Would you buy beside social housing?

lola85

We have spoiled people in this country to the point they expect everything and don’t care about anyone else.

Good luck up the area and removing all benefits and free houses.

SEPT 23 1989

Graces7 wrote: »

Cannot post links but google "fifty council tenants face eviction for rent arrears" Dublin

never going to happen in the current climate

Greyfox

lola85 wrote: »

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.irishexaminer.com/ireland/council-tenants-owe-65m-in-unpaid-rent-437052.html

“Arrears by social housing tenants have doubled in the last eight years, leaving councils owed a staggering €65m in unpaid rent”


Those 50 must owe around a million each.

Apparently though stating honest facts like this is dole bashing or bashing single parents

nthclare

Working class heroes wrote: »

No. I’ll cherry pick away. But thanks for the suggestion.

It's the right time for cherry picking at the moment, there's a great crop this year.

I think it's due to all the rain we had.

Absorption of nutrients and water from the ground....

Deebles McBeebles

lola85 wrote: »

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.irishexaminer.com/ireland/council-tenants-owe-65m-in-unpaid-rent-437052.html

“Arrears by social housing tenants have doubled in the last eight years, leaving councils owed a staggering €65m in unpaid rent”


Those 50 must owe around a million each.

The idea to have rent-free zones is probably smart, if the numbers line up. Why bother chasing money and spending on court costs if its not worth it? I wonder what they mean by "certain areas" though?

Sweet.Science

This is why these tenants hate HAP
You can actually face some consequences for not paying rent

ELM327

AulWan wrote: »

Real working class? What are they?

Where does someone like Claregal fall on your scale of working class?

Real working class are people that work and are self sustainable

Then you have the neauveux riche of the fake working class that live on handouts


65km from GMIT. Boo Hoo. I live 70km from work and not a hope of me getting to san fran this summer. But I pay my way, buying an apartment then now selling it and moving to a house. No Hap, council etc involved.
And I'm on the autism spectrum, ASD, but still manage to self support with gainful employment.

Mad_maxx

AulWan wrote: »

Mad_maxx wrote: »

A third of local authority tenants are in arrears

How many mortgages are in arrears? I believe its somewhere around 14%.

Arrears can happen to anyone, for many reasons. I've fallen into arrears on my mortgage in the past, due to unpaid time off from work due to illness.

Caught up when I recovered and carried on. Such is life.

I don't condone the actions of rogue mortgage holders either but it's apples and oranges, local authority rents cost peanuts

Mad_maxx

Graces7 wrote: »

Mad_maxx wrote: »

A third of local authority tenants are in arrears

Proof please. Thank you

Google is your friend, plenty of articles online

AulWan

ELM327 wrote: »

Real working class are people that work and are self sustainable

Then you have the neauveux riche of the fake working class that live on handouts


65km from GMIT. Boo Hoo. I live 70km from work and not a hope of me getting to san fran this summer. But I pay my way, buying an apartment then now selling it and moving to a house. No Hap, council etc involved.
And I'm on the autism spectrum, ASD, but still manage to self support with gainful employment.

Fake working class my shiny metal ass.

The person you are attacking is in gainful employment, and pays her way. You're nothing special, that has any right to look down at her.

All this boils down to in the end is pure bitterness and begrudgery, nothing more, nothing less.

I feel sorry for people like you, you'll never be happy with that attitude.

Working class heroes

Bluefoam wrote: »

Literally the first link in google... Not my arguement, I just heard about it now... I'm just doing the donkey work for you.

https://reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/84qmsj/source_of_83_iq_minimum_for_the_us_military/

I didn’t ask anyone to do any work for me.
I didn’t make a BS claim. It was up to the poster to back up what was said, not me.

Edit: from what you linked;
“The US military has minimum enlistment standards at about the IQ 85 level. There have been two experiments with lowering this to 80 but in both cases these men could not master soldiering well enough to justify their costs.”
This is reasonable enough, but in no way does it back up what was claimed, I.e. that all people below a certain level of intelligence have no purpose in society.

ELM327

AulWan wrote: »

Fake working class my shiny metal ass.

