The €3,000 per month luxury welfare apartments

marieholmfan

Matt Barrett wrote: »

FG folk can't be praising low unemployment on the one hand and using high employment to dismiss low paid tax paying people like spongers on the scratcher. Well they can and do, but it's horsesh*te.

Matt, c'mon now Naos isn't an expert on the subject ; in fact like most of the uninsured right wing he's had enough of experts.

end of the road

Lollipops23 wrote: »

What's the difference? In 30 years' time I'll have my home, she'll have hers.

Only she won't have paid a cent towards hers.

you will own your home and have something to show for your life.
she will never own hers, and will always be at the mercy of the state, and will have nothing to show for her life.

Greyfox

Matt Barrett wrote: »

When people are poor they get a dig out.

If it was just a dig out then that would be fine but were not just giving a dig out which is the whole point. Were giving non working people a better standard of living than a lot of working people. What part of this do you not understand? How is it fair to ever make non working person better off than working people?

end of the road wrote: »

they don't, however if they are from the area and that has housing available, and it's close to public transport, then there is no reason not to give it to them.

The government should be finding the cheapest locations for building social housing and building lots and lots of them there. If you don't have a disability then it should be a case of accept the first decent house your offered or go to the bottom of the queue.

Samuel T. Cogley

end of the road wrote: »

you will own your home and have something to show for your life.
she will never own hers, and will always be at the mercy of the state, and will have nothing to show for her life.

No more at the mercy of the state than a home owner. If they need your home they'll CPO it. Council houses are for life and you can even inherit the bloody lease in some cases.

ELM327

Greyfox wrote: »

If it was just a dig out then that would be fine but were not just giving a dig out which is the whole point. Were giving non working people a better standard of living than a lot of working people. What part of this do you not understand? How is it fair to ever make non working person better off than working people?


The government should be finding the cheapest locations for building social housing and building lots and lots of them there. If you don't have a disability then it should be a case of accept the first decent house your offered or go to the bottom of the queue.

+1
All social housing should be built in longford, leitrim, donegal etc where land is cheap.
Don't like it? Get a job and pay for a better one.

Naos

marieholmfan wrote: »

You said it.

What's the issue?

I'm not claiming to know everything nor be an expert and what I am stating, I'm backing up with sources.

Millionaire only not

Greyfox wrote: »

If it was just a dig out then that would be fine but were not just giving a dig out which is the whole point. Were giving non working people a better standard of living than a lot of working people. What part of this do you not understand? How is it fair to ever make non working person better off than working people?


The government should be finding the cheapest locations for building social housing and building lots and lots of them there. If you don't have a disability then it should be a case of accept the first decent house your offered or go to the bottom of the queue.

Something not far of a ghetto is good enough if ur not prepared to help urself and contribute something to the state !

U have disincentive this breeding and let’s face it bad dna !

Muir

Naos wrote: »

What's the issue?

I'm not claiming to know everything nor be an expert and what I am stating, I'm backing up with sources.

You misunderstood your source. Those are waiting list statistics, not statistics for those in social housing.

punisher5112

ELM327 wrote: »

+1
All social housing should be built in longford, leitrim, donegal etc where land is cheap.
Don't like it? Get a job and pay for a better one.

But they need to be living next door to the mother......


Can't have them commuting like us working mugs....

LuasSimon

Working in Ireland and paying your way is only for fools unless your earning over a 100k .
Uncapped social welfare , large family’s and as good as a free house is the way forward and a couple of personal injury claims to top it all off !
Tell those going to work in the morning to keep the noise down not to wake me !

Naos

Muir wrote: »

You misunderstood your source. Those are waiting list statistics, not statistics for those in social housing.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Boggles

Naos wrote: »

How did you come to that conclusion?

The Summary of Social Housing Assessments 2018 brings together information provided by local authorities on households in their functional area
that are qualified for social housing support but whose social housing need is not currently being met. It is a point-in-time assessment of the identified
need for social housing support across the country

.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

FG folk can't be praising low unemployment on the one hand and using high employment to dismiss low paid tax paying people like spongers on the scratcher. Well they can and do, but it's horsesh*te.

Will you ever produce figures or reasoned analysis to back up your arguments?

Once again, your post has some sort of personal dig at "FG folk", yet doesn't make a single reasoned argument against the points that they were making, or the figures and links that they were using to back it up.

Waving lower unemployment figures as some sort of response doesn't add up, unless you explain how it does. Calling something horsesh*te isn't a rebuttal, it is a sign of your inability to reason.

Edit: See post above from Boggles as to how to provide a reasoned response, rather than a "all FG are bad" type response.

Lollipops23

end of the road wrote: »

you will own your home and have something to show for your life.
she will never own hers, and will always be at the mercy of the state, and will have nothing to show for her life.

Yeah that "type" don't care for that stuff. They care about how many crotch goblins they can squirt out. They seem quite happy like that scamming as much as they can from the state, and with us fools paying for it.

Idbatterim

I honestly think we are heading for a fascinating period, massively ageing population. The value of a near free house now is outrageous, will just spur more people on to this avenue, as its actually a fairly legit avenue to explore at this point. They are relying on very high corporation tax receipts to keep the entire **** afloat. They wont raise LPT, fuel prices or anything really for tax reasons, they wont increase the tax take. Health is an ever growing black hole and they will throw endless money at it, before they will every actually address the problems with it. Ill really laugh when the **** hits the fan again, but this time, it is one hundred percent our own morons doing! No finger to be pointed at the baddy germans this time :rolleyes:

I mean this was an election budget, booming economy and the amount of welfare increases or income tax cuts... ZERO , ZERO!!!

