Why are the government mixing social housing with private housing?

Il Fascista

end of the road wrote: »

the minute someone buys a house they are already expected to realise that the value may go up or down. by all means they don't have to welcome it and nobody does if it goes down, but they are not entitled for it not to happen, and we cannot base policies around protecting property value over the good of society.

This remains to be seen, yet posters like yourself will blindly assume it's a forgone conclusion. Hoping something is true doesn't mean it is true. You can't keep making policies based on hope alone.

Yurt2

end of the road wrote: »

the minute someone buys a house they are already expected to realise that the value may go up or down

The grand compact that was made in the 80s with banking liberalisation was that house prices will only go up and those with the keys will feel richer. It was thought there will always be generations coming behind you that will pay multiples of what you bought it for, even though house price inflation far outpaced gains in wages. Initially everyone felt great because they were getting richer on paper. Political incumbents got reelected off the back of this sentiment. The system desparately needs house price rises even though it's unsustainable socially and the increases in private debt levels on a national scale that threaten the stability of the financial system. Rises are great for older people who don't have proper pension provision or other assets, yet they literally destroy the wealth of those chasing a mortgage. No point in renting for life as that's a recipe for old-age poverty with Ireland's non existent rules for renters. That's before we get into the buy-to-let boom which at various stages was the closest thing to the magic money tree you could get.

The system has so many contradictions and failure points it's maddening. Yet there are many who would defend it to the hilt because they are in a part of society that benefit from it when house prices and rents are rising.

Yurt2

Il Fascista wrote: »

This remains to be seen, yet posters like yourself will blindly assume it's a forgone conclusion. Hoping something is true doesn't mean it is true. You can't keep making policies based on hope alone.

Vast swathes of mature estates in suburban Dublin that you and I would consider decent areas were social builds and were part of one of Europe's largest slum clearance projects at the time. Social housing transformed Dublin and the life chances of hundreds of thousands of people. That's not sentimental weak-kneed hope or theory, that was conviction and action.

Galwayguy35

It's grand if the family in the social house beside the mortgage payer are nice people but if they are scumbags then the neighbours lives will be an absolute misery through no fault of their own.

The way to go is kick them out of the estate by force if necessary at the first sign of anti social behaviour.

Yurt2

What percentage of social housing tenants are bad people?

This is purely anecdotal, but I was renting a house (or at least a room in the house) in an estate a good few years ago, the couple would frequently come home blazing drunk and argue audibly until all hours. The fella also had what I presumed to be a son from another relationship who would visit some weekends. He was a gobby pain in the a*se. That couple had a mortgage on the property. They were not pleasant to live next to.

What do we do with people like that? Did they have more of a right to carry on like that because they owned the house? Let's not pretend that they are the only house owners in the country that are troublesome.

InTheShadows

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

OK, Check this sh!t out below, this is a real life example of two people i know

Man, partner and 1 child. Breakdown of their earnings each month

HAP €1150 per month
Illness benefit *2 €1646 per month
Child allowance €140 per month

€2.9k a month. Now let that sink in

€2.9k for having a kid, and not choosing to work

€2.9k. That translates to €35k per annum, after "Tax"

No wonder i hate everyone

Great. What's that got to do with this thread?

Working class heroes

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

It's grand if the family in the social house beside the mortgage payer are nice people but if they are scumbags then the neighbours lives will be an absolute misery through no fault of their own.

The way to go is kick them out of the estate by force if necessary at the first sign of anti social behaviour.

That works both ways.
Are you assuming that only nice people buy houses? If so, you obviously rent.

end of the road

Il Fascista wrote: »

This remains to be seen, yet posters like yourself will blindly assume it's a forgone conclusion. Hoping something is true doesn't mean it is true. You can't keep making policies based on hope alone.

it is true and a forgone conclusion that property value can go down as well as up. if it couldn't happen we couldn't have a market.
i am not the one making policies based on hope. i am not even in government for a start. and i certainly don't support policies that are made based on hope but what is proven to actually work.

