Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Respond coming to my estate, what to expect?
Options
Comments
-
Wabbit Ears wrote: »If OP had known they would be buying a house in a council estate they probably wouldn't have bought there.
10% rule didn't make council estates so it was ok but if we're going 30% + then that's where we are at again.
Of course a lot of people who post here only know modern 'council estates' where the vast majority have been bought out privately and are all nice again. They don't remember council estates in the 70's and 80s so have no idea what we're all afraid of.
So yea, those that don't understand what the fear is...You have no idea you sweet summer children, no fcuking clue.
OK I'll ask. I lived in a council estate in the 80s. What should I have been afraid of?0 -
I think it's ridiculous that the state should be allowed denigrate the OP's area at such a ratio.
40:25 is shocking! The affect on the property value and the area quality is ridiculous.
To the poster who made the laughable comment that they pay "rent" too, in my experience it's less than €70 a week for a 3 bed house. In dublin. You couldnt rent a parking space for that in the real world, let alone a house.
To put it another way, the houses that are being given away and devaluing the OP's area and property and quality of life are, in a horrible twist, being funded from the OPs taxes! This is why I hate our socialist pseudo free market economical system.
This is nothing do with socialism. If it was socialist, you would be living in these estates, along with me, and a millionaire, and a drug user, and a young couple. In socialism, there is no distinction. We all would live our beige lives equal. Granted not at a higher level than is promised, but all dragged down to the lowest, or for the majority lower.
The issue you are describing, is you having an issue with how a civil society works, whereby those who are able and work, and earn a certain incomes higher and higher, pay larger amounts of tax to assist and help out those less fortunate, have mitigation circumstances or have falling on temporary struggles.
If you fall out of work tomorrow, and have a family to support, I don't come around to you and start berating you, belittling you, about how "I pay my tax for this ****". I know I pay my tax, 42% of my income annually and then roasted on my bonuses, to go into numerous things, one of being a social welfare pot to help people out who need it.
We have a pretty progressive tax system, one with issues, but its generally progressive (we have issues with the base catchment level) and this is typically how it works in a democracy, a republic, that operates a capitilist economic model.
Or are you one of those people that just loves moaning about how your tax goes to wasters, when in fact your tax that goes to social welfare pot is literally minimal, once its split between the various outlays income tax goes.
What exactly do people like you propose exactly? Where would you like to put people who require financial assistance, be it a temporary or permanent measure, that are clearly such a disgusting site for you?
Where would you like to house the family where the parents havn't gotten back on their feet from the recession?
Where do you want to hide the disabled citizens of our country who cannot work, that have the audacity to devalue your area?
Where do you want to bury the citizens with mental illness that cannot function in a workplace and earn enough money to ever buy a home, in any market or decade?
Where do you want to trot of the newly retired citizens who were on low incomes, never had a nice private pension, and will rely on the state pension for the rest of their lives, having ground out through the lat four decades, if not five, to get here.
What island do you want to castaway all the children, that have no choice or influence or impact on their financial situation their families are in?
Because not all social welfare recipients, not all housing scheme people, are troublemakers or wasters, that some of you clearly seem to think is the case.To the poster who made the laughable comment that they pay "rent" too, in my experience it's less than €70 a week for a 3 bed house. In dublin. You couldnt rent a parking space for that in the real world, let alone a house.
The only "laughable" comment is how you would read that and somehow try to portray a narrative of how this is some big crime and how they are getting away with murder. It's the so quintessential, clueless attitude when it comes to people putting their nose down on people from certain areas, certain backgrounds or council/social housing.
They pay €70 week because that is what they can afford. Because with their means, it is what they can afford and then upkeep a family, or themselves.
The issue, is that you, along with people that portray that sort of thinking, are basically just furiously jealous you can't have it. How it's not "fair" on you, working and earning X, paying six figures for a house. You deserve to have a house on the cheap or the free, or for a bit of rent.
