Breaking News: People want free houses. Can I have one too?

ivyQ

donutheadhomer wrote: »

paying politicians less is not going to make people get out of bed to be more productive: I doubt if most of these people care what politicians get paid along as their welfare payment is in the post office on time or the state provide a subsidised roof over there heads

Middle Ireland is pi$$ed though ...right ?

Calhoun

ivyQ wrote: »

https://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/how-much-do-irish-politicians-get-paid-part-1-of-2/

Whats your point? I think what you will find in this thread is that it people are more annoyed with the attitude of entitlement than anything else. Yes the government have their part of the blame to take but it still doesn't mean that hard pressed families in the middle income bracket are going to be happy that folk on benefit are turning the nose up at some of the things they are been given.

The recent trend of people receiving benefit courting the media with a poor mouth story is infuriating, and some of the stories are just unbelievable. Like that one of the woman with the house in Athy that somehow over a 2 week holiday period a local band of squatters managed to move in. Something smells fishy about that one, as she just didnt want another house in Athy she wanted one in a very specific place in Dublin.

All that is happening here is most people are saying that those in receipt of help should make the same decisions those of us that are paying have to. If you want a place to live you move to where you can afford ect.

donutheadhomer

ivyQ wrote: »

Middle Ireland is pi$$ed though ...right ?

I’m not one - I would not know

ivyQ

Calhoun wrote: »

Whats your point? I think what you will find in this thread is that it people are more annoyed with the attitude of entitlement than anything else. Yes the government have their part of the blame to take but it still doesn't mean that hard pressed families in the middle income bracket are going to be happy that folk on benefit are turning the nose up at some of the things they are been given.

The recent trend of people receiving benefit courting the media with a poor mouth story is infuriating, and some of the stories are just unbelievable. Like that one of the woman with the house in Athy that somehow over a 2 week holiday period a local band of squatters managed to move in. Something smells fishy about that one, as she just didnt want another house in Athy she wanted one in a very specific place in Dublin.

All that is happening here is most people are saying that those in receipt of help should make the same decisions those of us that are paying have to. If you want a place to live you move to where you can afford ect.

Im all for a better welfare system that gets to the root of the problem , but what I dont agree with is adding further pressure and hardship on those who rely on benefits and are genuinely trieng to improve their lives and move away from welfare dependence , I think it will prove very difficult to put in place a system that doesnt do that ,

donutheadhomer

ivyQ wrote: »

Im all for a better welfare system that gets to the root of the problem , but what I dont agree with is adding further pressure and hardship on those who rely on benefits and are genuinely trieng to improve their lives and move away from welfare dependence , I think it will prove very difficult to put in place a system that doesnt do that ,

a system that works on a deminishing basis could be useful as this would disincentivise long term welfare

Calhoun

ivyQ wrote: »

Im all for a better welfare system that gets to the root of the problem , but what I dont agree with is adding further pressure and hardship on those who rely on benefits and are genuinely trieng to improve their lives and move away from welfare dependence , I think it will prove very difficult to put in place a system that doesnt do that ,

Anyone generally trying to better themselves i have no issues helping out but they must understand what welfare is, its helping you exist until you can get sorted again its not a lifestyle choice.

ivyQ

donutheadhomer wrote: »

a system that works on a deminishing basis could be useful as this would disincentivise long term welfare

While I agree with this in theory , in practice I think it would prove very difficult , especially in a job market like the one we have today .

BeerSteakBirds

RobbingBandit wrote: »

OP did you pay €250,000 for your house or did the bank pay €250,000 or even part there of? I have been homeless more than 6 months now, I am staying in a room with no toliet or cooking facilities that is costing me €600+ a month of which I am paying for from my disability allowance, I am left with just €34 a week to live off, to pay for food and what ever else. Don't bitch and moan about people wanting free houses, nothing in life is free, nothing.