The person you are attacking is in gainful employment, and pays her way. You're nothing special, that has any right to look down at her.

All this boils down to in the end is pure bitterness and begrudgery, nothing more, nothing less.

I feel sorry for people like you, you'll never be happy with that attitude.

Pays her way, by living in a house heavily subsidized by the state? Yeah, no.


and I never claimed to be anything special, just someone who is not leeching off others

Working class heroes

nthclare wrote: »

It's the right time for cherry picking at the moment, there's a great crop this year.

I think it's due to all the rain we had.

Absorption of nutrients and water from the ground....

True, however, i’d rather have the working class berry AKA the blackberry.

Gatling

Actually was looking at new development recently 5 apartment blocks recently redeveloped and upgraded all round ,
In the same estate there is two separate blocks all privately owned or rented out they look completely run down and in desperate need of paint and general cleaning up .

claregal1

ELM327 wrote: »

Pays her way, by living in a house heavily subsidized by the state? Yeah, no.


and I never claimed to be anything special, just someone who is not leeching off others

I'm sorry that you feel you have to direct that level of anger and bitterness towards me and accuse me of leaching off the state . I've worked all my life , sometimes two jobs and if I get some help towards my accommodation so be it.

It must get very lonely up on that moral high horse you are on . Maybe you could use that 70km journey to work by listening to some mediation tapes, you sound extremely bitter and angry ...it might help you .

One thing I have learnt is that you can't argue with bitterness.

AulWan

Yep, once she is paying whatever rate the council sets, she is paying her way.

And as for taxpayer subsidies I'm sure her two college educated children will soon be paying enough tax and no doubt they will also contribute enough to one day pay your pension as well as their mothers

And if you're so determined on being fully self-supporting, I'm sure you also refuse to accept free education and child benefit, the GP under 6 cards when the day comes and you have children yourself

The Bollocks

Would you buy beside social housing?



I would in my bollocks.

ELM327

AulWan wrote: »

Yep, once she is paying whatever rate the council sets, she is paying her way.

And as for taxpayer subsidies I'm sure her two college educated children will soon be paying enough tax and no doubt they will also contribute enough to one day pay your pension as well as their mothers

And if you're so determined on being fully self-supporting, I'm sure you also refuse to accept free education and child benefit, the GP under 6 cards when the day comes and you have children yourself

college education , probably subsidized via the grant as well as free third level.



As for myself, no children, thankfully, and I was educated in a private secondary school, so only primary school funded by the taxpayer - which I've more than since repaid no doubt

But I digress.
This is it in a nutshell:

The Bollocks wrote: »

Would you buy beside social housing?



I would in my bollocks.

mariaalice

ELM327 wrote: »

college education , probably subsidized via the grant as well as free third level.



As for myself, no children, thankfully, and I was educated in a private secondary school, so only primary school funded by the taxpayer - which I've more than since repaid no doubt

But I digress.
This is it in a nutshell:

Private schools are heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. Teachers salaries are paid by the state.

ELM327

mariaalice wrote: »

Private schools are heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. Teachers salaries are paid by the state.

But at a much lesser rate than public schools.

mariaalice

ELM327 wrote: »

But at a much lesser rate than public schools.

You still had an education in second level that was subsidised by the state/taxpayers.

AulWan

ELM327 wrote: »

college education , probably subsidized via the grant as well as free third level.


As for myself, no children, thankfully, and I was educated in a private secondary school, so only primary school funded by the taxpayer - which I've more than since repaid no doubt

But I digress.
This is it in a nutshell:

You're just digging a bigger hole for yourself here. You come across like you've lots of opinions, but not much in terms of actual life experience, or you'd know it can be a very long road without a turn.

Good luck with that new house you've just bought. I hope when you move in, that you get exactly the kind of neighbours you deserve.

iamwhoiam

ELM327 wrote: »

Pays her way, by living in a house heavily subsidized by the state? Yeah, no.


and I never claimed to be anything special, just someone who is not leeching off others

Well let me tell you I would rather live next door to someone who needs a helping hand but tries hard to raise a family and educate them than live next door to a judgemental , full of their own importance eejit

Samuel T. Cogley

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Well let me tell you I would rather live next door to someone who needs a helping hand but tries hard to raise a family and educate them than live next door to a judgemental , full of their own importance eejit

Problem is the ones who aren't trying and see education as a joke.

