'I just want a home for my children' - mum on housing list for 12 years

boardsuser1

Jawgap wrote: »

That's a 4 year old article.

I'm all for bashing the genuine spinners, but is there any more up to date data on which to base a rant?

first thing i spotted, 4 years old or not it still happens today.

Lollipops23

NIMAN wrote: »

Well surely the parents can advise her that this wouldn't be the best course of action.

Unless of course they think that it is.

Edit: could the father have committed a criminal offence. Is it legal to get a 16 yr old pregnant?

The father is also 16.

To honest, the 16 year old's parents wouldn't be the strongest figures; her folks split in recent years (badly) and the mother is trying her best, working and trying to give them stability. The father is a dope, his family would be the kind who think this is all wonderful and she'll have it made.

So, while her mam can try her best to provide support and encouragement, it's hard to cancel out the other half of her family.

BillyBobBS

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

yip, true story too, Billy Bob BS.........

Wonderful. I know a guy who works in finance who snorts cocaine every weekend, cheats on his wife on a regular basis and drives drunk on occasion.

Must mean everyone working in finance is at this sort of carry on.

boardsuser1

Jawgap wrote: »

That's a 4 year old article.

I'm all for bashing the genuine spinners, but is there any more up to date data on which to base a rant?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/single-parents-better-off-working-part-time-says-report-1.3121449

Roger Hassenforder

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

The UK have this problem as well.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dad-11-claiming-27k-benefits-6732904

There should be a mobile vasectomy clinic that drives around lifting these guys...

boardsuser1

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

There should be a mobile vasectomy clinic that drives around lifting these guys...

Definitely quote of the day so far!

BillyBobBS

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

The UK have this problem as well.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dad-11-claiming-27k-benefits-6732904

That's what we have to look forward to if the Ruth Coppingers of this world have their way.

boardsuser1

BillyBobBS wrote: »

That's what we have to look forward to if the Ruth Coppingers of this world have their way.

Coppinger for Taoiseach :P

JupiterKid

You know, the politicos in power in Leinster House and Govt Buildings would look at the ranting on this thread and smugly smirk to themselves and think just how the divide and conquer tactic works so well in this little country.

Pit the over-stressed workers doing long commutes for no reward versus those who have never known anything other than a life on benefits and will repeat the cycle of deprivation, generation after short generation.

And they get away with their utter failure to provide any original thinking, vision and most importantly, action.

Divide and conquer. And Leo V as he's clearly shown espouses this tactic to the greatest degree.

ELM327

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

I've documented my situation here and on another thread previously.

We are both in employment, me in and out on health grounds, the wife is stable with almost 11 years service.

I am having to reskill to do something that won't be an issue with the medical condition i have.

Just because we are council tenants and have a few kids doesn't make us freeloaders, we are tax payers like most decent people here.

I am not repeating myself on the whole mortgage issue.

You are taxpayer but i would wager that you are still net gainers instead of net contributors. EG your taxation paid does not equal the subsidy you receive I'm not having a go at you but equally your position is indefensible in my opinion.

Of course it is better to see someone receiving SW/LA benefits aspiring to get out of "the system" and become a contributor, and you are probably in a small minority in being so, but to state that you are a taxpayer and that justifies your free/subsidised house does not cut mustard.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Off topic but I was looking to change my car last year and was going to buy the Renault kadjar and the sales guy was pushing this pcp thing on me. I was lucky that last year I didn't need finance but the sales guy was all for this pcp thing, i.e. Why pay outright when you don't have to? It was very strange. I was all but convinced I was buying it going in and completely turned off leaving

PCP is both great and dangerous, there's many threads on the motors board here.

Poor Uncle Tom

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Wonderful. I know a guy who works in finance who snorts cocaine every weekend, cheats on his wife on a regular basis and drives drunk on occasion.

Must mean everyone working in finance is at this sort of carry on.

Nope, it just means you know one seriously messed up guy, Billy Bob, no BS.

neris

BillyBobBS wrote: »

That's what we have to look forward to if the Ruth Coppingers of this world have their way.

It,ll be great.......................................... till others money runs out

Wheeliebin30

JupiterKid wrote: »

You know, the politicos in power in Leinster House and Govt Buildings would look at the ranting on this thread and smugly smirk to themselves and think just how the divide and conquer tactic works so well in this little country.

Pit the over-stressed workers doing long commutes for no reward versus those who have never known anything other than a life on benefits and will repeat the cycle of deprivation, generation after short generation.

And they get away with their utter failure to provide any original thinking, vision and most importantly, action.

Divide and conquer. And Leo V as he's clearly shown espouses this tactic to the greatest degree.

Ah would you stop with this divide and conquer nonsense.

The left and Paul Murphy spout this garbage when a valid argument about spongers is put their way.

People make their own minds up based on what they see.

boardsuser1

ELM327 wrote: »

You are taxpayer but i would wager that you are still net gainers instead of net contributors. EG your taxation paid does not equal the subsidy you receive I'm not having a go at you but equally your position is indefensible in my opinion.

Of course it is better to see someone receiving SW/LA benefits aspiring to get out of "the system" and become a contributor, and you are probably in a small minority in being so, but to state that you are a taxpayer and that justifies your free/subsidised house does not cut mustard.





PCP is both great and dangerous, there's many threads on the motors board here.

Where have i ever mentioned that?

Mr. teddywinkles

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

i think we're talking about those who have no intention of ever working , because life is better on benifets, and in some instances they having a better quality of life than those actually paying for them.

By the time middle Ireland pays his mortgage, bills, diesel there's little very left in the pot. Sick kid? Might have to wait a day or two to see if they weather it, as they might not have the €50. Want another kid? Though, that semiD in Gorey isn't big enough.

I don't expect anyone to have to commute hours, because they can't afford to live near where they work!
Reality though..,

People are saying they can't have more that x kids. That's the gouging of big business on its customers in this country not the welfare bill.
Iv been on welfare. Trust me id rather work any day.
The reality should be if the job is below x money. It should be local but in the majority of cases it's not. More investment and promotion in the rest of the country to provide the type of jobs needed. Not everything needs to be high tech this and that and located in the capital that's a carpark every morning for commuters

ELM327

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

Where have i ever mentioned that?

By using the "We're taxpayers" argument it is left to be inferred.

Poor Uncle Tom

weldoninhio wrote: »

So it was 3 WOMEN in dressing gowns, one's name was Carl? and a WOMAN said she was getting the snip??

3 women, they didn't spell what they were saying...:rolleyes: Carl, Carol, Karl, Karol, Ca-Rol, Carrel...... and yes she said she was getting the snip.....

Wonderful world, isn't it?

boardsuser1

ELM327 wrote: »

By using the "We're taxpayers" argument it is left to be inferred.

What i am implying is that myself and my wife aren't like the lady in the article in the OP.

ban resistant recalcitrant debutant

Posters here are aiming at the wrong people.

Of course it'd be best if everyone in society was the same, from a fairness point of view. But people are different.


Social welfare is enabled by politicians. Politicians could change the system but they refuse to. Dole scroungers are acting rationally.

Some middle class workers may be acting irrationally. If so, that's their fault. If you'd be better off on the dole then going on the dole is a rational choice. Staying in your job would be irrational.

Middle class people appear not to want to go on the dole because of reputational damage they'd suffer. In working class areas it could be that working causes reputational damage.


We have multiple cultures here.
Working class culture of not working, having kids, and being off all day to hang around your house.
Middle class culture of over working, not having kids, living in satelitte towns with long commutes.


Politicians are unwilling to mess with the system as the changes required are so vast no-one can predict what might happen.

JupiterKid

The opinions of so many expressed in this thread is so predictable.

I'm far from a "leftie" but the ranting that anyone who accesses SW benefits and/or lives in social housing is a sponger is nothing short of utterly ignorant and spiteful.

I wonder how many of you anti-SW system types were raised in a council house, or had parents or grandparents who did.

Like I opined, divide and conquer...

.......

This post has been deleted.

boardsuser1

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We are financially stable enough to grow our family, we will be going back to the drawing board in 12-18 months in the hope of getting a better deal on a mortgage.

boardsuser1

JupiterKid wrote: »

The opinions of so many expressed in this thread is so predictable.

I'm far from a "leftie" but the ranting that anyone who accesses SW benefits and/or lives in social housing is a sponger is nothing short of utterly ignorant and spiteful.

I wonder how many of you anti-SW system types wet raised in a council house, or had parents or grandparents who did.

Like I opined, divide and conquer...

I was one of those.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Jawgap

JupiterKid wrote: »

The opinions of so many expressed in this thread is so predictable.

I'm far from a "leftie" but the ranting that anyone who accesses SW benefits and/or lives in social housing is a sponger is nothing short of utterly ignorant and spiteful.

I wonder how many of you anti-SW system types wet raised in a council house, or had parents or grandparents who did.

Like I opined, divide and conquer...

I was raised in a Corpo house.......I've been on the dole.......and I've been in a position where I met the statutory and functional definition of homelessness.....

......I think any decent society should have good social protections in place. My objection is that a minority see these protections as something to be aspired to, not as transitional arrangements through which you pass while sorting your sh1t out.......

......and yes, you are entitled to reasonable social protection, but if those protections are insufficient to meet your lifestyle aspirations then it's no one's obligation to sort that out except you. Those protections should also promote work, not indolence, by making sure that anyone capable of working and in employment has an income that meets their needs......anyone capable of working, opting not to work should simply get subsistence levels of support.

As for social "forever" homes......that's ridiculous. Yes, we should have social housing but if want security of tenure, buy it under a right-to-buy scheme. People shouldn't just get the house and then be allowed to occupy it on an unencumbered basis regardless of circumstances and how they might change.

And for the purposes of transparency, my parents ended up buying the Corpo house.

ban resistant recalcitrant debutant

Middle class people have hangups about their reputation and so they cannot stop working. They think not working is despicable, but because of that, they work themselves to the bone, for little reward. It makes them bitter.


Working class people think the government has betrayed them. They refuse to co-operate with the government and will only take their money. They enjoy sitting around at home criticising the government. They hang around with like minded people, as middle class people also tend to do.


Working class people are acting rationally and they enjoy their life. They want more money. The middlers should demand a universal income to make them equal with working class people. At a stroke, all disagreement has been solved and now both groups can live their chosen lives without worrying about the others.

Fairness has been restored. Recalcitrant Debutant for President!

BillyBobBS

JupiterKid wrote: »

You know, the politicos in power in Leinster House and Govt Buildings would look at the ranting on this thread and smugly smirk to themselves and think just how the divide and conquer tactic works so well in this little country.

Pit the over-stressed workers doing long commutes for no reward versus those who have never known anything other than a life on benefits and will repeat the cycle of deprivation, generation after short generation.

And they get away with their utter failure to provide any original thinking, vision and most importantly, action.

Divide and conquer. And Leo V as he's clearly shown espouses this tactic to the greatest degree.

Twas always the way. FG new politics my arse.

Look at the amount of dole threads on boards compared to say the amount of threads on vulture funds and the damage that has done to the country. People are easily lead at times.

NIMAN

A universal income would certainly not be a bad idea.

Hand everyone €X each month and tell them thats it, don't come back for more, or subsidies, or free health care or prescriptions, or anything.

You're on your own. Spent it how you want, but spend it wisely as you ain't getting no more until next month.

It would mean those bothered to go get a job would be a lot better off than those who don't want to work.

BillyBobBS

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Nope, it just means you know one seriously messed up guy, Billy Bob, no BS.

Just the way you heard that story also, right?

I love Sean nos

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

He traded in a 132 Focus against it and is in the local credit union.

Question is still open; how do you have a 132 Focus and saving in the credit union with a yearly income < €10k?

BillyBobBS

JupiterKid wrote: »

The opinions of so many expressed in this thread is so predictable.

I'm far from a "leftie" but the ranting that anyone who accesses SW benefits and/or lives in social housing is a sponger is nothing short of utterly ignorant and spiteful.

I wonder how many of you anti-SW system types were raised in a council house, or had parents or grandparents who did.

Like I opined, divide and conquer...

And hopefully the opinions here aren't the norm in society.

A lot of it is " i know a lad who's mother's husband's son's taxi driver friend is claiming the dole and goes on 12 holidays a year and drives a 172 Ferrari" type made up tripe.

Like you say, divide and conquer.

boardsuser1

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Question is still open; how do you have a 132 Focus and saving in the credit union with a yearly income < €10k?

I'd love to know that myself.

Unless there was a claim in at some point.

The man's wife does work but it isn't fantastic income by no mean's.

What's gas is she's driving a 2008 Fiesta

Poor Uncle Tom

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Just the way you heard that story also, right?

Nope, I heard the conversation and I told the story..... it's not rocket science Billy Bob, catch up.

BillyBobBS

Jawgap wrote: »

I was raised in a Corpo house.......I've been on the dole.......and I've been in a position where I met the statutory and functional definition of homelessness.....

......I think any decent society should have good social protections in place. My objection is that a minority see these protections as something to be aspired to, not as transitional arrangements through which you pass while sorting your sh1t out.......

......and yes, you are entitled to reasonable social protection, but if those protections are insufficient to meet your lifestyle aspirations then it's no one's obligation to sort that out except you. Those protections should also promote work, not indolence, by making sure that anyone capable of working and in employment has an income that meets their needs......anyone capable of working, opting not to work should simply get subsistence levels of support.

As for social "forever" homes......that's ridiculous. Yes, we should have social housing but if want security of tenure, buy it under a right-to-buy scheme. People shouldn't just get the house and then be allowed to occupy it on an unencumbered basis regardless of circumstances and how they might change.

And for the purposes of transparency, my parents ended up buying the Corpo house.

It's the selling off of a lot of the corpo stock that has us in the position we are, that and the idea of leaving the building of housing to private developers instead of the state.

end of the road

ELM327 wrote: »

I don't think it's having a go, it's a general frustration felt by middle ireland, as we are often forced to forgo having a child due to cost, yet our high taxation pays for the free houses and ability of one (or both) parents to stay at home, enjoying a life of leisure at the expense of those who can't afford said standards.

a general frustration felt by some of middle ireland, who if it wasn't the wellfare it would be something else they would moan about. like the small few who abuse the wellfare system, these small few always find some way of playing the victim. there are no free houses.

ELM327 wrote: »

It's having a go at a system that is open to abuse.

all systems are open to abuse. we need resources to deal with that but they may cost more then the abuse costs. it's about balancing the costs unfortunately.

ELM327 wrote: »

In what world is that equitable or fair? I'll tell you. Socialist Ireland 2017, that's where.

and a number of other countries.

BillyBobBS

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Nope, I heard the conversation and I told the story..... it's not rocket science Billy Bob, catch up.

Course you, just like i did. Maybe you'll need a new pair of running shoes to keep up

end of the road

con___manx1 wrote: »

it really is a joke. give her a house in the west of Ireland somewhere that will **** her up

not cost effective for the tax payer as the resources to deal with her barely exist there.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

For the tax payer who has to pay for them

and the people living within them who pay rent. so yeah, the houses aren't free.

Fol20 wrote: »

I think a better step would be to allow child benefit for 3+kids, but instead of it being straight up income, all child benefit is a tax credit so it forces people to go out and work to get that extra money.

would require employers being forced by law to take on people. without that, your proposal is unlikely to work.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

It's heavily subsidised rent.

so not free. glad you have got it.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

They're free in situations where people don't work as the rent is paid with taxpayers coin so it's not costing the individual anything. Also I think it's bizarre that people in social housing can keep having children and go to the local authority requesting a bigger house, and expect everyone else to subsidise it

wrong, all tenants have to pay rent working or not.

BillyBobBS

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

I'd love to know that myself.

Unless there was a claim in at some point.

The man's wife does work but it isn't fantastic income by no mean's.

What's gas is she's driving a 2008 Fiesta

A 132 Focus, wow. Burn them at the stake.

Jawgap

ban resistant recalcitrant debutant wrote: »

Middle class people have hangups about their reputation and so they cannot stop working. They think not working is despicable, but because of that, they work themselves to the bone, for little reward. It makes them bitter.


Working class people think the government has betrayed them. They refuse to co-operate with the government and will only take their money. They enjoy sitting around at home criticising the government. They hang around with like minded people, as middle class people also tend to do.


Working class people are acting rationally and they enjoy their life. They want more money. The middlers should demand a universal income to make them equal with working class people. At a stroke, all disagreement has been solved and now both groups can live their chosen lives without worrying about the others.

Fairness has been restored. Recalcitrant Debutant for President!

That's ridiculous. Some people may feel that way, but it is by no means universal.

I'm probably middle class, but I still regard myself as working class given my background......I love my job, I like my lifestyle and I don't feel bitter. I get frustrated by government waste and inefficiency......and that includes what I think are SW rates that can be generous, and a system that is often perverse in the incentives it offers, being configured that for reasons of political expediency.

Jawgap

BillyBobBS wrote: »

It's the selling off of a lot of the corpo stock that has us in the position we are, that and the idea of leaving the building of housing to private developers instead of the state.

No, it's not taking the money raised and reinvesting it in new housing stock that's the issue.

Put it this way, the house I grew up in would probably not be good enough for today's applicants.......it only has a single bathroom!

.......

This post has been deleted.

Crea

Non working tenants get rent allowance from sw..which comes from the taxation of working people. They are handed the money - they don't earn it.

BillyBobBS

Jawgap wrote: »

No, it's not taking the money raised and reinvesting it in new housing stock that's the issue.

Put it this way, the house I grew up in would probably not be good enough for today's applicants.......it only has a single bathroom!

I'd say it's very rare to find a corpo house with two bathrooms.

ELM327

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The rent is subsidised.
So ~80% paid for directly by the taxpayer - as a subsidised rent.
And the remaining 20% paid for in "rent" by the SW recipient which is funded by central taxation and PRSI which is funded by.. the taxpayer!

So yes, 100% free, I don't see how some delusional people can't (or perhaps don't want to) see that.

BillyBobBS

ELM327 wrote: »

The rent is subsidised.
So ~80% paid for directly by the taxpayer - as a subsidised rent.
And the remaining 20% paid for in "rent" by the SW recipient which is funded by central taxation and PRSI which is funded by.. the taxpayer!

So yes, 100% free, I don't see how some delusional people can't (or perhaps don't want to) see that.

You do know that it's a minority of people in social housing who don't work? Social housing isn't just for people on welfare.

JupiterKid

ELM327 wrote: »

The rent is subsidised.
So ~80% paid for directly by the taxpayer - as a subsidised rent.
And the remaining 20% paid for in "rent" by the SW recipient which is funded by central taxation and PRSI which is funded by.. the taxpayer!

So yes, 100% free, I don't see how some delusional people can't (or perhaps don't want to) see that.

Would you rather those in social housing were out on the street or living in a slum? Or perhaps in the workhouse?

You do know that a mammoth social housing programme from the 1930s through to the 1980s gave hundreds of thousands of people in this country a decent dwelling for the first time in their lives? And that much of the current middle class who commute benefited from this housing programme as their parents and grandparents were raised in this social housing?

Any advanced society has social protections. Otherwise you get extreme deprivation and all the ills that result from this. Yes, the system is abused by some but from some of the opinions expressed on here infer that everyone who accessed SW was a feckless scrounger.

BillyBobBS

JupiterKid wrote: »

Would you rather those in social housing were out on the street or living in a slum? Or perhaps in the workhouse?

You do know that a mammoth social housing programme from the 1930s through to the 1980s gave hundreds of thousands of people in this country a decent dwelling for the first time in their lives? And that much of the current middle class who commute benefited from this housing programme as their parents and grandparents were raised in this social housing?

Any advanced society has social protections. Otherwise you get extreme deprivation and all the ills that result from this. Yes, the system is abused by some but from some of the opinions expressed on here you would think that everyone who accessed SW was a feckless scrounger.

And more worryingly everyone in social housing is a scronger. Sad state of affairs.

The state stopped building social housing years ago, that's the root of the problem and the people who made those decisions have walked away with massive golden handshakes and PS pensions most of us can only dream of. Yeah but it's the fault of the couple living in social housing in Tallaght earning 22k per anum that's the problem. Sure take the house off them and let them commute from Gorey every day.

.......

This post has been deleted.

BillyBobBS

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Agree 100%. If you haven't worked in years, are of working age and are in social housing then be prepared to live in ballygobackwards. I don't think there is a person who would disagree with that.

end of the road

NIMAN wrote: »

And they use them for the slightest little sniffle or ache, thus putting the health service under unnecessary pressure and wasting more money.

Or they need to keep visiting the GP to keep telling them how depressed they are and how they can't face working due to this depression......

I have always said that the unemployed should face a charge to visit the GP, even if its a minimal amount like €5 or €10. It would cut down all this nonsense.

it likely wouldn't. there is no evidence from anywhere that proves such a charge works in reducing this issue unfortunately.

ELM327 wrote: »

You are taxpayer but i would wager that you are still net gainers instead of net contributors. EG your taxation paid does not equal the subsidy you receive I'm not having a go at you but equally your position is indefensible in my opinion.

Of course it is better to see someone receiving SW/LA benefits aspiring to get out of "the system" and become a contributor, and you are probably in a small minority in being so, but to state that you are a taxpayer and that justifies your free/subsidised house does not cut mustard.

he is not in a free house. there are no free houses in ireland. he is a tax payer, and if anyone is in reseat of any type of benefit then they receive some type of subsidy. we are all subsidized to an extent it's just that it will ultimately be hidden.

Jawgap wrote: »

As for social "forever" homes......that's ridiculous.

unfortunately it's not. sometimes it's a necessary evil.

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, we should have social housing but if want security of tenure, buy it under a right-to-buy scheme.

not financially viable for everybody unfortunately.

Jawgap wrote: »

People shouldn't just get the house and then be allowed to occupy it on an unencumbered basis regardless of circumstances and how they might change.

the system does allow the councils to do the relevant checks for changes of circumstance, meaning they can up the rent if those circumstances meet the criteria.