You have rent allowance don't you ?

donutheadhomer

ivyQ wrote: »

While I agree with this in theory , in practice I think it would prove very difficult , especially in a job market like the one we have today .

recipients would not need to have paid jobs - 39 hour week of community work to continue receiving welfare at the higher rate or else do nothing for the greatly reduced rate. One of the community based projects could be feeding/minding the kids of the community while the parents are doing the community work and then there would be no need to worry about “who will mind my kids”.
State should incentivise work/effort and council allocations/rents should be to those who try the hardest.

ivyQ

donutheadhomer wrote: »

recipients would not need to have paid jobs - 39 hour week of community work to continue receiving welfare at the higher rate or else do nothing for the greatly reduced rate. One of the community based projects could be feeding/minding the kids of the community while the parents are doing the community work and then there would be no need to worry about “who will mind my kids”.
State should incentivise work/effort and council allocations/rents should be to those who try the hardest.

Ok can you define "community work " please ,

donutheadhomer

ivyQ wrote: »

Ok can you define "community work " please ,

working in the community - some work near their house so they can’t gripe about the transport costs - meals on wheels, house/garden maintenance of disabled/elderly people dwellings/childminding/grave digging/gardening etc - but 39 hours per week of it

everyone will gain from this - if its good enough for Senior Berlusconi

ivyQ

donutheadhomer wrote: »

working in the community - some work near their house so they can’t gripe about the transport costs - meals on wheels, house/garden maintenance of disabled/elderly people dwellings/childminding/grave digging/gardening etc - but 39 hours per week of it

everyone will gain from this - if its good enough for Senior Berlusconi

The household tax revenue should be reinvested into local communities to create jobs like that , if "community service " like what you suggested ever did come into effect no doubt it would be abused by employers just like the CE schemes and jobsbridge programs ,

donutheadhomer

ivyQ wrote: »

The household tax revenue should be reinvested into local communities to create jobs like that , if "community service " like what you suggested ever did come into effect no doubt it would be abused by employers just like the CE schemes and jobsbridge programs ,

perhaps it could be abused but generally it would not be abused. Either way why would we care: the point it to get people doing something/contributing.

Mrs OBumble

donutheadhomer wrote: »

recipients would not need to have paid jobs - 39 hour week of community work to continue receiving welfare at the higher rate or else do nothing for the greatly reduced rate. One of the community based projects could be feeding/minding the kids of the community while the parents are doing the community work and then there would be no need to worry about “who will mind my kids”.
State should incentivise work/effort and council allocations/rents should be to those who try the hardest.

While I agree in theory, the practise is very difficult.

How many long-term unemployed people have the qualifications needed to care for other people's children? Not many, I'd say.

Woodville56

OwaynOTT wrote: »

Yep that's it all right, it's all those in social houses fault.

I've seen hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money spent on refurbishing local authority houses in a rural town near me a few years ago, only to see them thrashed again by the tenants, who have now been moved onn to new local authority houses in another town. The thrashed houses are now being refurbished for a second time, costing more hundreds of thousands. Wish I could have my house refurbished by the taxpayer every 5 or six years !

In another rural village known to me local authorities bought or leased houses in a private development and "planted" applicants from their housing lists there, in a small rural town miles from main centres of population or public transport networks. Despite this however, some of the tenants and their offspring brought with them very unenviable practices and behaviours, drugs, vandalism and other antisocial carry on, leaving the local people fearful and resentful of what was happening to their community !

Solving the social housing problem is not a "one size fits all" solution nor is it placing applicants in places where they do not want to be in the first place. In this respect the planning and development of social housing policy needs a rethink. By the same token, those who do manage to be housed under social housing schemes need to accept responsibility for what is entrusted to them and not to abuse or diminish the value of the property in any way. Its noticeable that very few people regard these properties as homes ...... just houses,commodities even. There is a difference !!
Its just not good enough that some tenants feel they should be allowed thrash their homes as a means of making some sort of political or social statement about their situation, nor is it acceptable that antisocial elements be allowed hijack local community living for their own ends.