Graces7

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Google is your friend, plenty of articles online

exactly the evasive response expected from thee... says it all :eek:

Graces7

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Problem is the ones who aren't trying and see education as a joke.

the negativity is astounding.

Mr. Arkadin

listermint wrote: »

Grew up in social housing.

Am I a bad person?

Must be my degree and my wife's degree and our top rate tax jobs that make us bad.


Oh she grew up in social housing too. We own our own place now as do our parents. It was a great step start for everyone's life's.

Why do you hate people? Are you better than us ? Go on answer it be honest.

Silly post.

I'm from a very rough part of town. We're hoping to buy our first home sometime in the next two years and there's just no way I'd live anywhere next to social housing.

Home is always home and I've never felt ashamed of where I'm from, but I have over 35 years experience of what social housing can look like when there's a bad group of people in place.

I've been renting in a lovely little private estate for nearly 12 years now and the worst I've had to deal with is my neighbour's overhanging trees. Compare that to my home place where my Mam is afraid to open her front door when she's at home alone.

Let's get real here.

sbsquarepants

Working class heroes wrote: »

I didn’t ask anyone to do any work for me.
I didn’t make a BS claim. It was up to the poster to back up what was said, not me.

Edit: from what you linked;
“The US military has minimum enlistment standards at about the IQ 85 level. There have been two experiments with lowering this to 80 but in both cases these men could not master soldiering well enough to justify their costs.”
This is reasonable enough, but in no way does it back up what was claimed, I.e. that all people below a certain level of intelligence have no purpose in society.

You must have some sort of skin in the game here to be so touchy?

For the record - i didn't make any bullshít claim, i just recounted an article i read somewhere (i still don't remember where, before you ask). I also didn't say they had no purpose in society, i said they wouldn't contribute (as in they will likely cost the state more than they will pay into it over the course of their lives). I am however happy enough to state that as unproven claims go, i think that one's a safe enough bet.

Are you suggesting otherwise? Or are you just in an argumentative mood or what?

sbsquarepants

ELM327 wrote: »

As for myself, no children, thankfully, and I was educated in a private secondary school, so only primary school funded by the taxpayer - which I've more than since repaid no doubt

Your primary, secondary and tertiary education were all very heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, your parents no doubt also received childrens allowance for you (which they clearly didn't need), you're getting substantial tax breaks on your pension and so on. Your life of pure contribution to the system is very much exaggerated. You possibly are a net contributor by this stage, but you certainly didn't go it alone anywhere near as much as you seem to think!

ELM327

AulWan wrote: »

You're just digging a bigger hole for yourself here. You come across like you've lots of opinions, but not much in terms of actual life experience, or you'd know it can be a very long road without a turn.

Good luck with that new house you've just bought. I hope when you move in, that you get exactly the kind of neighbours you deserve.

See, when you work really hard and contribute to society, through the magic of capitalism, you get to choose where you live. Some houses are even surrounded by land where you don't have neighbors at all! Thankfully it will isolate me from the great unwashed where I can relax of a friday evening with her who must be obeyed, a fine whiskey, and a nice rant of why socialism is wrong. Bliss.

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Well let me tell you I would rather live next door to someone who needs a helping hand but tries hard to raise a family and educate them than live next door to a judgemental , full of their own importance eejit

I'd rather my scenario above than living in a practically free (but heavily state subsidized) house hearing the next door neighbor banging his ugly wife to create more children that they cannot afford without state intervention or hearing the children scratching my car.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Problem is the ones who aren't trying and see education as a joke.

Exactly

ELM327

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Your primary, secondary and tertiary education were all very heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, your parents no doubt also received childrens allowance for you (which they clearly didn't need), you're getting substantial tax breaks on your pension and so on. Your life of pure contribution to the system is very much exaggerated. You possibly are a net contributor by this stage, but you certainly didn't go it alone anywhere near as much as you seem to think!

Indeed, primary was state funded, secondary the teacher salary was funded, tertiary education the same. I don't have a pension yet but I will do shortly.


I never claimed pure contributor - net contributor is sufficient. My effective tax rate as per my P60 for the last few years was between 29 and 35 percent. So I've already repaid all my educational costs and then some by my reckoning. At this stage I and my ilk are funding the housing and lifestyle choices of those we complain about.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Anyone “needing” children’s allowance shouldn’t be having children because they can’t afford them. Every child in the state should be equal, so what’s given to one should be given to all.

mariaalice

ELM327 wrote: »

Indeed, primary was state funded, secondary the teacher salary was funded, tertiary education the same. I don't have a pension yet but I will do shortly.


I never claimed pure contributor - net contributor is sufficient. My effective tax rate as per my P60 for the last few years was between 29 and 35 percent. So I've already repaid all my educational costs and then some by my reckoning. At this stage I and my ilk are funding the housing and lifestyle choices of those we complain about.

What do you work at? you dont seem to understand the society you live, you will never have and never could pay back via tax all you receive form the state. The minute you step outside the door of your home you are using the infrastructure provided by the state and that is just the beginging.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

mariaalice wrote: »

What do you work at? you dont seem to understand the society you live, you will never have and never could pay back via tax all you receive form the state. The minute you step outside the door of your home you are using the infrastructure provided by the state and that is just the beginging.

And who’s better entitled to use it than someone contributing to it?

B_ecke_r

went to see a new build last weekend and some of the gardens of the people alrady living there were a disgrace,

rubbish bags and waste all over the front garden.

obviously don't know if they were social tenants but I'd be surprised if they weren't.

sbsquarepants

ELM327 wrote: »

Indeed, primary was state funded, secondary the teacher salary was funded, tertiary education the same. I don't have a pension yet but I will do shortly.


I never claimed pure contributor - net contributor is sufficient. My effective tax rate as per my P60 for the last few years was between 29 and 35 percent. So I've already repaid all my educational costs and then some by my reckoning. At this stage I and my ilk are funding the housing and lifestyle choices of those we complain about.

I don't know what age you are or what you earn, but it would be interesting to see an actual calculation of what you've cost v what you've paid in, i think you might be surprised. Education is far from the only expense you've put on the system. There's a road leading to your house I pressume, it has running water, there's probably streetlights and so on. Have you ever stayed in a hospital I pressume you were born in one at a bare minimum, been to a doctor, gone to a dentist (i know you paid, but you probably claimed some expenses back and in any case think what it would have cost if you they had to pay for their own eductation?) Then there's the general apparatus of the state, the courts, the emergency services and so - unless you have your own version of all these things then you've benefited from the ones the state provide.

Cecelia Refined Sewing wrote: »

Anyone “needing” children’s allowance shouldn’t be having children because they can’t afford them. Every child in the state should be equal, so what’s given to one should be given to all.

What a pile of shíte!

Bluefoam

I visited a brand new estate last night, landscaping finished recently, very good mix of buyers... Small amount of social tenants compared with buyers.

The newly planted trees have been destroyed, snapped in half. Last night while I was standing outside having a chat, two kids (about 14ish maybe) went to the playground and were jumping on the structures in a violent way... not actually playing as intended. One of the house owners went out to them to give out & while he was speaking to them one of the children jumped onto a new tree and snapped it. The kids in question are social, the parents in the area are affraid to let their own children out because of them. These social tenants aren't benefitting from living in a good community, they are bringing it down.

The idea of saving for 15 years, struggling to get your finances together against the high rent you have to pay... to finally move into your dream house and then have to deal with scumbags like this is awful. Its not acceptable, it's not anyones fault except the parents. It's certainly not my fault.

I'm an idealist & believe strongly in a socially run society. I believe in free education, health, leisure resources, housing... but when a small group of people abuse the situation, they should be stopped, no sympathy, let them **** right off. This is not a rant against social housing recipients, this is a rant against abusibve scumbags who take advantage of societys good nature and throw it back at them. The few are effecting those in need.

