodation in moderate to expensive areas, that is simply not fair with subsidised accommodation. And yes the welfare careerists make matters worse for genuine welfare claimants by simply having large families and having the taxpayer to fund said lifestyle all legally.

And those NAMA ghost estates and apartments in cities are useless for LA housing. The first are creating ghettos and the second are simply not built to cater for families.

If I read this correctly it seems to be saying that people on RS should be prevented from living in moderate/expensive areas as they are 'competing' with the employed but NAMA stock should not be used as LA housing as it would create a ghetto - or concentration of people from one socio-economic background i.e. RS recipients - they should instead live in less than moderately priced areas paying rent to private landlords.

When is a ghetto not a ghetto? Apparently it's when one is full of people from lower socio-economic groups who pay rent to private landlords and the other is full of people from lower socio-economic groups who pay rent to the local authority...

gurramok

Gatling wrote: »

For instance county council's have a major shortage of 3-4 bed room property's
There thousands of 3-4 bed houses occupied by one person ,now due to the nature of council houses aren't just for Christmas there for life ,people who got 3/4 bed property's based off having 4 kids they won't give up the 3-4 beds now that all there kids have grown up and moved out and in alot of cases now have there own LA housing ,
I think once your kids have grown up and moved on you should automatically be rehoused in 1 bed apartment's and free up housing for families ,but that will never happen here

Look to the UK for direction on this.

They have introduced the Bedroom tax. Spare bedrooms are taxed if not occupied presently, they used to be occupied by kids

Also throw into the mix, I did read before that about 85% of housing built in Dublin during the "boom" were apartments hence said shortage of traditional 3-4 bed houses.

gurramok

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If I read this correctly it seems to be saying that people on RS should be prevented from living in moderate/expensive areas as they are 'competing' with the employed but NAMA stock should not be used as LA housing as it would create a ghetto - or concentration of people from one socio-economic background i.e. RS recipients - they should instead live in less than moderately priced areas paying rent to private landlords.

When is a ghetto not a ghetto? Apparently it's when one is full of people from lower socio-economic groups who pay rent to private landlords and the other is full of people from lower socio-economic groups who pay rent to the local authority...

Thats the reality of the modern world in most countries, why deny it?

Gatling

gurramok wrote: »

Look to the UK for direction on this.

They have introduced the Bedroom tax. Spare bedrooms are taxed if not occupied presently, they used to be occupied by kids

Also throw into the mix, I did read before that about 85% of housing built in Dublin during the "boom" were apartments hence said shortage of traditional 3-4 bed houses.

My in-laws have a 5 bed yet only use 1 room ,
They were asked would they consider downsizing the reply wasn't so pleasant ,
Another issue LA apartment's are fairly small a lot of people are turning down property due to being able to stay on RA to get bigger houses or apartment's totally wrong in my book

Slutmonkey57b

Gatling wrote: »

My in-laws have a 5 bed yet only use 1 room ,
They were asked would they consider downsizing the reply wasn't so pleasant ,
Another issue LA apartment's are fairly small a lot of people are turning down property due to being able to stay on RA to get bigger houses or apartment's totally wrong in my book

So your inlaws are assholes.

It does not mean that all rent allowance recipients are thieves. Nor does it mean that rent allowance as a concept is fundamentally wrong. Nor does it mean that the only solution to any difficulties in the scheme's implementation is "cut the allowance".

wolfpawnat

I live near the end of the bus route, a fair walk from the nearest primary school for my child and well away from Dublin City in what can only be classed as shoe box accommodation. "People not wanting council accommodation" It is always near schools and other local amenities. Point me to my council house and I'll be off! Unless it is in some estate that resembles Beirut, I'm not picky! But of course, that's not fitting the stereotype. I live is a shítehole, because well that's all it covers, and with the property charges this year, at the renewal of my lease I can near guarantee a rise in my rent, and in budget 2014 a cut to my allowance.

But sure, it's not like I started working every weekend and after school at the age of 14, that at one stage I worked two jobs and still sat a Leaving Certificate, paying (albeit a small) tax on those 2 jobs. It's not like I wake up some nights wondering how we are going to afford X, Y and Z essentials, or that I have not had a haircut in over seven months, I don't drink or smoke and I wait until my clothes are no longer wearable with holes and tears before replacing them, lets just assume EVERYONE on the dole/RA is a useless scumbag and wants to be there shall we?

RA is high, because rents are high, RA has dropped in the last few budgets, but look at the websites, rents have gone up!!! RA is often paid directly to LL's who use them to pay their mortgages, or in my case, straight to his pocket along with another premises to add to his pension to keep himself living a good life.

hollster2

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I live near the end of the bus route, a fair walk from the nearest primary school for my child and well away from Dublin City in what can only be classed as shoe box accommodation. "People not wanting council accommodation" It is always near schools and other local amenities. Point me to my council house and I'll be off! Unless it is in some estate that resembles Beirut, I'm not picky! But of course, that's not fitting the stereotype. I live is a shítehole, because well that's all it covers, and with the property charges this year, at the renewal of my lease I can near guarantee a rise in my rent, and in budget 2014 a cut to my allowance.