It's not all those in social houses fault, to paraphrase the poster above, but there is clear evidence of a "give us a house but not the responsibilities that goes along with it " mentality among certain elements of the housing list applicants. In short, they dont see whats offered as a long term solution to their situation, as a chance at creating a home rather than just a house to live in. Planners and housing authorities need to go back to the drawing board and realise that one size/type/location doesn't fit all and tenants and prospective tenants need to change the " gimme " mindset and realise that they too have responsibilities in this regard and behave accordingly

Biffo The Bare

ivyQ wrote: »

Middle Ireland should stop bullying the poor and least well off in country ...grow some backbone and bring those responsible for this country's hardship to justice , while they whinge and moan about the injustice of social housing , benefits , healthcare they still line the politicians fat pockets and hand their hard earned money over to the fat cats at the top ...

It will come to end ?How ? Yeah why dont we just re-open the Workhouses and Magdeline laundries ...thatl teach em !!!

He who pays the piper calls the tune. And all that.;)
If councils are miss-spending our hard earned money, we have a right to "whinge" and kick up.
If people in social housing showed a bit of respect for what they have obtained, it would go a long way.
Getting rid of this entitlement mind-set would go a long way too.

ivyQ

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

He who pays the piper calls the tune. And all that.;)
If councils are miss-spending our hard earned money, we have a right to "whinge" and kick up.
If people in social housing showed a bit of respect for what they have obtained, it would go a long way.
Getting rid of this entitlement mind-set would go a long way too.

I totally agree , people should whinge about their money being wasted across the entire board ..

Those in social housing should be made to pay deposits in all of the housing schemes and loose these deposits if they abuse the property or let it fall into a heap around them , along with being evicted and prevented for applying to be re-housed if they persistently breach the terms of their lease , In other words yes they should be responsible for the property's they occupy and be held accountable for any problems they cause .
End tenancy for life , stop selling social housing stock , do away with capped rents ,bring in bedroom taxs, and evict problem tenants ,

But lets begin to cut the rot from the top first ..

NipNip

ivyQ wrote: »

Those in social housing should be made to pay deposits in all of the housing schemes and loose these deposits if they abuse the property or let it fall into a heap around them , along with being evicted and prevented for applying to be re-housed if they persistently breach the terms of their lease , QUOTE]

All of the above is currently in place. It is a slow process, but it is in place.

Were any of you watching the Late Late on Saturday night, where homelessness and the housing crisis was discussed?

There is an entitlement to 'shelter'.

If you consider, say for e.g. a single mother, with one child. Let's say, she has a full time job. She has to pay for childcare out of this. She also has to pay rent. She qualifies for a small amount of FIS.
All she can afford to pay for, is a tiny two bed flat in a pretty poor area. As things stand, 60% of her wages are gone on rent and childcare.
The flat has no garden. There is a park about 1 mile away, but it frequently rains. The flat only has a shower and no bath. The mother is worked to the bone, has little money left over to enjoy life with her child and little time to do it with. There are no luxuries. The mother keeps the rent and childcare paid, electricity and heating bills paid, and provides nutritious meals for her child. The stress is getting to her. She finds it hard to concentrate at work. She can't sleep. She can't eat. She begins to feel unwell.

The mother becomes ill with stress and depression. The child starts missing school. 5 years down the line, the mother is on anti-depressants and has had to leave her job. She is admitted to psychiatric hospital for 1 month on two occasions. She has frequent trips to her GP. She attends outpatient psychiatric services while she is well enough. Her child is not unaffected by her mother's illness. Social workers are involved. Gardaí have been involved when the mother attempted suicide on two occasions. Long term, the child develops behavioural and psychological issues, drops out of school, becomes addicted to drugs. Gets involved in crime.

How much does the paragraph in bold cost the state?
For the mother:
Medical Card
Frequent GP visits
Numerous expensive medications
Cost of ambulances
Cost of garda time
Inpatient treatment
Outpatient services
Social Services
Long term social welfare due to illness

For the child:
Counselling
Drug treatment
Jail time
Unemployment
Garda man hours
Affect on innocent victims of petty theft


Now:
Consider the alternative.