Being totally oblivious, that the life you lead, should you be able to buy a house, is on unfathomable levels to someone who has to acquire housing through a method like this.
You "think" because you hear a story or two they are all wasters, having multiple holidays a year and living the life of riley with their cheap house. But it's just so hilariously oblivious to the reality.0 -
This is nothing do with socialism. If it was socialist, you would be living in these estates, along with me, and a millionaire, and a drug user, and a young couple. In socialism, there is no distinction. We all would live our beige lives equal. Granted not at a higher level than is promised, but all dragged down to the lowest, or for the majority lower.
The issue you are describing, is you having an issue with how a civil society works, whereby those who are able and work, and earn a certain incomes higher and higher, pay larger amounts of tax to assist and help out those less fortunate, have mitigation circumstances or have falling on temporary struggles.
If you fall out of work tomorrow, and have a family to support, I don't come around to you and start berating you, belittling you, about how "I pay my tax for this ****". I know I pay my tax, 42% of my income annually and then roasted on my bonuses, to go into numerous things, one of being a social welfare pot to help people out who need it.
We have a pretty progressive tax system, one with issues, but its generally progressive (we have issues with the base catchment level) and this is typically how it works in a democracy, a republic, that operates a capitilist economic model.
Or are you one of those people that just loves moaning about how your tax goes to wasters, when in fact your tax that goes to social welfare pot is literally minimal, once its split between the various outlays income tax goes.
What exactly do people like you propose exactly? Where would you like to put people who require financial assistance, be it a temporary or permanent measure, that are clearly such a disgusting site for you?
Where would you like to house the family where the parents havn't gotten back on their feet from the recession?
Where do you want to hide the disabled citizens of our country who cannot work, that have the audacity to devalue your area?
Where do you want to bury the citizens with mental illness that cannot function in a workplace and earn enough money to ever buy a home, in any market or decade?
Where do you want to trot of the newly retired citizens who were on low incomes, never had a nice private pension, and will rely on the state pension for the rest of their lives, having ground out through the lat four decades, if not five, to get here.
What island do you want to castaway all the children, that have no choice or influence or impact on their financial situation their families are in?
Because not all social welfare recipients, not all housing scheme people, are troublemakers or wasters, that some of you clearly seem to think is the case.
The only "laughable" comment is how you would read that and somehow try to portray a narrative of how this is some big crime and how they are getting away with murder. It's the so quintessential, clueless attitude when it comes to people putting their nose down on people from certain areas, certain backgrounds or council/social housing.
They pay €70 week because that is what they can afford. Because with their means, it is what they can afford and then upkeep a family, or themselves.
The issue, is that you, along with people that portray that sort of thinking, are basically just furiously jealous you can't have it. How it's not "fair" on you, working and earning X, paying six figures for a house. You deserve to have a house on the cheap or the free, or for a bit of rent.
Being totally oblivious, that the life you lead, should you be able to buy a house, is on unfathomable levels to someone who has to acquire housing through a method like this.
You "think" because you hear a story or two they are all wasters, having multiple holidays a year and living the life of riley with their cheap house. But it's just so hilariously oblivious to the reality.
The recession is 10 years ago.
It ended arguably 3-4 years ago in real terms.
I would suggest that social housing should be in its own estate and not alongside families who are taxed to the hilt and paying mortgages for the property that their neighbour is getting ostensibly for free.
PS. I lived in a council estate for 6 months a few years ago, I saw all the stereotypes lived out in front of me. Single mothers with 6 kids for the free house, partners "not" living with them, sky tv aerial on every house, newish cars outside - I could not afford a car on my salary, FWIW.
If you give something away for free that is comparable to what those with a job must pay for, then what's the point of having a job?
We should have, like in many countries, a time defined benefit system. You get a certain number of payments and then if you havent found a job in say 5 years, you are cut off. If you can't get a job in 5 years you clearly have no interest.