But sure, it's not like I started working every weekend and after school at the age of 14, that at one stage I worked two jobs and still sat a Leaving Certificate, paying (albeit a small) tax on those 2 jobs. It's not like I wake up some nights wondering how we are going to afford X, Y and Z essentials, or that I have not had a haircut in over seven months, I don't drink or smoke and I wait until my clothes are no longer wearable with holes and tears before replacing them, lets just assume EVERYONE on the dole/RA is a useless scumbag and wants to be there shall we?

RA is high, because rents are high, RA has dropped in the last few budgets, but look at the websites, rents have gone up!!! RA is often paid directly to LL's who use them to pay their mortgages, or in my case, straight to his pocket along with another premises to add to his pension to keep himself living a good life.

wow well said you said exactly the way I think and feel nice

Treehousetim

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

So your inlaws are assholes.".

Jeez you really have a way with words! Lovely

Treehousetim

wolfpawnat wrote: »

lets just assume EVERYONE on the dole/RA is a useless scumbag and wants to be there shall we?

RA is high, because rents are high, RA has dropped in the last few budgets, but look at the websites, rents have gone up!!! RA is often paid directly to LL's who use them to pay their mortgages, or in my case, straight to his pocket along with another premises to add to his pension to keep himself living a good life.

No one said anything about useless scumbags. That's your imagination playing tricks on you.

wolfpawnat

Treehousetim wrote: »

No one said anything about useless scumbags. That's your imagination playing tricks on you.

No, but it is the assumption isn't it?

They exist, no one will deny it, but for the rest of us it is only a means to get by until we find ourselves able to get work again. But we find ourselves at the mercy of the horrific comments by disgruntled taxpayers, who I understand their anger, but it is not the fault of RA recipients as to the cost of renting.

High rents are due to high mortgages that need paying, mixed with a market where LL are able to set ridiculous prices. The government have to keep the RA somewhere in the range of that to ensure those in RA accommodation can actually get a place to live.

Treehousetim

Not at all the assumption. Not sure how you extrapolated that at all.

wolfpawnat

Treehousetim wrote: »

Not at all the assumption. Not sure how you extrapolated that at all.

Your clearly new A day on AH and the Economy forums as well as some comments here would show the assumption many people have of the 14% of society that find themselves on the Live Register and in receipt of much needed state assistance.

As I stated, rents are increasing once more in the more desirable areas (Dublin, Cork, Galway, etc) the areas where unemployed and low income people were living before for work reasons, and where they tend to settle now in hopes of acquiring employment. RA has to allow them to be able to afford the rents ergo the amounts given.

Mark Tapley

Treehousetim wrote: »

Not at all the assumption. Not sure how you extrapolated that at all.

Your opening post saying you are subsidising people "who never worked a day" might have something to do with it.

Treehousetim

Making a leap from someone who never worked a day to a useless scumbag is something ye have done not me! I wouldn't call anyone a useless scumbag

Mark Tapley

Treehousetim wrote: »

Making a leap from someone who never worked a day to a useless scumbag is something ye have done not me! I wouldn't call anyone a useless scumbag

Tim I think you are being disingenuous must be the rarefied air up in that tree house.

Victor

Treehousetim wrote: »

How is the RAS any different to rent allowance? Looks like the same to me only maybe more generous? You don't work, maybe have a few babies or not, then after turn up, sign up for RAS and expect your need for housing to be met without doing anything in return. Is that how it works?

Constructive, on-topic posts only please.

Moderator

Anynama141

StillWaters wrote: »

No its not. RA was cut fairly drastically in last years budget, and to everyone's surprise it did not result in a lowering of rent in Dublin.

I don't think people expected to see big falls in Dublin - I'd be surprised if rents haven't fallen outside the cities however.

wolfpawnat

Anynama141 wrote: »

I don't think people expected to see big falls in Dublin - I'd be surprised if rents haven't fallen outside the cities however.

Rents in my area (near the Wicklow border) are up on average 100e!

Anynama141

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Rents in my area (near the Wicklow border) are up on average 100e!

The good news for renters though is that rents are down over most of the country.

wolfpawnat

Anynama141 wrote: »

The good news for renters though is that rents are down over most of the country.

True, the town in Clare I lived in for a while. I paid 600 rent for a crappy 2 bed apartment, now that gets you a 3-4 bed house!!!!

Slutmonkey57b

Anynama141 wrote: »

The good news for renters though is that rents are down over most of the country.

All that means is that the slow distribution of employment opportunities during the tiger has been rapidly reversed. Bad news for renters, and everyone else, in the medium - long term.

Mince Pie

It never ceases to amaze me how people can constantly come up with ways to reform the SW and RA schemes but not a dicky bird about how to address the shortage of jobs which would in turn mean there would be less need for the SW.