New council house

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.

Topgear on Dave

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.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Time

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well the flaw in your premise is that everyone deserves an equal slice of the pie. They don’t, those who put effort into getting the ingredients and successfully making it should get more than those who don’t contribute. The good news is that in our society we’re very open to having all people help make the pie, in fact we encourage them to do so.

The second point is that it’s blatantly unfair that as a self employed person it’s hard to justify being happy about making the pie bigger when 52% of it gets taken away from me before I get a bite.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Time

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Does the fact it’s not on all of someone’s income make it fair? It’s morally repugnant for someone to work and get less from their efforts than the government does that’s the bottom line, and for the avoidance of doubt, that relates to the topic actually at hand by virtue of the fact that people in the middle classes are expected to pay huge amounts over for nothing in return whilst those getting handouts do not contribute proportially at all.

How much anyone earns is not of relevance here if they are a net contributor to the system, and not all self employed are in a position to fiddle their taxes like you think, in fact it’s virually impossible in some industries to do so.

BarryD2

BarryD2 wrote: »

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.

I'm not sure if you think i was perhaps slamming the whole concept of selling to tenants. If so, I wasn't. I think it's a great scheme, but only in certain conditions/areas.

Chickatee11 wrote: »

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.

This is part of the issue. I'll re-write your opening line from my life:


I'm 29 and live in a council estate for 22 years, it has 297 houses. Apart from a handful of those houses, 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. However, the small handful wreck the estate and the quality of life of those in it.



I agree that Council's should sell the houses in bad areas. People like ownership of things, will take care of things more if it's their own, etc. and it can try to force gentrification on an area. The idea being that over time, the area will go from being a no-go sh/thole to an average sh/thole, to a half decent area to being as nice as a private estate (as eventually all houses will be private).


The issue that has arisen so far in my estate, is that loooooads of people bought the houses, used the house as collateral on another house, and were gone within a year, to another house in a better area, and rented their old council house to an asshole tenant that didn't care about the house in the first place.

So the gentrification stalled, as one bad tenant has been replaced with another.


I bought my Council house last year. I read the contract, terms, conditions, etc. but i can still see how it's easy for me to move on and rent this house out with no punishment or issue from the Council (except that I like the house, and wouldn't do that to my mostly decent neighbours).

LirW

The issue that has arisen so far in my estate, is that loooooads of people bought the houses, used the house as collateral on another house, and were gone within a year, to another house in a better area, and rented their old council house to an asshole tenant that didn't care about the house in the first place.

Isn't there a clawback clause in place to prevent exactly that?

Time

LirW wrote: »

Isn't there a clawback clause in place to prevent exactly that?

This is Ireland, not a hope that would actually be enacted, the councils are happy to wash there hands of it

LirW

LirW wrote: »

Isn't there a clawback clause in place to prevent exactly that?

We have a trouble family living in one of these houses (rented privately, though the landlord bought it from the Council).

There have been complaints in left, right and centre about the family and nothing has happened.

So I presume the Council want no part of it after it's been sold.


Mind you, Louth County Council are pretty dire in the first place, so perhaps its just a local thing that they haven't any interest in dealing with.

em_cat

In some parts of the country vast amounts of LA stock is being bought up by housing associations that receive loans from the state at a discounted rate and then in turn rent to those in the housing lists, in some cases they also rent to the private market.

One of the main caveats whith the housing association is no option to buy the property but the tenancy is transferable. This is a huge problem as in our apartment development, we are mixed use, 40 units where purchased by a well known housing association a few years back and the place is worse than when that when those units where lying empty.

Not all of the tenants are horrible neighbors, some spend a huge amount trying to improve the complex but roughly 50% are problematic.

The OMC can’t pursue the housing association via the PRTB and has no leverage or recourse, those of us who paid full market or through the affordable housing have to live in almost absolute filth and the management fees have nearly trebled to cover the cost.

I say, although living in an area with high volumes of social housing owned by a LA may not be everyone’s cup a tea, but at least you know that eventually the area will mature through the purchase of the properties by the tenants.

trobbin

ELM327 wrote: »

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

Quote: marieholmfan
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.


In fairness this troll has hit the nail on the head.

It really is a case of many many hard working people being worse off that social welfare recipients. That’s not right.

FG have always been for the rich, but they learned to throw a dog a bone to get votes. Middle Ireland is getting slammed.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Eric Cartman

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.

I don't think anyone here is jealous of somebody who got a council house, but we certainly don't like paying for them.

ELM327

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I don't think anyone here is jealous of somebody who got a council house, but we certainly don't like paying for them.

She and some others on this (and other similar) thread(s) don't seem to get that subtle but important distinction.

Eric Cartman

ELM327 wrote: »

She and some others on this (and other similar) thread(s) don't seem to get that subtle but important distinction.

they probably know not of the burden of paying for the welfare state

mariaalice

Eric Cartman wrote: »

they probably know not of the burden of paying for the welfare state

This is possible not for this thread how and ever.

The 'burden' of paying for the welfare state would not disappear if we did not have the welfare state, it would still cost the same if not more its just that the money would be spent differently, instead of welfare it would be spent on more security more prisons and so on. It's a fantasy that somehow people can be made 'good and productive member of society' by abolishing or restricting welfare.

Old diesel

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

Perhaps the solution isn't to force someone to give up a nice car to pay rents that are unsustainable. But instead to open up subsidised housing units to more people on higher incomes.

Being able to buy the Audi due to a lower rent (excessively low as it might be) highlights that paying excessive market rents is just a drain on the economy.

Perhaps the wider question is - is it better for the economy to have too many working people paying too low a rent.

Or too many working people paying too high a rent.

A cost of 190 k is sometimes cited as a cost to build social housing.

Might it be better for both yourself and Mr A6 driver for both of you to pay a cost rental rent based on a 30 year cost to provide a 190 k home rather then the solution be for Mr A6 to pay an excessive price for rent.

Time

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I am, I pay 52% of my earnings at on ridiculously low level of income. I never claimed it was on all income, I said that it was unjust that such a rate even exists. I’m sure plenty of people do fiddle there taxes, as do PAYE workers doing nixers on the side, you haven’t exaplined the relevance of that point though, do you think that because some people don’t pay there taxes the existence of a 52 or worse 55% rate of tax is justified?

My definition of middle class is those who pay tax at the higher rate, are net contributors effectively subsidize others and get a disproportionately low benefit for what they put in. I don’t include extreme high net worth individuals in it.

As for your point on children, that’s complete nonsense, I actually don’t know how you got that from what I said. Children aren’t supposed to be contributors to society

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Chickatee11

trobbin wrote: »

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.

The size of my house is none of your bloody business. But , for the purpose of full disclosure, it's positively palatial. Peacocks roam the grounds, i don't use the east wing much, prefering to spend most of my time in the Orangarium. How big is (are) your house(s)?

Ok, if you care so much about homeless people, offer one of them your couch, It'll be less hassle than me walking away from a house i lived in for 21 years. Is homelessness my responsibility but not yours?

Yes i hold a masters dgree, i got it in 2012. No one benefits from hardships, certainly not their mother's, you've obviously never endured hardship or you wouldn't conceive such an idea.

Next time you're talking to that TD you know, ask him why they didn't burn the bondholders but let the IMF come in to act as overlords. Ask your TD why the USC was applied that screwed the middle and the lower income earners. Ask your TD buddy, why someone earning 100,000 pays the same tax percentage as someone earning 100 million. Better still, why did they sell off the fisheries and the oil fields? That would have secured this country as one of the richest in europe. You honetly think selling council houses to tenants is the problem in this country?

Maybe you should look around at the real world instead of talking to TDs who feed you what you want to hear.

Time

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Way to ignore the point