Sweet.Science

Getting a council house is like winning the lotto
There are no pros to buying
You have to make crazy repayments and maintain at your expense forever
Then when its finally yours you will be forced to sell it for the cost of care while the people in councils homes get it for free after paying nothing for their house all their life
Communist Ireland

shootermacg

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Getting a council house is like winning the lotto
There are no pros to buying
You have to make crazy repayments and maintain at your expense forever
Then when its finally yours you will be forced to sell it for the cost of care while the people in councils homes get it for free after paying nothing for their house all their life
Communist Ireland

Yes yes, why not go full retard like in the states and make you pay for everything. Good luck losing your job under those circumstances. If you hate the politics in this country so much, why not emigrate there?

Sweet.Science

shootermacg wrote: »

Yes yes, why not go full retard like in the states and make you pay for everything. Good luck losing your job under those circumstances. If you hate the politics in this country so much, why not emigrate there?

Ah yes. If you dont like it here why dont you p!ss off. Classic leftist approach.
Force someone who has worked their asses off all their life to sell their one asset.

While people who dont bother contributing to society get everything for free

The country is going to collapse within 10 years. Communism doesnt work

gmisk

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Ah yes. If you dont like it here why dont you p!ss off. Classic leftist approach.
Force someone who has worked their asses off all their life to sell their one asset.

While people who dont bother contributing to society get everything for free

The country is going to collapse within 10 years. Communism doesnt work

Where is communist? Ireland?

end of the road

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Ah yes. If you dont like it here why dont you p!ss off. Classic leftist approach.
Force someone who has worked their asses off all their life to sell their one asset.

While people who dont bother contributing to society get everything for free

The country is going to collapse within 10 years. Communism doesnt work

providing state supports to people who need a hand up is not communism.
there is no communism in ireland.

shootermacg

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Ah yes. If you dont like it here why dont you p!ss off. Classic leftist approach.
Force someone who has worked their asses off all their life to sell their one asset.

While people who dont bother contributing to society get everything for free

The country is going to collapse within 10 years. Communism doesnt work

I've heard it said that the problem is rarely an 'ism.
Companies pay little to no tax. Not an ism, unless ...maybe cronyism.
Trickle down economics does not work when individuals now have more money than a country has capital.

These issues exist in most countries regardless of left / right leanings. Blaming the poor for taking all the money is just not right in any sense.
It's almost like you're calling the poor rich, like seriously...educate yourself!

14dMoney

shootermacg wrote: »

I've heard it said that the problem is rarely an 'ism.
Companies pay little to no tax. Not an ism, unless ...maybe cronyism.
Trickle down economics does not work when individuals now have more money than a country has capital.

These issues exist in most countries regardless of left / right leanings. Blaming the poor for taking all the money is just not right in any sense.
It's almost like you're calling the poor rich, like seriously...educate yourself!

You should educate yourself. 40% of all tax take is paid by ten companies here. This ill-informed "corporations don't pay any tax" is nothing but a populist sound bite.

shootermacg

14dMoney wrote: »

You should educate yourself. 40% of all tax take is paid by ten companies here. This ill-informed "corporations don't pay any tax" is nothing but a populist sound bite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_as_a_tax_haven
https://www.thejournal.ie/apple-tax-ireland-7-4241938-Sep2018/

12.5%? How much do you pay?

14dMoney

shootermacg wrote: »

12.5%? How much do you pay?

It's irrelevant how much I pay, I don't employ anyone. And like many people I'm employed by these evil foreign corporations. Do you really believe Ireland was better before the corporation tax was lowered?

shootermacg

14dMoney wrote: »

It's irrelevant how much I pay, I don't employ anyone. And like many people I'm employed by these evil foreign corporations. Do you really believe Ireland was better before the corporation tax was lowered?

Why is what you pay irrelevant? Corporations are not evil immoral, they are simply amoral. We've already established that companies pay 12.5 corporation tax, the kicker is they pay 6.25% on profits derived from intellectual property.

So the question isn't how much they pay, it's how much they should pay because it simply isn't enough. There isn't a company here that isn't here because they like the scenery.

Again you are arguing about the have nots, maybe you should take a long look at the haves.

14dMoney

shootermacg wrote: »

Why is what you pay irrelevant? Corporations are not evil immoral, they are simply amoral. We've already established that companies pay 12.5 corporation tax, the kicker is they pay 6.25% on profits derived from intellectual property.

