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

AlekSmart

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. 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.

Many posters may not be old enough to have experience of the Differential Rents protests of the 1960's and 70's,which were,at that time,very high profile.

The issue kicked off,afair,in Dundalk and spread rapidly....

http://www.independent.ie/regionals/argus/lifestyle/dundalk-leads-country-in-protest-at-unjust-differential-rent-system-26941986.html

We had a system which was basically sound..it DID require ongoing modification and upgrade,but rather than do this,we (Ireland) decided that ridding the country of the term "Tenant" was a more desirable thing to do.....

stateofflux

Bongalongherb wrote: »

I do agree with this as a person that does get a free apartment or house should never be allowed choose the place they want to live. You take the first offer, well I would. To refuse a free home is just not on, it's a roof over their head, so people should be happy with being offered one in the first place.

if the first offer is in a notorious dangerous area then i would refuse. especially if i had kids.

Bongalongherb

stateofflux wrote: »

if the first offer is in a notorious dangerous area then i would refuse. especially if i had kids.

Beggars can't be choosers now can they. It's a home.

DubVelo

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Beggars can't be choosers now can they. It's a home.

It's not a 'home' if it's in a notorious dangerous area. Your kids would be better off in a caravan in a field.

Bongalongherb

DubVelo wrote: »

It's not a 'home' if it's in a notorious dangerous area. Your kids would be better off in a caravan in a field.

Well that must be why they give three options, so unless a person is unlucky to get three options in a real bad kip then that person is screwed.

Biffo The Bare

hawkwind23 wrote: »

you have empathy and compassion for what is being inflicted on our fellow man, woman and children, never change that.

only a matter of time before they start baying for the poor to be gassed, lined up and shot or chemically exterminated.

i agree , too many of the comments are disgusting and the people making them should be ashamed of themselves.

No, we are just asking for our hard earned money to be spent properly and not be given to wasters. If people don't need the house any more as their circumstances improve, they should be given notice to leave making way for more deserving cases. And also council houses should not be sold at rock bottom prices to occupants. Simples. Who mentioned anything about gas or chemicals?:mad:

DubVelo

on_my_oe wrote: »

The problem is, those who spend their childhood growing up on welfare are significantly less likely to grow up and get a job - instead they go on to repeat the cycle, and raise another family on welfare. Simple economics, if you continue to reproduce a group that does not gainfully contribute to society while the group that does make positive, insightful and responsible choices self limits itself, eventually the taxpayers will be outnumbered by the leeches. Too many people on welfare do not act with any responsibility, and expect others to pick up the tab for their lifestyle. If they want one kid, possibly two, great, but four or five, they're on their own, and as soon as the child is in school, they need to be contributing, either by studying, community service or undergoing training.

This is a point of view I have a degree of sympathy for, but on the other hand I don't see making a virtual slave of yourself to lazy rentier bankers and property developers & landlords to be the badge of honour that some here make it out to be.
Have we really not come any further than this? Paying wages to his lordship for the right to live in our homes?

Calhoun

DubVelo wrote: »

This is a point of view I have a degree of sympathy for, but on the other hand I don't see making a virtual slave of yourself to lazy rentier bankers and property developers & landlords to be the badge of honour that some here make it out to be.
Have we really not come any further than this? Paying wages to his lordship for the right to live in our homes?

Just because we had a banking crisis doesn't mean that its a get out of jail free card, folks aren't wearing anything like a badge of honor they are taking personal responsibility for their lives and in most cases they are forced to support the self entitled who take the view point that they wont become that virtual slave

I am not sure what you mean by your second point, "paying wages to his lordship"?

ivyQ

Bongalongherb wrote: »

I do agree with this as a person that does get a free apartment or house should never be allowed choose the place they want to live. You take the first offer, well I would. To refuse a free home is just not on, it's a roof over their head, so people should be happy with being offered one in the first place.

I read somewhere ((some online government report to the EU)) that the government is aiming to bring in a bidding system for social housing by the end of 2016 like the current Uk system ....

Bongalongherb

ivyQ wrote: »

I read somewhere ((some online government report to the EU)) that the government is aiming to bring in a bidding system for social housing by the end of 2016 like the current Uk system ....

