Forcing old people to be landlords

um7y1h83ge06nx

JupiterKid wrote: »

The sentiments expressed on this thread are very telling.

At first glance it appears that many have concerns about the welfare of the elderly and their right to hold onto their hard earned homes but beneath that layer you can see an "I'm alright Jack" mentality among property owners who see their asset as one to be valued above the common good - whether that be building much needed social housing nearby or the horrible commie notion that housing is a basic human need and not just an asset to be sold on at a big profit as part of the ruinous "housing ladder.

Well if the comrades in government want to offer me a good price for my house and then offer to house me for a nominal rent then fair enough, I'm up for it.

But if they want to use the homeless issue to make a land grab and fcuk over hardworking people who legally bought property using their hard earned and legally earned money then they can go drop dead.

mrcheez

Curious. How do they know you have a vacant property?

You might have a house you return to every few weeks. Is that considered "vacant"?

JupiterKid

JupiterKid wrote: »

The sentiments expressed on this thread are very telling.

At first glance it appears that many have concerns about the welfare of the elderly and their right to hold onto their hard earned homes but beneath that layer you can see an "I'm alright Jack" mentality among property owners who see their asset as one to be valued above the common good - whether that be building much needed social housing nearby or the horrible commie notion that housing is a basic human need and not just an asset to be sold on at a big profit as part of the ruinous "housing ladder."

This mentality towards housing and property is a major factor in the housing crisis in the first place. The irony is thick here.

As for the proposal, I think it's a ploy by the govt to deflect attention from their hideous lack of progress in properly addressing the crisis.

There seems to be two groups who feel entitled to a forever home with little or no cost to themselves. There's the poor single mother with x amount of childer who wants a house with a bedroom for each child a stones throw from Mammy.
Then there's the ones who want mammy or daddy's house for free.

brightspark

Deleted User wrote: »

There seems to be two groups who feel entitled to a forever home with little or no cost to themselves. There's the poor single mother with x amount of childer who wants a house with a bedroom for each child a stones throw from Mammy.
Then there's the ones who want mammy or daddy's house for free.

"Mammy or Daddy's house" wasn't free, it was bought with money that was earned (and has often been maintained by the children who will inherit). My assets are mine to use/gift as I want, I can decide to leave it to relations or give it to the local cat shelter to use, the point is it is my choice.

Parents "usually" want their children to inherit their assets, if they don't they usually make wills stating otherwise.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Deleted User wrote: »

What about the heirs to the estate? You know. The ones who handed over care of their dearly loved one to a Nursing Home? The ones who are only interested in hanging on to an asset, while it lies idle, depriving a family of a home?

What is this "Raw Deal" you keep on about? Is that what the dementia sufferers are getting from their nearest and dearest?

I think you're being very unfair. Not every person who needs care is put in there because the family can't be arsed. I know personally speaking my dad had a brain tumor which was causing mini strokes, I left my job to look after him but he got worse and worse. He was admitted to hospital after one of these turns and the hospital determined he needed 24hr care and WOULD NOT release him home to his family. My brother went in to the hospital team saying how dare they make that decision, that he belonged at home but they explained he needed 24hr round the clock care by people who knew what they were doing.
Now he died before he actually had to go in but I can't imagine it's an easy decision for a lot of people and I find your attitude a bit disrespectful, suggesting people find themselves in the care of strangers because their family couldn't be bothered. That's not always the case.

LexieOnRale

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I think you're being very unfair. Not every person who needs care is put in there because the family can't be arsed. I know personally speaking my dad had a brain tumor which was causing mini strokes, I left my job to look after him but he got worse and worse. He was admitted to hospital after one of these turns and the hospital determined he needed 24hr care and WOULD NOT release him home to his family. My brother went in to the hospital team saying how dare they make that decision, that he belonged at home but they explained he needed 24hr round the clock care by people who knew what they were doing.
Now he died before he actually had to go in but I can't imagine it's an easy decision for a lot of people and I find your attitude a bit disrespectful, suggesting people find themselves in the care of strangers because their family couldn't be bothered. That's not always the case.