PS. civil society =/= handouts for the neuveaux riche dole classes
PPS. We do not have a progressive taxation system, we have a ridiculous taxation system which disproportionately penalises those earning between 33k and 70k compared with similar societies.0 -
Some interesting posts to be fair. But whether people like it or not and as stated, that ratio of social housing will have na effect on the house prices and is grossly unfair on existing tennants.
To the people who say send the social housing people down to Leitrim / Cavan / Sligo / Roscommon / Westmeath and tough luck on them having the move: Thats a fair point BUT and this is where the crux of the matter lies, are you also be responsible and decentralise public jobs to those locations (or locations commutable to them) so that people are encouraged to work ? Are you going to ensure services in a reasonable commutable distance?
The problem is TDs in general firefight and put out individual fires without thinking of the bigger picture.
The national spatial strategy is a joke and relies too much on "best international practice" instead of looking at what would be best for Rural Ireland, Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and our larger provincial towns e.g. Dundalk / Kilkenny / Tralee /Castlebar /Sligo / Letterkenny0 -
Because that is a ****ing stupid idea, and shows no learning from the past. Nevermind the at this stage countless studies on ghettos,projects and the planned segregation of low income/state aided people and families into the one area, that is essentially boiling to the point of "Why dont they all get ****ed off somewhere with their own kind, and away from me".We only have the OP to go on to be fair
I don't see why we can't just have social housing estates.
No one gets a free house, unless inherited from family. Who are these employed, tax paying people, that get free houses?I mean, a self funded house should always be better and more desirable than a free one. Otherwise what's the point
There is no desire here. I'm sure the majority of people on social welfare or operating through housing schemes would love to be in a position to buy there own home, as it would mean they are operating a level if income and probably lifestyle, that they definitely arn't, in general, having at the moment.
Just such a weird statement I don't know how to tackle it to be honest.
You clearly have issues distinguishing the difference between left, right and middle. We have a popularist, centre government, that if anything leans right before it leans left.That's what's wrong with our bearded lefty government and politics in this country
If we had a "beardy left" government, you would be living in a council estate.
Ah there it is !we give everything away for free to the lifers on the dole
People receiving social welfare = Dole lifers / wasters
The core myth to most people that turn their nose down in these conversations. In your head everyone on social welfare is a scrounge, a chancer, pulling a fast one. And your out there breaking your back funding these cowboy lifestyle.
Hate to break it to you, but your not funding anyone or anything. When income tax is broken out monthly or weekly, whatever you get paid, and the siphoned between Department of Education, Transport, Health and eventually finds it's way to Social, you are liking contributing a few euro, if not a few cents.then complain when we have no money left and the working poor like myself have to fund these people through our taxes.
So don't worry bout it, your tax is going on loads of things. Individually, in isolation to one thing, probably wouldn't even spot you pay tax, but you contribute to society, to civil society, like most of us.
But don't worry we all do it, most of us just realise its part of a working society and what you do, your not after getting scammed and sponsoring some family on a bag of cans each month.0 -
Advertisement
-
BrianBoru00 wrote: »Some interesting posts to be fair. But whether people like it or not and as stated, that ratio of social housing will have na effect on the house prices and is grossly unfair on existing tennants.
To the people who say send the social housing people down to Leitrim / Cavan / Sligo / Roscommon / Westmeath and tough luck on them having the move: Thats a fair point BUT and this is where the crux of the matter lies, are you also be responsible and decentralise public jobs to those locations (or locations commutable to them) so that people are encouraged to work ? Are you going to ensure services in a reasonable commutable distance?
The problem is TDs in general firefight and put out individual fires without thinking of the bigger picture.
The national spatial strategy is a joke and relies too much on "best international practice" instead of looking at what would be best for Rural Ireland, Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and our larger provincial towns e.g. Dundalk / Kilkenny / Tralee /Castlebar /Sligo / Letterkenny
I'll answer that with a question.
