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

thegetawaycar

There should be 0 need for collection authorities, all payments to the councils should be extracted from wages/welfare directly.
How much of a joke is it that people receiving money from the state can get away without paying a small portion of it back or that it needs to be outsourced and cost the taxpayer even more.

Eric Cartman

str8talkingguy wrote: »

So you really genuinely think they are not?we had less homeless in the 70s when we supposedly hadn't a pot to piss in and were backward uneducated morons,now we are first world educated morons with even less than we had before,but no definitely nothing got to do with the debt we service.

66% of ireland lived rurally and heroin hadnt become an issue yet in the 70s , drugs changed everything about social housing. Incomparible times.

Gatling

Eric Cartman wrote: »

66% of ireland lived rurally and heroin hadnt become an issue yet in the 70s , drugs changed everything about social housing. Incomparible times.

Add the fact back in the 70's and 80s people couldn't just walk into a council office and declare themselves homeless and get sent to a hotel free of any financial contribution and stay there long term turning down houses

Idbatterim

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out over the next few years, but I think its going to get worse on the housing front. Or all money available, goes towards housing and the health black hole and the key infrastructure and debt servicing. But I think the days of them wasting billions on welfare increases etc are long gone. Cant wait to see the first budget... after brexit, now we have the corona virus doing economic damage and uncertainty.

Emme

The IT article states that many have to leave the area to find a house. That's no different to somebody moving to a commuter town and spending 3 hours daily travelling by train/car/bus to get to work.

Idbatterim

Emme wrote: »

The IT article states that many have to leave the area to find a house. That's no different to somebody moving to a commuter town and spending 3 hours daily travelling by train/car/bus to get to work.

all of the low density social housing in central areas, should be redeveloped to far higher density... the social housing tenants can be relocated to the same area, and put workers in the new apartments...

Eric Cartman

Idbatterim wrote: »

all of the low density social housing in central areas, should be redeveloped to far higher density... the social housing tenants can be relocated to the same area, and put workers in the new apartments...

Sure look at dolphins barn, there was ample opportunity to conpletely redevelop there, give a private developer a free site and fast track planning for an 8-10 storey development and keep 10% of it social in exchange, move back in the ones who work, move out the ones who dont and the rest is private housing for workers, fix the areas problems quickly and solve the housing issue

Idbatterim

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/nineteen-dublin-hotels-received-over-17794430

the densitites are far too low, government tax take too high. Build costs too high also for apartments. Then again, left to the market. Even if you address those issues, they might be too high a rate for even average incomes. Stamp duty needs to be abolished, anything that makes it harded for workers here to get a home, has to be emliminated, if they are throwing out free housing, its unacceptable to make it near impossible for others! or expect them to commute in on a third world public transport service for three hours a day, to pay for wasters living beside st stephens green

end of the road

Antares35 wrote: »

And what percentage of the market monthly rent would that be? Other tenants don't have that cushy clause about only being able to "pay what they can afford based on their income". It isn't their fault either.

the clause is there because the whole point of social housing is that it is housing provided for people unable to afford to pay market rate rent under any circumstances due to their income.

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

In a perfect world, absolutely but councils all over the country have shown an inability to do this. As it stands, it's cheaper to just let people continue not to pay than to enforce it in any decent way. It should irritate working and rent-compliant people in social housing too, they pay their way, while the scrounging class do not.

councils aren't allowed to take money at source currently from what i understand.
they might be able to get attachment orders perhapse but then again i have no knowledge on that issue.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Sure look at dolphins barn, there was ample opportunity to conpletely redevelop there, give a private developer a free site and fast track planning for an 8-10 storey development and keep 10% of it social in exchange, move back in the ones who work, move out the ones who dont and the rest is private housing for workers, fix the areas problems quickly and solve the housing issue

while transferring the area's problems somewhere else rather then actually dealing with them.
but it's clear to me, that those proposing this don't actually care about the areas they want to throw these people into.
it sounds to me like they really believe that it's simply going to be a population swap, all workers in the city and all non-workers elsewhere.
i would expect that is something that is never going to be achieved or could be achievable.

end of the road

Idbatterim wrote: »

look, big business is not shouldering its "fair share", but its outrageous that hundreds of thousands in social housing, are paying near nothing and benefitting from a ridiculous system, when the lack of rent they are paying, massively hampers providing more social and affordable housing. Its morally corrupt. I dont care what way its spun!

the only thing corrupt about the system is the lack of staff to deal with abuse.
other then that, the rate of rents for social housing are correct as they are based on income as determined by the council.
the rent rates in social housing are never going to be such that money could be spent on building more, as i would suspect that would require an across the board raise to market rates, defeating the whole point of social housing and sending more people into a non-payment situation.

Idbatterim wrote: »

you also have to have a banking system. Look I dont agree with the bailout of anglo etc, what happened is morally corrput. But its over, its done. This excessive welfare and poverty trap it creates, is unacceptable!

if money needs to be raised to pay for this new housing, it should start with existing social housing rents and lack of payments. In fact, I would create a new body, that is run by a new authority, the local councils are pathetic. Outsource a lot of its operation to the private sector, who are actually good at what they do... Like revenue collection and actually building more stock. It would be a very safe bet for developers, with the state as the buyer...

outsourcing to the private sector would i suspect, cost a lot and deliver little.
while large elements of the private sector are good at what they do, just like bits of the public sector, some elements certainly aren't.

Idbatterim wrote: »

all of the low density social housing in central areas, should be redeveloped to far higher density... the social housing tenants can be relocated to the same area, and put workers in the new apartments...

if they could be relocated they would already have been so.
the reality is they likely can't without a big spend to bring the areas they would potentially be located to up to scratch, relevant infrastructure and setting up the relevant supports and resources, in some cases from scratch.
not to mention the residents of these areas won't want to become essentially dumping grounds for people some think they are to good to have to breathe the same air as.
not every single worker will be able to go to the cities either as they will either own property already, or be paying a mortgage, for which they may not be guaranteed a buyer of the property they currently are in, or for other reasons.
the reality i suspect, is that this is in no way as logistically easy as some would like it to be.

corks finest

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Why do you think Ireland has the largest number of single parents in Europe?

Doubt that

BanditLuke

Idbatterim wrote: »

all of the low density social housing in central areas, should be redeveloped to far higher density... the social housing tenants can be relocated to the same area, and put workers in the new apartments...

People in social housing work.

pinkyeye

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

His mother died a year and a half ago, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest maybe he could have been honest with the council in that period of time and also have got himself a job.

Got a job at 60? Do you know many places taking on 60 year olds? Ridiculous statement. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

growleaves

J_1980 wrote: »

Hopefully the Coronavirus will accelerate the demise of the Western welfare state. Personally I don’t think we are ripe for a recession yet, but maybe this way the central banks (interest rates, QE) and government (stimulus) waste all their firepower so in 2022 or whenever the demand recession strikes there’s nothing left but budget cuts.
The Asian economies are just too competitive for the West, the “cheap money” tapering over will eventually run out of steam.

If the Western welfare state meets its demise in the throes of a gigantic recession - right when lots of people are being thrown out of work - then the result will be lots of suicides.

You're some kind of anti-patriot (I won't say traitor), hoping for the State to run short of resources. It's nihilistic in the extreme.

Your arrogant sense of self-sufficiency is starting to fry your brains. Seek help.

Galwayguy35

pinkyeye wrote: »

Got a job at 60? Do you know many places taking on 60 year olds? Ridiculous statement. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Spare us the eye roll princess, looks like you prefer him to leech off the state instead.

Now that is ridiculous.

Jinglejangle69

BanditLuke wrote: »

People in social housing work.

Not many though if were been honest.

Gatling

BanditLuke wrote: »

People in social housing work.

And pay the equivalent of one workers coffee and sandwich in rent a week

And those Paying feck all are poor and vulnerable .

Yeah right !

Jinglejangle69

Leechers and spongers and the mostly Me Feiners.

The entitled class who contribute nothing.

You want something in life then go and earn it.

**** off.

BanditLuke

Gatling wrote: »

And pay the equivalent of one workers coffee and sandwich in rent a week

And those Paying feck all are poor and vulnerable .

Yeah right !

Unless coffees and a sandwichs are costing over 130 euro a week you are wrong.

BanditLuke

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Not many though if were been honest.

The vast majority actually but that doesn't fit your agenda.

Gatling

BanditLuke wrote: »

Unless coffees and a sandwichs are costing over 130 euro a week you are wrong.

€12 for one lunch .the equivalent of council rent for a week

BanditLuke

Gatling wrote: »

€12 for one lunch .the equivalent of council rent for a week

Not mine or any of my close friends in the area.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

BanditLuke

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Not many though if were been honest.

i'm always honest

end of the road

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Spare us the eye roll princess, looks like you prefer him to leech off the state instead.

Now that is ridiculous.

that was not what was said, as you know.
just because we are being realistic, rather then idealistic, it doesn't mean we prefer him to be supposebly leaching off the state, if he is indeed doing that.

Gatling wrote: »

€12 for one lunch .the equivalent of council rent for a week

where? doesn't seem to be in ireland anyway, as i have never heard rent rates of 12 euro a week for any council/social house.

Eric Cartman

BanditLuke wrote: »

The vast majority actually but that doesn't fit your agenda.

15% derive income only from work, a further 7% do some work, 62% only claim social welfare, again and again this myth is debunked, social tenants mostly do not work and the proportion that claim no welfare is 1 in 10.

growleaves

Eric Cartman wrote: »

10% derive income only from work, a further 17% do some work, 62% only claim social welfare, again and again this myth is debunked, social tenants mostly do not work and the proportion that claim no welfare is 1 in 10.

Would you turf them all out if you could?

Jinglejangle69

growleaves wrote: »

Would you turf them all out if you could?

Absolutey.

Eric Cartman

growleaves wrote: »

Would you turf them all out if you could?

the 10% that work and on a case by case basis the 17% who somewhat work should be allowed stay in urban areas , the 62% who do not work should be sent to rural locations after 5 years continued unemployment or only be able to avail of rural properties if they dont amass 5 years continued employment during their application period. I think if you gain a criminal conviction you shouldn't be entitled to any housing.

BanditLuke

Eric Cartman wrote: »

10% derive income only from work, a further 17% do some work, 62% only claim social welfare, again and again this myth is debunked, social tenants mostly do not work and the proportion that claim no welfare is 1 in 10.

Not my experience, not even close.

Eric Cartman

BanditLuke wrote: »

Not my experience, not even close.

see Im using figures from the social housing report 2018 compiled by the CSO, youre using anecdotes. Its always funny how everyone on boards in a social estate is only surrounded by workers yet the official figures suggest otherwise.


My numbers slightly skewed there, apologies but still....