ELM327

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I don't know what age you are or what you earn, but it would be interesting to see an actual calculation of what you've cost v what you've paid in, i think you might be surprised. Education is far from the only expense you've put on the system. There's a road leading to your house I pressume, it has running water, there's probably streetlights and so on. Have you ever stayed in a hospital I pressume you were born in one at a bare minimum, been to a doctor, gone to a dentist (i know you paid, but you probably claimed some expenses back and in any case think what it would have cost if you they had to pay for their own eductation?) Then there's the general apparatus of the state, the courts, the emergency services and so - unless you have your own version of all these things then you've benefited from the ones the state provide.



What a pile of shíte!

Doctor - costs me €55, of which I can claim back €30 from my private (€1400 pa) health insurance. People on JA get this free.
Water - Currently funded by motor tax as per legislation. However when we move it is to a house with a well.
Roads - I pay motor tax which is for upkeep of roads.
Street lights are funded by part of the standing charge you pay on your energy bill. I worked in energy pricing and we bid for the street lighting contracts before they went to energia or vayu.


I stayed in hospitals a couple of times but always paid, either the €100 charge or alternatively health insurance paid.


Courts etc are funded from general taxation, which I am a lot more likely to fund than some lifer on the dole.




This presumption that we all get back more than we contribute is a logical fallacy. It's only true for the lower socioeconomic classes.

ELM327

Cecelia Refined Sewing wrote: »

And who’s better entitled to use it than someone contributing to it?

+1

mariaalice wrote: »

What do you work at? you dont seem to understand the society you live, you will never have and never could pay back via tax all you receive form the state. The minute you step outside the door of your home you are using the infrastructure provided by the state and that is just the beginging.

I work as a credit risk analyst, focusing on macroeconomics.

Cecelia Refined Sewing wrote: »

Anyone “needing” children’s allowance shouldn’t be having children because they can’t afford them. Every child in the state should be equal, so what’s given to one should be given to all.

We shouldnt be funding procreation at all. Children's allowance disproportionately encourages the less well off to have more children. The reason for children's allowance is to fund pensions down the line (we are estimated to transition from 5:1 to 2:1 workers pensioner ratio soon), but as proven by various studies, children of social welfare families are more likely to themselves live on Social Welfare. Like begat like, and supported by empirical evidence.

Bluefoam

ELM327 wrote: »

Doctor - costs me €55, of which I can claim back €30 from my private (€1400 pa) health insurance. People on JA get this free.
Water - Currently funded by motor tax as per legislation. However when we move it is to a house with a well.
Roads - I pay motor tax which is for upkeep of roads.
Street lights are funded by part of the standing charge you pay on your energy bill. I worked in energy pricing and we bid for the street lighting contracts before they went to energia or vayu.


I stayed in hospitals a couple of times but always paid, either the €100 charge or alternatively health insurance paid.


Courts etc are funded from general taxation, which I am a lot more likely to fund than some lifer on the dole.




This presumption that we all get back more than we contribute is a logical fallacy. It's only true for the lower socioeconomic classes.

Just to be pedantic, roads are paid out of the general tax intake. Motor tax is a punitive tax that is based on the damage you do to the environment and infrastructure... It doesn't actually pay directly for your use of the roads.

claregal1

As a social housing tenant..would I buy in a council estate myself if I had the opportunity. The answer is no .

Like others have said on this , the majority of tenants are decent hard working people and in my estate of 140 houses it is probably only 20 of those houses who cause all the trouble .

For the ones like myself , it's hard work rearing a family on your own constantly trying to keep an eye on the kids and to keep them away from trouble and ensure they don't get in with the wrong crowd . ( Local GAA club and soccer teams were a lifesaver for my kids to keep them busy )

I didn't just wake up one day and decide I was going to be a single parent and live in a council house ..life happened . Thankfully my kids have came good and believe it or not as someone who is only 40 I do aim some day to leave this estate behind me and hopefully purchase my own home which now my kids are out earning themselves might happen sooner rather than later as I'm now in permanent employment and can save more . But I will always be grateful for having a council house and the help I received .

dublinjock

I grew up on a Council estate in Dundee, Scotland and i dont think we ever had any issues.
When i brought my first place it was in a nice area. The issue was the people was not so nice.