Myself and my partner have relatively good jobs, we did our time apprenticing, studying etc. Combined salary in the 3 digit range (just). But we cannot afford a house in Dublin. We were originally from dublin but are now looking to buy in the commuter belt. Why should something be given for free, to someone, paid for in part by my taxation, when those who are working cannot afford said free item?0 -
You know what, as some who studied politics and economical theory for a number of years, it is unlikely that I have issues distinguishing left from right..
Our government does not lean right. It is slightly left of centre by EU standards, and extreme left by american standards.
It is you who has a difficulty distinguishing socialism from communism. What you call socialism is actually communism.
A question I have posed 3 times now, why, should someone on the dole get for free, what I cannot afford?0 -
Because in theory it's the job of the state to house people that genuinely can't house themselves. As for a lot of other things, this is paid by taxes. If the state wouldn't do it, we would especially in the current climate have a horrific amount of homeless people, including families. This would bring crime and a whole lot of other problems directly to the streets.
So far so good in theory: Of course there are people scamming the system, teaching their children on how to exploit the welfare system and put up a dirty fight to get everything handed. But the majority of people on the housing list could never afford to buy a place due to low income, sickness, disability and other circumstances. They are genuine people with no desire of causing trouble. The percentage of truly feral families is marginal, but unfortunately it only takes one.
Anyway, people don't get the house for free. They don't own it, they have a tenancy and pay rent. Rent that's a percentage of your income. If you're on the dole you pay very little rent, once you go into work and earn more, you'll pay more. It's simple really.
I really hope you'll never find yourself in the situation of being in need of any state support, but isn't it good to know that some help is there if everything goes to sh1te for one?
And I'm absolutely against the mild way to handle people that cause a lot of trouble for their neighbors.0 -
TheDoc wrote:Because that is a ****ing stupid idea, and shows no learning from the past. Nevermind the at this stage countless studies on ghettos,projects and the planned segregation of low income/state aided people and families into the one area, that is essentially boiling to the point of "Why dont they all get ****ed off somewhere with their own kind, and away from me".
It's not a stupid idea. What is stupid is letting anti social behaviour proliferate. Forcing an allocation of private housing for social housing is one of the reasons why the expense means social housing is not being provided in the numbers required.
By all means if the government wanted to build large scale housing but allocated some in reverse as low cost housing for lower paid workers then the same could be achieved.
But then I doubt how many workers would take those up.0 -
No one gets a free house, unless inherited from family.
Obviously he meant free use of a house, which is what renting for €70 per week amounts to.
You haven't addressed the perverse incentives that have pointed out to you.
This thread is not driven by snobbery, it's driven by a justifiable fear that the largest investment you make in your life might, through no fault of your own, turn out to be a huge mistake.0 -
Advertisement
-
Because in theory it's the job of the state to house people that genuinely can't house themselves. As for a lot of other things, this is paid by taxes. If the state wouldn't do it, we would especially in the current climate have a horrific amount of homeless people, including families. This would bring crime and a whole lot of other problems directly to the streets.
So far so good in theory: Of course there are people scamming the system, teaching their children on how to exploit the welfare system and put up a dirty fight to get everything handed. But the majority of people on the housing list could never afford to buy a place due to low income, sickness, disability and other circumstances. They are genuine people with no desire of causing trouble. The percentage of truly feral families is marginal, but unfortunately it only takes one.
Anyway, people don't get the house for free. They don't own it, they have a tenancy and pay rent. Rent that's a percentage of your income. If you're on the dole you pay very little rent, once you go into work and earn more, you'll pay more. It's simple really.
I really hope you'll never find yourself in the situation of being in need of any state support, but isn't it good to know that some help is there if everything goes to sh1te for one?
And I'm absolutely against the mild way to handle people that cause a lot of trouble for their neighbors.