Interesting...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05eOtEEYH1g

ivyQ

Im not the least bit surprised that guy wasnt successful bidding he was bidding for properties surplus to his requirement for some time ie 2 beds , in reality the system is not that different to the one in place here, its still a point based system ...the main difference is you bid for properties your interested in , in areas your interested in ,

When he bid for a one bed he was second thats not bad goin really ...each time a bidder bids they usually move up the list

hawkwind23

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

No, we are just asking for our hard earned money to be spent properly and not be given to wasters. If people don't need the house any more as their circumstances improve, they should be given notice to leave making way for more deserving cases. And also council houses should not be sold at rock bottom prices to occupants. Simples. Who mentioned anything about gas or chemicals?:mad:

simples?
yeah our hard earned money should be spent on social housing , healthcare , education.
not handed out to wasters and criminal landowners and bankers.

the media spins the same old stories over and over again to pit poor against poorer.

quadrifoglio verde

hawkwind23 wrote: »

simples?
yeah our hard earned money should be spent on social housing , healthcare , education.
not handed out to wasters and criminal landowners and bankers.

the media spins the same old stories over and over again to pit poor against poorer.

Who are these criminal landowners?

Our hard earned money that is confiscated from us in the guise of taxes should be used to provide services that can be accessed by all, not just those who can't be arsed to go out and work.
Unemployed single mothers existed prior to 2007 as well.

Benefits should be paid out on a pro-rata basis. Someone who has paid prsi for 20 years should continue to receive allowances at a higher rate than someone who has paid prsi for two years.

gaius c

DubVelo wrote: »

This is a point of view I have a degree of sympathy for, but on the other hand I don't see making a virtual slave of yourself to lazy rentier bankers and property developers & landlords to be the badge of honour that some here make it out to be.
Have we really not come any further than this? Paying wages to his lordship for the right to live in our homes?

We should get our homes for free as anything else is too demeaning?

Biffo The Bare

hawkwind23 wrote: »

simples?
yeah our hard earned money should be spent on social housing , healthcare , education.
not handed out to wasters and criminal landowners and bankers.

the media spins the same old stories over and over again to pit poor against poorer.

The landowners and bankers while it was also wrong is not part of this argument. I have argued other places on this forum about this too.
But, as your third class teacher told you (She told me anyway),
Two wrongs don't make a right.

No Pants

hawkwind23 wrote: »

the poor to be gassed, lined up and shot

I would not be in favour of that, it sounds redundant and wasteful.

I think you're confusing the poor with wasters/spongers. I have been part of the former group, never the latter.

hawkwind23

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

The landowners and bankers while it was also wrong is not part of this argument. I have argued other places on this forum about this too.
But, as your third class teacher told you (She told me anyway),
Two wrongs don't make a right.

yes thats all well and good

however the fact remains that one of the wrongs own the media and bombards us with misinformation.
the same wrong commit fraud on an epic scale
this is done with military precision and crafted intent

the other wrong , it could be argued , are victims in some ways.

now all working class familes who have too many children or find it hard to gain employment are instantly identified and classified as worthless.
benefit cheats and scoundrels , worthy of disdain and punishment.

i dont think these two groups are "equal" and therefore the argument of two wrongs making a right is invalid in this case

donutheadhomer

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

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.

Perhaps but they could be found work at something - everyone can clean up and cut grass/paint

donutheadhomer

on_my_oe wrote: »

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

take a look at this movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

Calhoun

I think that folks looking for handouts are doing themselves injustice in the media allot of the time.

As pointed out earlier the woman living in a car was offered two places in kildare but refused them and instead courted the media with a sob story.

donutheadhomer

on_my_oe wrote: »

I have a lot of admiration for someone who gets up every morning to work in a low income job, and has a reasonable number of children (1 or 2), requiring minimal state support.

I reserve my disapproval for those who spend a decade or more, expanding their family willy nilly, all the time becoming a larger drain on limited government resources (when the said resources would be better used supporting the sick, the elderly, or education), and making no contribution to society. To clarify, I perceive contribution as receiving an education or training, volunteering or working.

I know a case of a couple with 3 kids - all under 6. The woman is so fat she can’t have children as is the man too. The woman has never worked ever and the man not in years. They are fully state dependant. The state has paid for the IVF treatment for the 3 of these pregnancies at a cost of E5000 per pregnancy (minus a 500 contribution as medical card holders). There is even a thread about it here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056367409

DubVelo

Calhoun wrote: »

Just because we had a banking crisis doesn't mean that its a get out of jail free card, folks aren't wearing anything like a badge of honor they are taking personal responsibility for their lives and in most cases they are forced to support the self entitled who take the view point that they wont become that virtual slave

I am not sure what you mean by your second point, "paying wages to his lordship"?

Forced to support which entitled now, the dole fiends or the banker/property types?

What I was trying to say was that if you take a step back it seems like nothing has changed or we've gone full circle to the time of the landlord up in the big house. It's just that the landed gentry have been replaced by the banks and well... modern day landlords.

It was more than a banking crisis, it was years of property market manipulation by a relatively small group of people leeching off the working population on a massive scale. And it's happening again with the rent market in Dublin.