I think you have good and bad no matter where you go.
I have to admit i have never had a neighbour from hell.

ELM327

Bluefoam wrote: »

Just to be pedantic, roads are paid out of the general tax intake. Motor tax is a punitive tax that is based on the damage you do to the environment and infrastructure... It doesn't actually pay directly for your use of the roads.

I understand, hence the differing nomenclature between road tax and motor tax, but the premise remains the same.

Graces7

claregal1 wrote: »

I'm sorry that you feel you have to direct that level of anger and bitterness towards me and accuse me of leaching off the state . I've worked all my life , sometimes two jobs and if I get some help towards my accommodation so be it.

It must get very lonely up on that moral high horse you are on . Maybe you could use that 70km journey to work by listening to some mediation tapes, you sound extremely bitter and angry ...it might help you .

One thing I have learnt is that you can't argue with bitterness.

As always in these threads some have no idea what the Irish State is about. ie the richer support the poorer so that as in your commendable life, all can live more safely and more fairly/

Easier for me to understand as we in the UK learned this directly after the War when a large percentage of housing etc had been destroyed. I lived in private housing but my schoolmate were from many areas and varied housing and there was none of this attitude

sbsquarepants

ELM327 wrote: »

Doctor - costs me €55, of which I can claim back €30 from my private (€1400 pa) health insurance. People on JA get this free.

Other people getting it free, doesn't mean you aren't being subsidised - just not as much

ELM327 wrote: »

Water - Currently funded by motor tax as per legislation. However when we move it is to a house with a well.

.

And a road, and access to the national grid and so on and so on. There's no way around it - unless you are building this house on your own private island you are using the states infrastructure.

ELM327 wrote: »

Roads - I pay motor tax which is for upkeep of roads.

Have you bought many roads lately - they are quite pricey!

ELM327 wrote: »

Street lights are funded by part of the standing charge you pay on your energy bill. I worked in energy pricing and we bid for the street lighting contracts before they went to energia or vayu.

Part funded, hmmmm. And the other part comes from....???

ELM327 wrote: »

I stayed in hospitals a couple of times but always paid, either the €100 charge or alternatively health insurance paid.

So what percentage of the hospital, it's staff, their training and equipment do you think your €100 covered? Let's even say you needed some life saving operation, your insurance picked up the tab - your insurance company didn't build that hospital, it didn't train those doctors, it doesn't pay their wages.

Now lets even pretend it did do all those things, not a cent of taxpayers money used at any stage for any reason - even if it did, and this is the crucial part you seem to be missing - your 1,400 didn't pay for your treatment, other peoples did!

ELM327 wrote: »

Courts etc are funded from general taxation, which I am a lot more likely to fund than some lifer on the dole.

True. At present you're putting more in to the kitty than some lifelong doley, but there's no guarantee that will always be the case, you could have a car crash for example, you could contract some rare disease, or some common cancer, requiring some life long medicine or something and end up being an enormous net drain on the state. You are extraordinarily naive in your thinking.

ELM327 wrote: »

This presumption that we all get back more than we contribute is a logical fallacy. It's only true for the lower socioeconomic classes.

ELM327 wrote: »

Of course it's a fallacy, but only barely - something like 45% of Irish people are net drains on the state.

ELM327 wrote: »

I work as a credit risk analyst, focusing on macroeconomics.

Really?

ELM327 wrote: »

We shouldnt be funding procreation at all. Children's allowance disproportionately encourages the less well off to have more children. The reason for children's allowance is to fund pensions down the line (we are estimated to transition from 5:1 to 2:1 workers pensioner ratio soon), but as proven by various studies, children of social welfare families are more likely to themselves live on Social Welfare. Like begat like, and supported by empirical evidence.

I've a sneaking suspicion that when you do have kids you'll be the very one arguing that the state simple has to do something to help working parents!