Many of the social houses are eventually bought for discounts of up to 80%.
It's not fair and never will be no matter how you try to spin it.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30620
Obviously he meant free use of a house, which is what renting for €70 per week amounts to.
You haven't addressed the perverse incentives that have pointed out to you.
This thread is not driven by snobbery, it's driven by a justifiable fear that the largest investment you make in your life might, through no fault of your own, turn out to be a huge mistake.
Yes- there is a perverse incentive- to stay at home and not actively try to better yourself. This has been widely acknowledged- by all manner of different organisations. Its suggested that the government have invited the IMF back for a unique, prescriptive programme- to try to deal with this- as politically its toxic as hell even talking about it. The IMF have agreed to set up a whole new programme for Ireland- despite the fact that we are out of our mandated programme- at the specific behest of the government. Its a first for a country not currently in an IMF programme.0 -
-
I'm not spinning anything and this is an entirely different problem that stock is sold off. Has nothing to do with who is eligible for social housing.
I for one am against selling off stock (where I come from it doesn't happen and you get re-assessed every few years, works well).0 -
Obviously he meant free use of a house, which is what renting for €70 per week amounts to.
You haven't addressed the perverse incentives that have pointed out to you.
This thread is not driven by snobbery, it's driven by a justifiable fear that the largest investment you make in your life might, through no fault of your own, turn out to be a huge mistake.
On this thread we've had familes described as feral, knackers and had people determined to associate social housing with criminality.
People keep saying these are the "facts" and this is the "reality" yet you've had people who came from council estates saying they aren't. People's prejudices are making them worry about a group of people that they depise. It's just a matter of prejudice against a certain demographic.
Telling people it's not snobbery it's just that the OP is concerned that there's poor people moving into the estate is a nonsense statement.0 -
Obviously he meant free use of a house, which is what renting for €70 per week amounts to.
You haven't addressed the perverse incentives that have pointed out to you.
This thread is not driven by snobbery, it's driven by a justifiable fear that the largest investment you make in your life might, through no fault of your own, turn out to be a huge mistake.
I think the issue is that people seem to equate a family or person struggling financially, or simply not financially dependant, getting provided a house for X, is some form of "incentive"
Of course there are issue with ensuring working and achieving and progressing through working life is more desirable and attractive then simply living a life on welfare, having worked and operated at a number of levels before where I am now, I never felt or saw being on the dole a larger or better attraction.
Definitely not now, but then that took time to get there. So maybe there is some circumstance or situation whereby its more financially prudent to dump your job and go on the dole, but I'm always cautious and nervous of those accusations or claims, as they rarely turn out to the be the case.
Like there is a base, its free use of a house, because the people involved couldn't afford or sustain living by their own means. How is that being a point of debate? This is a "thing". There are people that require financial assistance. There always have been, and there always will be.
Are we for some reason on this thread putting forward the question, why should we provide assistance via social welfare or housing schemes? Are we asking the question why can you not keep your tax, and not have a Department of Social welfare? Is that it?0 -
Obviously he meant free use of a house, which is what renting for €70 per week amounts to.
You haven't addressed the perverse incentives that have pointed out to you.
This thread is not driven by snobbery, it's driven by a justifiable fear that the largest investment you make in your life might, through no fault of your own, turn out to be a huge mistake.The_Conductor wrote: »Yes- there is a perverse incentive- to stay at home and not actively try to better yourself. This has been widely acknowledged- by all manner of different organisations. Its suggested that the government have invited the IMF back for a unique, prescriptive programme- to try to deal with this- as politically its toxic as hell even talking about it. The IMF have agreed to set up a whole new programme for Ireland- despite the fact that we are out of our mandated programme- at the specific behest of the government. Its a first for a country not currently in an IMF programme.
At least these two messages show that I'm not the only capitalist on this thread, they get it too!0 -
Saying lifers on the dole get everything for free isn't the same as saying everyone who receive social welfare is a dole lifer.