Having been there myself, I can understand completely how tough it is to make that decision. Caring for an elderly, infirm parent is very tough. Having had to put Mam in a nursing home for her final weeks was best for her. Her children just couldn't give her the care she needed. For the whole family it was the right decision. We would have had no hesitation in selling her house if needed. We were able to inherit it tax free, but would have gladly spent the money on her.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Deleted User wrote: »

Having been there myself, I can understand completely how tough it is to make that decision. Caring for an elderly, infirm parent is very tough. Having had to put Mam in a nursing home for her final weeks was best for her. Her children just couldn't give her the care she needed. For the whole family it was the right decision. We would have had no hesitation in selling her house if needed. We were able to inherit it tax free, but would have gladly spent the money on her.

100% agree too in our case we'd have spent whatever money we had on my dad if he had needed it, at the end of the day, a house is bricks and mortar and a family member is worth so much more than money/property.

Sorry I think I have just been misinterpreting your posts TBH. This post cleared it up somewhat

JupiterKid

People have every right to their property. But the knee jerk reaction opinions in this thread and to my last post tells me what I already knew about this country and society - that land and property ownership trumps the concept of the common good every time.

Whether that ranges from one-off McMansions in the scenic countryside or resisting social housing/mixed tenure housing being built nearby to one's precious domicile.

And that's why the political system in this country is far more interested in ensuring those who have benefited in the housing crisis and property price rises keep them in power.

LexieOnRale

LexieOnRale wrote: »

100% agree too in our case we'd have spent whatever money we had on my dad if he had needed it, at the end of the day, a house is bricks and mortar and a family member is worth so much more than money/property.

Sorry I think I have just been misinterpreting your posts TBH. This post cleared it up somewhat

Thank you. My posts are aimed at those who feel that it is their right to inherit a property because their parents worked hard for it and they don't want to see what they see as undeserving people living there.
My other gripe is that this idea seems to be dismissed out of hand because it comes from the Government. The fine details should be considered and then commented on.

cbreeze

You can send a photo of any 'home' you suspect is vacant to this little website/webstie:

https://vacanthomes.ie/


I'm thinking of sending it a pic of Leinster House:D

MOH

Deleted User wrote: »

Thank you. My posts are aimed at those who feel that it is their right to inherit a property because their parents worked hard for it and they don't want to see what they see as undeserving people living there.
My other gripe is that this idea seems to be dismissed out of hand because it comes from the Government. The fine details should be considered and then commented on.

Ah, what are you on about. It's the parents who own the property. If they want to leave it to their children, that's their business. If they want to rent it out, that's their business too. If they don't, well, they've worked to pay for it and it's theirs, they shouldn't be forced into it.

Typical entitlement attitude. "I want something. Somebody else owns that something. I can't afford it. It should be taken off that person and given to me".

Uriel.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Thank you. My posts are aimed at those who feel that it is their right to inherit a property because their parents worked hard for it and they don't want to see what they see as undeserving people living there.
My other gripe is that this idea seems to be dismissed out of hand because it comes from the Government. The fine details should be considered and then commented on.

The thing is, your "gripes" are imagined.

Most people opposing/concerned with the idea on this thread as State interference in private property rights have been property owners concerned that their choice of what to do with their properties is going to be interfered with. It hasn't, by and large, been children wishing to protect their inheritance.

Secondly, as has been batted back and forth all thread, the problem people have with the proposal, is that even if the the finer detail is wonderful etc. The issue is that from an LL perspective (particularly small scale landlords) the rental market is broken with too much risk and an imbalance of rights and useful /effective mechanisms for enforcing whatever rights an LL has.

As as has been pointed out to you time and again, unless these issues are addressed, this proposal is going nowhere useful.

beauf

Deleted User wrote: »

What about the heirs to the estate? You know. The ones who handed over care of their dearly loved one to a Nursing Home? The ones who are only interested in hanging on to an asset, while it lies idle, depriving a family of a home?

What is this "Raw Deal" you keep on about? Is that what the dementia sufferers are getting from their nearest and dearest?