Boggles

Idbatterim wrote: »

They wont raise LPT, fuel prices or anything really for tax reasons,

19 out of 31 local authorities have increased the rate of local property tax for 2020

THE GOVERNMENT HAS announced an increase in the carbon tax of €6 per tonne

For home-heating fuels, it will kick in from May 2020. The increase will bring the carbon tax up to €26 per tonne. Donohoe said the increase in the carbon tax will raise €90 million in 2020

.

Idbatterim

Boggles wrote: »

.

ok thats good they have raised LPT, its still a total pittance. The love crippling businesses and they are paying far too much. they should never have given the LA ability to vary the rate. Business rates should be off limits or cut for decades too!

i meant they wont raise the rates in any meaninful way, the increases are a pittance. Any chance they will increase the stupidly cheap Co2 rates of motor tax on most cars? no... not a chance in hell...

their motor related revenue is going to tank!

Boggles

Idbatterim wrote: »

ok thats good they have raised LPT, its still a total pittance. The love crippling businesses and they are paying far too much. they should never have given the LA ability to vary the rate. Business rates should be off limits or cut for decades too!

i meant they wont raise the rates in any meaninful way, the increases are a pittance. Any chance they will increase the stupidly cheap Co2 rates of motor tax on most cars? no... not a chance in hell...

their motor related revenue is going to tank!

What are you actually talking about?

Weren't you championing Casey's "idea" of abolishing USC yesterday?

Idbatterim

Boggles wrote: »

What are you actually talking about?

Weren't you championing Casey's "idea" of abolishing USC yesterday?

abolishing USC is easy for the public to understand, its a hated tax. that was supposed to be temporary. Renua idea of the flat tax wasnt bad, but they got rid of the idea, not because it was a bad one, but because the public cant even grasp the concept.

Everyone will understand the concept of abolishing the "temporary recession tax"...

really I suppose it depends what your goals are, if you were a new political party looking for support or what I as private sector working citizen think should happen.

Boggles

Idbatterim wrote: »

abolishing USC is easy for the public to understand, its a hated tax. that was supposed to be temporary. Renua idea of the flat tax wasnt bad, but they got rid of the idea, not because it was a bad one, but because the public cant even grasp the concept.

Everyone will understand the concept of abolishing the "temporary recession tax"...

really I suppose it depends what your goals are, if you were a new political party looking for support or what I as private sector working citizen think should happen.

But you were just giving out about not raising taxes or expanding the tax base, but you support a 4 billion cut because it's a simple concept.

That's not really compatible thinking TBF.

Wanderer78

Idbatterim wrote:

abolishing USC is easy for the public to understand, its a hated tax. that was supposed to be temporary. Renua idea of the flat tax wasnt bad, but they got rid of the idea, not because it was a bad one, but because the public cant even grasp the concept.

Flat taxes have been tried, it generally ends in higher earners paying less tax than the majority, and an overall reduction in tax intake

Nika Bolokov

Millionaire only not wrote: »

Something not far of a ghetto is good enough if ur not prepared to help urself and contribute something to the state !

U have disincentive this breeding and let’s face it bad dna !

Nazi era thinking is hardly the solution.

marieholmfan

end of the road wrote: »

you will own your home and have something to show for your life.
she will never own hers, and will always be at the mercy of the state, and will have nothing to show for her life.

Except a loving family.

jimmycrackcorm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Flat taxes have been tried, it generally ends in higher earners paying less tax than the majority, and an overall reduction in tax intake

Making things up as we go along are we?

marieholmfan

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Making things up as we go along are we?

If you can rebut that rebut it ( you can't)

RacoonQueen

X111111111111 wrote: »

Don't agree with that at all. Terribl for the woman and her children. Every person has the right to have children.

She was unable to house the first child and went on to have a second. Many people do not have any children or would like to have more but don't because they can't afford to give them a decent life.
Getting pregnant and going straight on the housing list as if the taxpayer owe you something when / if you've never paid any taxes yourself is crazy thinking.

This particular woman obviously had other crap going on but lets not pretend the outcome was likely to be any different for her or her children had she been in a house/flat of her own.

Padraig Mor

Boggles wrote: »

.
How did you come to that conclusion?


Quote:
The Summary of Social Housing Assessments 2018 brings together information provided by local authorities on households in their functional area
that are qualified for social housing support but whose social housing need is not currently being met. It is a point-in-time assessment of the identified
need for social housing support across the country

So what you're saying is that the list of people who qualify for social housing does not reflect those in social housing?


Riiiggghhhhtttt......

Boggles

Padraig Mor wrote: »

So what you're saying is that the list of people who qualify for social housing does not reflect those in social housing?


Riiiggghhhhtttt......

You quoted a post where I didn't actually "say" anything.

A question was asked about the source material, I highlighted the relevant bit.

X111111111111

Naos wrote: »

How exactly did you come up with that?



Summary of Social Housing Assessments 2018

Embarrased for you. Maybe in the future research and read before posting.

X111111111111

RacoonQueen wrote: »

She was unable to house the first child and went on to have a second. Many people do not have any children or would like to have more but don't because they can't afford to give them a decent life.
Getting pregnant and going straight on the housing list as if the taxpayer owe you something when / if you've never paid any taxes yourself is crazy thinking.

This particular woman obviously had other crap going on but lets not pretend the outcome was likely to be any different for her or her children had she been in a house/flat of her own.

Life hands out different cards for everyone. Some make bad choices others don't.

Everyone has the right to have children.