No but the sentiment of some posts implies that.
"I'm poor because I pay dole lifers". You also have a thread full of people associating social housing with criminality.0 -
A question I have posed 3 times now, why, should someone on the dole get for free, what I cannot afford?
You're the economic academic, why don't you tell me?
You've dropped that bomb, so the onus can very much go on you to explain to me, why providing social housing assistance to those unable to house themselves is incorrect or something we should stop doing? Since that is how you are phrasing your question and posting.
What happens to the people and families that traditionally, for decades, would be housed by the state, or a housing agency? Where do they go and what do we do?0 -
I'll answer that with a question.
Myself and my partner have relatively good jobs, we did our time apprenticing, studying etc. Combined salary in the 3 digit range (just). But we cannot afford a house in Dublin. We were originally from dublin but are now looking to buy in the commuter belt. Why should something be given for free, to someone, paid for in part by my taxation, when those who are working cannot afford said free item?
They shouldn't.
But decentralisation ( and proper "just do it" decentralisation) would have the following benefits:
Schools: smaller rural schools remain open due to the influx of families to an area which in turn releases pressure on Dublin school places.
Housing Stock: vacant houses being bought in regional locations increasing the economic vitality of those locations which in turn releases pressure on Dublin housing stock, traffic etc.
I think the % of social housing has some merit but it should be done in such a way so that for example a development of 25 houses at avg 2000 sq. ft should be augmented by say 2 social houses at 1200 sq ft . (sizes just of the top of my head but you get the idea).
To answer your question more in depth - The reason is that if we don't have social housing it will lead to ghettos in the same way the OPs estate will end up. We seem to continuously come up with housing / health system /education plans and then adjust and tweak to appease the poor/the wealthy / the unions / amnesty international etc,and we end up with a ship of Thesus scenario which is neither the result originally planned or the result that anyone is 100% happy with.0 -
Advertisement
-
Saying lifers on the dole get everything for free isn't the same as saying everyone who receive social welfare is a dole lifer.
I'm clearly posting on the implication and attitude, and conveying, that is how I believe the poster is in their mindset.
That people on social welfare or need assistance, are wasters and scroungers.0 -
At least these two messages show that I'm not the only capitalist on this thread, they get it too!
fallacious thinking based on presconceptions about social groups does not transform the idea into a more reasonable one. If the social housing route is easier than why not do it? Most people are ashamed to be on the dole.0 -
One big mistake is that social housing is handled by a million of councils. Dublin alone has 4. This makes it a mess. I don't know but it could be way better having 4 agencies dealing with it, one in each province. They should be able to assess your means, for example a single mother works in Dublin and is eligible for a council house, so it would make more sense housing her next to Dublin. When you have elderly or disabled people they need access to healthcare, you can house them in a town where they have good health care facilities like Wexford for example.
Also offering people 2 houses and if they don't suit them for reason "not close enough to family", well tough, back to the queue you go.
This micromanaging of all the councils makes everything a lot messier.0 -
You're the economic academic, why don't you tell me?
You've dropped that bomb, so the onus can very much go on you to explain to me, why providing social housing assistance to those unable to house themselves is incorrect or something we should stop doing? Since that is how you are phrasing your question and posting.
What happens to the people and families that traditionally, for decades, would be housed by the state, or a housing agency? Where do they go and what do we do?
I joined this thread many pages in, it was already well asserted.
However.
People should not be given for free, something that the working joe cannot affiord. There needs to be an incentive to work. When you have lower paid private individuals unable to rent properties as they are outbid by local housing, that is wrong.
You should live within your means, and the government "paying" you money per month and then deducting a non-representative amount as "rent" is tantamount to disparity, where those who couldnt be arsed getting a job are fiscally at an advantage to those who are out working low paid jobs.