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

As far as I know the benefits system in the UK is nowhere near as generous as the Republic of Ireland so I’m unsure what you mean Grace? As surely the brits are not giving every free loader a piggy back through life as they learned their place during the war

AulWan

ELM327 wrote: »

See, when you work really hard and contribute to society, through the magic of capitalism, you get to choose where you live. Some houses are even surrounded by land where you don't have neighbors at all! Thankfully it will isolate me from the great unwashed where I can relax of a friday evening with her who must be obeyed, a fine whiskey, and a nice rant of why socialism is wrong. Bliss.

Unless you're buying up multiple acres surrounding you and building a trump like wall to keep others out, there are no guarantees. In fact, a lot of opinions on this forum is that any new social housing should be built outside of Dublin and everyone who is not working be relocated to rural areas. As I said, I hope it keeps fine for you.

In the meantime, you being isolated away from other people is probably for the best choice for everyone.

Anti-social neighbours don't just come in the shape of loud, drunk, or jobless. Oh no.

There are two extremes at play here, and you are the opposite end. I'd put money on it that you'd be that neighbour who watches everything their neighbours do, and moans about the value of your house being affected on a regular basis, and would be the first one to complain if someone parks on the road outside your house or the local kids are kicking a ball on the green past 6pm. No one wants to live beside that either.

ELM327

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Other people getting it free, doesn't mean you aren't being subsidised - just not as much

.

And a road, and access to the national grid and so on and so on. There's no way around it - unless you are building this house on your own private island you are using the states infrastructure.



Have you bought many roads lately - they are quite pricey!



Part funded, hmmmm. And the other part comes from....???





So what percentage of the hospital, it's staff, their training and equipment do you think your €100 covered? Let's even say you needed some life saving operation, your insurance picked up the tab - your insurance company didn't build that hospital, it didn't train those doctors, it doesn't pay their wages.

Now lets even pretend it did do all those things, not a cent of taxpayers money used at any stage for any reason - even if it did, and this is the crucial part you seem to be missing - your 1,400 didn't pay for your treatment, other peoples did!





True. At present you're putting more in to the kitty than some lifelong doley, but there's no guarantee that will always be the case, you could have a car crash for example, you could contract some rare disease, or some common cancer, requiring some life long medicine or something and end up being an enormous net drain on the state. You are extraordinarily naive in your thinking.






Of course it's a fallacy, but only barely - something like 45% of Irish people are net drains on the state.





Really?



I've a sneaking suspicion that when you do have kids you'll be the very one arguing that the state simple has to do something to help working parents!

Many points here, I will not have children so you can rule that one out. Yes really I work in macroeconomic risk analytics. Before that I worked in energy pricing. God forbid if I do have some sort of debilitating injury , my vhi and income continuance schemes will cover it. Access to the national grid is profitable for ESB distribution and transmission, this is not an industry where there is any government subvention. The esb (both networks and supply businesses) provide surplus to the state, not the other way around. I get less back from my insurance than I pay in now, but it's there as a "what if". Same as, once I move house, I will re-join my company pension scheme where 7% gets matched, to provide for my retirement.

ELM327

AulWan wrote: »

Unless you're buying up multiple acres surrounding you and building a trump like wall to keep others out, there are no guarantees. In fact, a lot of opinions on this forum is that any new social housing should be built outside of Dublin and everyone who is not working be relocated to rural areas. As I said, I hope it keeps fine for you.

In the meantime, you being isolated away from other people is probably for the best choice for everyone.

Anti-social neighbours don't just come in the shape of loud, drunk, or jobless. Oh no.

There are two extremes at play here, and you are the opposite end. I'd put money on it that you'd be that neighbour who watches everything their neighbours do, and moans about the value of your house being affected on a regular basis, and would be the first one to complain if someone parks on the road outside your house or the local kids are kicking a ball on the green past 6pm. No one wants to live beside that either.

1.5 acres surrounded by old trees and farmland. When you drive past you can't see the house from the trees, literally.

I'm perfectly happy to take your baseless derision, if it means I don't have to be surrounded by you (or anyone).

AulWan

ELM327 wrote: »

1.5 acres surrounded by old trees and farmland. When you drive past you can't see the house from the trees, literally.

I'm perfectly happy to take your baseless derision, if it means I don't have to be surrounded by you (or anyone).

Does it also have an ivory tower? :rolleyes: