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

Calhoun

NipNip wrote: »

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.

I am not the one coming into a thread discussing one aspect of the social welfare (housing) using straw man arguments to back my own position. So I won't be talking at length as it's not the thread for it.

NipNip

Calhoun wrote: »

I am not the one coming into a thread discussing one aspect of the social welfare (housing) using straw man arguments to back my own position. So I won't be talking at length as it's not the thread for it.

The thread is entitled "Breaking News: People want free houses. Can I have one too?" is it not?

on_my_oe

NipNip wrote: »

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?

The problem is for every hardworking mother that turns her home into a haven we have a thousand who don't leave the house for anything but buying ciggies and junk food, and the kids roam wild anyway. If my taxes are contributing to her lifestyle, then effectively I'm paying her to do the best she can... Too often people scream about their rights, but forget about their responsibilities.

Here's two scenarios for you;
Household A: the husband has had four pay cuts in three years, followed by a drop to part time hours, and his income is now €10p/hr for 25hrs (down from (€18.50 p/hr). The wife got made redundant twice in three years, but got another job, paying 40% less. She is also studying a degree part time (two nights and every weekend). They don't have kids as they can't afford them. Their rent has been increased 34% in the past 18mths, and they haven't taken a holiday in five years, including when they got married, as they are focusing on college fees and saving for their own home. They have managed to save a 10% deposit on a modest home (sub 200k, Dublin) but can't buy as there is a shortage of houses on the market, made worse by the lack of repossessions.
Household B: both are on the benefits, with rent paid plus other allowances including utilities package. They have two kids, and just upgraded to a 2011 Audi. The TV blares all night, through the wall keeping household A awake. Their balcony is constantly full with bags of bottles, and waft of weed is apparent 60% of the time. The kids have expensive toys (ride on toys, boxes, etc - household A is frequently asked for help, like putting together the display stand for the new 60" flat screen tv' so has been in the apartment more than a dozen times). The couple also yell and scream, often ended with a series of door slamming and someone storming out, continuing the argument as they go down the corridor, waking everyone else in the building up. They left yesterday for two weeks in Spain, taking the eldest one out of school; his own mother said the kid isn't that bright so schools a waste anyway(?!?!!).
Although they are the worst in our building, take away the weed, the Audi. And some of the expensive toys, that is the standard of benefit claimants who receive assistance in our building. It is incredibly frustrating getting up each morning dog tired knowing that out of 12 apartments, there are just four of you going to work, and those not working certainly appear to have an easier life.
I have no issue with a Gand up - I do have an issue with a hand out that reinforces a life style choice. If there was a stronger sense of responsibility and less focus on "It's my righ to get free x, y, and z', then perhaps taxes could be re-directed to somewhere more useful, like supporting the elderly, more responsive healthcare, and hiring more Gardai.

riclad

I know 2 single mothers at the moment ,living in quite large apartments outside dublin,
on rent allowance .
They have good facilitys ,easy acess to parks and shops.
IT may be much harder to find accomodation , in dublin on rent allowance .

MY friend lived in a 3bed house ,with front, room,
and also 1 rec room/ office .
for 7 years , she has 1 child.
She,s allowed to work a few days a week.
and still get single parents allowance.

There,s, certainly a crisis, in dublin, its very hard for a single person on rent allowance to find accomodation.


I Remember a interview on rte a few years ago,

a single mother ,did 3 interviews for ikea.

SHE Said ,
i had to turn down the job.
it pays like 8 euro an hour.
entry level job.
After paying childcare,petrol, misc expenses ,
she,d be working for maybe 40 euro per week,
plus lose acess to a medical card .

I think a single mothers lifestyle depends also on how much help doe,s
she get from her family.

I think the welfare officer would only allow a single parent to move into
a housing space of a certain minimum size .

kuntboy

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:

Absolute rubbish. Mixing social housing with middle class areas has been an unmitigated disaster. They have NO desire to better themselves or develop any kind of education, culture or refinement beyond getting shinier cars. They despise the "poshies"and revert to their criminal thug roots when it suits them.

Calhoun

NipNip wrote: »

The thread is entitled "Breaking News: People want free houses. Can I have one too?" is it not?

I didn't pick the thread title nor does some of the conversation do it justice but I also didn't construct an argument using polar opposite examples to sell them and then accuse those who challenge me of having poor opinion of folk or using a calculator similar to current government policy (assume that was a dig).

Qualitymark

I didn't know there were so many Daily Mail readers in Ireland - or maybe a lot of the replies are from outside the country? More propaganda than facts being added here.

ivyQ wrote: »

Why is the RICH tenant still in social housing ? Social housing should be used as long term transitional housing not tenancy for life

In some countries it's normal to live in housing rented to you by the state; it's nothing to do with income. In Ireland, because of the limited number of state-owned houses and apartments, they're allocated on the basis of need - and the rent that's paid is commensurate with the incomes of all those in the home. Perhaps we should be aiming for the other model, which acts as an efficient control on private rents, and provides rented accommodation to everyone.

Idbatterim wrote: »

…the life long leeches get for free… free college if their sprogs choose to go, child allowance etc.

What shameful language. And how strange it is that we forget that the unemployment register sank away almost to nothing during the Celtic Tiger years. Have you forgotten this?

The_Conductor

riclad wrote: »

I know 2 single mothers at the moment ,living in quite large apartments outside dublin,
on rent allowance .
They have good facilitys ,easy acess to parks and shops.
IT may be much harder to find accomodation , in dublin on rent allowance .

Even that lady with 2 kids who ended up living in a car in Tallaght, had a house in Athy, in Kildare, and an offer of a house in Kildare town, from Kildare Co. Co.. She did not want to live in Kildare, period. She found living in a car in Tallaght, preferable to living in Athy or Kildare town. She had access to good facilities in one location- 'iffy' facilities in the other- but it wasn't where she wanted to live.

With all due respect to the lady- I'd love to live in Obidos in Portugal- I can't. Often you get what you want. She had options- she choose to toss the baby out with the bathwater. That is childishness.

Yes- its hard to find accommodation in Dublin on rent allowance. However- to be blunt with you- its hard to find accommodation in Dublin, period. It doesn't matter whether you're on rent-allowance, or not, accommodation in Dublin is severely constrained. People want to live there. There is no commensurate increase in supply to match the increased number of people who want to live in the Dublin region. There is no willingness to set expectations at reasonable levels.

riclad wrote: »

MY friend lived in a 3bed house ,with front, room,
and also 1 rec room/ office .
for 7 years , she has 1 child.
She,s allowed to work a few days a week.
and still get single parents allowance.

Fine. I don't have an issue. There should be tapering of allowances- to encourage people back into the workplace- in a manner where there isn't a welfare cliff. You should be allowed keep your medical card for 2 years, and for children- 5 years- so there is imperative to turn down work in case someone gets ill. Topups to employers, who keep staff who have been unemployed longterm, on 2-3 year contracts- would give people security that they don't now have, and encourage employers to utilise people as best they can, as its not a stop-gap measure.

riclad wrote: »

There,s, certainly a crisis, in dublin, its very hard for a single person on rent allowance to find accomodation.

There is a crisis in Dublin, period.
Walk down Grafton Street, or even Kildare street- in early morning- and see the number of homeless. Even the Department of Finance office at Hugenot Place- has people sleeping against their metal railings. Its quite remarkable just how bad it is.

The crisis extends the whole way up though- accommodation is not available- for anyone. It doesn't matter whether you are a private or a public tenant- whether your on RA/RS or paying privately- supply is not there.

The current proposals on the table- which reduce social housing requirements (why??) while incentivising the building industry and developers- are counter intuitive in the extreme. Sure- it'll get a few thousand unemployed construction workers off the dole- at a cost to the ordinary people through increased prices, and a cost those on the housing lists- through a massive reduction in the requirement to supply social housing units.

It doesn't add up.

riclad wrote: »

I Remember a interview on rte a few years ago,

a single mother ,did 3 interviews for ikea.

SHE Said ,
i had to turn down the job.
it pays like 8 euro an hour.
entry level job.
After paying childcare,petrol, misc expenses ,
she,d be working for maybe 40 euro per week,
plus lose acess to a medical card .

I work to pay childcare now. I've two little ones- I don't regret them for a minute, they're wonderful kids. My net pay is less than the cost of the childcare, the car and the costs of working. My wife works to pay the mortgage and the utility bills.