I disagree with social housing as a concept, there should be emergency accommodation if you are evicted or whatever but we are nearly back to a state of full employment. There's no excuse now for not having a job. If you do not have a job now, it is by choice - directly or indirectly.
The social class/hierarchy should go as follows:
Super rich
Rich
Well off
middle class upper
squeezed middle class
working class
unemployed
But instead in Ireland and our faux capitalist (read: actually socialist heaven) society it goes:
Super rich
Rich
Well off
middle class upper
Neuveau Riche (Dole Class)
squeezed middle class
working class
Where the bottom two are worse off than, and funding the lifestyle of, the dole class.0 -
I'll answer that with a question.
Myself and my partner have relatively good jobs, we did our time apprenticing, studying etc. Combined salary in the 3 digit range (just). But we cannot afford a house in Dublin. We were originally from dublin but are now looking to buy in the commuter belt. Why should something be given for free, to someone, paid for in part by my taxation, when those who are working cannot afford said free item?
Your posting is basically just making out like your butt hurt over this, against your own personal situation.
I actually sympathise with you, I'm a single income household, me, looking after a family of four. I was getting mortgage approval to beat the band. Decided to be prudent and rent when we first moved out (me and GF) and build a deposit up higher.
Crash happened, recession went into full tilt, housing market prices, happy days said me, and then central bank brought in new regulations that blocked me from buying. Couldn't avail of the low prices and now we are back with spiralling prices, and was locked into a wild west rental market.
I've never, and I mean ever, got jealous or envious of social house recipients or housing scheme benefactors. Because whatever about the "they get a house for free", I'm pretty sure that I'm much better of overall now, and going forward, with my job, and the life and opportunities I can provide my family, and my children.
Why don't you both ditch your jobs, and then get your free house in Dublin?
I'd imagine for the reason no one does it, you eventually realise that your general lifestyle and standard of living, wouldn't be sustainable on welfare each week, regardless of your "free house".
So maybe we are getting wires crossed, because I cannot believe someone would be so ignorant or stupid, to question why people on social welfare, or who receive financial assistance, would be provided a house via a housing scheme/state agency.
Like I can't work my head around it, I keep re-reading your posts cause I'm like this person cannot be questioning this, but you keep posting in that tone.
So your scorpy that you and your misses have to grind it out and cant buy where you want. And I feel you, I was grinding it out the last five years, it broke me in Jan of this year, proper broke me. But I don't think he appropriate response is blaming or getting jealous at the literal poorest people in our society, and how outragous that they get provided a roof, when you are your working girlfriend what, arn't being handed a house for free?0 -
steddyeddy wrote: »fallacious thinking based on presconceptions about social groups does not transform the idea into a more reasonable one. If the social housing route is easier than why not do it? Most people are ashamed to be on the dole.
People should be ashamed of being on the dole. I was when I was on it, and it spurred me on to get off it. Which I did after approximately 6 months in 2009.
PS: Nice job trying to sound verbose, but misspelling "preconceptions".
Good job.0 -
Your posting is basically just making out like your butt hurt over this, against your own personal situation.
I actually sympathise with you, I'm a single income household, me, looking after a family of four. I was getting mortgage approval to beat the band. Decided to be prudent and rent when we first moved out (me and GF) and build a deposit up higher.
Crash happened, recession went into full tilt, housing market prices, happy days said me, and then central bank brought in new regulations that blocked me from buying. Couldn't avail of the low prices and now we are back with spiralling prices, and was locked into a wild west rental market.
I've never, and I mean ever, got jealous or envious of social house recipients or housing scheme benefactors. Because whatever about the "they get a house for free", I'm pretty sure that I'm much better of overall now, and going forward, with my job, and the life and opportunities I can provide my family, and my children.
Why don't you both ditch your jobs, and then get your free house in Dublin?
I'd imagine for the reason no one does it, you eventually realise that your general lifestyle and standard of living, wouldn't be sustainable on welfare each week, regardless of your "free house".
