The €3,000 per month luxury welfare apartments

Jinglejangle69

end of the road wrote: »

there isn't.
they are subsidized houses.



yes, because of the government policy to subsidize private land lords, hotel owners and keep property prices high to benefit already existing owners and the banks, rather then building houses.
it is not because of the wellfare system itself that such issues exist.

No one can afford to buy houses so how is government policy to keep house prices high some masterplan?

And one step further the banks won’t give mortgages out anymore because people can’t afford the houses.

So how in gods name are the banks and property owners benefiting from this masterplan by the government?

Nonsense.

James Brown

Taylor365 wrote: »

Ah c'mon now.


People on welfare handed assets that workers earning 70k+ a year can't "afford".


Banks holding everyone to ransom, stuck in the rental market while Jacinta gets a brand new 2 bed worth 300k for €120 a month "for loife".

You are looking at the wrong people.

We always have had people in need of social housing. Always will. The genuine tax payer and the odd chancer.

It's the LA's and FG paying ridiculous sums to private concerns for rentals and purchases while giving away our land for the privilege.

James Brown

joejoggs wrote: »

Subsidized by the government and then paying 50 a week out of their free money. There is a cost to the state and I repeat NO COST to the person living there.

The whole welfare situation is a shambles and you know too well that there is plenty of people taking advantage of it.

If there's opportunities there people will take advantage so the blame should really lie on the government.

I find it utterly revolting people are happy to stay on welfare and getting their free house and sprouting out more kids for more welfare.

I know people fall on hard times but people taking advantage of the situation is what irritates me and will never work a day in their lives.

You've been conned. It's like the government are feeding hungry people in a four star hotel instead of lidl and you're blaming the hungry.

end of the road

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

No one can afford to buy houses so how is government policy to keep house prices high some masterplan?

And one step further the banks won’t give mortgages out anymore because people can’t afford the houses.

So how in gods name are the banks and property owners benefiting from this masterplan by the government?

Nonsense.

very simple, existing property owners won't have property values going down.
property value is often one of the major excuses against anything from social housing to anything else being built in an area.
banks do give out mortgages but only to those who can actually afford them, unlike before.

Jinglejangle69

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You've been conned. It's like the government are feeding hungry people in a four star hotel instead of lidl and you're blaming the hungry.

Can we blame people taking the absolute piss out of tax payers too?

Why is it always the government responsible for people committing crimes or cheating the system?

So these people need the government to tell them right from wrong in life?

James Brown

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Can we blame people taking the absolute piss out of tax payers too?

Why is it always the government responsible for people committing crimes or cheating the system?

So these people need the government to tell them right from wrong in life?

You can but you'd be wasting your time. Also there aren't enough to explain away the crises.
No, fraudsters be fraudsters. Somebody should start a campaign and follow through. You see welfare fraudsters fraud us all or something.

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Sure we all need houses.

So would that be 500,000 houses paid for by the taxpayer?

1 million?

Give us some numbers?

Depends on the criteria. What the threshold is.

For me if you are working but can't afford rent, the government should have social housing made available at least until the market cools a little.

Right now we are giving away land to private companies for a portion of social housing and leasing off these companies while using hotels and emergency purchases of houses at market rates to fill the over flow.
What about that appeals to you as a tax payer?

Jinglejangle69

end of the road wrote: »

very simple, existing property owners won't have property values going down.
property value is often one of the major excuses against anything from social housing to anything else being built in an area.
banks do give out mortgages but only to those who can actually afford them, unlike before.

But we constantly here no-one can afford to buy houses anymore so how in gods name does that benefit people who own houses?

Tin foil nonsense.

James Brown

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

But we constantly here no-one can afford to buy houses anymore so how in gods name does that benefit people who own houses?

Tim foil nonsense.

How much someones house is worth is not the governments concern IMO. If they are making policy based on that for a few snobby votes they should be ashamed. We live in a society.

Jinglejangle69

Matt Barrett wrote: »

How much someones house is worth is not the governments concern IMO. If they are making policy based on that for a few snobby votes they should be ashamed. We live in a society.