I think its offensive you target the carers and closest to dementia suffers like this. Many of which are simply unable to cope probably having to maintain a job an their own family as well as being full time carers of one or possibly more people.

If they inherit something they've earned it and them some. Certainly more rights to it than someone who hasn't contributed to the property or the people in it, at all.

Uriel.

Uriel. wrote: »

The thing is, your "gripes" are imagined.

As as has been pointed out to you time and again, unless these issues are addressed, this proposal is going nowhere useful.

As I have said more than once, until all issues are put out there there is no point discussing them. If my gripes are imagined, then so are the fears of those who oppose the suggestion.

beauf

Deleted User wrote: »

Thank you. My posts are aimed at those who feel that it is their right to inherit a property because their parents worked hard for it and they don't want to see what they see as undeserving people living there.
My other gripe is that this idea seems to be dismissed out of hand because it comes from the Government. The fine details should be considered and then commented on.

No they object to the Govt not doing anything about housing, selling off property to investors, not building social housing, selling off social housing, then making out the problem is not caused by them, but is in fact caused by some of the most vulnerable in our society. This is like some one distracting you with something while some else steals your wallet. But you're oblivious to it.

No. You've ignored the fine details, when mentioned because you don't recognize the issues because you have no experience of it. have you ever engage with the authorities about renting a property, or problems with deposits, over-holding, damage, tenants, fraud. It obvious you haven't because again you don't mention any of this stuff.

Why don't the Govt fix the problem with current rental market and renting out property before starting a new set of problems when they haven't fixed that.

Its like a child not clearing away one project, before starting another, until the table is full of half finished projected. Now you want to start another project on a table in another room.

beauf

The amount of legal obstacles that currently exist with property both ownership and rental because the govt won't streamline the legal process, or address any issues with the legal profession.

These won't go away simply because you wish it away.

wexandproud

Deleted User wrote: »

Because they don't. Thats where the hassle of being a landlord comes from. The landlord isn't just renting a house, theyre renting toasters, washing machines, furnishings, lawn mowers and a host of other things.
My experience is that items in rented houses last less time and break down far more often than the equivalent items in my own house.

We should encourage the system that applies in other EU countries where the landlord simply rents out the house (four walls and roof) on a long term lease eg 7 years renewable... and the tenant brings their own bits of furninture etc. This can suit everybody as the landlord gets no hassle, the rents are cheaper for the tenant and they can furnish it themselves as cheaply as they like with no worries of being liable for dameges...

i was being sarcastic , and the sh.t you get phone call about is unreal , last call i got was at 11 o clock one night wondering could i get a locksmith out as the tenant had put wrong quay in lock and broken it off in the lock

Uriel.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As I have said more than once, until all issues are put out there there is no point discussing them. If my gripes are imagined, then so are the fears of those who oppose the suggestion.

The "fears" are not imagined though, at least not all of them. The the problems with the rental market are real and experienced every day of the week. Existing and past landlords have often lived the experience.

gctest50

MOH wrote: »

Ah, what are you on about. It's the parents who own the property. If they want to leave it to their children, that's their business. If they want to rent it out, that's their business too. If they don't, well, they've worked to pay for it and it's theirs, they shouldn't be forced into it.

Typical entitlement attitude. "I want something. Somebody else owns that something. I can't afford it. It should be taken off that person and given to me".

Typical entitlement attitude. "I need care . Somebody else owns that care home. I can't afford it. It should be taken off that person and given to me"


As for building houses, here's a good example :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057776790

Adventure1 wrote: »

Hi guys,

I live in an estate that currently has around 40 houses which are built and are currently being lived in. There are available sites for a further 25 houses which run opposite/alongside the existing houses. We have just been told that these remaining sites are to be given to Respond who are going to build the houses and use them for social housing.


Needless to say its caused quite a stir among the existing residents. There is some resentment that most of us are working to pay off decent sized mortgages while others will be handed similar houses for free ......

judeboy101 wrote: »

If you are not in negative equity, you soon will be, so sell up asap. 10% social is bad enough but what you are saying is a disaster.