I don't know about an automatic right to a free place to live but I do think people should have a right to buy or rent a home at a fair price free from exploitation and speculation.

Grolschevik

Any chance of closing this complete travesty of a thread? It has seriously made me consider my commitment to 'one person, one vote'.

donutheadhomer

Grolschevik wrote: »

Any chance of closing this complete travesty of a thread? It has seriously made me consider my commitment to 'one person, one vote'.

are u suggesting that the vote be taken off people living in social housing? From the way it is going they will be giving extra votes to people in social house in addition to handouts - a vote voucher. I’m aware of lots of politicians who actively court the votes of those in social housing as they haver larger than average families.

Grolschevik

donutheadhomer wrote: »

are u suggesting that the vote be taken off people living in social housing? From the way it is going they will be giving extra votes to people in social house in addition to handouts - a vote voucher. I’m aware of lots of politicians who actively court the votes of those in social housing as they haver larger than average families.

I think you may just have proven my point.

This thread long ago stopped being about housing, and has morphed into an After Hours type welfare-bashing debate.

Gatling

donutheadhomer wrote: »

I know a case of a couple with 3 kids - all under 6. The woman is so fat she can’t have children as is the man too. The woman has never worked ever and the man not in years. They are fully state dependant. The state has paid for the IVF treatment for the 3 of these pregnancies at a cost of E5000 per pregnancy (minus a 500 contribution as medical card holders). There is even a thread about it here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056367409

Did you actually read the thread at all ,

The state isnt paying for fertility this thread is turning into a social welfare kicking thread

delthedriver

Calhoun wrote: »

I think that folks looking for handouts are doing themselves injustice in the media allot of the time.

As pointed out earlier the woman living in a car was offered two places in kildare but refused them and instead courted the media with a sob story.

She then became a pawn for Sinn Fein in the local elections. The spokesperson representing her cause on the radio was a local Sinn Fein activist.


There are plenty of young couple with families who bought houses in Co. Kildare during the Celtic Tiger, who were forced out of the Dublin property market due to price.


They now have large mortgages unlike the lady in the car who previously had a council house. However she decided to move into the car because she wanted a council house in Dublin!!

delthedriver

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Who are these criminal landowners?

Our hard earned money that is confiscated from us in the guise of taxes should be used to provide services that can be accessed by all, not just those who can't be arsed to go out and work.
Unemployed single mothers existed prior to 2007 as well.

Benefits should be paid out on a pro-rata basis. Someone who has paid prsi for 20 years should continue to receive allowances at a higher rate than someone who has paid prsi for two years.

The unemployed single mother, is almost a career choice. Usually aged 18 or 19, provided with house or apartment, €200+ per week Lone parent allowance, children's allowance , medical card for herself and child, can afford her iphone , mulyichannel tv.........probably a better lifestyle than those who worked hard to get their deposit for their house.


There are many young couples meanwhile struggling to pay their mortgage, pay crèche fees and commute long distances to work and put food on the table.


Something wrong somewhere!

delthedriver

delthedriver wrote: »

The unemployed single mother, is almost a career choice. Usually aged 18 or 19, provided with house or apartment, €200+ per week Lone parent allowance, children's allowance , medical card for herself and child, can afford her iphone , mulyichannel tv.........probably a better lifestyle than those who worked hard to get their deposit for their house.


There are many young couples meanwhile struggling to pay their mortgage, pay crèche fees and commute long distances to work and put food on the table.


Something wrong somewhere!

Seriously?

There are plenty of single mothers, while they may have been given social housing to keep a roof over their own and kids' heads, still struggle to make simple ends meet on these "generous" benefits. Teenagers grow like weeds, new clothes, new uniforms, every few months, those benefits barely cover the rent (yes those on social housing do pay rent) and bills; working part time while the kids are at school if they can get the part time work. Payments are drastically reduced for each child over the age of 12 because it has been deemed that the child can now take care of themselves. A friend has two boys, 16 and 11; she's working part time too, she will need to take on fulltime work once the youngest reaches 12, to be able to sustain a normal lifestyle, that is, decent food, clothing and normal activities for the kids (summer camps, music lessons, the things kids should have), and risk leaving two teenage boys with free run of the house after school hours until she gets home.

People have this really inflated idea about how far benefits stretch.

The_Conductor

Ok- this farce of a thread has transcended welfare bashing, included bizarre side trips denigrating IVF, and is now on a should or should not kids be allowed side track.

I'm all for varied and educational debate- but the level of trolling in here has reached boiling point.

OP- I am closing your thread. While I does have some merit- unfortunately it would appear quite a few people are incapable of being adult enough to debate in a sane and reasoned manner.