They are not.

That’s my point.

Jinglejangle69

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You can but you'd be wasting your time. Also there aren't enough to explain away the crises.
No, fraudsters be fraudsters. Somebody should start a campaign and follow through. You see welfare fraudsters fraud us all or something.



Depends on the criteria. What the threshold is.

For me if you are working but can't afford rent, the government should have social housing made available at least until the market cools a little.

Right now we are giving away land to private companies for a portion of social housing and leasing off these companies while using hotels and emergency purchases of houses at market rates to fill the over flow.
What about that appeals to you as a tax payer?

Not giving free gaffs to people.

There is people on low incomes who are working in social housing coming out with more money to spend at the end of the month than people working who have to pay mortgages and everything else on top.

They are creaming it.

Yes they are working but have no worries like people who have to pay mortgages and rent.

It’s a farce.

Get a low paid job stacking shelves and never have to worry about a mortgage or rent.

It’s like winning the lotto.

If people who worked hard in school, college or apprenticeships etc and ended up with good money get a social house then I’d be happy.

Equal society and all?

boetstark

Muir wrote: »

One of the biggest problems we have (and it's the same problem around the world) is that people are often inclined to think that everyone else is getting a better deal than they are. So, you never get everyone working together against this sort of bull**** because everyone is too busy fighting over crumbs.

Many times on here I've explained that many people in social housing do work and do pay rent. However, I am still as disgusted by this as anyone else on here. Sometimes I think if people from all walks of life, and all political viewpoints, could actually sit down and have a rational conversation without resorting to name-calling and arguing, they'd find a lot more common ground than you might think.

Too many of our policy makers benefit from high rents. And councils renting properties like this instead of the government working on ensuring there is adequate supply to meet the demand just worsens the problem. As rents continue to rise, a bigger proportion of the working class end up facing homelessness.

There are loads of empty properties all over the country, it would be much cheaper to identify the reasons so many are empty, tackle whatever those issues are to make more of those properties available for rent, and then the increase in supply to meet the demand will cause rents to fall.

We have full employment. Of course there will be a small minority that take the piss, there always are. Most people want to be able to rent, and in Ireland often to be able to buy their homes. The very small minority who wont work and have a sense of entitlement might be really frustrating, but they aren't the real problem. It's not council tenants or the homeless or the unemployed who decided that a property like this should be leased for 25 years at near market rates. I think almost everyone would agree that this is madness, and the money could be put to better use.

Good points well made. I totally agree that we have an obligation to look after the less we'll off in society, whether these are unemployed or people in lower paid jobs.
My gripe is these less well off getting standards of living and housing equal to, or in instances better than, the people who fund their lifestyles.
I pay on average 700 euro per week in taxation and it galls me to see it being squandered.
Nobody has an entitlement to the best of everything, and I believe the welfare class are being given too much.

X111111111111

Idbatterim wrote: »

You’re getting rent for well below what other people on your income are paying. If you’re working you’re not a parasite. But this country is full of them ! I wish a uk current affairs programmer would run this farce. Or gets the crowd who do welfare Britain over here , they won’t believe this kip !

So stop calling people in social housing "parasites" so.

X111111111111

Idbatterim wrote: »

just got a near instantaneous reply from the local councillor, to my email. I emailed one, that I have met before and came across well, unlike most of the morons!


"Dear Taxpayer

There is no council vote on this unfortunately, it is an executive function so they negotiate and close the deal - and only then inform the Councillors.

I agree that it is a hugely expensive way to do business, it would be much more efficient to build housing ourselves, and we now do, the problem is that this takes a long time and we currently have 4.5k housing list applications. The lease of these apartments is to facilitate the delivery of much needed social housing in the short term. The long term solution is clearly for the council/state to build housing, as has been successfully done in the past.

There are 4,000 children without homes tonight. It may be unpalatable to have to fork out excess money to address that, but needs must. We should have been building houses for the last 6/7 years, but we didn't and now we have to pay full market rate to get them.

Front of my mind are the homeless people, not the cuckoo funds.