This is what the ordinary people in the country are doing- we are scraping to get by. I sympathise with the lady who couldn't make the Ikea job pay- but a tapering of benefits- would solve her immediate issues. Whether she would be able to make it work longterm is another issue.

Childcare is an active disincentive across the board, for people to work. We now have the most expensive childcare in the world (the Economist suggests we have overtaken the US).

riclad wrote: »

I think a single mothers lifestyle depends also on how much help doe,s
she get from her family.

I think the welfare officer would only allow a single parent to move into
a housing space of a certain minimum size .

Anyone's lifestyle depends to a certain extent on whether they have familial assistance (or not).

People cannot be allowed to pick and choose accommodation. There has to be minimum rules- aka if a parent has 2 children- it is a reasonable assumption that they would have as a minimum a 2 bed dwelling unit- 3 bed, if the children are of opposite genders. Fine. Choosing to live in your car rather than living in Athy or Kildare- not fine.

Frigga_92

riclad wrote: »

I know 2 single mothers at the moment ,living in quite large apartments outside dublin,
on rent allowance .
They have good facilitys ,easy acess to parks and shops.
IT may be much harder to find accomodation , in dublin on rent allowance .

MY friend lived in a 3bed house ,with front, room,
and also 1 rec room/ office .
for 7 years , she has 1 child.
She,s allowed to work a few days a week.
and still get single parents allowance.

There,s, certainly a crisis, in dublin, its very hard for a single person on rent allowance to find accomodation.


I Remember a interview on rte a few years ago,

a single mother ,did 3 interviews for ikea.

SHE Said ,
i had to turn down the job.
it pays like 8 euro an hour.
entry level job.
After paying childcare,petrol, misc expenses ,
she,d be working for maybe 40 euro per week,
plus lose acess to a medical card .

I think a single mothers lifestyle depends also on how much help doe,s
she get from her family.

I think the welfare officer would only allow a single parent to move into
a housing space of a certain minimum size .

Not just a problem for single mothers. If my husband and I decide to have children (not for a while yet anyway as we're not basing our decision on how much free stuff we can get) neither of us have family living nearby. My parents are a 4 hour car journey away, my sister 2 hours away and she works as a nurse on permanent night shifts while her husband is in college so she's not even an option and my husband's parents have both passed away so we would not have "free" childcare or regular support from family. We have based our choice to remain childfree on many factors, that being the main one.
This is an attitude I believe all people should adopt, whether in social housing or not. I believe people should only have a child if they can afford to raise the child if, in the morning, all allowances relating to having children were abolished.

Gatling

quote="riclad;90438124"]

I think the welfare officer would only allow a single parent to move into
a housing space of a certain minimum size .[/quote]

More often they are already told to find something smaller and cheaper for there needs ,

Never understood why single parents of one or two were allowed to rent 3/4 bed houses ,

I remember seeing a lone parent of one child complain on TV because social welfare told her they weren't paying for a four bed for her any more ,I love my 4 bed house why should I have to move ,

Ridiculous

riclad

i Know a large apartment block complex in dublin.

There,s maybe 5 large block,s

AT the back theres, one block run by a charity.
For people on lower income.
There,s no major problem there, with crime or anti social behavior.

I agree if your income is over 45k,
you should be asked maybe to consider buying a private house .

Just being on welfare ,doe,s not turn someone into a criminal .

Frigga_92

riclad wrote: »

i Know a large apartment block complex in dublin.

There,s maybe 5 large block,s

AT the back theres, one block run by a charity.
For people on lower income.
There,s no major problem there, with crime or anti social behavior.

I agree if your income is over 45k,
you should be asked maybe to consider buying a private house .

Just being on welfare ,doe,s not turn someone into a criminal .

I think many people view a large portion of social welfare recipients as criminals because in a way they are robbing people of many choices and luxuries that they get handed to them. It is seen by your average worker as "I can't afford x or y but that social welfare recipient can because I'm funding it with my tax contributions".

The_Conductor

Qualitymark wrote: »

In some countries it's normal to live in housing rented to you by the state; it's nothing to do with income.

And so it was here- before councils decided to sell off their stocks of housing- at vast discounts, to tenants.

Qualitymark wrote: »

In Ireland, because of the limited number of state-owned houses and apartments, they're allocated on the basis of need - and the rent that's paid is commensurate with the incomes of all those in the home.

There was no great shortage- before the great sell-off. And in lean times- the construction industry upped its construction of social dwelling units. Social housing had a reputation here for being of a far higher standard than commensurate private housing- and was actively sought after.

Qualitymark wrote: »

Perhaps we should be aiming for the other model, which acts as an efficient control on private rents, and provides rented accommodation to everyone.

Before you think its a good idea to explore rent controls- it would be wise to check out some other European cities with rent controls- such as Paris or Berlin. Rent controls are not a solution- they don't work. Supply management- works. We have not managed supply- we have actively throttled it. We are now proposing mechanisms that are only going to increase costs on everyone- while reducing social housing requirements- which is nuts. The previous government's tamperings- are tame compared to the current proposals on the table.

Qualitymark wrote: »

And how strange it is that we forget that the unemployment register sank away almost to nothing during the Celtic Tiger years. Have you forgotten this?

The lowest unemployment rate we had even at the peak of the Celtic tiger boom- was 3.78%. The unemployment rate is defined as 'those actively seeking employment'. Aka- even at the peak of the boom- close on 4% of all active employees, had difficulty finding employment. This excludes those on longer term welfare schemes who were not actively seeking employment.

For the record, our current unemployment rate is 11.67% (April) (new rates due out on Monday).

NipNip

26sdrawkcab wrote: »

Not just a problem for single mothers. If my husband and I decide to have children (not for a while yet anyway as we're not basing our decision on how much free stuff we can get) neither of us have family living nearby. My parents are a 4 hour car journey away, my sister 2 hours away and she works as a nurse on permanent night shifts while her husband is in college so she's not even an option and my husband's parents have both passed away so we would not have "free" childcare or regular support from family. We have based our choice to remain childfree on many factors, that being the main one.
This is an attitude I believe all people should adopt, whether in social housing or not. I believe people should only have a child if they can afford to raise the child if, in the morning, all allowances relating to having children were abolished.

Ban children! That would solve all our problems. *Sigh....... :rolleyes:

Frigga_92

NipNip wrote: »

Ban children! That would solve all our problems. *Sigh....... :rolleyes:

I think you've quoted the wrong post as I said nothing about "banning children".
"Sigh".

lollsangel

Calhoun wrote: »

I would personally be in favour of laws that meant you had to name the father on the birth cert so the likes of anto would have to pay. All I care about is there seems to be a culture of people getting houses when they get a kid, the state shouldn't be enabling bad decision making.

As for the last point you get what you pay for if folk don't like the area , then they need to work to get out of it.

The whole law around birth certs is messed up...in order to put my partner and ghe father of my kids on their birth cert, I had to go to court and stand in front of a judge, all bcos I was married previously...I could either name my ex or no father otherwise

Quazzie

NipNip wrote: »

Ban children! That would solve all our problems. *Sigh....... :rolleyes:

That's clearly not the message being conveyed. I'll dumb it down for you. Don't have kids and expect other people to pay to raise them.

NipNip

Quazzie wrote: »

That's clearly not the message being conveyed. I'll dumb it down for you. Don't have kids and expect other people to pay to raise them.

The poster is not having children as she 'can't afford them'. She thinks that people who can't 'afford' kids, shouldn't have them. Who exactly is going to pay taxes in the future? Are children to be a luxury of the wealthy? Should you have a certain disposable income before you are permitted to reproduce? Should you pass a certain intelligence test perhaps?

Just in case people have missed the piece I'm referring to.

We have based our choice to remain childfree on many factors, that being the main one.
This is an attitude I believe all people should adopt, whether in social housing or not. I believe people should only have a child if they can afford to raise the child if, in the morning, all allowances relating to having children were abolished.

Frigga_92

NipNip wrote: »

The poster is not having children as she 'can't afford them'. She thinks that people who can't 'afford' kids, shouldn't have them. Who exactly is going to pay taxes in the future? Are children to be a luxury of the wealthy? Should you have a certain disposable income before you are permitted to reproduce? Should you pass a certain intelligence test perhaps?

Yes, it's obviously so silly of me to take into account what I can and cannot afford before I have children.
People who can't afford children shouldn't have them. Again, I didn't say anything about "banning children".