The_Conductor wrote: »

Judeboy does have a valid point.
Having 25 social housing units opposite- will seriously affect the value of the other housing stock. People might like to suggest this isn't the case- however, it most certainly is...........

mrcheez

mrcheez wrote: »

Curious. How do they know you have a vacant property?

You might have a house you return to every few weeks. Is that considered "vacant"?

anyone know this?

Reason I ask is that I may be working abroad soon but I don't want to rent my place out as I'll be returning to it every 2-3 months for a few days and I want to leave everything in it as is.

Is "vacant" only considered so when it's left empty for a year or so?

KERSPLAT!

I believe I heard on Newstalk that there's a tax exemption on vacant properties which owners apply for. So revenue would have a list of these vacant properties. I suppose they would need to clarify what vacant is exactly and if owners don't want to go down this avenue of forced rental, they'll find a way around it.

I can't see this happening anyway. Ridiculous in my opinion.

LexieOnRale

LexieOnRale wrote: »

It is my opinion, of course, that anyone who knows how much work is entailed in owning your own home and living off your own dime would not support the idea that anything you own is belonging to the state upon your death.

Exactly.

I've worked all my life. Paid ridiculous taxes in the 80s, paying for the mistakes of Banks now.

I inherited a couple of acres of land. I built a house on it, and bought another "doer-upper", which I still live in.

I also built up a business with my husband, often working 12- 15hours a day.

I fully intend to bequeath my property to my children. I want them to have better start in life than I did.

I da*n well didn't slave all my life to hand the fruits of my labour to the state - nor will I do so.

I've been thinking for a while now that it's time to gift my property to my kids. They're good kids, they work hard - but they are not in a position to build their own homes yet.

So, why should I hand my property over to someone else, when my own family are in need?

I know a few tenants around here who move regularly, pay the rent for the first few months, then let arrears accrue, and move on to the next property.

Why on earth would I want to take a risk on having tenants like that, when I could just gift my property to my kids? I'd burn it first, tbh.

1874 wrote: »

So what next on the books? start dipping into personal savings to pay for the failures of poor govt?

You mean like reducing the amount you can have in Bank savings, before money can be seized in the event of a banking crises?

There's a picture emerging here - and it's not one that any democratic government should even consider....

More details are given here: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/sell-house-and-avoid-punitive-fair-deal-costs-36049332.html

"Elderly people living in nursing homes would avoid "punitive" Fair Deal scheme costs if they sold their family homes under new Government proposals aimed at resolving the housing crisis.
The shake-up of the Fair Deal scheme would encourage older people to put their homes on the housing market by helping them to avoid handing over the entire proceeds of the sale to cover their nursing home costs.
Long-term nursing home residents are currently reluctant to sell their family homes because the cash raised would be subjected to Fair Deal contributions for the rest of their lives. Family homes that remain in their name are counted as assets under the scheme but the value of the house is only subjected to contributions for three years.

Once a family home is converted into cash, it is subjected, along with all other assets, to 7.5pc Fair Deal contributions while the nursing home resident is still alive.
Children are unwilling to allow parents to sell their homes as they fear the State will take all of the proceeds to pay for nursing home costs.

Under the new incentive scheme being proposed by Minister for Older People Jim Daly, money raised by the sale of homes could be ring-fenced after paying contributions to Fair Deal for five years."

beauf

The fair deal scheme is reasonable for many people. It's the renting that's unworkable.

Houses via the fair deal should give us a few houses in a few years.

Of course in that time we could have built the houses especially if they were timber frame or prefabricated housing, as built after the war in many countries. But that would cost more.

We also should be building higher, and higher density high quality housing in the city. Apartments suited for families etc.

nice_guy80

We have two houses in our family that are empty

the parents (in-laws) involved will not rent or sell on these houses due to the emotional attachment to the houses as it was where they were brought up themselves, their parents lived (and died)
they actually get upset talking or thinking about the houses.
most of the parents' belongings are still in the houses.

I'm sure that is the case up and down the country

As property owners, they should be free to leave these houses empty if they so wish, once the property tax is paid.

nice_guy80

beauf wrote: »

The fair deal scheme is reasonable for many people. It's the renting that's unworkable.

