New council house

cloneslad

trobbin wrote: »

Would you stop. How many of these “band 1” areas are meeting the needs of the example I’ve giving? People of the “homeless” list get bumped ahead, you know the ones that aren’t really homeless.

Call it a married couple with two kids. Both working earning about €60k between them. Doesn’t go far that wages. They DONT qualify in this fantastic free state. One will need to leave work to go on council list. Two need to leave work to play the system correctly.

It’s a joke of a system and your example proves that

I know you aren't responding to anything I've said but just on this, while I do agree that people who 'play the system' do not deserve to get support, it's unfair on those genuinely in need of support to automatically be lumped in with them.

I've no idea on how long you need to be on a waiting list to actually get a council house (except what I've seen boards in the past, so take that with a grain of salt) but people here say it's could be about 10 -15 years in Dublin.

Personally, if my girlfriend and I were only earning €60k between us I wouldn't consider having kids. Even on the salaries we are on we have decided not to have kids. We neither want to take the financial nor the lifestyle hit on having a child.

I'm not advocating a 'free for all, everyone is great - handouts for all' approach to life. I just think that not everyone in a council house or receiving government support is the scumbag many people on boards make them out to be.

A high percentage of drug addicts/alcoholics receive government support but not a high percentage of people receiving government support are drug addicts/alcoholics etc as is being made out.

L1011

trobbin wrote: »

Would you stop

Stop proving you wrong? No.

Check facts before you rant.

trobbin

L1011 wrote: »

Stop proving you wrong? No.

Check facts before you rant.

Facts published by who? FG. Unfortunately your statement that social housing isn’t for people on the dole or marginal income is incorrect. Working class are being screwed.

The example I made which had a wrong figure isn’t far off, about 4.5k per year.

is the poster sure it was a council house and not a housing association house?

ELM327

trobbin wrote: »

Facts published by who? FG. Unfortunately your statement that social housing isn’t for people on the dole or marginal income is incorrect. Working class are being screwed.

The example I made which had a wrong figure isn’t far off, about 4.5k per year.

FG are the most right leaning of all centrist parties in Ireland.
If anyone is going to cut down on social welfare it would be them, so I don't see why their stats would be invalid.

trobbin

cloneslad wrote: »

I know you aren't responding to anything I've said but just on this, while I do agree that people who 'play the system' do not deserve to get support, it's unfair on those genuinely in need of support to automatically be lumped in with them.

I've no idea on how long you need to be on a waiting list to actually get a council house (except what I've seen boards in the past, so take that with a grain of salt) but people here say it's could be about 10 -15 years in Dublin.

Personally, if my girlfriend and I were only earning €60k between us I wouldn't consider having kids. Even on the salaries we are on we have decided not to have kids. We neither want to take the financial nor the lifestyle hit on having a child.

I'm not advocating a 'free for all, everyone is great - handouts for all' approach to life. I just think that not everyone in a council house or receiving government support is the scumbag many people on boards make them out to be.

A high percentage of drug addicts/alcoholics receive government support but not a high percentage of people receiving government support are drug addicts/alcoholics etc as is being made out.

I never once said they’re scumbags, so not fair to be referencing that. I’m sure some are lovely people. Doesn’t mean I agree with what’s going on.

See I’m the type a guy who puts kids with cancer ahead of junkies. But they won’t get free medicine because mammy and daddy work.

BarryD2

Deleted User wrote: »

I know it's a serious thread but I did laugh at the 20-30 years remark :pac:

You only have to be a tenant for one year to get the 60% discount of the market value and buy it. (discount depends on your income, Social Welfare isn't considered an income).

Maybe but in practice what seems to have largely happened in the past is that after a couple of decades, the LA get fed up with the costs of fixing and maintaining properties. They also want to stabilise areas socially and the combined result has been the encouraging of LA tenants to buy out ownership, at very reasonable prices.

These properties have then been removed from the public housing stock with an inevitable impact on supply of same. It also results in a transfer of wealth across society.

You can argue that since many LA tenants pay rent and work, that the reason the properties come to them at a discount is because of their investment of many years of rent. But that logic doesn't apply to ordinary renters in the private sector and so is fundamentally unfair on the latter.

ELM327

There should be categorically 0 possibility to buy the council house.
It should be kept by the council and reviewed every quarter to see if a) you are still entitled and b) that the upkeep of the place is being done. There is no need for the transfer of the asset as then it's gone permanently to the next generation.

Sleepy

From a social engineering POV, the "right to buy" makes sense when you have council estates or large areas that are predominantly social housing (although I'd argue the discounts on the market values of such properties are excessive and grossly unfair to the taxpayers funding them).

Social housing built in mixed developments (as all modern social housing is) should never be sold, to sitting tenants or anyone else.

ELM327

Why should I and the hundreds of thousands like me pay 50% tax to fund free houses? I don't mean free as in free (30 per week rent is negligible)... I mean free as in "here;s this house for free!"

cloneslad

trobbin wrote: »

I never once said they’re scumbags, so not fair to be referencing that. I’m sure some are lovely people. Doesn’t mean I agree with what’s going on.

See I’m the type a guy who puts kids with cancer ahead of junkies. But they won’t get free medicine because mammy and daddy work.

I wasn't referencing you when I was saying it, I meant from a lot of posters when these type of threads pop up.

On a side note, and completely off topic, but I'm pretty sure all cancer medication people receive in Ireland is free.

cocker5

ShaShaBear wrote: »

This happened in Louth. I helped her move so 100% know the condition of the house the day she moved in. The council did repaint, but did not clean and did not touch the floors. They told her the kitchen units were still functional and that the aesthetics were not their problem (which she was fine with tbh) but she didn't notice the windows or plumbing issues until several days after moving in.

very odd i know 2/3 people living in council housing and there's is a maintenance number they call there's never been an issue getting stuff repaired including heating and leaky toilet (this is KCC)

LirW

cocker5 wrote: »

very odd i know 2/3 people living in council housing and there's is a maintenance number they call there's never been an issue getting stuff repaired including heating and leaky toilet (this is KCC)

That really varies a lot, Wicklow CC is a bit notorious for taking ages to even show up. They don't even mow their own land in front of the estate, it's a huge plot and we were already talking about putting a poly tunnel up and actually use it but we simply don't have the balls.
Anyways, the neighbouring houses here usually do their maintenance stuff themselves because they know how long it takes the council to come around.

Graces7

I am in Mayo.I had always rented privately but last year came to the end of thst as there was nowhere to rent within RA limits ( pensioner)

When I got wind of a small council property lying empty in an area where "there is no demand for social housing" I asked to rent it. Where I was was simply not safe
Council agreed; then said it needed cleaning,painting etc and the power was off. I asked to go straight in and that I would see to all that
They had said a month and I needed out fast,

So I came to a very dirty house with no power; in fact it too k 5 months to get ESB in so I did the right thing.

There are some repairs etc that the council have promised to do; the shower is caput so they said they will put a bath in for m which I prefer.. The toilet works if you know how and a few other bits. No hurry...

I found the council very helpful; and it was better than sleeping in the car which was the alternative. They rose to the need and I was fine re the cleaning and painting.

And I was well aware that "a month" can mean anything..far easier to DIY

LirW wrote: »

That really varies a lot, Wicklow CC is a bit notorious for taking ages to even show up. They don't even mow their own land in front of the estate, it's a huge plot and we were already talking about putting a poly tunnel up and actually use it but we simply don't have the balls.
Anyways, the neighbouring houses here usually do their maintenance stuff themselves because they know how long it takes the council to come around.

Chickatee11

ELM327 wrote: »

Why should I and the hundreds of thousands like me pay 50% tax to fund free houses? I don't mean free as in free (30 per week rent is negligible)... I mean free as in "here's this house for free!"

The house is owned by the state, not the tenant. The tenant rents the property from the owner of the property ust like any other tenant, so the tenant isn't 'given' a free house. You can't rent something and 'be given it for free'. Your logic is extremely flawed.

Chickatee11

I'm 39 and live in a council estate for 20 years, it has 16 houses. Apart from one house with a mentally ill person, every household has people that work, pay their taxes (that also fund social housing just like private tenants) as well as paying their rent, cut their lawn, trim their hedges.

My mother was 10 years on the housing list as a deserted wife (she applied when i was 9). We lived in private rented accommodation for 10 years , moving every year to find cheaper rent and we had sweet f all growing up despite my mother working every hour god sent her for minimum wages. By the time i was 18 I'd lived in 12 different addresses. We, like many today lived in near poverty. When we got the council house, she passed away 2 years after this. I was very fortunate to be able to retain the tenancy agreement after she passed away.

Since then, I've attained a Masters degree and now work a good job with a good income, contributing back to the society that helped my mother and I along the way. We do actually exist. And that's the point of social housing. I recently availed of the tenant purchase scheme. The money i will pay for this house ive lived in for 20 years will fund more social housing and hopefully help the next generation (not deny them as some have pointed out). That's the idea of it. Did i get it for free? No, i payed for it in part via my mortgage and in part via 20 years of abject poverty that thankfully I've managed to overcome with the help of the social housing scheme. Being in a position to buy a house is also the fulfillment of my mother's dream.

You will always get a-holes in any social sphere of people as well as good people. But based on this threads logic, I should assume that all hard working middle-class people who never got a leg up, are right wing christian fundamentalists who care only about themselves, vote fianna fail and have holiday homes in the sun where they read about the next best tax haven.

I am fully aware of how lucky I am. The problem with most people in ireland today is that they think they are hard done by , or are treated unfairly by the state because some people are given things that they are not. That may be true in some cases. For the majority though (including myself) it's good to remind ourselves that we occupy very privileged positions and to be thankful and humble for that instead of begrudging council tenants and painting them all with the same brush. There are scum who only take at every level of society - including the one you believe you belong to. There are alot of very good people in council houses who have actually had a **** start or patch in life that need society's help to overcome that and move on. But the media and people like in this thread, don't want to talk about those because it challenges their little opinions that they can't see past.

ELM327

Chickatee11 wrote: »

The house is owned by the state, not the tenant. The tenant rents the property from the owner of the property ust like any other tenant, so the tenant isn't 'given' a free house. You can't rent something and 'be given it for free'. Your logic is extremely flawed.

There's so much wrong with this post. But I shall endeavour to correct it.

1. "you can't rent something and 'be given it for free'". Yes you can. You are given the use of the property for free. This is a service that you have been given, the opportunity cost to the state is healthcare or a better use of the money. It's free, because if I wasn't paying for it for you, you would have to part with at least 1k per month
2. Unless you're purposely trying to obfuscate the issue, you must be aware that council houses are allowed to be bought by the tenant. After years of paying below market rent, they are then allowed to buy the house at a discount. These are two notional costs paid by the state.
3. The third cost to the state is that they have built a house for council tenants, but it's now not available as Johnny Blue has bought it. Meaning the council needs to spend more money to build more houses.

Come on, it's not that hard.

Chickatee11

ELM327 wrote: »

There's so much wrong with this post. But I shall endeavour to correct it.

1. "you can't rent something and 'be given it for free'". Yes you can. You are given the use of the property for free. This is a service that you have been given, the opportunity cost to the state is healthcare or a better use of the money. It's free, because if I wasn't paying for it for you, you would have to part with at least 1k per month
2. Unless you're purposely trying to obfuscate the issue, you must be aware that council houses are allowed to be bought by the tenant. After years of paying below market rent, they are then allowed to buy the house at a discount. These are two notional costs paid by the state.
3. The third cost to the state is that they have built a house for council tenants, but it's now not available as Johnny Blue has bought it. Meaning the council needs to spend more money to build more houses.

Come on, it's not that hard.

Allow me to point out that your arrogance is unrelated to your ignorance.

1. If i rent something, I am not being given the use of it for free am I? That's what rent is: paying for the continued use of something... Go and tell someone paying 1K rent a month, that they are being given the use of their rented property for free. I hope you're not in charge of money where you work, are you?

Let's get one more thing straight, you aren't paying for anything for me, because I pay my taxes. I actually pay my taxes that fund the house that I have paid rent in for 20 years that I now bought. By your logic I've bought this house for myself 3 times over. I would also like a thank you letter every time you use a public road, because i paid for those for you.

2.I think you don't understand what obfuscation is, based on your belief that renting something is getting it for free. I am aware people buy their council houses. It may distress your neoliberal mind somewhat to learn that I bought mine.

3. Ok this one is complicated because you've confused yourself. Firstly, if a council house is empty, it's available, if someone is in it - then it's not available. Whether or not the person in the house owns it or rents it makes no difference because it's unavailable at that time. Your imagined 'third cost' to the state is just that.

Finally, based on your previous posts and use of the name Johnny Blue to denote all council tenants, (I don't smoke, mate) it's quite apparent you're a bigoted social-racist. Climb back under your Foxrock there Cocaine Conor and let us in our council houses 'eat cake' in peace.

Chickatee,

Your mother badly needed the house when she received it.

But the house has now been sold off to you under the tenant purchase scheme, your an adult with a masters degree and good employment prospects and can stand on your own two feet.

We have women and children in the same situation as your mother now living in hotels, and we are selling off and privatising the housing.
You admit yourself that your mother was 10 years on the housing list. I cannot understand it.

ELM327

Chickatee11 wrote: »

Allow me to point out that your arrogance is unrelated to your ignorance.

1. If i rent something, I am not being given the use of it for free am I? That's what rent is: paying for the continued use of something... Go and tell someone paying 1K rent a month, that they are being given the use of their rented property for free. I hope you're not in charge of money where you work, are you?

Let's get one more thing straight, you aren't paying for anything for me, because I pay my taxes. I actually pay my taxes that fund the house that I have paid rent in for 20 years that I now bought. By your logic I've bought this house for myself 3 times over. I would also like a thank you letter every time you use a public road, because i paid for those for you.

2.I think you don't understand what obfuscation is, based on your belief that renting something is getting it for free. I am aware people buy their council houses. It may distress your neoliberal mind somewhat to learn that I bought mine.

3. Ok this one is complicated because you've confused yourself. Firstly, if a council house is empty, it's available, if someone is in it - then it's not available. Whether or not the person in the house owns it or rents it makes no difference because it's unavailable at that time. Your imagined 'third cost' to the state is just that.

Finally, based on your previous posts and use of the name Johnny Blue to denote all council tenants, (I don't smoke, mate) it's quite apparent you're a bigoted social-racist. Climb back under your Foxrock there Cocaine Conor and let us in our council houses 'eat cake' in peace.

I don't know what is worse, your sense of entitlement, your delusion, or your attempts to belittle me.

I don't have to justify my existence because I worked for everything I have. I earned a scholarship (paid for by the school, not the state) to a private school because my parents couldnt afford it. I worked through college. I am where I am because I worked for it. Not that it's relevant, but to address your claim about fiscal prowess, I currently hold a position in gainful employment in financial risk analytics and planning. I deal each day on a macro and micro level with financial risk and quantifying outlay, with responsibility for funds at or above 7 figures. My background is in analytics, statistics and economics.



I'm not your mate. I have never set foot in foxrock, my name is not Conor and I am fervently opposed to recreational narcotics.


Your "rent" is not representative rent. It's something like 10% of what the market would bear. The other 90% is funded by me and my ilk. Buying the house is irrelevant again - except it's a further cost to the state - because now one council house is gone out of the system so a further one must be built at additional cost. A cost not recouped or offset from your "purchase". It means the next generation (YOU) is given a free house at the direct benefit over those who actually need it.



The rest of your post is just an incoherent mess, so I suggest you be thankful we live in a socialist paradise. If we lived in the real world where people are actually accountable for their fiscal decisions you would have to find alternative accommodation on the free market.

ELM327

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Chickatee,

Your mother badly needed the house when she received it.

But the house has now been sold off to you under the tenant purchase scheme, your an adult with a masters degree and good employment prospects and can stand on your own two feet.

We have women and children in the same situation as your mother now living in hotels, and we are selling off and privatising the housing.
You admit yourself that your mother was 10 years on the housing list. I cannot understand it.

He isn't capable.
His mother was entitled to a council house, but the ability to buy and pass on should not be there. He is not entitled to a council house on his own merit, and is instead choosing the life of handouts.


I wonder how he can justify it to himself each report of homeless families on the street, when his house was effectively handed to him for significant discount paid for from the same purse that is supposed to fund those that are actually in need.

Chickatee11

Topgear Dave, you're absolutely right. My hope is that the money paid for the house goes to funding the building of new ones but I'm sure we can agree that's naiive of me. But, what i paid for this house goes to the state, not a private developer so in theory...

I absolutely aware that by buying this house rather than vacating it and buying elsewhere I am potentially adding to the waiting time for houses. I actually couldn't afford to buy privately anyway. I can walk around my town now and show you at least 30 council houses i know of that are boarded up, and have been for quite some time. Why isn't the money i paid for this house being used to renovate those? It's a very complex situation in this country. The housing crisis is the result of the government's mismanagement of private/social/rented property-stock across the board, not just the tenant purchase scheme.

I was given an opportunity to buy a house. Like anyone, I am going to want the best deal I can afford. With my own situation, there's the added sentimental / emotional attachment to a property I lived in for 20 years. I don't think anyone in my position would hand the keys over and walk away from that. If there are I'd like to talk with them. The current plight like the people you refer to in hotels etc. is a disgrace, a national shame. I take your point and agree for the most part, but scrapping the tenant purchase scheme isn't the answer. If you remove council tenants and place them in private market you put more pressure on the private market, rents go up, more people in hotels, perhaps, and it's a never ending circle. Social housing is an attempt to solve the problem of housing deficits, not sift it around. Thanks for your measured and repsectful point.

BarryD2

Chickatee11 wrote: »

I absolutely aware that by buying this house rather than vacating it and buying elsewhere I am potentially adding to the waiting time for houses. I actually couldn't afford to buy privately anyway.

This is the key point. You have fortunately been able to acquire an asset from the state which has been funded by taxpayers (including yourself) at a discounted price that others relying on their own efforts, can't.

You can argue about the benefits of social solidarity and so on but fundamentally this is not a fair and equitable arrangement. By rights, you should continue to be a tenant of LA housing as long as you meet the criteria. But you shouldn't be allowed to purchase the public asset at an advantageous price.

The logical progression of this is that very few people would attempt to provide housing for themselves, but most will throw themselves at the mercy of the state. It can't work like that.

Time

Chickadee,

What you’re Saying is all well and good, council tenants might pay tax and rent. But, to qualify for a council house they’re on low income which means they pay a disproportionately low amount of tax compared to the average worker. They also pay a fraction of the rent that a normal worker would have to pay. As such they’re still a huge net drain on the system.

The system is simply too generous when compared to the system those net contributors who pay for it are subjected to. What should happen is that there is no right to buy the house. Ever. That’s not a go at you personally, but the fact a person with a Masters degree gets to buy a house at a significantly reduced rate is simply unfair.

Tenants should also have to pay a significantly larger amount in rent than they do too. If people in council accommodation can afford luxuries then those are in essence being subsidized by the net taxpayer through the artificially low rent. E.G I drive by a flats complex to and from work every day and there’s a resident there driving a 161 A6 (from new) a car that costs around 50k. They can afford that because their rent is artificially low leaving more disposable income. Even if that weren’t the case the fact a person who could afford to pay market rent and buy a brand new car should not be in council accommodation full stop. Again it’s not a go at the guy personally, he hasn’t done anything wrong, but the system has given him unfair advantages compared to those who pay far more and receive far far far less

Chickatee11

Dear Elm.

Sorry to have struck so many nerves. I didn't think you would take my post so literally or personally.
We have some things in common. I also worked to get where I am today. I put myself through college by working. I didn't get a grant because you had to be on the dole to get a grant and I've never been on the dole. With no parents or family to help I was on my own. I worked in kitchens, factories, cafes, bars and even picked fruit to become the lecturer I am today. I'm a lecturer in cultural studies by the way.

I admit I can only admire someone who has worked from the bottom to the top. You got a scholarship and that's wholly admirable. But, you've an incredible chip on your shoulder. I don't have a sense of entitlement and really don't see where you got that from.

I understand how you see that I shouldn't be in this house but i disagree.

One more thing, I am not the cause of homelessnes in this country and if you think I am you need your head analysed. Every person in this state has a responsibility to the homeless, we are all culpable, including you.

tuskacz

Chickatee11 wrote: »

Dear Elm.  

Every person in this state has a responsibility to the homeless, we are all culpable, including you.

Speak for yourself

Time

tuskacz wrote: »

Speak for yourself

Exactly, even if that were true, people receiving state assets at below cost and saying that the money will be used to build more state assets are a much greater contributor. In fact you could say that they directly result in the net taxpayer having to fund homeless resources by the difference in the cost of the asset, less what they pay for it. Add all that money up and you’d have a lot of extra houses funded

BarryD2

Time wrote: »

Chickadee,

What you’re Saying is all well and good, council tenants might pay tax and rent. But, to qualify for a council house they’re on low income which means they pay a disproportionately low amount of tax compared to the average worker. They also pay a fraction of the rent that a normal worker would have to pay. As such they’re still a huge net drain on the system.

The system is simply too generous when compared to the system those net contributors who pay for it are subjected to. What should happen is that there is no right to buy the house. Ever. That’s not a go at you personally, but the fact a person with a Masters degree gets to buy a house at a significantly reduced rate is simply unfair.

Tenants should also have to pay a significantly larger amount in rent than they do too. If people in council accommodation can afford luxuries then those are in essence being subsidized by the net taxpayer through the artificially low rent. E.G I drive by a flats complex to and from work every day and there’s a resident there driving a 161 A6 (from new) a car that costs around 50k. They can afford that because their rent is artificially low leaving more disposable income. Even if that weren’t the case the fact a person who could afford to pay market rent and buy a brand new car should not be in council accommodation full stop. Again it’s not a go at the guy personally, he hasn’t done anything wrong, but the system has given him unfair advantages compared to those who pay far more and receive far far far less

Yes exactly, you can't blame people for looking at the system and using it to their advantage. All sectors of society do that, including high earners who will do what they can to shield their income from Revenue.

The rub is that the sector of society least able to manipulate the system are the middle income PAYE workers. They make up a large % of taxpayers and are caught in an income trap whereby they earn too much on the one hand and not enough on the other.

This is a recipe for social discontent and the powers that be would do well to take note and balance opportunities in a more equitable way.

Chickatee11

tuskacz wrote: »

Speak for yourself

Do you not think that as members of society we are responsible or have a duty to each other, irrespective of the position we occupy in that society?

Time

BarryD2 wrote: »

Yes exactly, you can't blame people for looking at the system and using it to their advantage. All sectors of society do that, including high earners who will do what they can to shield their income from Revenue.

The rub is that the sector of society least able to manipulate the system are the middle income PAYE workers. They make up a large % of taxpayers and are caught in an income trap whereby they earn too much on the one hand and not enough on the other.

This is a recipe for social discontent and the powers that be would do well to take note and balance opportunities in a more equitable way.

The issue of high earners most definitely needs to be addressed in saying that it’s difficult these days to avoid tax to any real extent unless you’re an ultra high net worth individual. Compare the amount of those people to the amount on welfare, and or in council houses. The difference must be greater by a factor of hundreds.

Chickatee11

BarryD2 wrote: »

This is the key point. You have fortunately been able to acquire an asset from the state which has been funded by taxpayers (including yourself) at a discounted price that others relying on their own efforts, can't.

You can argue about the benefits of social solidarity and so on but fundamentally this is not a fair and equitable arrangement. By rights, you should continue to be a tenant of LA housing as long as you meet the criteria. But you shouldn't be allowed to purchase the public asset at an advantageous price.

The logical progression of this is that very few people would attempt to provide housing for themselves, but most will throw themselves at the mercy of the state. It can't work like that.

OK I take your point and I don't think the system is fair either. My friends are the squeezed middle. The system should be in place but it needs refinement. The rents for council tenants are too low. The rent for private tenants are too high. With the rent for me, it has always fluctuated according to what I earn, as I earn more or less I declare that to the state and my rent has been adjusted accordingly so that it's 'proportionate' albeit unfair to the squeezed middle.

Regarding the purchase price, yes it's discounted/ advantageous. A caveat is that I can't sell or rent this house as a member of the tenant purchase scheme. I understand again that this may not be the most equitable model and needs to be amended, and I'm aware that I have benefitted from a system that is unbalanced but it's the sytem currently in place. I don't think though, that the answers lie in simply denying anyone the ability to buy their rented council houses. Thanks.

LirW

Don't hate the player, hate the game.
I bet if anyone here had the chance to do better for themselves than their parents did and they would be able to purchase the the council house they're occupying under the tenant purchase scheme, the majority would.
It is not the tenant's fault that they're able to buy a house from the council for a reduced price. It's not the tenant's fault that there's no system in place for expiring leases and income reassessment. People can't be blamed for staying put when it works out well for them. The fault completely lies at the other end.
People on welfare won't be purchasing the houses anyway, it's the working poor that gets the opportunity to buy a house. A master degree doesn't equal a high income by the way. An estate benefits from that because people at least look after their property and won't let it go to whack the way private and council tenants would.

Chickatee11

Time wrote: »

Exactly, even if that were true, people receiving state assets at below cost and saying that the money will be used to build more state assets are a much greater contributor. In fact you could say that they directly result in the net taxpayer having to fund homeless resources by the difference in the cost of the asset, less what they pay for it. Add all that money up and you’d have a lot of extra houses funded

You could say that, but it's not that simple. Me buying a council house does not directly result in taxpayers having to fund homeless resources. It's the sum total of a flawed socio economic model that directly contributes to that. We live in a society where a single person can own as many properties as they want. Surely that's a greater contributor than one individual purchasing one house.

regarding your post above RE the high earners - i think you are spot on there by the way and well said on that count.

Time

LirW wrote: »

Don't hate the player, hate the game.
I bet if anyone here had the chance to do better for themselves than their parents did and they would be able to purchase the the council house they're occupying under the tenant purchase scheme, the majority would.
It is not the tenant's fault that they're able to buy a house from the council for a reduced price. It's not the tenant's fault that there's no system in place for expiring leases and income reassessment. People can't be blamed for staying put when it works out well for them. The fault completely lies at the other end.
People on welfare won't be purchasing the houses anyway, it's the working poor that gets the opportunity to buy a house. A master degree doesn't equal a high income by the way. An estate benefits from that because people at least look after their property and won't let it go to whack the way private and council tenants would.

This is totally true, I don’t think anyone here has been having a gonat the individuals, and I certainly made a point they they personally have done nothing wrong. But we do need to acknowledge that they receive a disproportionate benefit at cost to those who fund them, that’s the systems fault, it’s not fair, it should be changed.

Time

Chickatee11 wrote: »

You could say that, but it's not that simple. Me buying a council house does not directly result in taxpayers having to fund homeless resources. It's the sum total of a flawed socio economic model that directly contributes to that. We live in a society where a single person can own as many properties as they want. Surely that's a greater contributor than one individual purchasing one house.

regarding your post above RE the high earners - i think you are spot on there by the way and well said on that count.

You’re right it’s not that simple but it is a contributing factor, if you can pay less than cost price the difference comes from the tax purse, which has less money for everything else. It’s a symptom of the problem which combined with vast inefficiencies and poor value generally we get from our civil service allows an acceptance of unfair practices like that.

On the private property aspect, the right to private ownership is enshrined constitutionally (but also limited ). if one person owns 200 houses then I say good for them, I see no reason they shouldn’t be allowed to. If the state CPOs them they’ll pay above the odds so there’s no win to be had in limiting property ownership rights beyond the existing scope.

LirW

Yeah I totally agree, the system in place isn't ideal. I've been in the situation myself back home to almost apply for council accommodation, the accommodation isn't fancy, they are simple apartments with different room numbers for different circumstances, they don't have balconies or anything, just communal green. The apartments aren't bad or anything but not really luxurious. Waiting time was around a year back then, they'd show you one, if it doesn't work for you, you'd have 2 more to pick from, then you go off the list. The leases are 3 years, you'd be re-assessed if you want to extend your lease and if you're earning over the threshold your lease isn't renewed. The system is quite fair and forgiving and I don't really understand why the leases here are indefinite and there's no re-assessment whatsoever.
Of course that's not gonna cut down on scumbags living and breeding away in a council house but that's more an exception than the norm really. It's 2018, fluctuation of occupants isn't a bad thing and not any worse than it would be in the private sector. I have the feeling so many people still hang in a 1970's mindset with the house for life and children and family couldn't cope with moving out of an area.

ELM327

Chickatee11 wrote: »

Dear Elm.

Sorry to have struck so many nerves. I didn't think you would take my post so literally or personally.
We have some things in common. I also worked to get where I am today. I put myself through college by working. I didn't get a grant because you had to be on the dole to get a grant and I've never been on the dole. With no parents or family to help I was on my own. I worked in kitchens, factories, cafes, bars and even picked fruit to become the lecturer I am today. I'm a lecturer in cultural studies by the way.

I admit I can only admire someone who has worked from the bottom to the top. You got a scholarship and that's wholly admirable. But, you've an incredible chip on your shoulder. I don't have a sense of entitlement and really don't see where you got that from.

I understand how you see that I shouldn't be in this house but i disagree.

One more thing, I am not the cause of homelessnes in this country and if you think I am you need your head analysed. Every person in this state has a responsibility to the homeless, we are all culpable, including you.

A lecturer? In a council house?
Well now I've heard it all.


This social housing system needs to be decimated from the ground up.
A new one in its place should have housing for those that need it. A lecturer does not need a council house.

trobbin

Chickatee11 wrote: »

You could say that, but it's not that simple. Me buying a council house does not directly result in taxpayers having to fund homeless resources. It's the sum total of a flawed socio economic model that directly contributes to that. We live in a society where a single person can own as many properties as they want. Surely that's a greater contributor than one individual purchasing one house.

regarding your post above RE the high earners - i think you are spot on there by the way and well said on that count.

How big is this council house you’re allowed to buy at a discount?

If you care so much why not give it back to the state for a “homeless family” is that not what it’s meant to be for?

So you’re a master degree holder a fully employed worker, benefiting from your mother’s past hardships, while now others strain the tax payer in hotels?

You say people have chips on their shoulders? Why wouldn’t they!! Nobody giving us handouts.

I really wish people would wake up to this pathetic system of screwing middle earners to pay for system players.

I was talking to a TD I know, there’s people leaving secure jobs, to go down this route. Sinn Fein have been also caught advising people to do so.

Maybe you should look around you at the real world instead of those books you recite as you lecture robots.

marieholmfan

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Blah blah, I don’t care what anyone says, you study hard, work hard, you deserve to have nicer things than people who never bothered and just took the easy path in life.

Otherwise what’s the point in any of us aspiring to amount to anything???

Do it for yourself or don't do it at all.





It is not my problem and it isn't the county council's problem.

marieholmfan

Chickatee11 wrote: »

OK I take your point and I don't think the system is fair either. My friends are the squeezed middle.

The deluded pathetically snobby working class. Tuppence looking down on a ha'penny pathetic fodder for the rich and for every racist bandwagon that comes along.

marieholmfan

neonsofa wrote: »

Tbh,as someone who has been saving for a house for years and has basically given up on that dream now, I'd love to be given even a ****hole in the middle of nowhere that needed work and I'd put all my savings into it.

Get on the list.

ELM327

marieholmfan wrote: »

Do it for yourself or don't do it at all.

I get it you're a failure who would have been better off on the dole.

You're a loser who lives less well than a council tenant.

It is not my problem and it isn't the county council's problem.

marieholmfan wrote: »

The deluded pathetically snobby working class. Tuppence looking down on a ha'penny pathetic fodder for the rich and for every racist bandwagon that comes along.

marieholmfan wrote: »

Get on the list.

Get a life. Grow up and educate yourself.
You might do something with your life.

marieholmfan

ELM327 wrote: »

Get a life. Grow up and educate yourself.
You might do something with your life.

Well I have at least achieved enough in life not to be jealous of people who get council houses.:rolleyes:
I understand by the way and I sympathise (though I don't empathise) with people who cannot make any money in a booming economy. That is why we have council houses and the dole.

marieholmfan

Time wrote: »

This is totally true, I don’t think anyone here has been having a go at the individuals

Elm 327 certainly has.

ELM327

marieholmfan wrote: »

Well I have at least achieved enough in life not to be jealous of people who get council houses.:rolleyes:
I understand by the way and I sympathise (though I don't empathise) with people who cannot make any money in a booming economy. That is why we have council houses and the dole.

LMAO.

marieholmfan wrote: »

Elm 327 certainly has.

Report my posts if you have an issue with them.
Otherwise grow up and educate yourself.
Change society, rather than suckling at its proverbial veins like a leech.

robp

GingerLily wrote: »

No but the finishing is apparently not always the same, because they're not paying a premium for a luxury finish. Fair enough, as long as the house is finished to a good quality.

A rated is bare minimum since 2011. Triple glazing and solar is premium but its a worthy investment if we are to have any hope of meeting Co2 targets.

Chickatee11

Chickatee11 wrote: »

Topgear Dave, you're absolutely right. My hope is that the money paid for the house goes to funding the building of new ones but I'm sure we can agree that's naiive of me. But, what i paid for this house goes to the state, not a private developer so in theory...

Chickatee,

I understand why you defend the deal you recieved. The websites tell me that the tenant purchase scheme gives a massive discount. Massive.

http://www.housing.gov.ie/node/235
You will pay the market value of the house – less a discount.
Depending on income, the discounts will vary between 40% and 60%.

If your getting this large a discount and look at the cost of new houses and the price they receive from you then the council will struggle to replace the house with new. Its giving them away for chips :pac:

We are about the same age but I dont have the masters and rented for years, moved house several times, with no possibility of buying off any of my landlords, I am PAYE and also pay all of the taxes and charges etc. When I bought my own I have to pay full price, no discount, no deal and nobody cares.

Now I pay high income tax to try to fund the construction of more social housing because we are flogging off the current ones to the lucky entitled few. Can you see my point?

Chickatee11 wrote: »

I was given an opportunity to buy a house. Like anyone, I am going to want the best deal I can afford. With my own situation, there's the added sentimental / emotional attachment to a property I lived in for 20 years. I don't think anyone in my position would hand the keys over and walk away from that.

I rented for about 15 years as I moved about for work, a few years here and there, it was renting, sentiment and emotion didnt come into it. I followed the work and it was a business transaction between me and the landlord.

Wheeliebin30

Ok one thing that needs to be cleared up.

If you are not working and are in claim of social welfare and using that money to pay your 30 euro a week to the council well yes you are getting a free house.

It’s basic logic.

Wheeliebin30

marieholmfan wrote: »

Do it for yourself or don't do it at all.

I get it you're a failure who would have been better off on the dole.

You're a loser who lives less well than a council tenant.

It is not my problem and it isn't the county council's problem.

I’m not jealous.

I’m sick of people playing the system, using and dipping into money I pay in taxes to fund their lazy lifestyle choices.

That money could be used to fund services and give my children a better quality of life in the future.

Jealousy no, angry at leeches yes.

Gumbo

marieholmfan wrote: »

Do it for yourself or don't do it at all.





It is not my problem and it isn't the county council's problem.

Mod Hat On.

Please refrain from calling other posters names.
The likes of failure and loser will not be tolerated. If you have a problem with the post, please report it.

Mod hat off.