So the question isn't how much they pay, it's how much they should pay because it simply isn't enough. There isn't a company here that isn't here because they like the scenery.

Again you are arguing about the have nots, maybe you should take a long look at the haves.

]

The tax exemption on intellectual property was brought in as an incentive for FDI to set up R and D divisions in Ireland. Just take a look at how the Docklands have transformed to see how that worked out!

This also plugged up Ireland's brain-drain, which was perhaps the biggest historical impediment to a functioning economy. Now people are coming from all over the world to take up high octane positions here.

So again, do you think that Ireland was better before the revamp in taxation?

shootermacg

14dMoney wrote: »

The tax exemption on intellectual property was brought in as an incentive for FDI to set up R and D divisions in Ireland. Just take a look at how the Docklands have transformed to see how that worked out!

This also plugged up Ireland's brain-drain, which was perhaps the biggest historical impediment to a functioning economy. Now people are coming from all over the world to take up high octane positions here.

So again, do you think that Ireland was better before the revamp in taxation?

How about these apples: The government does not require transnational corporations to provide public accounts of turnover, subsidies received, profit or amount of taxes paid.

Great that we go with our cap in hands to the mighty companies.

Regardless it doesn't take a genius to see that the pot is getting smaller. Why is that? Oh! Must be all the poor sleeping with the cash under their beds.

Why not just take the 13 billion that government are refusing and throw it into "social services". I make that 52 thousand houses for the homeless and poor. Just dump it right in there. But of course you'd be wanting your slice because begrudgery is strong with you.

14dMoney

shootermacg wrote: »

How about these apples: The government does not require transnational corporations to provide public accounts of turnover, subsidies received, profit or amount of taxes paid.

Great that we go with our cap in hands to the mighty companies.

Regardless it doesn't take a genius to see that the pot is getting smaller. Why is that? Oh! Must be all the poor sleeping with the cash under their beds.

All companies submit a B1 along with a financial statement, but no company is required to submit full accounts unless they lose their audit exemption.

What would you suggest we do with 260000 people employed by FDI? Go back to the good old days, where income tax was 65%, everyone was employed by the public service and we had 0 imports or exports?

Tax take has never been higher in this country, let's take Google for example, who payed 171 million in taxes to the Exchequer last year.

Also, we won't see any of the 13 billion. That figure was arrived at due to Apple allegedly funneling profits generated elsewhere, into Ireland. We'd actually have a smaller tax-take if that occurred because less profits would be attributable to Ireland.

James Brown

14dMoney wrote: »

You should educate yourself. 40% of all tax take is paid by ten companies here. This ill-informed "corporations don't pay any tax" is nothing but a populist sound bite.

Vulture funds and Russian/Putin connected finance companies pay very little tax here. One exacerbates the housing crisis and the other launders oil money.
Also you've heard of Apple and the 13bn the EU wants us to have and our government fighting not to take it? Also you heard about the AIB not having to pay tax on profits for the next 30 years or FG at one time not paying any tax at all for 9 years? Soundbites

shootermacg

14dMoney wrote: »

All companies submit a B1 along with a financial statement, but no company is required to submit full accounts unless they lose their audit exemption.

What would you suggest we do with 260000 people employed by FDI? Go back to the good old days, where income tax was 65%, everyone was employed by the public service and we had 0 imports or exports?

Tax take has never been higher in this country, let's take Google for example, who payed 171 million in taxes to the Exchequer last year.

Also, we won't see any of the 13 billion. That figure was arrived at due to Apple allegedly funneling profits generated elsewhere, into Ireland. We'd actually have a smaller tax-take if that occurred because less profits would be attributable to Ireland.

........

Eric Cartman

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I know a TD, Garda Sargent and a school principle who grew up in social housing. If we can use a few no marks to sully everyone let's pretend everyone from social housing is a TD, Garda Sargent or school principle, makes as much sense.

There has to be a line drawn on these anecdotes. Both of my parents grew up in social housing , their parents worked and all the neighbours worked.

There is a giant casm of difference between social housing pre 1980 and post. We have had things like divorce and the acceptance of single parent families (no longer locking up single mothers, which is a good thing) , an increased supply of cheap alcohol, gambling and most importantly drugs into our economy, the welfare state has also become more generous to the point at which it can be more attractive than work. Anecdotes about social housing tenants / what odds kids have of succeeding / antisocial behaviour etc... have to be separated along that timeframe.