Houses via the fair deal should give us a few houses in a few years.

Of course in that time we could have built the houses especially if they were timber frame or prefabricated housing, as built after the war in many countries. But that would cost more.

We also should be building higher, and higher density high quality housing in the city. Apartments suited for families etc.

timber frame houses using pre fabrciated insulated panel systems would be much faster, cheaper and better houses to live in than concrete homes
they can be built with a few storeys using steel frames, concrete floors between storeys, apartments can also be built

government invest in companies that currently build these houses to upscale their operations and start designing and building thousands of houses
I don't see the issue.

same with window companies, concrete companies

the state as a large developer should be able to drive down costs per unit

accensi0n

nice_guy80 wrote: »

We have two houses in our family that are empty

the parents (in-laws) involved will not rent or sell on these houses due to the emotional attachment to the houses as it was where they were brought up themselves, their parents lived (and died)
they actually get upset talking or thinking about the houses.
most of the parents' belongings are still in the houses.

I'm sure that is the case up and down the country

As property owners, they should be free to leave these houses empty if they so wish, once the property tax is paid.

That example is kind of crazy though, it would better to sell them and go on some amazing holidays or something.

KERSPLAT!

accensi0n wrote: »

That example is kind of crazy though, it would better to sell them and go on some amazing holidays or something.

It would be better to leave them do what they want and not force them to do something They don't want to. They built/bought their house, pay the relevant taxes. Let them leave the house empty if they want.

nice_guy80

accensi0n wrote: »

That example is kind of crazy though, it would better to sell them and go on some amazing holidays or something.

they can go on holidays if they want
they were on 3 last year

steddyeddy

wexandproud wrote: »

totally different all together , whoever left the house , would presumably have worked hard to pay for it
the type of sharons being talked about are the one's who have f.ck all regard for anyone's property and would be on to the landlord for every little thing and if they decide to stop paying rent there is nothing the poor divil in the home can do about it
any way lexie you enjoy your inheritance , begrudgery is a terrible thing

I think you'll find I'm quite comfortably off myself. This due to my own hard work. My point is that I think it unreasonable for someone who was gifted a house to constantly complain about other people getting handouts.

steddyeddy

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I inherited a house that I don't live in. I will leave my property to my children upon my demise. I am not in social housing, or state dependent. What's your point?

My point is Lexie that Sharon would have probably killed for parents that worked as hard as yours. She would have killed to be left a house like you were. A large part of Sharon's expectations in life likely come from how hard her parents worked for her. If not for your parents Lexie you could be Sharon. You could be in social housing.

It's extremely easy to be born into a situation where a house will be gifted to you and complain about people who's parents probably didn't give a feck about them or their career opportunities.

brightspark

steddyeddy wrote: »

My point is Lexie that Sharon would have probably killed for parents that worked as hard as yours. She would have killed to be left a house like you were. A large part of Sharon's expectations in life likely come from how hard her parents worked for her. If not for your parents Lexie you could be Sharon. You could be in social housing.

Sharon might have "killed" for hard working parents to have left her a house, but she probably wouldn't "work" for it.

Her expectations are obviously (based on your post), my parents got everything without working,so I should too.

maudgonner

steddyeddy wrote: »

My point is Lexie that Sharon would have probably killed for parents that worked as hard as yours. She would have killed to be left a house like you were. A large part of Sharon's expectations in life likely come from how hard her parents worked for her. If not for your parents Lexie you could be Sharon. You could be in social housing.

It's extremely easy to be born into a situation where a house will be gifted to you and complain about people who's parents probably didn't give a feck about them or their career opportunities.

And the solution to this is to take the things hard working parents have earned and give them away? How the hell is that setting a good example for Sharon, it's reinforcing that you should earn nothing and expect everything to be given to you.

TheChizler

maudgonner wrote: »

And the solution to this is to take the things hard working parents have earned and give them away? How the hell is that setting a good example for Sharon, it's reinforcing that you should earn nothing and expect everything to be given to you.