Kind regards"

Excellent response in fairness. Needs must we can't have children in hotel rooms, we are better than that.

Jinglejangle69

X111111111111 wrote: »

Excellent response in fairness. Needs must we can't have children in hotel rooms, we are better than that.

Yeah parents should be better than that and take responsibility for their kids and their lives.

Idbatterim

X111111111111 wrote: »

Excellent response in fairness. Needs must we can't have children in hotel rooms, we are better than that.

As Matt Barrett says it’s a piss take. How much time do they need ? Another century enough? The timelines are depraved!

X111111111111

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Yeah parents should be better than that and take responsibility for their kids and their lives.

They love their kids as much as someone living in Foxrock or Malahide. Life throws curve balls my friend

BDI

There is a building boom at the moment. Anybody that can hold a ladder should be working not sitting in a hotel room waiting on a house. Pathetic kids seeing able bodied men and women, parents, spending two years in a hotel to get a house.

Should be providing childcare over hotel rooms. Atleast the kids would interact with people who have the stones to get up in the morning and pay their way.

Better than them sitting all day with layabouts that can’t get off the couch to even change their nappies I’d say.

Jinglejangle69

BDI wrote: »

There is a building boom at the moment. Anybody that can hold a ladder should be working not sitting in a hotel room waiting on a house. Pathetic kids seeing able bodied men and women, parents, spending two years in a hotel to get a house.

Should be providing childcare over hotel rooms. Atleast the kids would interact with people who have the stones to get up in the morning and pay their way.

Better than them sitting all day with layabouts that can’t get off the couch to even change their nappies I’d say.

Careful.

You won’t be liked around here as it’s the governments fault these lazy wasters can’t support their kids in life like humans have done since time began:)

It’s someone elses fault they didn’t listen in school and now the chickens are coming home to roost:)

end of the road

BDI wrote: »

There is a building boom at the moment. Anybody that can hold a ladder should be working not sitting in a hotel room waiting on a house. Pathetic kids seeing able bodied men and women, parents, spending two years in a hotel to get a house.

Should be providing childcare over hotel rooms. Atleast the kids would interact with people who have the stones to get up in the morning and pay their way.

Better than them sitting all day with layabouts that can’t get off the couch to even change their nappies I’d say.

perhapse if the building companies would employ them, but they won't.

punisher5112

end of the road wrote: »

perhapse if the building companies would employ them, but they won't.

They would employ but they'd be mad to work....
Why work if you are better off not....

derfderf

They do this in the UK to try to spread out the social housing. The other option is sending them to cheaper suburbs and let them continue growing as ghettos.

DebDynamite

Funny thing is, if the government announced a new development of apartments for social hosting, people would be up in arms, talking about ghettoisation or the new Ballymun, etc., but because it’s a development of luxury apartments in nice south Dublin, there’s not been a peep out of them

Muir

boetstark wrote: »

Good points well made. I totally agree that we have an obligation to look after the less we'll off in society, whether these are unemployed or people in lower paid jobs.
My gripe is these less well off getting standards of living and housing equal to, or in instances better than, the people who fund their lifestyles.
I pay on average 700 euro per week in taxation and it galls me to see it being squandered.
Nobody has an entitlement to the best of everything, and I believe the welfare class are being given too much.

I absolutely understand that gripe. Using luxury apartments, that the majority of workers couldn't afford, for social housing, is wrong. So is renting instead of buying or building, and from a fund based in Germany so the money is leaving the country too.

I just think that even though it's absolutely wrong that there are some with a sense of entitlement who take the piss, directing all the anger at those people doesn't solve anything for the average taxpayer who is being screwed. I sometimes wonder if this sort of thing is done to help provide a scapegoat for that anger, so that people don't actually stop to think "hang on a second, where do the real problems lie".

I think too, we don't bother to tackle issues like those people who will never work during the good times like the Celtic Tiger years. And then when times are tough, those who have a genuine need get lumped in with those who are just taking advantage of the system. It would be a lot easier to identify those who are milking the system during times when there isn't a shortage of jobs or housing. (I'm not saying there's a shortage of jobs now, just that when both of those things are in decent supply at the same time)

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Careful.