That Garda Sargent would definitely have had to be an adult in 1980, they spent their formative years around other working families, likely with a healthy respect for authority, both parents present, no presence of recreational drugs and no ability for some people to sit around pissed all day. The reality of a child growing up in social housing today is almost the polar opposite.

James Brown

Eric Cartman wrote: »

There has to be a line drawn on these anecdotes. Both of my parents grew up in social housing , their parents worked and all the neighbours worked.

There is a giant casm of difference between social housing pre 1980 and post. We have had things like divorce and the acceptance of single parent families (no longer locking up single mothers, which is a good thing) , an increased supply of cheap alcohol, gambling and most importantly drugs into our economy, the welfare state has also become more generous to the point at which it can be more attractive than work. Anecdotes about social housing tenants / what odds kids have of succeeding / antisocial behaviour etc... have to be separated along that timeframe.

That Garda Sargent would definitely have had to be an adult in 1980, they spent their formative years around other working families, likely with a healthy respect for authority, both parents present, no presence of recreational drugs and no ability for some people to sit around pissed all day. The reality of a child growing up in social housing today is almost the polar opposite.

These are no more anecdotes than your claims Eric.
You can look up Catherine Byrne TD. Born and raised in Inchicore. The others are private individuals I won't name.

There is. We have record breaking numbers of children homeless and a housing crisis. We didn't have these issues as bad as they are when we built social housing.

That's an anecdote right there Eric. How many people enjoy being on the dole and are never hassled or questioned by the authorities, happy to continue to pay them every week? Now stats Eric not Margret Cash and others.

Nope, the Garda Sargent is in his forties.

Your whole argument is built on anecdotes and bigotry against your own kind Eric. If people deserved a chance with social housing 30 odd years ago they certainly need it now based on recorded and accepted facts pertaining to the current never seen before levels of the housing crisis. We weren't putting people up in hotels in the 1980's.

The idea that people always only have themselves to blame is the height of ignorance IMO. It won't solve anything and ignores hard working tax payers caught up in it.

Sleepy

I suspect if the councils were provided with some means of actually dealing with anti-social behaviour (such as the ability to impose liens on social welfare payments, the ability to evict without the problem tenant then becoming a priority homeless case to be re-housed by the council) and if our courts actually backed them up by actually incarcerating those involved in serious anti-social behaviour instead of allowing them to amass three figure rap sheets of convictions without losing their liberty we'd see a lot less complaints about social housing.

Personally, it's no different to me whether the state is paying for my next door neighbour's rent, if they're renting it themselves, if they're paying a mortgage on it like I am or if their house was gifted to them on their 21st birthday by Mammy and Daddy. Once they're good neighbours, aren't impinging on my right to enjoy my own property and aren't allowing their kids to run feral around the estate we'll get along fine.

Too much social housing in the one area has been shown time and time again to lead to problems. When a kid is raised in an environment where the only people they see with any disposable income or wealth are criminals or those with lottery-win levels of luck (e.g. those born with the talent to be professional athletes, entertainers or the like or the luck to end up famous because of reality television and/or their willingness to take their clothes off if they're attractive women) how can we ever expect them to achieve anything in life. Their neighbours who are hard working, by the very virtue of the fact they qualify for social housing are going to be in low paying jobs where they're not likely to be much better off than welfare recipients (or may, in fact have less disposable income in our current system!). There's no no role models for these kids to show you them the more normal paths to a "successful" life: the neighbour who worked hard in school, got through college, got a decent job and now has a nice BMW and brings her kids to France for 3 weeks during the summer etc. Those people are "other" to them. They live on the other side of the tracks, the river, the town and are usually to be despised for their otherness (their "posh" accent, their likely different taste in clothes, sports-teams etc.). The only "role models" they have are those who they can never realistically hope to emulate: those with talent or luck that make their "example" a pipe-dream for the average person (and who seem to have recently taken to encouraging all those who never could achieve that success to "follow the dream" :rolleyes:)

Mixing all grades of housing (the social, private rental and privately owned) is the best path to giving those kids a chance and it's one I'm glad we're pursuing. It's idiotic, however, that we don't have some means of dealing with anti-social behaviour. Workhouses and forced adoptions are nightmare things in our country's past but I'm not entirely convinced that there aren't those in our society who haven't earned themselves such treatment (or whose kids wouldn't benefit from being taken away from their "rearing").