Whatever about the proposal being morally right or wrong, but there's never been a suggestion that the assets would be taken without fair compensation.

steddyeddy

maudgonner wrote: »

And the solution to this is to take the things hard working parents have earned and give them away? How the hell is that setting a good example for Sharon, it's reinforcing that you should earn nothing and expect everything to be given to you.

Sorry where did I suggest that?

maudgonner

maudgonner wrote: »

And the solution to this is to take the things hard working parents have earned and give them away? How the hell is that setting a good example for Sharon, it's reinforcing that you should earn nothing and expect everything to be given to you.

It's showing that you work hard to buy a house. When you need extra help, you can rent out or sell that house to buy that help. Trouble is your offspring want all that hard earned dosh for themselves, without earning it. Nothing being given away, nor anyone being forced into a situation they don't want.

brightspark

Deleted User wrote: »

It's showing that you work hard to buy a house. When you need extra help, you can rent out or sell that house to buy that help. Trouble is your offspring want all that hard earned dosh for themselves, without earning it. Nothing being given away, nor anyone being forced into a situation they don't want.

There is an assumption here that the offspring are only looking after their own interests.

It is the duty of who ever is holding power of attorney to look after their relations interests. If there is only a minimal gain or even a potential loss from renting/selling the property then it doesn't make sense to risk it.

And while currently 80% of income and 7.5% of assets annually are to be paid for the nursing home care (not counting some other costs such as prescriptions, chiropody hairdressing, clothing, soap, and other stuff not included in the Fair Deal), there is also the chance the government will modify the scheme and require more funding from the nursing home resident and their families.

Also don't forget that Fair Deal was brought in originally because it was deemed wrong for dementia patients to be charged for their care, while other illnesses were treated under the public healthcare system.

brightspark

brightspark wrote: »

There is an assumption here that the offspring are only looking after their own interests.

It is the duty of who ever is holding power of attorney to look after their relations interests. If there is only a minimal gain or even a potential loss from renting/selling the property then it doesn't make sense to risk it.

And while currently 80% of income and 7.5% of assets annually are to be paid for the nursing home care (not counting some other costs such as prescriptions, chiropody hairdressing, clothing, soap, and other stuff not included in the Fair Deal), there is also the chance the government will modify the scheme and require more funding from the nursing home resident and their families.

Also don't forget that Fair Deal was brought in originally because it was deemed wrong for dementia patients to be charged for their care, while other illnesses were treated under the public healthcare system.

There are more than dementia sufferers long term residents of nursing homes.
I posted this link earlier: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/sell-house-and-avoid-punitive-fair-deal-costs-36049332.html
"Children are unwilling to allow parents to sell their homes as they fear the State will take all of the proceeds to pay for nursing home costs.

Under the new incentive scheme being proposed by Minister for Older People Jim Daly, money raised by the sale of homes could be ring-fenced after paying contributions to Fair Deal for five years.
A senior Government source said there is a need for a "halfway house" between the "punishing" cost of selling a house while in a nursing home and the necessity to raise State funding for the Fair Deal scheme.

The source said the incentive to sell would be aimed at people who are "willing, ready and able" to sell their family home and emphasised that the Government would not force older people to put their houses on the market.
"We would not support any proposal that would make it compulsory to sell a home but it is about making it possible to sell for some who would like to sell and make sure the financial cost is not as punitive as it is now," a Government source said."

brightspark

Deleted User wrote: »

There are more than dementia sufferers long term residents of nursing homes.
I posted this link earlier: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/sell-house-and-avoid-punitive-fair-deal-costs-36049332.html
"Children are unwilling to allow parents to sell their homes as they fear the State will take all of the proceeds to pay for nursing home costs.

Under the new incentive scheme being proposed by Minister for Older People Jim Daly, money raised by the sale of homes could be ring-fenced after paying contributions to Fair Deal for five years.
A senior Government source said there is a need for a "halfway house" between the "punishing" cost of selling a house while in a nursing home and the necessity to raise State funding for the Fair Deal scheme.