The above family unit is housed in social housing. The rent is slightly cheaper. The house has a garden and a bath. The pressure is off the mother. She has spare cash which she uses to make her garden into a haven in her spare time. Her little one plays happily and safely there. With the extra free euros, the mother enrols the child in various extra curricular activities. Life is great, for mother and child. Mother gets promoted. Pays for grinds for child. Child heads off to university and becomes a nurse.

Which of these scenarios costs the state more?

Calhoun

I would like option number 3 as a cheap option, the father of the child is forced to pay up his fair share and help minding his child. Or the mother uses the family support around her to help get through difficult times. This so called community spirit we are supposed to provide and yet it doesn't seem to exist in their own family.

Also their are no guarantees from your second option that the child won't grow up to think a child = free house and cushy life. There is also no certainty the child won't try better themselves and try get out of poverty if option one was to happen.

So I am not answering which one costs more because one is a worst case scenario, the other is a perfect case that we know all to well is in the minority otherwise this thread wouldn't exist. If I was forced to pick out of those two alone I would take my chances with option 2 costing more.

Biffo The Bare

IvyQ, That "utopian" situation you describe in the second scenario has the habit of turning to crap in council estates in Limerick, Cork, Dublin. Lovely houses, gardens, park space, but the area still becomes bandit country. The kid you describe more often than not becomes a thug despite evrrything the family has been given. This is what has to be sorted out. I think the problem is that everything given to them is not quite ever enough. Spoonfeeding for life is not the solution.

NipNip

Calhoun wrote: »

I would like option number 3 as a cheap option, the father of the child is forced to pay up his fair share and help minding his child. Or the mother uses the family support around her to help get through difficult times. This so called community spirit we are supposed to provide and yet it doesn't seem to exist in their own family.

Also their are no guarantees from your second option that the child won't grow up to think a child = free house and cushy life. There is also no certainty the child won't try better themselves and try get out of poverty if option one was to happen.

So I am not answering which one costs more because one is a worst case scenario, the other is a perfect case that we know all to well is in the minority otherwise this thread wouldn't exist. If I was forced to pick out of those two alone I would take my chances with option 2 costing more.

So, subsidy of rent for 15 years costs more in your opinion than long term unemployment payment for the mother and subsequently the child? And that is before you even begin to consider the ancillary costs? :pac:

Perhaps you are using the same model of calculator that Labour and Fine Gael are using?

Calhoun

NipNip wrote: »

So, subsidy of rent for 15 years costs more in your opinion than long term unemployment payment for the mother and subsequently the child? And that is before you even begin to consider the ancillary costs? :pac:

Perhaps you are using the same model of calculator that Labour and Fine Gael are using?

No what I am saying is you are using best case and worst case scenarios to sell the answer you want, if I was forced to pick one it would be option number 2 costing more as you teach that doing nothing gets you free stuff.

The answer is actually neither of them, it's a combination of free child care for all, forcing fathers to take responsibility and teaching people if you want nice things you earn them.

NipNip

Calhoun wrote: »

I would like option number 3 as a cheap option, the father of the child is forced to pay up his fair share and help minding his child. Or the mother uses the family support around her to help get through difficult times. This so called community spirit we are supposed to provide and yet it doesn't seem to exist in their own family.

Also their are no guarantees from your second option that the child won't grow up to think a child = free house and cushy life. There is also no certainty the child won't try better themselves and try get out of poverty if option one was to happen.

So I am not answering which one costs more because one is a worst case scenario, the other is a perfect case that we know all to well is in the minority otherwise this thread wouldn't exist. If I was forced to pick out of those two alone I would take my chances with option 2 costing more.

I agree in terms of the father being forced to pay. I also would love to see community spirit involved. However, we have a society of cynicism and distrust. For now, you must accept that the 'village' does not rear the child. Think of working 2 parent families. There are not many of them whose families' help out. Childcare costs are massive. You could easily translate the above scenario to a married middle income family.