Melanchthon

Matt Barrett wrote: »

These are no more anecdotes than your claims Eric.
You can look up Catherine Byrne TD. Born and raised in Inchicore. The others are private individuals I won't name.

There is. We have record breaking numbers of children homeless and a housing crisis. We didn't have these issues as bad as they are when we built social housing.

That's an anecdote right there Eric. How many people enjoy being on the dole and are never hassled or questioned by the authorities, happy to continue to pay them every week? Now stats Eric not Margret Cash and others.

Nope, the Garda Sargent is in his forties.

Your whole argument is built on anecdotes and bigotry against your own kind Eric. If people deserved a chance with social housing 30 odd years ago they certainly need it now based on recorded and accepted facts pertaining to the current never seen before levels of the housing crisis. We weren't putting people up in hotels in the 1980's.

The idea that people always only have themselves to blame is the height of ignorance IMO. It won't solve anything and ignores hard working tax payers caught up in it.

I don't get the point of these anecdotes? surely thats pointing to the notion that there isn't an issue with building exclusively social housing estates like was done in the past but the posters coming out with these anecdotes are arguing against it?

My pet peeve is people mixing talk between social and affordable housing, they are very different things and I doubt there is much resentment at all to the idea of affordable housing.
Social housing and housing allowances are a different matter though, why the hell should lower to lower middle income workers have to move further and further from their jobs to buy a place and those that don't buy have to get up to work, get taxed on that work, pay high rents, have part of their taxes (so basically their time) used to pay the rents of those that don't work but live in the same place as them.

James Brown

Melanchthon wrote: »

I don't get the point of these anecdotes? surely thats pointing to the notion that there isn't an issue with building exclusively social housing estates like was done in the past but the posters coming out with these anecdotes are arguing against it?

My pet peeve is people mixing talk between social and affordable housing, they are very different things and I doubt there is much resentment at all to the idea of affordable housing.
Social housing and housing allowances are a different matter though, why the hell should lower to lower middle income workers have to move further and further from their jobs to buy a place and those that don't buy have to get up to work, get taxed on that work, pay high rents, have part of their taxes (so basically their time) used to pay the rents of those that don't work but live in the same place as them.

The original point was that we shouldn't be giving free houses to these 'scum', not my word. All based on a few stories and anecdotes. I gave an example of a few success stories and suggested it was just as valid to pretend everyone from social housing ended up being a TD, Garda Sargent, School Principle.

Nobody should resent anyone just based on them availing of social housing. If you or I were on low enough income we could apply too. Affordable housing is the same concept. It makes as much sense to resent them also for earning less money than you and availing of affordable. These things are designed to help those who need it. You shouldn't resent them for needing.

You've likely issue with the council or government but last I checked they were selling off city central public land to private developers, moving social to the burbs and putting any over flow up in hotels.
We're are currently not building enough social/affordable, so Hotels and buying to use as social is the norm.

srsly78

14dMoney wrote: »

All companies submit a B1 along with a financial statement, but no company is required to submit full accounts unless they lose their audit exemption.

This is incorrect. The audit exemption is only for smaller companies. Once above a certain size audits are mandatory.


https://www.cro.ie/Annual-Return/Financial-Statements-Requirements/Audit-Exemption

Galwayguy35

Working class heroes wrote: »

That works both ways.
Are you assuming that only nice people buy houses? If so, you obviously rent.

I'm assuming nothing.

But if someone is paying the price of a bag of sweets for a house worth a couple of hundred grand they should bloody well appreciate what they have and not start acting the bollix.

arctictree

lalababa wrote: »

Mixed A. council and B.affordable and C.private is the way to go imho. A little bit of A , a little bit more of B, and a good lump of C. And any As acting the maggot dealt with severly. The B's & C's will influence the A's overtime.
If you put all A's together there is a tendency for things to go downhill.
And the loophole (if still there) of a developer being able to buy out the social clause should be abandoned.
I would suggest a mix let's say out of 100 houses, that there be 5to10 As, 10to20 B's and 70to85 Cs. And all mixed up over the estate.

