Would you buy beside social housing?

superflyninja

I grew up in a council house also, so definitely not tarring all social residents with the same brush.
I was the first of my family to go to university and get a degree.
Bought a house in a new,private estate in the big shmoke. No problem with the standard 10% social allocation.
Things changed however when the percentage of social rose to soemthing in the region of 30 or 40%.
Zero problems with the majority but as usual there are a few bad apples ruining things for everyone and giving social housing a bad name. For every 100 honest,decent people living in social there is always that one.....
On the flip side there are some undeniably rotten private owners.
IMO a problem private owner's behaviour has a low chance of directly affecting me,but problem social residents cause issues for the entire estate. Running out in front of cars, destroying playgrounds, general vandalism etc.
Based on experience, to be honest no I wouldnt buy beside social housing.

ELM327

AulWan wrote: »

Does it also have an ivory tower? :rolleyes:

No but again through the fruits of my labour I can fund one if I decide to.

AulWan

ELM327 wrote: »

No but again through the fruits of my labour I can fund one if I decide to.

Living the dream. Or merely dreaming. I wonder which.

Marhay70

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).

Is this Jacob Rees-Mogg?

sbsquarepants

ELM327 wrote: »

God forbid if I do have some sort of debilitating injury , my vhi and income continuance schemes will cover it.

And you'd be treated where? In a VHI built hospital, staffed by VHI trained doctors is it, full of VHI purchased machines and so on? Or would you be relying on state help yet again?
And still you miss the point that even if they could treat you with those type of staff in those types of institutions, you'd still be benefiting from other peoples payments, people who didn't get sick, or have accidents or whatever. You would not be shouldering the bill, not even close. You might end up paying .000001% of the cost or something like that but it would be absolutely negligible in the scheme of things.
But sure if it makes you feel good to say you paid for it all out of your hard earned, you go ahead - just don't expect anyone with an ounce of sense to agree with you.

ELM327 wrote: »

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.

After your years of working in energy pricing are you aware who owns the national grid? Do you think esb or whatever the hell they call themselves now could sell their electricity to you without using state infrastructure?

ELM327 wrote: »

I get less back from my insurance than I pay in now, but it's there as a "what if".

Exactly, so you accept that you could switch from contributor to drain very easily and very quickly given the wrong set of circumstances.

ELM327 wrote: »

Same as, once I move house, I will re-join my company pension scheme where 7% gets matched, to provide for my retirement.

You'll also be availing of the tax break on payments in i take it?

All in all you're either just a wind up merchant or a very deluded individual!

Graces7

Cecelia Refined Sewing wrote: »

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

:eek: "free loader" is not in my vocabulary so maybe rephrase? I am sure you understand very well of course. Have a nice afternoon!

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Graces7 wrote: »

:eek: "free loader" is not in my vocabulary so maybe rephrase? I am sure you understand very well of course. Have a nice afternoon!

Sorry grace; expecting the rest of society to give you a piggy back and fund your lifestyle.

Graces7

Cecelia Refined Sewing wrote: »

Sorry grace; expecting the rest of society to give you a piggy back and fund your lifestyle.

Again, ,terminology that is not worthy of your intelligence or integrity to use . .

Does not compute .

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Graces7 wrote: »

Again, ,terminology that is not worthy of your intelligence or integrity to use . .

Does not compute . And I am not being facetious.

With all due respect Grace, there isn’t much I can do about people taking offense to an accurate description of a serious issue.

Ush1

sbsquarepants wrote: »

And you'd be treated where? In a VHI built hospital, staffed by VHI trained doctors is it, full of VHI purchased machines and so on? Or would you be relying on state help yet again?
And still you miss the point that even if they could treat you with those type of staff in those types of institutions, you'd still be benefiting from other peoples payments, people who didn't get sick, or have accidents or whatever. You would not be shouldering the bill, not even close. You might end up paying .000001% of the cost or something like that but it would be absolutely negligible in the scheme of things.
But sure if it makes you feel good to say you paid for it all out of your hard earned, you go ahead - just don't expect anyone with an ounce of sense to agree with you.