Quoting the post and bold typing certain sentences does not change anything - do you think people should have children if they can't afford them?

on_my_oe

The intelligence test isn't a bad idea.
Unfortunately those who are more likely to reproduce do so as they don't have to consider paying for them - the taxpayer does. The children then go on to have more taxpayer subsidised children themselves. It's called the cycle of welfare dependence. Please do not insult our intelligence by claiming a family spending 20 years on the benefits with six kids is going to produce 6 hard working tax paying positive contributions to society when it's more likely to produce six more welfare dependent families

NipNip

26sdrawkcab wrote: »

Yes, it's obviously so silly of me to take into account what I can and cannot afford before I have children.
People who can't afford children shouldn't have them. Again, I didn't say anything about "banning children".

Would it not be better use of your time and brain power to question a government and society, where with a tiny population, people are faced with the decision as to whether to have children or not, based purely on their financial earning capacity? Is there anything wrong with this picture do you think?

Quazzie

NipNip wrote: »

The poster is not having children as she 'can't afford them'. She thinks that people who can't 'afford' kids, shouldn't have them. Who exactly is going to pay taxes in the future? Are children to be a luxury of the wealthy? Should you have a certain disposable income before you are permitted to reproduce? Should you pass a certain intelligence test perhaps?

Just in case people have missed the piece I'm referring to.

So you think it's a good idea to have children without an ability to provide for them financially?

on_my_oe

It's called personal responsibility - perhaps if those who were dependent on the taxpayer practised it more often, then taxes might go down or at least adjusted so more free child are could be provided, benefitting those who work.

Frigga_92

NipNip wrote: »

Would it not be better use of your time and brain power to question a government and society, where with a tiny population, people are faced with the decision as to whether to have children or not, based purely on their financial earning capacity? Is there anything wrong with this picture do you think?

No, why would anyone want to bring a child into this world if, based on their "financial earning capacity", they cannot afford the child?

NipNip

The taxpayer, the taxpayer, the taxpayer. Approx. 9 out of 10 people who are 'entitled' to social welfare are working and paying taxes. If their taxes pay for the children of the 1 individual who can't get a job, then I don't see a problem.
The problem is when, the 9 out of 10, pay to guarantee a few bondholders, with no vested interest in our society or community or welfare.

You are targeting the wrong people with your anger here.

NipNip

26sdrawkcab wrote: »

No, why would anyone want to bring a child into this world if, based on their "financial earning capacity", they cannot afford the child?

Because economies need children to regenerate their population. This is why we have social and welfare policies. It is for the greater good, to have 'sprogs' popping out here there and everywhere. Sprogs cost a few bob to the state for their first 18 years, certainly. Hopefully, the vast majority of the sprogs grow up and become taxpayers though.

Frigga_92

One last time - do you think people should have children if they cannot afford them?

SCOOP 64

Kate!!! wrote: »

No one should get anything for free if you need the dole because you are out of work I think you should be made to work doing community service Monday - Friday 9-5 . It's only fair unless of course you attend a training course/interviews etc

Plus people may gain skills on community service to help them get back into employment.

In the UK community service is given out as a form of punishment for petty crimes , so why cant everyone on the dole do the same?
someones mum or dad been working in a factory /shop for 20 yrs, made redundant ,no fault if there own ,finding it hard to find work,now forced to do community service next to some one who is doing it because he robbed a old Lady's bag.
hope this doesn't happen here, this should be kept voluntary for people who really want to do it,tidy towns etc...

The_Conductor

26sdrawkcab wrote: »

One last time - do you think people should have children if they cannot afford them?

At present- there is a perverse incentive for people who can't afford to have children- to have children. As a start- and this is across the board, not targeted at any group in particular- there should be a tapering of social welfare on an incremental basis- first child you get 200 Euro a month, secound child, 160, third child 120, fourth child 120- and so on. In addition- and akin to the UK- there should be a series of ceilings established where all disbursements, including medical card entitlements, are enumerated, and a ceiling put on entitlements. In the UK- it may be set at an artificially low level- so put it a bit higher- but as a minimum- no one should be better off on benefits than a worker on the average industrial wage (currently 32,800 per annum, *gross*)

NipNip

26sdrawkcab wrote: »

One last time - do you think people should have children if they cannot afford them?

Thanks to our rich economy, there should never be a question of us not being able to afford children.