You won’t be liked around here as it’s the governments fault these lazy wasters can’t support their kids in life like humans have done since time began:)

It’s someone elses fault they didn’t listen in school and now the chickens are coming home to roost:)

There's a shortage of housing. Working or not working, there isn't an adequate housing supply to meet the demand. Let's assume every single person who is in emergency accommodation is unemployed. Now lets say they all get a job tomorrow that pays enough to pay current market rents. The rents will continue rise and the lowest paid group of earners would still find themselves without a place to live.

There aren't enough rental houses on the market, which doesn't just impact people on benefits - it impacts rents for everyone, which leaves those working with higher rents to pay. The only solution to that is to have enough housing to meet the demand.

Jinglejangle69

Is there even the construction bodies available to build these houses?

There is a massive shortage right across the sector.

Most are still in Australia and New Zealand after the last crash.

Time for a dose of reality.

Muir

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Is there even the construction bodies available to build these houses?

There is a massive shortage right across the sector.

Most are still in Australia and New Zealand after the last crash.

Time for a dose of reality.

There are vacant properties all over the country - far more of them than there are homeless people. If they investigated the main reasons for the properties being left vacant, and then tried to encourage them to be put up for rent, the issue would likely be alleviated. The issue is that too many people in government are profiting from high rents - so why would they want to do anything to actually solve the problem. Far easier to keep everyone distracted and fighting over crumbs while they profit.

joejoggs

Muir wrote: »

There are vacant properties all over the country - far more of them than there are homeless people. If they investigated the main reasons for the properties being left vacant, and then tried to encourage them to be put up for rent, the issue would likely be alleviated. The issue is that too many people in government are profiting from high rents - so why would they want to do anything to actually solve the problem. Far easier to keep everyone distracted and fighting over crumbs while they profit.

I always wondered what the turn around would be with the PTRB if say a tenant stopped paying rent to a politicians rented house compared to another persons rented house?

Ireland just sucks to live in at the minute, especially for young people.

Jinglejangle69

Muir wrote: »

There are vacant properties all over the country - far more of them than there are homeless people. If they investigated the main reasons for the properties being left vacant, and then tried to encourage them to be put up for rent, the issue would likely be alleviated. The issue is that too many people in government are profiting from high rents - so why would they want to do anything to actually solve the problem. Far easier to keep everyone distracted and fighting over crumbs while they profit.

1 out of every 5 TDs are landlords. Some conspiracy alright.

Do you think people will move to these vacant houses when 1 in 3 refuse offers of social housing as it’s not in their preferred area?

Imagine working people had that luxury.

All for 40 euro a week.

Ah the poor mites.

Jinglejangle69

joejoggs wrote: »

I always wondered what the turn around would be with the PTRB if say a tenant stopped paying rent to a politicians rented house compared to another persons rented house?

Ireland just sucks to live in at the minute, especially for young people.

Young people?

Do you actually know how hard young people had it years ago in Ireland?

Jesus i despair.

A bag of chips once a month would be a treat.

All the crap young people say is essential nowadays is ridiculous.

Phones
Netflix
Runners
Xbox
Stylish clothes
Subscriptions

The list goes on.

But nowadays they have it bad??

Idbatterim

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

1 out of every 5 TDs are landlords. Some conspiracy alright.

Do you think people will move to these vacant houses when 1 in 3 refuse offers of social housing as it’s not in their preferred area?

Imagine working people had that luxury.

All for 40 euro a week.

Ah the poor mites.

As if you need to be a landlord to want riding prices. Homeowners do too. Which is all decision makers ... it’s not exactly a tinfoil thing hat conspiracy theory now is it ?

Jinglejangle69

Idbatterim wrote: »

As if you need to be a landlord to want riding prices. Homeowners do too. Which is all decision makers ... it’s not exactly a tinfoil thing hat conspiracy theory now is it ?

But sure no one can afford to buy houses nowadays we’re told.

So keeping house prices high to appease some imaginary folk is not really a great plan by the government is it?