The source said the incentive to sell would be aimed at people who are "willing, ready and able" to sell their family home and emphasised that the Government would not force older people to put their houses on the market.
"We would not support any proposal that would make it compulsory to sell a home but it is about making it possible to sell for some who would like to sell and make sure the financial cost is not as punitive as it is now," a Government source said."

So already proposing taking an additional 15% (change from 3yrs to 5yrs).

E.G on a "cheap" €100,000 house, previously they took €22,500, now they want €37,500.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

steddyeddy wrote: »

My point is Lexie that Sharon would have probably killed for parents that worked as hard as yours. She would have killed to be left a house like you were. A large part of Sharon's expectations in life likely come from how hard her parents worked for her. If not for your parents Lexie you could be Sharon. You could be in social housing.

It's extremely easy to be born into a situation where a house will be gifted to you and complain about people who's parents probably didn't give a feck about them or their career opportunities.

I paid 33% tax on my inheritance so IMO what Sharon would "kill for" is nothing got to do with me, Sharon and the likes of her have benefited from the death of my parents. Anything I have now is funded through my actual earnings, I cover my own lifestyle. It's no secret that having a job should in theory leave you better off than being unemployed with dependants. If Sharon wants to stay at the bottom and blame her parents and blame my parents for the situation I find myself in, that's Sharon's biggest problem.
I could find myself in social housing if I felt that I was the responsibility of everyone else, but I don't. I want to be responsible for myself.

TheChizler

TheChizler wrote: »

Whatever about the proposal being morally right or wrong, but there's never been a suggestion that the assets would be taken without fair compensation.

The point is that the assets would be taken - and "fair" compensation is very open to interpretation...

jamesthepeach

Let's not forget what the government get out of this too.

Again they are depending on the private sector to solve their housing problems for them.

And the govt get over 50% of the takings.

And probably capital gains tax too.

This is a slippery slope. There is more in store for old people if they get away with this one.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Deleted User wrote: »

It's showing that you work hard to buy a house. When you need extra help, you can rent out or sell that house to buy that help. Trouble is your offspring want all that hard earned dosh for themselves, without earning it. Nothing being given away, nor anyone being forced into a situation they don't want.

Why don't I add Sharon and her kids to my will while I'm at so, so she can get a more direct benefit from the fact that I built and paid for my own home at the expense of other more enjoyable aspects of life and things my children could have benefitted from at the time?
The people against these proposals are not the offspring you seem to think are salivating over the family home, it's the homeowners themselves. Sharon got a got a fair share of my earnings to date. She'll continue to benefit from my existence, I hope, for a few more years. She will get a small windfall when I die. But I'll be hornswaddled if I'm renting my home to her.

KERSPLAT!

I stand to inherit nothing so I've no skin in the game. I still don't think it's right.

KERSPLAT!

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I paid 33% tax on my inheritance so IMO what Sharon would "kill for" is nothing got to do with me, Sharon and the likes of her have benefited from the death of my parents. Anything I have now is funded through my actual earnings, I cover my own lifestyle. It's no secret that having a job should in theory leave you better off than being unemployed with dependants. If Sharon wants to stay at the bottom and blame her parents and blame my parents for the situation I find myself in, that's Sharon's biggest problem.
I could find myself in social housing if I felt that I was the responsibility of everyone else, but I don't. I want to be responsible for myself.

While I agree with your post to a large degree, unfortunately some people need social housing and it's not because they don't want to be responsible for themselves or they feel they are "the responsibility of everyone else". Quite an insulting comment.

the_syco

steddyeddy wrote: »

My point is Lexie that Sharon would have probably killed for parents that worked as hard as yours. She would have killed to be left a house like you were.

Provided it was near her family. If it is far far away from her family, Sharon will probably not take it.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

While I agree with your post to a large degree, unfortunately some people need social housing and it's not because they don't want to be responsible for themselves or they feel they are "the responsibility of everyone else". Quite an insulting comment.