Do you accept that prevention is better than cure? Investment in children? Education. Education. Education. Familial support.

There is no need for us all to suffer. I get that people who are suffering want to see everyone else suffer. That is human nature unfortunately. However, if a long-term view was taken, we shouldn't need to suffer. People shouldn't have to lead miserable lives. When you look at your new-born baby for the first time, you don't envisage a life of crime, jail and mental illness for them. You hope they will lead productive, happy lives.

It's not utopia to expect a reasonable lifestyle. A life without disadvantage, poverty, stress and illness. Have we lowered the bar so much, that just keeping your head above water, while becoming ill, is our base line to demand?

NipNip

Calhoun wrote: »

No what I am saying is you are using best case and worst case scenarios to sell the answer you want, if I was forced to pick one it would be option number 2 costing more as you teach that doing nothing gets you free stuff.

The answer is actually neither of them, it's a combination of free child care for all, forcing fathers to take responsibility and teaching people if you want nice things you earn them.

How is that the case? The mother continues to work, gets promoted, child goes to university, works hard, becomes a decent, happy, productive, law-abiding citizen? Where in this scenario is the lesson that 'doing nothing gets you free stuff'?

NipNip

Oh, and another point, one good thing previous government introduced, was the idea of mixing social housing with private housing. Does away with the ghetto culture.

The 'keeping up with the Jones' mentality' can have its benefits. People find their own level. If Johnny Jones next door is aspiring to go to college, it's likely that Mary of the Council House will want her little Lucille to go to college too! :cool:

Calhoun

You could easily transfer this situation to a middle income family but generally the expectation on that income bracket is to shut up and pay for the example you provide.

Education can happen in either of those scenarios, as I said in my last thread I don't mind investing children by having a broad policy like universal child are but feeding an entitlement culture is not prevention in my eyes.

I don't think anyone wants anyone else to suffer what people expect is that folk understand when they are getting a leg up and be grateful for it but try better themselves which doesn't happen all the time.

Welfare should just be that, just enough to keep you going until you can get something else in place. There are broad policies that could be introduced to benefit all but I've mentioned some of them above.

Calhoun

NipNip wrote: »

How is that the case? The mother continues to work, gets promoted, child goes to university, works hard, becomes a decent, happy, productive, law-abiding citizen? Where in this scenario is the lesson that 'doing nothing gets you free stuff'?

Who says she does? She could go the other direction like many do and do sweet f all and teaches the child doing nothing gets you a hand out.

You used a base case scenario which is probably the minority, so I am not sure where the confusion is.

NipNip

Calhoun wrote: »

You could easily transfer this situation to a middle income family but generally the expectation on that income bracket is to shut up and pay for the example you provide.

Education can happen in either of those scenarios, as I said in my last thread I don't mind investing children by having a broad policy like universal child are but feeding an entitlement culture is not prevention in my eyes.

I don't think anyone wants anyone else to suffer what people expect is that folk understand when they are getting a leg up and be grateful for it but try better themselves which doesn't happen all the time.

Welfare should just be that, just enough to keep you going until you can get something else in place. There are broad policies that could be introduced to benefit all but I've mentioned some of them above.

It would be more productive if you wrote at length about these 'broad policies' that you would like to see introduced, rather than berating all welfare or social policies.

Calhoun

NipNip wrote: »

Oh, and another point, one good thing previous government introduced, was the idea of mixing social housing with private housing. Does away with the ghetto culture.

The 'keeping up with the Jones' mentality' can have its benefits. People find their own level. If Johnny Jones next door is aspiring to go to college, it's likely that Mary of the Council House will want her little Lucille to go to college too! :cool:

How do you know? I have heard some pretty stark cases where drug dealing or using families have been settled in communities and have destroyed them. Again you grasping at straws to support your argument.

NipNip

Calhoun wrote: »

Who says she does? She could go the other direction like many do and do sweet f all and teaches the child doing nothing gets you a hand out.

You used a base case scenario which is probably the minority, so I am not sure where the confusion is.

You have a very poor opinion of people.