"None of our children on the list are getting these houses"

Kivaro

jmayo wrote: »

The problem is what should be a party of the taxpayers, of small business, the self employed i.e. FG have ended up chasing votes from the very low paid and the perennially unemployed wasters.
This cohort have an inordinate amount of champions in the media from both the the "do-gooder class" and media charlatans themselves.
Just look at the reaction in the media to Casey's remarks in the Presidential.

And the laugh is FG are never really going to get most of these votes anyway because FF are masters at populism, are seen for generations as the party of the lowly worker even if long untrue, Labour, and now laterally sinn fein, PBP, SDs, etc, etc.
It is time FG moved back to centre at least.
Yes keep most of the socially liberal agenda, just dump the gender codology, the traveller excusing, the social welfare for life and immigration of chancers, but move economically towards the right.

BTW anyone that is sick, that is disabled or a full time carer deserves even more supports.
The lazy fookers that once hurt their middle finger and now on the sick for life doesn't.
The ones that left school and have spent their life on the dole don't.
Anyone that loses a job, be it PAYE or self employed, deserve support until they get back on their feet.
They don't deserve it for the rest of their lives.

Why do those ideas offend so many fooking Irish people is beyond me and show how entitled we have become.

There are lots of votes there but they have to face down the media and charity/NGO industry.

It's really not that many JM, but they are vocal, have a lot of spare time on their hands, and have the liberal media and RTE to support them.
The vast majority of people who want a fairer system for workers/carers/contributors are out working their bones off and too tired to complain about the waste of their hard-earned taxes when they crawl home at night.

There is no party out there for them at the moment, which is why many voted Sinn Fein ....... a middle finger to the FFG parties who continuously let them down. Amazingly, social housing was top of the list for FFG in the recent election ........... mind boggling.

Thelonious Monk

Kivaro wrote: »

There is no party out there for them at the moment, which is why many voted Sinn Fein .......

Sinn Fein would be the first ones out defending these people and demanding housing for them etc, in the past anyway, they always tried to appeal to that demographic and that's why they got so many votes in rough areas.

Idbatterim

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Sinn Fein would be the first ones out defending these people and demanding housing for them etc, in the past anyway, they always tried to appeal to that demographic and that's why they got so many votes in rough areas.

its not just rough areas any more. thats the point, there is demand there for something between FF and SF on the political spectrum, but we dont have it and you people have had enough of FG buying off the pensioners and supporting exisiting homeowners in getting prices through the roof again...

Damien360

Idbatterim wrote: »

......and supporting exisiting homeowners in getting prices through the roof again...

I am curious to see the advantages of this for anyone with a home and having no intention of moving (like me). Who are these voters ? Keeping house prices stable are an indication of a stable economy and each of our jobs. Doesn’t bother me if my house goes from 300k to 100k. I’m not in negative equity. Even if I was in negative equity (possibly was around the crash) and I had no intention of moving, as long as I can afford my mortgage, it again won’t bother me.

Idbatterim

Damien360 wrote: »

I am curious to see the advantages of this for anyone with a home and having no intention of moving (like me). Who are these voters ? Keeping house prices stable are an indication of a stable economy and each of our jobs. Doesn’t bother me if my house goes from 300k to 100k. I’m not in negative equity. Even if I was in negative equity (possibly was around the crash) and I had no intention of moving, as long as I can afford my mortgage, it again won’t bother me.

Damien, it doesnt make sense to you! but do you remember anyone boasting about how little their property was worth at the height of the recession? compare that with during the boom "I went to sleep last night and woke up €200 richer" - on paper! Read about the wealth effect. I mean, you are right, its pure idiocy for a large part, unless you plan on selling, go to a cheaper propery and pocket the difference...

It creates problems too for kids wanting to go to college and facing rip off rents or not going to college. The high prices are generally overwhelmingly bad, BUT they serve a purpose for some people and vested interests, hence we have them

BanditLuke

blanch152 wrote: »

You must be John Brady, the Sinn Fein TD, who takes home over 100k in salary and expenses and lives in a council home.

The vast majority of council tenants do not work, and many are life-long social welfare recipients.

Hi Blanch. No i'm not Mr. Brady.

The vast majority of council tenants in my estate work (circa 80-85%) any way.

Can't speak for other areas as iv'e lived here for last 15 years and haven't lived in another council owned or partly council owned area.

Thanks

Working class heroes

blanch152 wrote: »

You must be John Brady, the Sinn Fein TD, who takes home over 100k in salary and expenses and lives in a council home.

The vast majority of council tenants do not work, and many are life-long social welfare recipients.

What a huge pile of steaming crap.

Idbatterim

Working class heroes wrote: »

What a huge pile of steaming crap.

whether it is true or not, is irrelevant! Whoever is in those properties, working or not, are getting it for a pittance, an immoral pittance, while working poor pay for it and are in far worse positions. I know who the real vulnerable are, and they arent in social housing!

BanditLuke

Idbatterim wrote: »

whether it is true or not, is irrelevant! Whoever is in those properties, working or not, are getting it for a pittance, an immoral pittance, while working poor pay for it and are in far worse positions. I know who the real vulnerable are, and they arent in social housing!

Hi Idbatterim

Its actually not a pittance if working. Its based on a fair percentage of your earnings calculated on year end P60. I'd say the rent being charged by greedy landlords in Ireland and Dublin in particular is immoral though

Thanks, Luke.

end of the road

Idbatterim wrote: »

whether it is true or not, is irrelevant! Whoever is in those properties, working or not, are getting it for a pittance, an immoral pittance, while working poor pay for it and are in far worse positions. I know who the real vulnerable are, and they arent in social housing!

it's not immoral.
their income is assessed and rent determined on that basis, if their income is at the higher end they will be charged a higher rent, if lower, a lower rent will be charged.
i'm sure this has probably been explained to you in abundants of course.

Gatling

BanditLuke wrote: »

Hi Idbatterim

Its actually not a pittance if working.

Less than €40 pw in a lot of cases

Eric Cartman

BanditLuke wrote: »

Hi Blanch. No i'm not Mr. Brady.

The vast majority of council tenants in my estate work (circa 80-85%) any way.

Can't speak for other areas as iv'e lived here for last 15 years and haven't lived in another council owned or partly council owned area.

Thanks

Everyone living in a council house seems to be surrounded by workers on this site, but the housing figures explicitly state 62% only claim welfare and just over 10% work and don't claim at all , how is it all these boardsies in council gaffs got so lucky.

BanditLuke

Gatling wrote: »

Less than €40 pw in a lot of cases

Hi Gatling

I can tell you as a matter of fact we aren't paying anywhere near that. Wish we where though

Thanks, Luke

1641

end of the road wrote: »

it's not immoral.
their income is assessed and rent determined on that basis, if their income is at the higher end they will be charged a higher rent, if lower, a lower rent will be charged.
i'm sure this has probably been explained to you in abundants of course.

Right. And then the rent is not paid by the majority. Great to live "free" when somone else is paying (as well as paying their own mortgage/rent).

Almost 60% of Dublin city housing tenants are behind in their rent, owing approximately €32.8 million in arrears. And, it turns out, it is those tenants with the highest earnings who are most likely to be in arrears.

https://www.thesun.ie/news/4963197/d...rrears-unpaid/

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/soci...rent-1.4106254

Ah - but housing is a "human right".

SF are going to borrow to build 100,000 more. Better to collect the arrears first (evictions if necessary) - that will help pay for it.

BanditLuke

Terrible to see so many fall behind on their rent. We need to look at why society is leaving so many behind and why the gap is growing between our most well off and the rest. I guess i live in one of the better areas in regards those lucky enough to have work and the mix of social and affordable housing works really well. It's a lovely community overall (one or two skanger families aside one of which aren't social tenants).

I feel genuinely sorry for those ripped off by scumbag landlords and investment funds who gouge every last cent out of hard working private house mortgage payers and renters. FG's Ireland i'm afraid.

Gatling

BanditLuke wrote: »

Hi Gatling

I can tell you as a matter of fact we aren't paying anywhere near that.

I know plenty who are actually the most I've heard anyone paying is €70 pw so a house with front and back garden for €280 pm Vs families paying €2000+ for a basic apartment .

Might as well be paying nothing and yet local authorities are owed close to 100 million in unpaid rents there needs to be a complete overhaul of the system and so called subsidised rents

enricoh

BanditLuke wrote: »

Terrible to see so many fall behind on their rent. We need to look at why society is leaving so many behind and why the gap is growing between our most well off and the rest. I guess i live in one of the better areas in regards those lucky enough to have work and the mix of social and affordable housing works really well. It's a lovely community overall (one or two skanger families aside one of which aren't social tenants).

I feel genuinely sorry for those ripped off by scumbag landlords and investment funds who gouge every last cent out of hard working private house mortgage payers and renters. FG's Ireland i'm afraid.

Yeah it's terrible to see so many in rent arrears to the council! Eh, there is zero consequences for not paying rent - that is why so many don't!
The scumbag landlords are leaving in droves so the gouging will diminish. As an aside there'll be nowhere to rent either!

Idbatterim

end of the road wrote: »

it's not immoral.
their income is assessed and rent determined on that basis, if their income is at the higher end they will be charged a higher rent, if lower, a lower rent will be charged.
i'm sure this has probably been explained to you in abundants of course.

I know l lad who has gotten one of the luxury apartments in dundrum, a one bed. market rent? at least E1800 . He is paying E50 a week and works part time. Spare me that they are paying anything that isnt a token gesture. Some working people are spending SIXTY percent plus of their on a roof over their head. In some cloud cuckook parallel universe, ten or fifteen percent might be ok, but I reckon the minimum they should be paying, is twently to twenty five percent of income. How much are they actually paying?

BanditLuke

Gatling wrote: »

I know plenty who are actually the most I've heard anyone paying is €70 pw so a house with front and back garden for €280 pm Vs families paying €2000+ for a basic apartment .

Might as well be paying nothing and yet local authorities are owed close to 100 million in unpaid rents there needs to be a complete overhaul of the system and so called subsidised rents

Hi Gatling

2000 per month for an apartment is disgraceful i agree. A lot of people just can't afford that it's pure madness.

We pay a hell of a lot more than 280pm if definitely isn't "nothing" to us.

Thanks, Luke

BanditLuke

enricoh wrote: »

Yeah it's terrible to see so many in rent arrears to the council! Eh, there is zero consequences for not paying rent - that is why so many don't!
The scumbag landlords are leaving in droves so the gouging will diminish. As an aside there'll be nowhere to rent either!

Hi enricoh

Terrible. FG have failed us all. It's no wonder they took a kicking in the election. The lack of social builds over the term of their tenere is criminal and has caused a crisis in the housing market. They have at the same time encourged vulture funds like Bartra capital to gouge hard pressed PAYE earners as well as selling off valuable state land for peanuts to same funds.

Thanks, Luke

GreeBo

BanditLuke wrote: »

Hi Idbatterim

Its actually not a pittance if working. Its based on a fair percentage of your earnings calculated on year end P60. I'd say the rent being charged by greedy landlords in Ireland and Dublin in particular is immoral though

Thanks, Luke.

How is it immoral?
What if the landlord bought the property at the top and its still in negative equity?

end of the road

1641 wrote: »

Right. And then the rent is not paid by the majority. Great to live "free" when somone else is paying (as well as paying their own mortgage/rent).

Almost 60% of Dublin city housing tenants are behind in their rent, owing approximately €32.8 million in arrears. And, it turns out, it is those tenants with the highest earnings who are most likely to be in arrears.

https://www.thesun.ie/news/4963197/d...rrears-unpaid/

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/soci...rent-1.4106254

Ah - but housing is a "human right".

SF are going to borrow to build 100,000 more. Better to collect the arrears first (evictions if necessary) - that will help pay for it.

the rent is not paid by the majority?
a majority of 1 council's tenants being behind on rent does not of itself translate to the majority of council tenants across the country as a whole, being behind on their rent.
someone else paying their own rent or mortgage is absolutely irrelevant to the issue of council tenants. the councils have whatever remedies available to deal with that issue, one which they don't have but should is to take it at source from benefits or wages.
evictions cost money, so no money will be gained via that strategy. collecting the owed money will only pay for so many of the houses and it must be collected but borrowing in some form will in all likely hood have to happen because we have not been building dispite the need for houses.

Idbatterim wrote: »

I know l lad who has gotten one of the luxury apartments in dundrum, a one bed. market rent? at least E1800 . He is paying E50 a week and works part time. Spare me that they are paying anything that isnt a token gesture. Some working people are spending SIXTY percent plus of their on a roof over their head. In some cloud cuckook parallel universe, ten or fifteen percent might be ok, but I reckon the minimum they should be paying, is twently to twenty five percent of income. How much are they actually paying?

the luxury apartment in wherever was what was available at short notice, because we haven't been building.
they are paying what the council have determined is a suitable rent based on their income, it doesn't matter whether you like it or not, it's just tough on your part. it doesn't matter what you think they should be paying, it's what the council, based on the evidence, thinks they should be paying is what matters.
people paying 60% of their income on rent is ridiculous but again that is because we have not been building and that means little competition in terms of housing options. that is down to government policy, not council tenants.

Yurt2

GreeBo wrote: »

How is it immoral?
What if the landlord bought the property at the top and its still in negative equity?

If a landlord is in negative equity, tough sh*t, they need to suck it up and take a bath on their investment that went sour. I lost money on shares before. Who do I crib to?

If I recall correctly, you're one of the posters telling people caught in the rental trap tough titties as well.

It's not the job of people trying to get by to ensure someone's bad investment is made good. The state should have the right to regulate the rental market in balanced manner.

GreeBo

Yurt! wrote: »

If a landlord is in negative equity, tough sh*t, they need to suck it up and take a bath on their investment that went sour. I lost money on shares before. Who do I crib to?

If I recall correctly, you're one of the posters telling people caught in the rental trap tough titties as well.

It's not the job of people trying to get by to ensure someone's bad investment is made good. The state should have the right to regulate the rental market in balanced manner.

It's not the landlords job to provide cheap rentals to people who's live choices have gone wrong.

Seems they crib to SF.

Remember that whole entitlement thing?

Enter name here

Yurt! wrote: »

If a landlord is in negative equity, tough sh*t, they need to suck it up and take a bath on their investment that went sour. I lost money on shares before. Who do I crib to?

If I recall correctly, you're one of the posters telling people caught in the rental trap tough titties as well.

It's not the job of people trying to get by to ensure someone's bad investment is made good. The state should have the right to regulate the rental market in balanced manner.

A nice socialist utopia. Absolute bollocks. not up to a LL to subsidise a tenants life style choices.
Are you happy for the government to regulate your share options?
People should live where the can afford not where they aspire to live. If you cant afford the rent move to a cheaper area and commute. It's called reality.
Social housing should be completely eradicated. Workhouses should be built and people housed there.

Gatling

end of the road wrote: »

the rent is not paid by the majority?
a majority of 1 council's tenants being behind on rent does not of itself translate to the majority of council tenants across the country as a whole,

Close to 100 million owed across the country I believe about a quarter of all social housing tenants are in arrears (open to correction)
Actually councils are saying it's not a simple job working on a case by case basis but estate by estate basis (whole estates )

If local authorities aren't collecting rents or dealing with arrears they should have their housing stock given to a 3rd party to recover all rents owed and if rents arrears are not paid evictions should be rushed through and increase rents across the board rather than the measley €3 pw they want now

riclad

The national debt is about 260 billion, we are just paying interest on it,
there,s no plan to reduce the debt, or maybe the plan is ,
politicians don,t care, cos they,ll retire with big pensions in 10 years .
Why should they care about the debt being left to the next generation to pay.
The current system is designed to house, single mother,s ,old people or people on disability allowance .
A single mother can go to court and ask for maintenance from the father of the child if she wants to.
Its a bit pointless to protest about one estate being built,
my kids cant get a house there , woe is me.
The housing system is based on dublin city ,
you have a choice of 3 area.s ,eg finglas, city centre, coolock,
when you fill in the form for social housing to get on the housing list.
you ,ll get offered housing in those area.s before you get offered anything
in another area .The system is supposed to be fair, you get x point,s
eg points for having a child, points for medical issue,s ,
maybe , points for is the place you live now overcrowded .
the person with the most points gets an offer of housing first.

ThunbergsAreGo

The prioritisation for social housing seems all wrong

Gatling

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

The prioritisation for social housing seems all wrong

She who has the most children gets top priority.
After that it's a lottery

Yurt2

GreeBo wrote: »

It's not the landlords job to provide cheap rentals to people who's live choices have gone wrong.

Seems they crib to SF.

Remember that whole entitlement thing?

A basic point, the state can and should regulate the rental market as other cities and countries do worldwife to protect tenants from abusive landlords and investment funds bleeding them dry. Balance can and should be achieved with these regulations - but those arguing against regulation and are property rights maximalists are as big utopianists as any Marxist Leninist.

I deliberately used shares as an example. Shares are nice to have but not essential. A roof over one's head is not nice to have, it's essential.