How does this work if a developer is building 10 1M+ houses?

Melanchthon

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The original point was that we shouldn't be giving free houses to these 'scum', not my word. All based on a few stories and anecdotes. I gave an example of a few success stories and suggested it was just as valid to pretend everyone from social housing ended up being a TD, Garda Sargent, School Principle.

Yes but apart from a few I don't think most posters here think all social tenants are scum, what they think is that social tenants are much more likely to have anti-social issues, the policy of mixing private and public tenants shares the misery around, people question this as essentially the people supporting the system via taxation etc also have to suffer for it, its a bit of a reversal of the social contract, if social housing tenants are in general as good as being put forward their should be no issue with exclusively social housing developments.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Nobody should resent anyone just based on them availing of social housing. If you or I were on low enough income we could apply too. Affordable housing is the same concept. It makes as much sense to resent them also for earning less money than you and availing of affordable. These things are designed to help those who need it. You shouldn't resent them for needing.

Say you get up at 6 go out to the wind and rain of misery on a January morning, or you in a customer facing role and you have to deal with sh-t customers and clients all day and you get back at 6pm dog tired either physically or mentally to a location where people live who have what is an essentially free gaff. Its rational to resent and wonder why, affordable housing doesn't have that dynamic in fact the person in affordable housing is likely to be working just as tough a job as you are just not in as well remunerated a role.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You've likely issue with the council or government but last I checked they were selling off city central public land to private developers, moving social to the burbs and putting any over flow up in hotels.
We're are currently not building enough social/affordable, so Hotels and buying to use as social is the norm.

There is definitely significant social housing and HAP type clients in prime areas of Dublin where most workers would struggle to buy and those that rent pay a considerable amount.

reg114

14dMoney wrote: »

Would a simpler solution not be to be build dedicated estates for social housing? That way it would keep everyone happy.

This is exactly what needs to be avoided as it creates ghettoisation which leads to parts of the city / county being isolated and then becoming rundown spawning all sorts of social and public order problems, see Ballymun , parts of Tallaght and Moyross in Limerick as prime examples.

Yurt2

What's the scale of the problem being wheeled out here? How many social housing residents 'act the bollix' are 'scum' and are 'dole lifers'? What's the percentage? Or even in absolute numbers? I fear boards will never get a straight answer to these questions. Long term unemployment is at almost record lows and will probably be at an all-time low by next year. Newsflash, every economy in every corner of the earth has long term unemployed people - it's not ideal, but it's about as inevitable as death and taxes, and we have one of the lowest rates in Europe (lower than Germany, France, and Belgium for instance).

InTheShadows

JustMe,K wrote: »

I don't see how it would keep everyone happy?

We should go back to social housing being a helping hand for people rather than a 'foreva home'.

Not being smart but it's spelt "forever"

InTheShadows

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Getting a council house is like winning the lotto
There are no pros to buying
You have to make crazy repayments and maintain at your expense forever
Then when its finally yours you will be forced to sell it for the cost of care while the people in councils homes get it for free after paying nothing for their house all their life
Communist Ireland

Can you throw up a link there to these free houses and also could you name the council that charges nothing for their houses.

James Brown

Melanchthon wrote: »

Yes but apart from a few I don't think most posters here think all social tenants are scum, what they think is that social tenants are much more likely to have anti-social issues, the policy of mixing private and public tenants shares the misery around, people question this as essentially the people supporting the system via taxation etc also have to suffer for it, its a bit of a reversal of the social contract, if social housing tenants are in general as good as being put forward their should be no issue with exclusively social housing developments.



Say you get up at 6 go out to the wind and rain of misery on a January morning, or you in a customer facing role and you have to deal with sh-t customers and clients all day and you get back at 6pm dog tired either physically or mentally to a location where people live who have what is an essentially free gaff. Its rational to resent and wonder why, affordable housing doesn't have that dynamic in fact the person in affordable housing is likely to be working just as tough a job as you are just not in as well remunerated a role.



There is definitely significant social housing and HAP type clients in prime areas of Dublin where most workers would struggle to buy and those that rent pay a considerable amount.

I agree. Nobody should have to deal with anti-social behaviour regardless of their income. Being less well off shouldn't mean you have to deal with it no more than anyone else, in fact state/council owned property should have more freedom to penalise or evict these people than it would be to tackle anti-social private home owners. I think all social estates, but on a small scale would work rather than acres upon acres of a maze of social.

Anytime I was out of work I didn't enjoy it. Yes I made my own hours but it was miserable. Thankfully a very long time ago now. I see people causing trouble on the luas, hanging around Christchurch who are likely not working in any meaningful way, I wouldn't change places with any of them. I doubt most people would. The housing crisis consists of mostly low income tax payers but we always seem to dwell on the minority no marks.

As regards prime areas, back in the day the inner city was for the tenements and if you had a few bob you bought a house in the suburbs. Fashions and times change. During the regeneration con a number of sizable social housing estates within the Dublin city center were demolished with the inhabitants mostly sent far and wide.

end of the road

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I'm assuming nothing.

But if someone is paying the price of a bag of sweets for a house worth a couple of hundred grand they should bloody well appreciate what they have and not start acting the bollix.

why should that only apply to those paying for a massively expensive bag of sweets per week for their house, because their income means that is all they can genuinely afford? perhapse it should apply to all?

Melanchthon wrote: »

Yes but apart from a few I don't think most posters here think all social tenants are scum, what they think is that social tenants are much more likely to have anti-social issues, the policy of mixing private and public tenants shares the misery around, people question this as essentially the people supporting the system via taxation etc also have to suffer for it, its a bit of a reversal of the social contract, if social housing tenants are in general as good as being put forward their should be no issue with exclusively social housing developments.



Say you get up at 6 go out to the wind and rain of misery on a January morning, or you in a customer facing role and you have to deal with sh-t customers and clients all day and you get back at 6pm dog tired either physically or mentally to a location where people live who have what is an essentially free gaff. Its rational to resent and wonder why, affordable housing doesn't have that dynamic in fact the person in affordable housing is likely to be working just as tough a job as you are just not in as well remunerated a role.



There is definitely significant social housing and HAP type clients in prime areas of Dublin where most workers would struggle to buy and those that rent pay a considerable amount.

because over all it's cheaper to keep them there. infrastructure and resources already existing.
even if you moved all of those people out the rents would remain high and mortgage prices unaffordable. the long distance commuter will sadly always exist. people moving out a bit to buy and rent will always exist even if there were no wellfare dependants.

Blueshoe

InTheShadows wrote: »

Can you throw up a link there to these free houses and also could you name the council that charges nothing for their houses.

35 euro a week. Haap will cover the rest.

Great system

Melanchthon

Its been implied in this thread a fair few times that the majority of social housing tenants would be in some form of employment, nobody quoted any figures so I decided to take a look for myself online.

Lets just say that view isn't backed up by the figures I could find. As off 2017, 57.5% of main applicants were unemployed and in receipt of Social welfare payments, only 21.9% were employed (full, part-time or self), these figures can be seen on page 18 fig.2.2 of this report carried out by the housing agency.

https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/sha_summary_2017.pdf

These are the figures that matter rather than talk of the past.

Edit: As pointed out these figures are applicants not tenants, for the purposes of who is going to be moving into any new places these are important figures

Kivaro

Melanchthon wrote: »

Its been implied in this thread a fair few times that the majority of social housing tenants would be in some form of employment, nobody quoted any figures so I decided to take a look for myself online.

Lets just say that view isn't backed up by the figures I could find. As off 2017, 57.5% of main applicants were unemployed and in receipt of Social welfare payments, only 21.9% were employed (full, part-time or self), these figures can be seen on page 18 fig.2.2 of this report carried out by the housing agency.

https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/sha_summary_2017.pdf

These are the figures that matter rather than talk of the past.

Well, that's certainly interesting.

lola85

Melanchthon wrote: »

Its been implied in this thread a fair few times that the majority of social housing tenants would be in some form of employment, nobody quoted any figures so I decided to take a look for myself online.

Lets just say that view isn't backed up by the figures I could find. As off 2017, 57.5% of main applicants were unemployed and in receipt of Social welfare payments, only 21.9% were employed (full, part-time or self), these figures can be seen on page 18 fig.2.2 of this report carried out by the housing agency.

https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/sha_summary_2017.pdf

These are the figures that matter rather than talk of the past.

Some people don’t like facts around here.

pablo128

That's applicants, not tenants?

Melanchthon

pablo128 wrote: »

That's applicants, not tenants?

Your right actually that was an misreading on my part, but it doesn't really make a difference as these are the people that will be housed in any new places that become available.

realitykeeper

I think there is something to be said for bringing back the workhouses.

twowheelsonly

lola85 wrote: »

Rent is proportional to your income but can only be max 200 a month.

Fair play of you can swing it.

:pac:

Gatling wrote: »

For Dublin City Council residents, rent is calculated as 15% of the principal earner’s weekly income which exceeds €32 if it’s a single person and €64 if it’s a couple.

€256 pm for a 3 -5 bed property not bad considering people are paying €1700+ on a 2 bed rental property

I'd imagine that here's not too many getting away with monthly rent that low for a property like that.

https://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/Housing/Rent_Scheme_2011/Documents/Rent%20Scheme%202019.pdf

14dMoney wrote: »

And wouldn't you be pissed if your parents lost the house that they paid for, and there neighbors paying a tenner a week got to stay?

I'll take one of those places for a tenner a week if you can point me in the right direction :cool:

(Refer to above link where the absolute minimum rent is €25.65 based on the minimum SW payment of €203)

Il Fascista wrote: »

Shouldn't we demand that there's some proof that it could work before we implement such a policy?

Mixed housing is already working well in thousands of cases. Working so well in fact that many people don't even know that their neighbours are Social Housing Tenants.

LillySV wrote: »

A feeling of stupidity more like, having to pay a mortgage that crippled you while you’re lazy neighbor sits around getting the same house for free!!

Once again.... if I can't get the house for a tenner quoted above I'll take one of those free ones instead if you can point me in the right direction.

Melanchthon wrote: »

Its been implied in this thread a fair few times that the majority of social housing tenants would be in some form of employment, nobody quoted any figures so I decided to take a look for myself online.

Lets just say that view isn't backed up by the figures I could find. As off 2017, 57.5% of main applicants were unemployed and in receipt of Social welfare payments, only 21.9% were employed (full, part-time or self), these figures can be seen on page 18 fig.2.2 of this report carried out by the housing agency.

https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/sha_summary_2017.pdf

These are the figures that matter rather than talk of the past.

Edit: As pointed out these figures are applicants not tenants, for the purposes of who is going to be moving into any new places these are important figures

Something doesn't quite add up there. I appreciate that there's two years of a difference but the Unemployed register for April this year was 129,700. I find it hard to believe that 54,700 of those (or 42%) are looking for houses from Dublin City Council. Surely they're already housing quite a few of them and surely there's a bigger spread around the country ?

Graces7

realitykeeper wrote: »

I think there is something to be said for bringing back the workhouses.

Have you researched the workhouse ethic? In depth? eg what happened to a family with small children who are committed thereto? Or to old couples?

Do you know the cost, to government, of running a workhouse?

suicide_circus

this would be a non issue if anti social behaviour was actually treated seriously by the county councils and judiciary.

Cause havoc and heartache to your neighbours while in social housing? Back to a hostel with you.

Cant or wont control your kids? Make them wards of the state in Oberstown.

Commit endless crimes? Substantial prison sentences.

I have friends and family in various parts of continental Europe living in apartment blocks and areas with social housing. These issues are virtually non existent because when you act the bollix, cops with guns show up and there are real and immediate consequences.

lola85

suicide_circus wrote: »

this would be a non issue if anti social behaviour was actually treated seriously by the county councils and judiciary.

Cause havoc and heartache to your neighbours while in social housing? Back to a hostel with you.

Cant or wont control your kids? Make them wards of the state in Oberstown.

Commit endless crimes? Substantial prison sentences.

I have friends and family in various parts of continental Europe living in apartment blocks and areas with social housing. These issues are virtually non existent because when you act the bollix, cops with guns show up and there are real and immediate consequences.

Too soft on people who cause problems.

Sure they are the most vulnerable in society we’re told.

Blueshoe

Blame society as a whole for being too soft. No real consequences and endless handouts.

The pussyfied society that is modern Ireland.