After your years of working in energy pricing are you aware who owns the national grid? Do you think esb or whatever the hell they call themselves now could sell their electricity to you without using state infrastructure?



Exactly, so you accept that you could switch from contributor to drain very easily and very quickly given the wrong set of circumstances.



You'll also be availing of the tax break on payments in i take it?

All in all you're either just a wind up merchant or a very deluded individual!

So if tax payers aren't paying for all that stuff.....who is?

ELM327

Ush1 wrote: »

So if tax payers aren't paying for all that stuff.....who is?

No point talking logic to those lefties tbh, I get ridiculed for complaining about funding their lifestyle.

Graces7

Cecelia Refined Sewing wrote: »

With all due respect Grace, there isn’t much I can do about people taking offense to an accurate description of a serious issue.

I took and take no offence. As long as I treat others with respect? Accurate ? Not. Very skewed and unkind. Serious issue? Then treat it seriously not flippantly. Not insultingly. It achieves nothing.

You wrote so evocatively about hungry children. Then do something? If anyone in a society that sees itself as better than others knows there are children going hungry and does nothing? That was why I mentioned feeding programmes in schools. As a former teacher I am all too aware that a hungry child becomes a problem and unhealthy child which will perpetuate the problems you perceive into the next generation and beyond.

Supporting the victims of what you see as a "serious problem" must be second nature if you see yourselves as caring and responsible citizens.

Does not matter why they are hungry; they are hungry is all that matters., Something we have involved in for decades.

Not this …. well I hesitate t o use the words that come to mind! Throwing insults around. And defying the law and social system of the land.

OK; I am done here. Read enough, seen the trends. Seen so much goodness and so much the reverse

Enjoy the sunshine... free for everyone after all..

Working class heroes

sbsquarepants wrote: »

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?

No skin in the game.
I only asked you to back up what you claimed. If you can’t/won’t do that i’ll assume BS.
You might think what you claimed is a safe enough bet, I certainly do not.
BTW just because someone disagrees with you or goes against a certain mindset doesn’t make them argumentative.

As per the subject of the thread I can see valid arguments on both sides. But what you and one or two others posted bordered on vile.

I’ll leave it at that.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Oh don’t worry Grace, I am confident I am very respectful but I don’t need to show my respect by carrying other people financially.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Graces7 wrote: »

I took and take no offence. As long as I treat others with respect? Accurate ? Not. Very skewed and unkind. Serious issue? Then treat it seriously not flippantly. Not insultingly. It achieves nothing.

You wrote so evocatively about hungry children. So very evocatively. Then do something? If anyone in a society that sees itself as better than others knows there are children going hungry and does nothing? That was why I mentioned feeding programmes in schools. As a former teacher I am all too aware that a hungry child becomes a problem and unhealthy child which will perpetuate the problems you perceive into the next generation and beyond.

Supporting the victims of what you see as a "serious problem" must be second nature if you see yourselves as caring and responsible citizens.

Does not matter why they are hungry; they are hungry is all that matters., Something we have involved in for decades.

Not this …. well I hesitate t o use the words that come to mind! Throwing insults around. And clerly not understanding or accepting the social system of the land.

That is my take on this.

OK; I am done here. Read enough, seen the trends. Seen so much goodness and so much the reverse

Enjoy the sunshine... free for everyone after all..

And I am responsible in regards to hungry children, I cut my cloth according to my measure, I will have the family I can afford to have and I won’t take any responsibility for children I had no part in creating, they have parents of their own and if their parents are not up to the job they should be placed in a home that can adequately cater to their needs.

Rubberchikken

no but only because the more houses the greater chance id have of having to endure muppets.

Ted_YNWA

Graces7 wrote: »

:eek: "free loader" is not in my vocabulary so maybe rephrase? Politely of course..I am sure you understand very well . Have a nice afternoon!