So maybe we are getting wires crossed, because I cannot believe someone would be so ignorant or stupid, to question why people on social welfare, or who receive financial assistance, would be provided a house via a housing scheme/state agency.
Like I can't work my head around it, I keep re-reading your posts cause I'm like this person cannot be questioning this, but you keep posting in that tone.
So your scorpy that you and your misses have to grind it out and cant buy where you want. And I feel you, I was grinding it out the last five years, it broke me in Jan of this year, proper broke me. But I don't think he appropriate response is blaming or getting jealous at the literal poorest people in our society, and how outragous that they get provided a roof, when you are your working girlfriend what, arn't being handed a house for free?
I appreciate that you are obviously giving a genuine effort to read my post and trying to comprehend where I am coming from. It's a change from the usual banana throwing arguments I see on these fora.
But on the other hand, how can I be expected to be ok with people who haven't worked a day in their life being given something (or technically, the use of an asset) that I cannot afford. I have a 2 hour commute, waking at 5.45am every day. It is simply inequitable to hand someone that house which i cannot afford, for free! How can that be!0 -
-
People should not be given for free, something that the working joe cannot affiord. There needs to be an incentive to work. When you have lower paid private individuals unable to rent properties as they are outbid by local housing, that is wrong.
Is this everyone, or in your society is there exemptions for disabled, mentally ill, terminally ill or retired citizens who for likely valid reasons, cannot work?
So how do we cater for the lower class, and their housing needs, considering prices by the market are dictated by developers and builders? So we remove Government intervention, as you seem to recommend, how do we accommodate the section of society, who will never be able to earn enough money to buy a home?You should live within your means, and the government "paying" you money per month and then deducting a non-representative amount as "rent" is tantamount to disparity, where those who couldnt be arsed getting a job are fiscally at an advantage to those who are out working low paid jobs.
OK well there is just issues there. There is still hangovers and ramifications from the recession, and still people, business, families, town and counties REELING from what happened.I disagree with social housing as a concept, there should be emergency accommodation if you are evicted or whatever but we are nearly back to a state of full employment. There's no excuse now for not having a job. If you do not have a job now, it is by choice - directly or indirectly.
I know in my sector its very much power in the employee, where there is too many open vacancies to be filled, but that is not the same everywhere. Obviously don't need to go into the likes of pay cuts that happened in the private and public sector yet restored.
I know Enda and co. liked proclaiming the recession is over, but many of you would disagree with you that we are what, back in some normal environment?The social class/hierarchy should go as follows:
Super rich
Rich
Well off
middle class upper
squeezed middle class
working class
unemployed
But instead in Ireland and our faux capitalist (read: actually socialist heaven) society it goes:
Super rich
Rich
Well off
middle class upper
Neuveau Riche (Dole Class)
squeezed middle class
working class
Where the bottom two are worse off than, and funding the lifestyle of, the dole class.
What in your opinion is the difference between the two levels of middle class?
I "think" i fit in that box, middle class, but I'd never consider, in any situation, someone on social welfare having equal or a remotely relevant lifestyle that I have or can provide for my family.0 -
Advertisement
-
I disagree with social housing as a concept, there should be emergency accommodation if you are evicted or whatever but we are nearly back to a state of full employment. There's no excuse now for not having a job. If you do not have a job now, it is by choice - directly or indirectly.
And what do we do with people that are very unfortunate, have accidents, lose their jobs and struggle because they are close to pension age and nobody would hire them because of that? There are people that are in genuine need of help. I see sickness for example as a very good excuse for not being in employment. Or one of your children suddenly falls ill or is disabled and requires care.
If you cut all ties to have a net for people that need help you end up like america where you simply become homeless because life's been a b1tch. And honestly, I don't agree with this.
I don't agree with the soft handling of scammers either though. I'd be very supportive of re-assessments of means and proper penalties for people causing genuine trouble.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement