New council house

Time

Chickatee11 wrote: »

My point was referring to money they don't pay through fiddling the system, not the money they do pay. If you believe that all of the 5 % you refer to are all above board and aren't fiddling the system to the tune of millions then your talking nonsense yourself.

Give us some stats on the economic value they’re “fiddling”. There’s loots of legal ways of avoiding tax and I do it myself by putting money into a pension card another thing I’m considering doing is buying a new EV as a Directors vehicle as there’s no BIK that’s a great way to avoid tax and it’s legal. Is that “fiddling”

Michael D Not Higgins

Thread temporarily closed for clean up.

Graham

Thread re-opened.

Off-topic posts around theoretical alternative economic models have been deleted.

Feel free to continue that line of discussion in the economics or politics forums. Not in this thread or forum.

Keep it civil please folks. Attack the post, not the poster.

Graces7

Time wrote: »

Literally thousands of people in council estates up and down the country whose only income is a social welfare payment

As a welfare state, that is how this works. Our right in need is welfare money; so not free in the sense you mean. If someone is destitute?

What alternative would you suggest, please?

Graham

Graces7 wrote: »

As a welfare state, that is how this works. Our right in need is welfare money; so not free in the sense you mean. If someone is destitute?

What alternative would you suggest, please?

The obvious alternative is getting a job.

At least for those of working age with no medical conditions preventing work.

Graces7

Graham wrote: »

The obvious alternative is getting a job.

At least for those of working age with no medical conditions preventing work.

Well I was assuming that they had been approved for Social Welfare? Which is not by the way a soft option. So I ask again,what please is the alternative?

It is the word "free" with all its connotations that is a problem

Graham

Graces7 wrote: »

Well I was assuming that they had been approved for Social Welfare?

Being approved for social welfare is not remotely the same as being found incapable of work.

Chickatee11

Time wrote: »

Give us some stats on the economic value they’re “fiddling”. There’s loots of legal ways of avoiding tax and I do it myself by putting money into a pension card another thing I’m considering doing is buying a new EV as a Directors vehicle as there’s no BIK that’s a great way to avoid tax and it’s legal. Is that “fiddling”

Yes, so you are availing of all legal oportunities to save money and improve your situation through various, legal means. Fine, no problem. Throughout my life (and my mother's) we did the exact same thing. At no point have i not been entitled to what i got, and at no point did i ever seek to 'fiddle' the system. I did everything that was asked of me by officias/the state which i was legally and morally obliged to do because that's how i was raised,. This includes always providing up to date details of my situation, over the last 21 years and at no point did the state ever inform me that there was a problem. Rent fluctuated based on what i earned for example, i did not receive social welfare payments, including the likes of fuel allowance etc.

Graham

Mod Note

Chickatee11/trobbin, please quit the snipping at each other.

Time

Graces7 wrote: »

As a welfare state, that is how this works. Our right in need is welfare money; so not free in the sense you mean. If someone is destitute?

What alternative would you suggest, please?

Yes but the welfare state should never get more of a euro that I earn, than I do. It’s manifestly unfair, and issues like selling council houses at a discount is a symptom of a problem in the system, which is far too generous to those who do not contribute more economically than they get when compared to those who do.

Again I have no problem with people getting council houses I have a problem with them being sold at a discount and with people getting them for too little rent

marieholmfan

Time wrote: »

Yes but the welfare state should never get more of a euro that I earn, than I do. It’s manifestly unfair

It isn't unfair.

Graces7

Graham wrote: »

Being approved for social welfare is not remotely the same as being found incapable of work.

I would be grateful if you could explain that please? As far as I know, the main reasons for qualifying for Social Welfare are illness related /unemployed

Graces7

Time wrote: »

Yes but the welfare state should never get more of a euro that I earn, than I do. It’s manifestly unfair, and issues like selling council houses at a discount is a symptom of a problem in the system, which is far too generous to those who do not contribute more economically than they get when compared to those who do.

Again I have no problem with people getting council houses I have a problem with them being sold at a discount and with people getting them for too little rent

I am OK with your first para but not sure re the second.
How much rent paid on a council house or private rental ie HAP , depends on income. If you raised the limit then you would also raise the welfare payment as it is part of the calculation of what a person needs to live on so must balance.

If you mean folk who are earning a good wage ?

Time

marieholmfan wrote: »

It isn't unfair.

Well please explain how me taking Home less than half of the reward for my effort is fair then.

Time

Graces7 wrote: »

I am OK with your first para but not sure re the second.
How much rent paid on a council house or private rental ie HAP , depends on income. If you raised the limit then you would also raise the welfare payment as it is part of the calculation of what a person needs to live on so must balance.

If you mean folk who are earning a good wage ?

I’ll flesh out my second point a bit. A tenant in a council house gets the house because they need it and that’s fine, but over time as they perhaps earn more money, and there rent increases it doesn’t increase enough, for example a couple in a council house earning 75k do not pay anywhere near what the same couple in private accommodation do. This is unfair there can be no logical reason for this situation to be allowed to exist.

Secondly this lower rent allows them to save more than the couple in private rented accommodation, so now they can afford to buy a house sooner. Except they aren’t in the same pool as the rest of us they have a house they can buy at a massive discount, so they’ve received a house at a rate subsidized by everyone else.

The bottom line is that council houses should never be sold at a discount because they money that’s made from the sale won’t cover the cost of replacement, so the taxpayer is now on the hook for the difference, having already essentially subsided this couple via low rent.

What should happen is that council houses are turned around efficiently, you earn over the threshold to qualify for one, You can’t live there anymore you’re out in the real world eith everyone else. Don’t like it too bad, there’s a more needy family on the list so they’re moving in, or alternatively you can buy the house out at market rate, which allows a replacement be obtained.

Graces7

Time wrote: »

I’ll flesh out my second point a bit. A tenant in a council house gets the house because they need it and that’s fine, but over time as they perhaps earn more money, and there rent increases it doesn’t increase enough, for example a couple in a council house earning 75k do not pay anywhere near what the same couple in private accommodation do. This is unfair there can be no logical reason for this situation to be allowed to exist.

Secondly this lower rent allows them to save more than the couple in private rented accommodation, so now they can afford to buy a house sooner. Except they aren’t in the same pool as the rest of us they have a house they can buy at a massive discount, so they’ve received a house at a rate subsidized by everyone else.

The bottom line is that council houses should never be sold at a discount because they money that’s made from the sale won’t cover the cost of replacement, so the taxpayer is now on the hook for the difference, having already essentially subsided this couple via low rent.

What should happen is that council houses are turned around efficiently, you earn over the threshold to qualify for one, You can’t live there anymore you’re out in the real world eith everyone else. Don’t like it too bad, there’s a more needy family on the list so they’re moving in, or alternatively you can buy the house out at market rate, which allows a replacement be obtained.

Last para makes no logistical sense and is punitive against the wrong people. Change the system first?

One point too is that the current system takes the financial burden of repairs etc off the council.

Graham

Graces7 wrote: »

Last para makes no logistical sense and is punitive against the wrong people. Change the system first?

The theory is;

if your financial position has improved to the point where you no longer need subsidised social housing, the social housing should be re-allocated to someone that does need it.

For example, an unemployed single mother doing a part-time degree with an income of €20k would need subsidised housing. Ten years later that same person could be earning €80k and would therefore not need subsidised housing.

The danger with that approach is could be a disincentives for social housing tenants to improve their financial position

Owryan

Graham wrote: »

The theory is;

if your financial position has improved to the point where you no longer need subsidised social housing, the social housing should be re-allocated to someone that does need it.

For example, an unemployed single mother doing a part-time degree with an income of €20k would need subsidised housing. Ten years later that same person could be earning €80k and would therefore not need subsidised housing.

The danger with that approach is could be a disincentives for social housing tenants to improve their financial position

It should happen but it won't. I've worked with a family in a council house, combined income north of €100,000 and paying feck all in rent.

Like you said it has an element of disensentivisation and it would simply come across as the council evicting families.

dhaughton99

I posted this about 2 months ago.

“I’ll give you a good one. The SDCC are building 20 houses about 200 meters from my small estate. They are just about finished and are being given out at the moment. I just heard from a builder who is in the know, that the thug who caused nothing but problems in our estate has been given one. Between the gangs that the family brought in, the drug dealing, scramblers, horses etc, they destroyed this community. Although he’s probably on the list around 1 year as baby is 1. The extended family already have 3 houses in my small estate of 30 houses. A 3 bed fab looking house. This is what you get when you play the poor mouth to the local clergy and left wing councilors. I am absolutely fuming.”



Yesterday, the new residents started to move in and the builder was spot on. There’s the thug moving his stuff into his new house with his girlfriend and child. When I was going out in the afternoon, there’s one of the local independent politicians shaking hands with some of the new families. Last night, the Gardai had to be called as the gang who this family brought in, were doing wheel spins in a pool car outside some of the new houses for show.

Criminality is a huge issue and it's never punished. I mean that not exclusively relating to Council housing, but just in general. Unless you murder someone, you are very much free to do as you wish in this country with little to no repercussions for your actions.

dhaughton99's post above is exactly what's wrong with the system. It's incredibly easy to milk it and for some bizarro-land reason, the council won't hold being a criminal against you (meaning that you won't lose your place in line for a house) and even after you start wrecking the new place you're given, they won't evict you either (meaning you've no reason to change your ways).

In dhaughton's case above, there's 19 families lives that will be a nightmare because of one moron. Those 19 families will have kids that go to school with the scummer's kids, and soon enough you've 3-4 scumbags, who hang around with other scumbags, and on it goes until the estate is in tatters and you've a new generation of wasters with their hands out for a nice new house.



In Drogheda, the council are putting the finishing touches on a lovely new estate. It's in a fantastic location. The houses are great, and probably would go for about 250,000 if they were private. Couldn't be any closer to the town centre or bus station, each has it's own drive way, right along the river (nice view), etc.

As above, have heard that all the scumbags and knackers of the day are the ones that are moving in. Estate will be sihthole in no time and the Gardai will be in and out like a yo-yo over the coming years, I'm confident.

Lia_lia

I grew up in a council house. My Mother was a single Mother (after herself and my Father broke up). We moved into the house when I was around 10 and remember it was an empty shell pretty much. No floors or carpets or anything. Sounded nothing like the house in the OP! House is tiny, about 700 square ft but grand for an adult and 2 kids.

It looks totally different now to how it did before as so much work has been put into it. For the record my Mother has never been unemployed since she moved in. Just not easy to rent privately/get a mortgage as a single parent with no savings!

Anyway, I don't begrudge people for getting council houses. Even if they are new and fancy houses. Anyone can go on the dole and go on the housing list if they wish. I feel very privileged that I'm under 30 with a good job and can afford a mortage with my partner or even by myself without any help from the government.

LirW wrote: »

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

This, basically.

Time

dhaughton99 wrote: »

Yesterday, the new residents started to move in and the builder was spot on. There’s the thug moving his stuff into his new house with his girlfriend and child. When I was going out in the afternoon, there’s one of the local independent politicians shaking hands with some of the new families. Last night, the Gardai had to be called as the gang who this family brought in, were doing wheel spins in a pool car outside some of the new houses for show.

That's absolutely sickening. We need to build those "scum villages" they have in the Netherlands for people who cause anti-social problems in the homes they're given.

dhaughton99

dhaughton99 wrote: »

I posted this about 2 months ago.

“I’ll give you a good one. The SDCC are building 20 houses about 200 meters from my small estate. They are just about finished and are being given out at the moment. I just heard from a builder who is in the know, that the thug who caused nothing but problems in our estate has been given one. Between the gangs that the family brought in, the drug dealing, scramblers, horses etc, they destroyed this community. Although he’s probably on the list around 1 year as baby is 1. The extended family already have 3 houses in my small estate of 30 houses. A 3 bed fab looking house. This is what you get when you play the poor mouth to the local clergy and left wing councilors. I am absolutely fuming.”



Yesterday, the new residents started to move in and the builder was spot on. There’s the thug moving his stuff into his new house with his girlfriend and child. When I was going out in the afternoon, there’s one of the local independent politicians shaking hands with some of the new families. Last night, the Gardai had to be called as the gang who this family brought in, were doing wheel spins in a pool car outside some of the new houses for show.

Today it’s horses. 1 on a trap, the other being ridden. All the families moving their stuff in and they have to see this. Feckers on them aren’t even from the area.

Embarrassing.

Graces7

Time wrote: »

Literally thousands of people in council estates up and down the country whose only income is a social welfare payment

Which is being paid to them why? You do not get it for just asking. Has to be a legitimate reason.

Graces7

Time wrote: »

I’ll flesh out my second point a bit. A tenant in a council house gets the house because they need it and that’s fine, but over time as they perhaps earn more money, and there rent increases it doesn’t increase enough, for example a couple in a council house earning 75k do not pay anywhere near what the same couple in private accommodation do. This is unfair there can be no logical reason for this situation to be allowed to exist.

Secondly this lower rent allows them to save more than the couple in private rented accommodation, so now they can afford to buy a house sooner. Except they aren’t in the same pool as the rest of us they have a house they can buy at a massive discount, so they’ve received a house at a rate subsidized by everyone else.

The bottom line is that council houses should never be sold at a discount because they money that’s made from the sale won’t cover the cost of replacement, so the taxpayer is now on the hook for the difference, having already essentially subsided this couple via low rent.

What should happen is that council houses are turned around efficiently, you earn over the threshold to qualify for one, You can’t live there anymore you’re out in the real world eith everyone else. Don’t like it too bad, there’s a more needy family on the list so they’re moving in, or alternatively you can buy the house out at market rate, which allows a replacement be obtained.

Stats on this happening please?

Graces7

Graham wrote: »

Being approved for social welfare is not remotely the same as being found incapable of work.

Well no. I did not say it was.

surrender monkey

dhaughton99 wrote: »

dhaughton99 wrote: »

I posted this about 2 months ago.

“I’ll give you a good one. The SDCC are building 20 houses about 200 meters from my small estate. They are just about finished and are being given out at the moment. I just heard from a builder who is in the know, that the thug who caused nothing but problems in our estate has been given one. Between the gangs that the family brought in, the drug dealing, scramblers, horses etc, they destroyed this community. Although he’s probably on the list around 1 year as baby is 1. The extended family already have 3 houses in my small estate of 30 houses. A 3 bed fab looking house. This is what you get when you play the poor mouth to the local clergy and left wing councilors. I am absolutely fuming.”



Yesterday, the new residents started to move in and the builder was spot on. There’s the thug moving his stuff into his new house with his girlfriend and child. When I was going out in the afternoon, there’s one of the local independent politicians shaking hands with some of the new families. Last night, the Gardai had to be called as the gang who this family brought in, were doing wheel spins in a pool car outside some of the new houses for show.

Today it’s horses. 1 on a trap, the other being ridden. All the families moving their stuff in and they have to see this. Feckers on them aren’t even from the area.

Embarrassing.

Is this in Saint Aidans in tallaght?

Time

Graces7 wrote: »

Stats on this happening please?

It's written in black and white in the differential rent scheme rules for each council. Below is the relevant text from the DLR scheme taken from here.

Dun Laoighre Rathdown Council wrote:

"The Principal Earner is the member of the household who is in receipt of the highest assessable income. The rent will be calculated at 16% of the principal earner’s weekly assessable income which exceeds €35. After the rent of the principal earner is assessed, the same calculation will be applied to the incomes of subsidiary earners (i.e. other occupants) in the household, but in this case, the rent calculation for each subsidiary earner will be capped at €18 per person."

Lets do some maths using the rules from the above for couple living in a council house who have done well since moving into the house and who now between them have a yearly take home of €75,000. They will pay the following

€12,000 (16% of 75k) less €1,820 (€35 x 52) and €936 (€18 x 52)

That leaves a grand total of €9,244 per year or €770 per month, and that figure is before any exempt income is taken into account (such as bonuses from work)

I'd love to hear your justification for a couple taking home €6250 per month, which is very doable for people in their middle ages, paying that little compared to the tax payer who earns far far less, but can expect to pay at least twice that whilst also subsidising the higher earning couple.

As for stats here's some:

Minimum discount of 40% off market rate when buying

up to 96% of stock sold off with the above minimum discount of 40% applied

Owryan

Some councils also have caps on the amount of rent that can be paid. Although, in fairness most are or have moved away from them.