The €3,000 per month luxury welfare apartments

marieholmfan

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Well I mean maybe if you up-skilled or worked harder you could have afforded Dublin.

The uninsured right wing can't see reason.

ELM327

marieholmfan wrote: »

The uninsured right wing can't see reason.

What do you mean by this?
I have insurances coming out my hoop at this stage

pinkyeye

Captcha wrote: »

WOuld these apartments be better given to people earning up to 30k or similar per year? Especially in a nice area and near public transport. Have unemployed people take the longer journey, they have the time after all.

People earning up to 30k a year that have a family would be eligible to apply for social housing so they may well go to such people.

James Brown

ELM327 wrote: »

What do you mean by this?
I have insurances coming out my hoop at this stage

in case any FG party members come over for a visit?

con___manx1

They should move all the people on the social up to Leitrim. The offer should be to hell or to letrim. It would be much cheaper on us tax payers to put a roof over their lazy heads up there.
How can anyone not find work in Dublin right now. There are so many jobs they haven't got the people to fill them.
I have a friend who is a builder who couldn't get a labourer recently.
A begger asked him for money on the street that morning when he was getting his morning coffee .
He said he wouldn't give him money but a job instead. The begger refused the offer of work. He was paying cash and all.

end of the road

con___manx1 wrote: »

They should move all the people on the social up to Leitrim. The offer should be to hell or to letrim. It would be much cheaper on us tax payers to put a roof over their lazy heads up there.

actually, it's probably unlikely it would be cheaper on us tax payers.
the days of just throwing people in an area and leaving them to their devices is quite likely gone, the issues with social only estates + the massive regeneration schemes and their costs i would imagine have put that option to bed, and thankfully so, it didn't seem to work well last time.
we will have to engage in massive spend on infrastructure and amenities, so i would think in actuality that leaving them where they are might be cheaper.
not to mention that leaving them in dublin and other cities will get people used to having to actually mix with others rather then only be surrounded by people similar to themselves.

con___manx1 wrote: »

How can anyone not find work in Dublin right now. There are so many jobs they haven't got the people to fill them.

fussy employers, the pay being unviable, etc.

con___manx1 wrote: »

I have a friend who is a builder who couldn't get a labourer recently.
A begger asked him for money on the street that morning when he was getting his morning coffee .
He said he wouldn't give him money but a job instead. The begger refused the offer of work. He was paying cash and all.

if the pay is good then he will get somebody eventually.

marieholmfan

con___manx1 wrote: »

They should move all the people on the social up to Leitrim. The offer should be to hell or to letrim. It would be much cheaper on us tax payers to put a roof over their lazy heads up there.
How can anyone not find work in Dublin right now. There are so many jobs they haven't got the people to fill them.
I have a friend who is a builder who couldn't get a labourer recently.
A begger asked him for money on the street that morning when he was getting his morning coffee .
He said he wouldn't give him money but a job instead. The begger refused the offer of work. He was paying cash and all.

Whatever happened to the rural resettlement scheme? That worked really well in the '80s.

Topgear on Dave

Moving people with no jobs to rural areas with few opportunities is a recipe for disaster.

marieholmfan

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Moving people with no jobs to rural areas with few opportunities is a recipe for disaster.

It worked well in the '80s.

ELM327

Matt Barrett wrote: »

in case any FG party members come over for a visit?

I mean your joke is funny of course but I'm still at a loss to the meaning of the original comment

PopePalpatine

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Moving people with no jobs to rural areas with few opportunities is a recipe for disaster.

Your mistake is trying to reason with someone who thinks anything went well in the 80s here.

ELM327

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Moving people with no jobs to rural areas with few opportunities is a recipe for disaster.

Well if they havent got jobs in Dublin in the last 4-5 years they won't get one anyway. No loss.

iamtony

con___manx1 wrote: »

They should move all the people on the social up to Leitrim. The offer should be to hell or to letrim. It would be much cheaper on us tax payers to put a roof over their lazy heads up there.
How can anyone not find work in Dublin right now. There are so many jobs they haven't got the people to fill them.
I have a friend who is a builder who couldn't get a labourer recently.
A begger asked him for money on the street that morning when he was getting his morning coffee .
He said he wouldn't give him money but a job instead. The begger refused the offer of work. He was paying cash and all.

He would probably make more in a day begging!

Great story though really says alot about these people. There seems to be one outside every shop and petrol station these days. They used to make me feel awkward with their direct approach but there's so make now it easy. The ones at supermarkets that call you from a distance are gas. They get as far as saying excuse me or sorry pal and I just say no I don't sorry before they even get to the story of money for bus or whatever.

