The €3,000 per month luxury welfare apartments

X111111111111

Boggles wrote: »

All pensioners to Leitrim so.

And kids :pac:

Patrick2010

Naos wrote: »

Okay so it doesn't matter how much I earn in those days then?

So if I had a job where I somehow earned 50k annually working one day per week, then I can claim for the other four days?

Yes, if you qualify for jobseekers benefit, no if you are claiming jobseekers allowance

Naos

Muir wrote: »

I know. Naos mistakenly thought that 50% of people in social housing were unemployed and asked me for statistics to prove otherwise. My statistics show that even if all the unemployed people who aren't on the waiting list did live in social housing, only 20% of those in social housing would be unemployed. Obviously that's the worst case scenario as not all unemployed people actually do live in social housing or are on the waiting list.

I thought 54% of those on the waiting list were unemployed?

Have you any statistics to show the employment level of those who are in social housing?

Muir wrote: »

I'm giving statistics on the number of unemployed people living in social housing, which is what I was asked for.

Genuinely interested if you could give some statistics.

Muir

Naos wrote: »

I thought 54% of those on the waiting list were unemployed?

Have you any statistics to show the employment level of those who are in social housing?



Genuinely interested if you could give some statistics.

I did, scroll back. If every single unemployed person who lived in Ireland who isn't on the waiting list actually lived in social housing, then 20% of those in social housing would be unemployed. The reality will be lower, because not all of them live in social housing.

Muir

Naos wrote: »

I thought 54% of those on the waiting list were unemployed?

Have you any statistics to show the employment level of those who are in social housing?



Genuinely interested if you could give some statistics.

Here they are again:

Muir wrote: »

From the CSO census results (2016) there were 143,178 households rented from a local authority. There were 393,198 occupying those houses. We don't have less social housing so we can assume these numbers are the same, if not higher now.

There are 117,800 unemployed aged between 15-74. Again, CSO statistics (seasonally adjusted unemployment).

As per the document you posted, there were 38,948 people unemployed who are not living in social housing.

So that's 117,800 - 38,948 = 78,852 unemployed people who could be living in social housing.

That's 20% of all the people living in social housing. What we aren't accounting for here is all those who are unemployed who still live with parents in housing that is not social housing. So the numbers will actually be lower than 20%.

Naos

Muir wrote: »

Here they are again:

From the CSO census results (2016) there were 143,178 households rented from a local authority. There were 393,198 occupying those houses. We don't have less social housing so we can assume these numbers are the same, if not higher now.

There are 117,800 unemployed aged between 15-74. Again, CSO statistics (seasonally adjusted unemployment).

As per the document you posted, there were 38,948 people unemployed who are not living in social housing.

So that's 117,800 - 38,948 = 78,852 unemployed people who could be living in social housing.

That's 20% of all the people living in social housing. What we aren't accounting for here is all those who are unemployed who still live with parents in housing that is not social housing. So the numbers will actually be lower than 20%.

And you don't think there is a lot of kids making up the numbers for those 393,198 people occupying those houses? You are trying to skew the statistics in your favour. At the very least, I am demonstrating the employment status of the main applicants on the waiting list which would be a more direct & fair comparison of those already in receipt of social housing.

Employment status of main applicant

2013: Unemployed = 62%
2016: Unemployed = 59.8%
2017: Unemployed = 57.5%
2018: Unemployed = 54.2%

This clearly shows, from 2013 at least, that the majority of the main applicants were unemployed.

Muir

Naos wrote: »

And you don't think there is a lot of kids making up the numbers for those 393,198 people occupying those houses? You are trying to skew the statistics in your favour. At the very least, I am demonstrating the employment status of the main applicants on the waiting list which would be a more direct & fair comparison of those already in receipt of social housing.

Employment status of main applicant

2013: Unemployed = 62%
2016: Unemployed = 59.8%
2017: Unemployed = 57.5%
2018: Unemployed = 54.2%

This clearly shows, from 2013 at least, that the majority of the main applicants were unemployed.

If we account for those under 15, then that makes it 27%. I don't understand what you mean by my favour. I'm providing CSO statistics because the source you provided wasn't representative of the data that you thought it was.

The people on the waiting list aren't representative of those housed in social housing. The statistics show that. A lot of unemployed people are on the housing list - that doesn't mean they are likely to be or ever will be housed in social housing. It means that due to their income and circumstances, they are deemed to have a need for social housing. That is, they are deemed to be unable to provide for their own housing needs from their social welfare payment, which makes sense given the current rents.

Muir

Just to be clear on that - 286,995 of those in social housing are over the age of 15. So that makes it 27.5% if every unemployed person not on the list is in social housing. It also assumes all of those people aren't in education, and given the age is over 15, some of them will be.

Naos

Muir wrote: »

If we account for those under 15, then that makes it 27%. I don't understand what you mean by my favour. I'm providing CSO statistics because the source you provided wasn't representative of the data that you thought it was.

The people on the waiting list aren't representative of those housed in social housing. The statistics show that. A lot of unemployed people are on the housing list - that doesn't mean they are likely to be or ever will be housed in social housing. It means that due to their income and circumstances, they are deemed to have a need for social housing. That is, they are deemed to be unable to provide for their own housing needs from their social welfare payment, which makes sense given the current rents.

Okay - so we can both agree that the majority of applicants on the waiting list for social housing since at least 2013 have been unemployed.

However, you disagree that the majority of those (those being whom the social housing is assigned to) who are currently in social housing are unemployed and you are unable to provide statistics to back this up, despite the waiting lists showcasing the contrary.

Do I have that right?

Muir

Naos wrote: »

Okay - so we can both agree that the majority of applicants on the waiting list for social housing since at least 2013 have been unemployed.

However, you disagree that the majority of those (those being whom the social housing is assigned to) who are currently in social housing are unemployed and you are unable to provide statistics to back this up, despite the waiting lists showcasing the contrary.

Do I have that right?

What part of the statistics that I've provided do you not understand?

Naos

Muir wrote: »

What part of the statistics that I've provided do you not understand?

The 20%.

143,178 households rented.
393,198 occupying those houses.
117,800 unemployed.
38,948 people unemployed who are not living in social housing.
78,852 people unemployed who are living in social housing.

You're trying to say 78,852/393,198 = 20% of people in social housing are unemployed but how many of those 383,198 are children, pensioners, retired etc?

You're skewing the figures to suit your arguement.

Geuze

There are 180,000 to 190,000 on the Live Register.

Muir

Naos wrote: »

The 20%.

143,178 households rented.
393,198 occupying those houses.
117,800 unemployed.
38,948 people unemployed who are not living in social housing.
78,852 people unemployed who are living in social housing.

You're trying to say 78,852/393,198 = 20% of people in social housing are unemployed but how many of those 383,198 are children, pensioners, retired etc?

You're skewing the figures to suit your arguement.

I gave you the adjusted figure for those over the age of 15. That makes it 27.5% - assuming none of those over 15 are in education. I'm not sure what retired people have to do with it?

You're the one who showed incorrect data to suit your argument. At no point in this thread have I disputed that there are people who abuse the system. My point has been that people direct a disproportionate amount of anger at those people, instead of at those making policies. I'm saying that the average worker is struggling to afford rents because there aren't enough houses being made available for rent. I'm saying that it's a disgrace to see €3,000 a month luxury apartments being used for social housing on a 25 year lease totaling more than the building would cost to buy, with all that money going to a German fund.

The figures you shared show that there are falling numbers of unemployed people on the waiting list. We also have increasing employment. Doesn't line up with all these people just not wanting to work.

Naos

Geuze wrote: »

There are 180,000 to 190,000 on the Live Register.

Maybe, but Muir is basing it off the Nov '19 statistics of 117,800 as opposed to the Nov '18 statistics of 135,400, even though he/she is happy to use the 2018 figures I provided for social housing.

Again, just skewing figures more in his favour.

Muir

Geuze wrote: »

There are 180,000 to 190,000 on the Live Register.

The Live Register doesn't measure unemployment. It includes those employed part time and some other entitlements: https://www.cso.ie/en/interactivezone/statisticsexplained/labourmarket/whatistheliveregister/

And just to show the numbers:

Naos

Muir wrote: »

I gave you the adjusted figure for those over the age of 15. That makes it 27.5% - assuming none of those over 15 are in education. I'm not sure what retired people have to do with it?

You're the one who showed incorrect data to suit your argument. At no point in this thread have I disputed that there are people who abuse the system. My point has been that people direct a disproportionate amount of anger at those people, instead of at those making policies. I'm saying that the average worker is struggling to afford rents because there aren't enough houses being made available for rent. I'm saying that it's a disgrace to see €3,000 a month luxury apartments being used for social housing on a 25 year lease totaling more than the building would cost to buy, with all that money going to a German fund.

The figures you shared show that there are falling numbers of unemployed people on the waiting list. We also have increasing employment. Doesn't line up with all these people just not wanting to work.

I didn't show incorrect data to suit my arguement. I made a mistake, it was pointed out to me, I accepted it was a mistake.

I then inferred that the majority of applicants/those on the waiting list since 2013 for social housing have been unemployed. That is undeniable yet you continue to do so.

I fully agree with you by the way, in terms of the 3k apartments being a disgrace.

Muir

Naos wrote: »

I didn't show incorrect data to suit my arguement. I made a mistake, it was pointed out to me, I accepted it was a mistake.

I then inferred that the majority of applicants/those on the waiting list since 2013 for social housing have been unemployed. That is undeniable yet you continue to do so.

I fully agree with you by the way, in terms of the 3k apartments being a disgrace.

I didn't deny that the majority on the list are unemployed. A few posts ago you actually said we agreed on that point. I said they aren't representative of those actually in social housing, because they aren't. What you're missing is: the majority of unemployed people would be eligible to be on the housing list. Therefore, a high number of them will be on the list, with some supports like HAP requiring it. This does not mean those people will get social housing.

Also, your numbers show that we have a big reduction in the numbers of unemployed on the list, and unemployment is falling overall - due to increasing availability of work. If all those people couldn't be bothered to work, then the numbers of unemployed wouldn't be falling.

And yes, I used 2019 data on unemployment, because we have falling unemployment, because the majority do in fact want to work. However, we have increasing social housing (albeit slow) due to the crisis so the numbers wont be skewed towards showing lower unemployment in social housing. However, my numbers don't account for those in education) we're looking at over 15s so some will be in education. It also assumes all unemployed people not on the list are in social housing which isn't the case in reality. So if they're skewed, it's in your favour.

If after all that, you want to continue to believe that the majority in social housing are unemployed, then there isn't much else I can say. It would be nice if people could see that there are only a small minority who take advantage - and those people do not represent the majority of those in social housing, on the housing list or in receipt of benefits. That minority are a problem, but they aren't the real problem. Most of those people are spending the majority of their money within the local economy so for the most part it doesn't actually massively negatively impact people. What does negatively impact people are things like large corporations not paying taxes, increasing rents due to a housing supply problem in a country that has far more vacant properties than it does homeless people, property being sold to vulture funds, money being wasted on leasing luxury apartments instead of building standard accommodation etc.

I think it's quite clear who's really screwing people over and who is actually profiting in these situations. If people can't see that, and blame all their problems on those beneath them instead of those above all of us, then really the person they should blame is themselves.

stampydmonkey

The last 2 paragraphs above sum it up nicely. Thanks

blanch152

Muir wrote: »

Here they are again:

Your figures only deal with those who are on the Live Register.

To qualify to be on the Live Register, you must be unemployed and actively seeking work.

If you are unemployed but not interested in working, you do not qualify to be on the Live Register, and you feature somewhere else in the 1.3 million people receiving a weekly social welfare payment.

It is technically possible for everybody in social housing to not be working. Unlikely, but possible. However, all of the evidence suggests that at least a small majority of those living in social housing are not currently employed.

marieholmfan

blanch152 wrote: »

Your figures only deal with those who are on the Live Register.

To qualify to be on the Live Register, you must be unemployed and actively seeking work.

If you are unemployed but not interested in working, you do not qualify to be on the Live Register, and you feature somewhere else in the 1.3 million people receiving a weekly social welfare payment.

It is technically possible for everybody in social housing to not be working. Unlikely, but possible. However, all of the evidence suggests that at least a small majority of those living in social housing are not currently employed.

What evidence!
You've been given evidence of the opposite of what you assert!

The uninsured right are once again unable to distinguish between feels and reals.

X111111111111

Muir wrote: »

I didn't deny that the majority on the list are unemployed. A few posts ago you actually said we agreed on that point. I said they aren't representative of those actually in social housing, because they aren't. What you're missing is: the majority of unemployed people would be eligible to be on the housing list. Therefore, a high number of them will be on the list, with some supports like HAP requiring it. This does not mean those people will get social housing.

Also, your numbers show that we have a big reduction in the numbers of unemployed on the list, and unemployment is falling overall - due to increasing availability of work. If all those people couldn't be bothered to work, then the numbers of unemployed wouldn't be falling.

And yes, I used 2019 data on unemployment, because we have falling unemployment, because the majority do in fact want to work. However, we have increasing social housing (albeit slow) due to the crisis so the numbers wont be skewed towards showing lower unemployment in social housing. However, my numbers don't account for those in education) we're looking at over 15s so some will be in education. It also assumes all unemployed people not on the list are in social housing which isn't the case in reality. So if they're skewed, it's in your favour.

If after all that, you want to continue to believe that the majority in social housing are unemployed, then there isn't much else I can say. It would be nice if people could see that there are only a small minority who take advantage - and those people do not represent the majority of those in social housing, on the housing list or in receipt of benefits. That minority are a problem, but they aren't the real problem. Most of those people are spending the majority of their money within the local economy so for the most part it doesn't actually massively negatively impact people. What does negatively impact people are things like large corporations not paying taxes, increasing rents due to a housing supply problem in a country that has far more vacant properties than it does homeless people, property being sold to vulture funds, money being wasted on leasing luxury apartments instead of building standard accommodation etc.

I think it's quite clear who's really screwing people over and who is actually profiting in these situations. If people can't see that, and blame all their problems on those beneath them instead of those above all of us, then really the person they should blame is themselves.

Nutshell.

blanch152

marieholmfan wrote: »

What evidence!
You've been given evidence of the opposite of what you assert!

The uninsured right are once again unable to distinguish between feels and reals.

c 400,000 living in social housing.

1.3 million in receipt of weekly social welfare payment (not to mention dependents).

Do the maths.

Car99

Average industrial wage €42k €6400 of which goes on income tax . It takes 5 people on €42k per year to pay rent only for just one of these €3k apartments. How can a county with such a small working population afford this.

Out of interest how many paye workers are in Ireland and out of those how many are working in the civil service?

X111111111111

Just be safe in the knowledge that the clowns in government and top civil servants who have got us into the current mess in housing, health, justice, coming pension crisis, water, broadband etc...etc... will be retiring with gangbuster pensions and golden handshakes. But yeah it's the fault of the poor and those in social housing that's the real problem.

Idbatterim

X111111111111 wrote: »

Just be safe in the knowledge that the clowns in government and top civil servants who have got us into the current mess in housing, health, justice, coming pension crisis, water, broadband etc...etc... will be retiring with gangbuster pensions and golden handshakes. But yeah it's the fault of the poor and those in social housing that's the real problem.

spot on, my issue is , that the money that is going to the morons at the top and many who are idle at the bottom and many probably in a poverty trap or where it absolutely makes sense to play the system and there is nothing illegal about it. Its the fools in the middle and low paid I feel sorry for!

X111111111111

Idbatterim wrote: »

spot on, my issue is , that the money that is going to the morons at the top and many who are idle at the bottom and many probably in a poverty trap or where it absolutely makes sense to play the system and there is nothing illegal about it. Its the fools in the middle and low paid I feel sorry for!

Feeling sorry helps nobody. Voting for change helps everyone.

Unfortunately there is nobody to vote for and we all know FFG will be back in power looking after the few over the many as per usual.

Im voting SF as a protest vote.

Idbatterim

X111111111111 wrote: »

Feeling sorry helps nobody. Voting for change helps everyone.

Unfortunately there is nobody to vote for and we all know FFG will be back in power looking after the few over the many as per usual.

Im voting SF as a protest vote.

another round of dumb and dumber joined at the hip is depressing! ok so we have a lot of workers like myself, FG lied to them about rewarding the early risers. The housing situation is a farce, and for the FG defenders, how many of you are paying 2-3k a month for an apartment in dundrum? NONE?

FG wont do anything meaningful with taxes, anything they have done is an insult. A party that would sort out the criminal housing situation and stop money flowing to the rich, from the working poor etc, would leave me in a far better financial position, than FG throwing me a few euro a week income tax cut. There is absolutely no comparison!

FFG wont do anything about the housing situation or many of the situations here that are a farce and discussed to death. I'd actually like to SF after all these years of talking, what would SF do in coalition with them... FFG should not be allowed have another sham and confidence agreement. Id like to see a FG / SF coalition... God knows how it would work out, but I would like to find out

RacoonQueen

X111111111111 wrote:

Just be safe in the knowledge that the clowns in government and top civil servants who have got us into the current mess in housing, health, justice, coming pension crisis, water, broadband etc...etc... will be retiring with gangbuster pensions and golden handshakes. But yeah it's the fault of the poor and those in social housing that's the real problem.

Crooks at the top. Crooks at the bottom. Mugs in the middle.

X111111111111

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Crooks at the top. Crooks at the bottom. Mugs in the middle.

The same mugs that keep voting FG:pac: You couldnt make it up.

Geuze

Car99 wrote: »

Average industrial wage €42k €6400 of which goes on income tax . It takes 5 people on €42k per year to pay rent only for just one of these €3k apartments. How can a county with such a small working population afford this.

Out of interest how many paye workers are in Ireland and out of those how many are working in the civil service?

Total employment = 2,325,000

Civil service = 35,000 maybe 40,000