Meh, if that's how you choose to interpret it. I understand people may need assistance or a little bit of help and that's fair enough but remaining for years on a housing list in order to receive a free forever home is a bit mad, to be honest. If you can't sort your **** out FOR YEARS and expecting at the end of it to receive a house, then you are expecting the public to be responsible for you.
An unexpected pregnancy could happen to anyone but there are a huge portion of society who keep having children, then demanding their needs be met faster because there's children involved. We see families in emergency accommodation arguing it's not suitable (and I agree) for their children but the onus is on the tax payer to remedy this and not on the individual to stop having children until they can sort a roof over their heads.

There's a woman in Carlow in the news at the moment, who had and left two homes and walked out of her most recent home (in Dublin) and moved back to Carlow without having anywhere to live. She placed a tent outside the council buildings protesting at the fact Carlow cc wouldn't house her. They argued (and won in high court) that she could stay with family, like 100 other cases in similar circumstances in the county. She is quoted (link below) saying it wasn't up to her family to put a roof over her head, the onus was on the council.

There are people, and I make no apologies for saying it either, who do feel entitled to a social house, to be free to pick and choose what house they receive, and to a lesser degree, the choice to pack up and move around on a whim and be accommodated wherever the wind takes them.

Yes there are genuine people in need, and anyone can fall on hard times but that doesn't change the fact there are a lot of people out there quite happy to be totally reliant on the state, and are happy enough not to have any sense of personal responsibility.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/homeless-mother-stays-in-tent-outside-carlow-council-offices-1.3121490%3fmode=amp

Rogelio Many Underbelly

Rogelio Many Underbelly wrote: »

Why don't I add Sharon and her kids to my will while I'm at so, so she can get a more direct benefit from the fact that I built and paid for my own home at the expense of other more enjoyable aspects of life and things my children could have benefitted from at the time?
The people against these proposals are not the offspring you seem to think are salivating over the family home, it's the homeowners themselves. Sharon got a got a fair share of my earnings to date. She'll continue to benefit from my existence, I hope, for a few more years. She will get a small windfall when I die. But I'll be hornswaddled if I'm renting my home to her.

Naw. She'd have to pay too much CAT and possibly lose some of her benefits. Perish the thought!

KERSPLAT!

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Meh, if that's how you choose to interpret it. I understand people may need assistance or a little bit of help and that's fair enough but remaining for years on a housing list in order to receive a free forever home is a bit mad, to be honest. If you can't sort your **** out FOR YEARS and expecting at the end of it to receive a house, then you are expecting the public to be responsible for you.
An unexpected pregnancy could happen to anyone but there are a huge portion of society who keep having children, then demanding their needs be met faster because there's children involved. We see families in emergency accommodation arguing it's not suitable (and I agree) for their children but the onus is on the tax payer to remedy this and not on the individual to stop having children until they can sort a roof over their heads.

There's a woman in Carlow in the news at the moment, who had and left two homes and walked out of her most recent home (in Dublin) and moved back to Carlow without having anywhere to live. She placed a tent outside the council buildings protesting at the fact Carlow cc wouldn't house her. They argued (and won in high court) that she could stay with family, like 100 other cases in similar circumstances in the county. She is quoted (link below) saying it wasn't up to her family to put a roof over her head, the onus was on the council.

There are people, and I make no apologies for saying it either, who do feel entitled to a social house, to be free to pick and choose what house they receive, and to a lesser degree, the choice to pack up and move around on a whim and be accommodated wherever the wind takes them.

Yes there are genuine people in need, and anyone can fall on hard times but that doesn't change the fact there are a lot of people out there quite happy to be totally reliant on the state, and are happy enough not to have any sense of personal responsibility.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/homeless-mother-stays-in-tent-outside-carlow-council-offices-1.3121490%3fmode=amp

There are genuine people? Ah, you aren't tarring everyone with the same brush. One can be forgiven for the mistake, considering your comments.

As I said, unfortunately some people need social housing, for years.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

There are genuine people? Ah, you aren't tarring everyone with the same brush. One can be forgiven for the mistake, considering your comments.

As I said, unfortunately some people need social housing, for years.

Unfortunately, that does seem to be the case. And when a person persistently makes less than wise decisions while expecting everyone else to fix their problem, it is a case of them being happy enough to accept no responsibility for themselves, their situation or their life choices.