Cecelia Refined Sewing wrote: »

Sorry grace; expecting the rest of society to give you a piggy back and fund your lifestyle.

Graces7 wrote: »

Again, ,terminology that is not worthy of your intelligence or integrity to use . .

Does not compute . And I am not being facetious.

Cecelia Refined Sewing wrote: »

With all due respect Grace, there isn’t much I can do about people taking offense to an accurate description of a serious issue.

Just like living next to people, you have to be respectful to them.

The same applies on here.

Grace7 - please do not question the intelligence of any boards user.

sbsquarepants

Ush1 wrote: »

So if tax payers aren't paying for all that stuff.....who is?

Of course tax payers are paying for it. Tax payers is quite a broad term.

Apple pays tax, google pays tax, tourists pay tax, all manner of people and organisations pay tax, it's not the sole preserve of PAYE workers. I don't have the figures (before anyone asks) but common sense will tell you that there must be precious few, if any people on this island who have actually fully "paid their way".

We all very much benefit, much as we like to complain!

sbsquarepants

Working class heroes wrote: »

As per the subject of the thread I can see valid arguments on both sides. But what you and one or two others posted bordered on vile.

.

All i said was i read an article. Try maintain some perspective ffs!

Working class heroes

sbsquarepants wrote: »

All i said was i read an article. Try maintain some perspective ffs!

Nah. Saying you read an article doesn’t cut it. That’s the perspective I’ll maintain if you don’t mind.

end of the road

Cecelia Refined Sewing wrote: »

Oh don’t worry Grace, I am confident I am very respectful but I don’t need to show my respect by carrying other people financially.

everyone of us is carrying each other financially. that may be a hard pill for some to take, but it is the reality.
everyone of us benefit either to a great or less extent, from public services, paid for by the tax payer. on an individual basis, we don't pay the full costs of our use, or potential use.
if you are against carrying people financially, then the only way to solve that issue is to not pay tax, however, expect that to not end well for you, as is completely correct.

Lollipops23

end of the road wrote: »

if you are against carrying people financially, then the only way to solve that issue is to not pay tax, however, expect that to not end well for you, as is completely correct.

BS- I am 100% fine with my taxes helping people who have been dealt a sh*t hand in life, have fallen on hard times or even had a bout of ill health. That's what welfare is there for and it should be simple to claim for those who meet the criteria.

I am not ok with propping up some young one who can't stop having kids, has no inclination to educate and better her job prospects and plans to leech the system for the rest of her days.

Same goes for the aul lad who's been 'on the sick' for the last 20 years with no discernible illness.

end of the road

Lollipops23 wrote: »

BS- I am 100% fine with my taxes helping people who have been dealt a sh*t hand in life, have fallen on hard times or even had a bout of ill health. That's what welfare is there for and it should be simple to claim for those who meet the criteria.

I am not ok with propping up some young one who can't stop having kids, has no inclination to educate and better her job prospects and plans to leech the system for the rest of her days.

Same goes for the aul lad who's been 'on the sick' for the last 20 years with no discernible illness.

none of us are okay with proping up the second 2 groups.
however, there do not seem to really be any actual viable options other then what we have, at least not ones that don't involve potentially spending a lot more money, but for what would quite likely be, a lesser return then what we get currently, which in some cases isn't even any way decent, but is IMO much better then what we could get with other options.

suicide_circus

Achebe wrote: »

The amount of open classism on this thread is very saddening.

Classism? as in being a Class Act?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

end of the road wrote: »

none of us are okay with proping up the second 2 groups.
however, there do not seem to really be any actual viable options other then what we have, at least not ones that don't involve potentially spending a lot more money, but for what would quite likely be, a lesser return then what we get currently, which in some cases isn't even any way decent, but is IMO much better then what we could get with other options.

Viable options is let them fend for themselves. Wanna stay home all day? Absolutely you can, but you don’t get welfare.

end of the road

Cecelia Refined Sewing wrote: »

Viable options is let them fend for themselves. Wanna stay home all day? Absolutely you can, but you don’t get welfare.

which leads to potentially a huge increase in crime, and costs, potentially much bigger then simply throwing a few quid to them, to deal with that crime increase. that means less money for other services for all of us.

ILoveYourVibes

Sure ..but i wanna live in a mansion beside the social housing.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

end of the road wrote: »

which leads to potentially a huge increase in crime, and costs, potentially much bigger then simply throwing a few quid to them, to deal with that crime increase. that means less money for other services for all of us.

We should deal with crime accordingly, not throw money at them.

beejee

The councils idea of "affordable" housing is to reduce the "market rate" by 40%, so now a 3 bed will ONLY cost 50000000000000k, all to live in the redeveloped.... O'devaney gardens!!!

Beggars can't be choosers, and this country's property market is about to set an Olympic diving record

end of the road

Cecelia Refined Sewing wrote: »

We should deal with crime accordingly, not throw money at them.

we should of course deal with crime where and when it arrises.
however, if throwing the wellfare lifers a few quid reduces the risk, and is cheaper then having to possibly vastly increase resources beyond what would genuinely be needed, which we are no where near, then ultimately, that is what we have to do, given we have other priorities and services that need money also.
simply leaving the wellfare lifers to their own devices is appealing to some, and i get why, but it's just not viable.

Filmer Paradise

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Sure ..but i wanna live in a mansion beside the social housing.

Lord Above....:rolleyes:

sbsquarepants

Working class heroes wrote: »

Nah. Saying you read an article doesn’t cut it. That’s the perspective I’ll maintain if you don’t mind.

Maintain away :rolleyes:


Story from yesterdays paper (if it's ok to for me to repeat it with appropriate citations that is:D)

"Affordable" apartments for sale in O'Devaney Gardens redevelopment - 3 bedroom apartment at 40% discount will be on sale for €420,000. For this a couple will need 42k in savings and combined earnings of 108k.

Bluefoam

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Maintain away :rolleyes:


Story from yesterdays paper (if it's ok to for me to repeat it with appropriate citations that is:D)

"Affordable" apartments for sale in O'Devaney Gardens redevelopment - 3 bedroom apartment at 40% discount will be on sale for €420,000. For this a couple will need 42k in savings and combined earnings of 108k.

When quoting articles please provide a link.

ELM327

Bluefoam wrote: »

When quoting articles please provide a link.

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/anger-over-affordable-redevelopment-where-buyers-will-need-to-earn-at-least-108k-per-year-and-have-42k-savings-38489598.html

But his link is only quoting half the story:
"The cheapest affordable properties at the site, two-bedroom houses, will still cost at least €270,000, meaning a household will have to earn almost €70,000 a year to buy one."
That's 2 * less than average wages

Kiith

end of the road wrote: »

simply leaving the wellfare lifers to their own devices is appealing to some, and i get why, but it's just not viable.

Where does it end though? They have been abusing the system for years, and they keep getting away with it. More money for sitting at home? Sure thing. Pump out a bunch of kids and get full cover for them? No problem. Want a free house at tax payers expense? Whatever you need.

Welfare is absolutely required in all countries. People fall on hard times, and need a helping hand. It happens to a lot of people, and these people shouldn't be punished for it. But there is a lot of people in Ireland who abuse the **** out of the system, and then the people in charge seem scared to ever call them out on it and actually do something about it.

I'm sick of seeing these leeches take absolutely everything they can get out of the system, while giving absolutely nothing back. And it's not going to change if we just say "Ah sure they'll become criminals if we don't give them what they want". Let them become criminals, and **** them in jail when they do.

It may be selfish of me, but when i work 40-50 hours a week and struggle to get by month by month, with no chance of coming even close to saving for a house, and then i see people ****ing bitch and moan that they are "entitled" to a free house, it boils my ****ing blood.