X111111111111

con___manx1 wrote: »

They should move all the people on the social up to Leitrim. The offer should be to hell or to letrim. It would be much cheaper on us tax payers to put a roof over their lazy heads up there.
How can anyone not find work in Dublin right now. There are so many jobs they haven't got the people to fill them.
I have a friend who is a builder who couldn't get a labourer recently.
A begger asked him for money on the street that morning when he was getting his morning coffee .
He said he wouldn't give him money but a job instead. The begger refused the offer of work. He was paying cash and all.

I hope you reported your friend to revenue.

Captcha

It must be more popular now in an economy where retailers and lower end jobs cannot find people to push the people unwilling to work, out further away from these places. People who have not worked in 3 years or more should be sent packing. Leave the Dublin areas and nearby commuter towns to keep the economy pumping and make the workers lives a bit easier.

Screw putting non productive people in amazing areas with amazing hosuing.

People are working, paying a ton of money for terrible rental accommodation and then having to find ways to get to work.

Stop punishing the people keeping this whole thing going and stop punishing people who pay their taxes on income by paying it out to people who dont and who dont plan to!

Isabelle Bald Dog

Isabelle Bald Dog wrote: »

For many working taxpayers in their 20s and 30s, buying a house, getting married, and having a family are a pipe dream. Their futures are being strangled by high taxes, high rents, and unaffordable home prices.

And yet state dependents can have as many children as they want and live in luxury €3,000/month apartments?

Someone who does not work or contribute should not have a higher standard of living than someone who does. That's a basic moral tenet that our government seems to have forgotten.

On paper I'm well paid. Im recently single and doing the dating game again but i can't actually afford more than one date a month. And I'm not even suggesting swanky places or anything.

With 7 days to payday i have 75 euros to my name.

To assist in my lifestyle i do PC repair on the side. I went out to a womans house to remove malware recently. Initially felt sorry for her, single mother on welfare - until I saw her home. Her sitting room was bigger than my entire rented apartment. I offhandedly said something like "this must cost you a fair bit" she said "no I'm on HAP. I pay 300 a month and the council pays the rest."

I was absolutely furious. Im glad she has a house for her two kids but i can't see rent on it being less than 2k. Easily 2.5k. Yet she pays 300 a month.

I'm definitely doing something wrong.

Idbatterim

Idbatterim wrote: »

why should anyone pay a fortune to live in Dublin? there is huge amounts of land available for development, we can build above a few floors like the rest of the world have been doing for decades, the state houses and has housed many people here at virtually no cost to those individuals. Anyone who can afford a mortgage here, will be paying the scandalous marginal rate of tax, then paying a huge amount directly to the government in building related taxes. Then get done on europes highest interest rates.

Do people not stop to think , why should I work my ass to afford something average or or move to some kip an hour from dublin? When its the system that screws them over, and they defend this system that screws them, it is bizarre!

In recent months I'm pretty much decided on moving from here once both my parents are gone.

Theres the housing and rent spiralling out of control and in another thread they want to make alcohol more expensive as well.

I could buy outright an apartment in a city like Wroclaw in Poland in the city centre next to a tram station for 50k. I could buy a large old farmhouse 30 minutes from the city for 100k.

Yes concessions would need to be made. No more denny sausages for breakfast but financially I don't see a future here.

The crash happened, it should have brought prices of everything way down but we are back to Celtic Tiger lunacy when most people haven't caught up. Building regulations keep homes expensive to buy or build, planning regulations are made up and if you want anything than a semi detached cube you'll have to fill a brown envelope with fifties.

Meanwhile Ant and Dec's irish cousins who never worked but always get a Saturday night takeaway, are given the keys to Shangri La in Dundrum.

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

On paper I'm well paid. Im recently single and doing the dating game again but i can't actually afford more than one date a month. And I'm not even suggesting swanky places or anything.

With 7 days to payday i have 75 euros to my name.

To assist in my lifestyle i do PC repair on the side. I went out to a womans house to remove malware recently. Initially felt sorry for her, single mother on welfare - until I saw her home. Her sitting room was bigger than my entire rented apartment. I offhandedly said something like "this must cost you a fair bit" she said "no I'm on HAP. I pay 300 a month and the council pays the rest."

I was absolutely furious. Im glad she has a house for her two kids but i can't see rent on it being less than 2k. Easily 2.5k. Yet she pays 300 a month.

I'm definitely doing something wrong.

That would likely be allocating blame in the wrong area.

Edit: if i got one of those apartments I could walk to work. Reducing luas crush by one and i might be healthier, reducing my impact on the HSE.

That might likely be allocating blame to the wrong people.

As discussed, be they 3000 euro or 800 euro it's on the LA/state. The tenants were offered these apartments. If the LA/state chooses to do business in such a manner that's on the LA/state not the tenants.

If you are starving and the LA/state give you steak dinners it's not your fault they didn't offer you a pot noodle, but you'll take what you can get.

As I said, somebody is making large profits off this crisis and it's not the tenants.

end of the road

Captcha wrote: »

It must be more popular now in an economy where retailers and lower end jobs cannot find people to push the people unwilling to work, out further away from these places.

well, whether it is or isn't, the only thing that matters is the cost and effects.
and given the government aren't willing so far to implement such a policy, i suspect they seem to know both of those based on the last time we tried that exact thing in the 60s when people were moved to at the time, rural areas of the cities.

Captcha wrote: »

People who have not worked in 3 years or more should be sent packing. Leave the Dublin areas and nearby commuter towns to keep the economy pumping and make the workers lives a bit easier.

the commuter towns and cities only having workers is not something that will ever be achieved. no matter how much you engage in what is effectively social cleansing.

Captcha wrote: »

Screw putting non productive people in amazing areas with amazing hosuing.

screw putting them wherever with nothing, a hell of a lot more.

Captcha wrote: »

People are working, paying a ton of money for terrible rental accommodation and then having to find ways to get to work.

that's not going to change by introducing social cleansing.

Captcha wrote: »

Stop punishing the people keeping this whole thing going and stop punishing people who pay their taxes on income by paying it out to people who dont and who dont plan to!

nobody is being punished by having a tiny amount of their taxes going to support people who are either unemployable, or simply can't work for whatever genuine reason.
it is most probably a lot cheaper to pay it then not.

pinkyeye

Deleted User wrote: »

On paper I'm well paid. Im recently single and doing the dating game again but i can't actually afford more than one date a month. And I'm not even suggesting swanky places or anything.

With 7 days to payday i have 75 euros to my name.

To assist in my lifestyle i do PC repair on the side. I went out to a womans house to remove malware recently. Initially felt sorry for her, single mother on welfare - until I saw her home. Her sitting room was bigger than my entire rented apartment. I offhandedly said something like "this must cost you a fair bit" she said "no I'm on HAP. I pay 300 a month and the council pays the rest."

I was absolutely furious. Im glad she has a house for her two kids but i can't see rent on it being less than 2k. Easily 2.5k. Yet she pays 300 a month.

I'm definitely doing something wrong.

Edit: if i got one of those apartments I could walk to work. Reducing luas crush by one and i might be healthier, reducing my impact on the HSE.

I hope you're declaring this extra income to the revenue?

punisher5112

How will this country be in 10-20 years with the influx of migrants and refugees etc....

The housing charities want them all to have their own home.....

Need a few million houses built so....

Captcha

end of the road wrote: »

well, whether it is or isn't, the only thing that matters is the cost and effects.
and given the government aren't willing so far to implement such a policy, i suspect they seem to know both of those based on the last time we tried that exact thing in the 60s when people were moved to at the time, rural areas of the cities.



the commuter towns and cities only having workers is not something that will ever be achieved. no matter how much you engage in what is effectively social cleansing.



screw putting them wherever with nothing, a hell of a lot more.



that's not going to change by introducing social cleansing.



nobody is being punished by having a tiny amount of their taxes going to support people who are either unemployable, or simply can't work for whatever genuine reason.
it is most probably a lot cheaper to pay it then not.

Unemployable people should not live on commute lines or live in luxury accommodation near commute lines or in sought after areas, or live in luxury accommodation full stop!

I did not say move them to rural places or bad places. Theres plenty of places that can be harder to get on to commuter services that are not rural.

Social cleansing? Not even close. Logical & fair planning? Yes

punisher5112

I live 2 counties out, must commute daily to work and pay towards those that don't want to.....

Amazing little island we are on....

Rich get richer even in the recession and the poor do quite well too.

Maggy cash always stated she wasn't poor just homedeless.....

Amazing she never worked a day and never will but yet has a nicer home then I will ever have.

She is more comfortable then most decent working people.

I'm actually so pissed off at how poorly treated workers really are.

James Brown

punisher5112 wrote: »

I live 2 counties out, must commute daily to work and pay towards those that don't want to.....

Amazing little island we are on....

Rich get richer even in the recession and the poor do quite well too.

Maggy cash always stated she wasn't poor just homedeless.....

Amazing she never worked a day and never will but yet has a nicer home then I will ever have.

She is more comfortable then most decent working people.

I'm actually so pissed off at how poorly treated workers really are.

Here's the con:

Margret Cash is a symptom of decades of FF/FG government, yet people keep voting FF/FG to stick it to the Margret Cash's.


The problem is the left represent workers and talk about helping those less fortunate and equality and accessible housing etc.
This smells like and gets sold like looking after dem dat don't want to work. The left came from workers not dole queues.

Then you've the right talking about looking after people who look after themselves. People who like to get up early in the morning etc. etc.
Not policies. just talk, but it sounds great to hard working tax payers. The right looks after the top and business not the average tax payer.

The reality is what we have today. Official tax payer funded institutions helping vulture funds make millions off the tax payer and the housing crisis, whinging the health crisis is too hard and sure nobody could fix it and whispers about immigrants, where dem that don't want to work are why you are tight for cash and hospitals are full of people with hang nails and colds and the homeless are mostly chislers pretending, as we continue to break records.

I feel for you but if you vote FG, suck it up and go out and get a better job.

end of the road

Captcha wrote: »

Unemployable people should not live on commute lines or live in luxury accommodation near commute lines or in sought after areas, or live in luxury accommodation full stop!

if those are the only areas that have existing stock, that have the amenities and resources those people will need, then they should.

Captcha wrote: »

I did not say move them to rural places or bad places. Theres plenty of places that can be harder to get on to commuter services that are not rural.

public transport is for everybody who needs or wants to use it, it is not specifically for commuters, and commuters are no more entitled to use it then anyone else.
if throwing people in areas where it is harder for them to use public transport means they have to buy a car, then that is going to be a problem given there are people who complain about wellfare dependants and unemployable people having a car.

Captcha wrote: »

Social cleansing? Not even close. Logical & fair planning? Yes

well no, i would suggest it very much is social cleansing.
if there is a state enforced aim to have 1 type of people living together in certain areas, and another type of people stuck together elsewhere, so the first type of people won't have to mix with or live beside the second group of people, or have the second group of people using the services the first group think they are only entitled to, or more entitled to, when they aren't, then i cannot see that there really is any other conclusion one can come to.

X111111111111

punisher5112 wrote: »

How will this country be in 10-20 years with the influx of migrants and refugees etc....

The housing charities want them all to have their own home.....

Need a few million houses built so....

The sad thing is we haven't a single political party to stand up against this. Things are going to get very messy in a few years time i already see the beginnings of it in parts of Dublin.

James Brown

X111111111111 wrote: »

The sad thing is we haven't a single political party to stand up against this. Things are going to get very messy in a few years time i already see the beginnings of it in parts of Dublin.

As more people find it getting tough, it makes sense to me to look up at the policy makers not down to those worse off. That's just me like.

Jinglejangle69

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Here's the con:

Margret Cash is a symptom of decades of FF/FG government, yet people keep voting FF/FG to stick it to the Margret Cash's.


The problem is the left represent workers and talk about helping those less fortunate and equality and accessible housing etc.
This smells like and gets sold like looking after dem dat don't want to work. The left came from workers not dole queues.

Then you've the right talking about looking after people who look after themselves. People who like to get up early in the morning etc. etc.
Not policies. just talk, but it sounds great to hard working tax payers. The right looks after the top and business not the average tax payer.

The reality is what we have today. Official tax payer funded institutions helping vulture funds make millions off the tax payer and the housing crisis, whinging the health crisis is too hard and sure nobody could fix it and whispers about immigrants, where dem that don't want to work are why you are tight for cash and hospitals are full of people with hang nails and colds and the homeless are mostly chislers pretending, as we continue to break records.

I feel for you but if you vote FG, suck it up and go out and get a better job.

Your party Sinn Fein want to bring into the constitution the right to a home.

I could get onboard with that.

Be no money left for anything but you’re right, at least I’ll be looked after mortgage free for life.

Win win.

James Brown

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Your party Sinn Fein want to bring into the constitution the right to a home.

I could get onboard with that.

Be no money left for anything but you’re right, at least I’ll be looked after mortgage free for life.

Win win.

You were calling me FF last week

No money for wasting maybe. No money for printers, quangos, our own, pretending to go to work in the Dail, claims?

You should be looked after mortgage free, if you are eligible. I'm all for that.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

katiek102010 wrote: »

I can't believe some of the vile hatred on this thread.

God help any of ye if ye ever find yourselves in a position where ye need social housing.

Did you know that if you happen to have a normal paying job and happen to have a disabled child the banks won't give a mortgage if one parent has to become a carer.

What about if your spouse takes off with someone else and you have to pay the mortgage on the family home till the kids turn 18 do ye have enough to pay mortgages on 2 houses.

If the economy crashes again after Brexit, as some Thí k it might, do you have enough cash saved to pay your mortgage off if your jobs are not that secure.

What if one of you gets a potentially terminal illness and your oh has to give up work to care for you. Can you pay off your mortgage.

Not everyone in Reciept of welfare payments are scumbags.

Not everyone in social housing is a scumbag.

I k ow nurses and teachers in social housing. The wages are not that brilliant and there are no properties to rent.

Get off your high horses, blame the government and scum out to make a quick buck.

And who I. Their right mind thinks its OK to charge 3k pm for a bloody flat

I've avoided this thread but it played on my mind.
Welfare recipients are not wholly composed of people who choose not to work.
Some live with debilitating conditions and would love to participate fully in society. People through no fault of their own should not be forced to live destitute lives.

People with disabilities should be prioritised for housing and have a higher level of supports than currently.