Ugh, rant over :mad:

end of the road

Kiith wrote: »

Where does it end though? They have been abusing the system for years, and they keep getting away with it. More money for sitting at home? Sure thing. Pump out a bunch of kids and get full cover for them? No problem. Want a free house at tax payers expense? Whatever you need.

there are no free houses, but subsidized houses, and those who do get subsidized housing won't get whatever they want or need. having multiple children is technically not abusing the system. abusing the system would be fraudulently gaining money from the system. such as for example, working while claiming the dole where not entitled to do so, or claiming to have a disability where it is the case that you don't.

Kiith wrote: »

Welfare is absolutely required in all countries. People fall on hard times, and need a helping hand. It happens to a lot of people, and these people shouldn't be punished for it. But there is a lot of people in Ireland who abuse the **** out of the system, and then the people in charge seem scared to ever call them out on it and actually do something about it.

they are actually doing something about it when they can. however, they are not going to be able to get to everyone with the resources they have. and as people are understandibly unwilling to help them, then what little bit they do and can do, is all that can get done.

Kiith wrote: »

I'm sick of seeing these leeches take absolutely everything they can get out of the system, while giving absolutely nothing back. And it's not going to change if we just say "Ah sure they'll become criminals if we don't give them what they want". Let them become criminals, and **** them in jail when they do.

it isn't going to change because the money and resources we have, have to be used and spent wisely. simply letting people become criminals is all well and good but it is we who end up suffering, and we likely end up with increased costs over all to deal with the problem.
if there was a way to deal with the few wellfare abusers that cost little, and actually stopped them abusing and causing other problems, then that would be great, but from what i can see, there isn't. so unfortunately it is a case of going with the least worst option.

Kiith wrote: »

It may be selfish of me, but when i work 40-50 hours a week and struggle to get by month by month, with no chance of coming even close to saving for a house, and then i see people ****ing bitch and moan that they are "entitled" to a free house, it boils my ****ing blood.

Ugh, rant over

if it boils your blood, it means you are to focused on and obsessed with such people, and you need to step back.
none of us are happy about such people, but most of us have our own lives and other actual problems and issues of our own to focus on.

ec18

no

Fr. Pat Noise

The original question still remains- would you buy beside social housing? No one would voluntarily buy beside it seems to be the answer for all.

Working class heroes

Fr. Pat Noise wrote: »

The original question still remains- would you buy beside social housing? No one would voluntarily buy beside it seems to be the answer for all.

Not for me.

Fr. Pat Noise

Working class heroes wrote: »

Not for me.

So if working class hero won the lotto he’d buy a house in or about a council estate. I don’t think so.

stratowide

I think the key word in the question is "buy".

I'd rent/house share or whatever..but buy a house...ehhh that's a no.

Fr. Pat Noise

stratowide wrote: »

I think the key word in the question is "buy".

I'd rent/house share or whatever..but buy a house...ehhh that's a no.

True

Working class heroes

Fr. Pat Noise wrote: »

So if working class hero won the lotto he’d buy house in or about a counci estate. I don’t think so.

Don’t care what you think.
I have and I would again.

stratowide

Working class heroes wrote: »

Don’t care what you think.
I have and I would again.

How much did you win..?

joe swanson

Definitely not

AulWan

In 2018, the average cost of an “available, staffed prison space” was €73,802.

A lot more then the dole.

Just thought I'd throw that in the mix for those advocating no welfare, and prison for those who would commit crimes as a result.

AulWan

Fr. Pat Noise wrote: »

The original question still remains- would you buy beside social housing? No one would voluntarily buy beside it seems to be the answer for all.

Incorrect. I bought beside social housing, and have no regrets.

Working class heroes

stratowide wrote: »

How much did you win..?

€55378008

Gally79

Would an estate agent or developer be obliged to tell you if and which houses in the estate have been bought by the housing authorities?

oceanman

Gally79 wrote: »

Would an estate agent or developer be obliged to tell you if and which houses in the estate have been bought by the housing authorities?

dont think so..