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

BanditLuke

growleaves wrote: »

Would you turf them all out if you could?

Of course he would. He'd have them begging on the streets. Look at his posting history and hatred for social housing tenents.

Antares35

BanditLuke wrote: »

People in social housing work.

How come they can only pay nominal rent then?

Antares35

BanditLuke wrote: »

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

Cant remember the last time I bought lunch out. Slice pan, packet of cheese and some cherry tomatoes. Lunch for a few days. Since we are saving to actually buy our own place while also paying rent. Its called living within your means and not expecting other people to be responsible for you.

DelaneyIn

growleaves wrote: »

Would you turf them all out if you could?

Here’s a novel idea. Have them earn their keep and work to support themselves. No fit and able bodied person should be long term unemployed in the current economy.

Idbatterim

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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.

Are these stats for real ?

Idbatterim

Antares35 wrote: »

How come they can only pay nominal rent then?

This is decided by the council. The same bunch of rats who claim they have no money. The same bunch of rats constantly lowering lpt. The same bunch of rats trying to limit development as much as possible. Those fcukers are culprit number one in this housing crisis.

Idbatterim

Antares35 wrote: »

Cant remember the last time I bought lunch out. Slice pan, packet of cheese and some cherry tomatoes. Lunch for a few days. Since we are saving to actually buy our own place while also paying rent. Its called living within your means and not expecting other people to be responsible for you.

They constantly complain about being broke , because they are ****e with money ! How many spend twenty euro a week + for a single large pizza In dominoes , in the worlds busiest dominoes or world busiest Krispy Kreme, also ironically in west Dublin ? Literally any welfare increases are one hundred percent going towards waste. All resources now need to be funneled towards making housing more affordable for workers , health black hole , infrastructure and debt repayments

BanditLuke

Idbatterim wrote: »

They constantly complain about being broke , because they are ****e with money ! How many spend twenty euro a week + for a single large pizza In dominoes , in the worlds busiest dominoes or world busiest Krispy Kreme, also ironically in west Dublin ? Literally any welfare increases are one hundred percent going towards waste. All resources now need to be funneled towards making housing more affordable for workers , health black hole , infrastructure and debt repayments

There is affordable housing for workers, it's called social housing and the reason so many are angry is because not enough of it was built the last 30 year.

BanditLuke

Antares35 wrote: »

How come they can only pay nominal rent then?

Myself and my wife pay a percentage of our wages based on our yearly P60 on rent. It's not nominal to us.

BanditLuke

Antares35 wrote: »

Cant remember the last time I bought lunch out. Slice pan, packet of cheese and some cherry tomatoes. Lunch for a few days. Since we are saving to actually buy our own place while also paying rent. Its called living within your means and not expecting other people to be responsible for you.

I bring a packed lunch also. We live well within our means.

Antares35

BanditLuke wrote: »

There is affordable housing for workers, it's called social housing and the reason so many are angry is because not enough of it was built the last 30 year.

I'm not sure that is true in every case. Some people might be angered because they themselves struggle to pay exorbitant rents and save for their own house while their salaries are pilfered in order to subsidise others.

Antares35

BanditLuke wrote: »

Myself and my wife pay a percentage of our wages based on our yearly P60 on rent. It's not nominal to us.

The term nominal is defined as being "far below the real value or cost/ not necessarily corresponding to the real value".

Therefore, in the context of the current rental market, it does in fact fall within the definition, since its nominal quality derives from rental prices, not the income of those who avail of it.

BanditLuke

BanditLuke wrote: »

Myself and my wife pay a percentage of our wages based on our yearly P60 on rent. It's not nominal to us.

What's the net income and what's the rent?

Idbatterim

Antares35 wrote: »

I'm not sure that is true in every case. Some people might be angered because they themselves struggle to pay exorbitant rents and save for their own house while their salaries are pilfered in order to subsidise others.

FIFTY percent of their salary is being robbed over the pittance of 35k! and we wonder why its so hard to save with day light robbery rents and robbery marginal tax rate!

And then these workers have to listen to people protesting about an extra E3 in week they are being asked to pay for social housing, most paying it from the free money they get from the broke taxpayer every week?

BanditLuke

Augeo wrote: »

What's the net income and what's the rent?

None of your business but it's a very fair price.

The state of the housing market is the fault of the current and past governments, not those living in social housing.

Luke

Dublin City Council recent rent stats

- 24,574 total tenants
- 17,775 of these tenants are behind on their rent, owing €33.5 million
- 11,888 are paying the minimum rent of €25.65 weekly (largely those whose only income comes from social welfare benefits)
- €69.41 is the average weekly rent
- €425 a week is the maximum DCC can charge, but no tenant is currently paying this amount
- €265.87 is the highest weekly amount DCC currently charge (€1,152 a month)
- €15 million was owed by the council’s best-paid tenants – those with household incomes of more than €800 a week.
- 25 tenants owe more than €27,000 each

Source from the Irish Times - I cant post URLS

Antares35

BanditLuke wrote: »

None of your business but it's a very fair price.

The state of the housing market is the fault of the current and past governments, not those living in social housing.

Luke

Isn't this entirely subjective?

Idbatterim

Deleted User wrote: »

Dublin City Council recent rent stats

- 24,574 total tenants
- 17,775 of these tenants are behind on their rent, owing €33.5 million
- 11,888 are paying the minimum rent of €25.65 weekly (largely those whose only income comes from social welfare benefits)
- €69.41 is the average weekly rent
- €425 a week is the maximum DCC can charge, but no tenant is currently paying this amount
- €265.87 is the highest weekly amount DCC currently charge (€1,152 a month)
- €15 million was owed by the council’s best-paid tenants – those with household incomes of more than €800 a week.
- 25 tenants owe more than €27,000 each

Source from the Irish Times - I cant post URLS

right, so the E69.41 is the average weekly rent, double what typical annual management fee would be for an apartment alone, fair play to them...

they should abolish LPT and replace it with a council tax, all adults pay it, no exemptions from the most secure in society , i.e. those with a free (in my opinion) 4eva home with no chance of eviction and guaranteed income paid by you and I every week...

Idbatterim

Antares35 wrote: »

Isn't this entirely subjective?

kind of, I dont think its that subjective, when you have one group of "poor" paying virtually nothing and the other working poor, can seemingly pay far more, no problem... :rolleyes:

Deebles McBeebles

More stats here
https://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/statistics/house-prices-loans-and-profile-borrowers/local-authority-rented-sector-activity

Idbatterim

ridiculous, the robbinghoold council ;robbing from the working screwed, **** housing situation poor - to give to the mostly idle time rich, free housing, cash "poor" :rolleyes:

Gatling

Idbatterim wrote: »

ridiculous, the robbinghoold council ;robbing from the working screwed, **** housing situation poor - to give to the mostly idle time rich, free housing, cash "poor" :rolleyes:

But wait there the poor .

Just happened to have the majority of their earnings to themselves every week while everyone else struggles to keep their noses above water .

end of the road

DelaneyIn wrote: »

Here’s a novel idea. Have them earn their keep and work to support themselves. No fit and able bodied person should be long term unemployed in the current economy.

it's not the 1950s anymore, the days of there being a job for everyone are gone.
there is no work for the unemployable to do. employers aren't going to take them on, i would expect that it would not be cost effective

for the state to create work for them.

Antares35 wrote: »

I'm not sure that is true in every case. Some people might be angered because they themselves struggle to pay exorbitant rents and save for their own house while their salaries are pilfered in order to subsidise others.

one's wages would be "pilfered" as you describe it anyway. regardless of what does or doesn't exist in terms of services.
it's called tax, and it has been paid in some form throughout history i believe.

Idbatterim wrote: »

right, so the E69.41 is the average weekly rent, double what typical annual management fee would be for an apartment alone, fair play to them...

they should abolish LPT and replace it with a council tax, all adults pay it, no exemptions from the most secure in society , i.e. those with a free (in my opinion) 4eva home with no chance of eviction and guaranteed income paid by you and I every week...

that would be unviable, as i would suspect it would bring undue hardship upon those with very low incomes.
+ tax is already paid within the country, to central government.
i would actually wonder if abolishing councils altogether might be a better option, do we really need 2 layers of government?

BanditLuke

Deleted User wrote: »

Dublin City Council recent rent stats

- 24,574 total tenants
- 17,775 of these tenants are behind on their rent, owing €33.5 million
- 11,888 are paying the minimum rent of €25.65 weekly (largely those whose only income comes from social welfare benefits)
- €69.41 is the average weekly rent
- €425 a week is the maximum DCC can charge, but no tenant is currently paying this amount
- €265.87 is the highest weekly amount DCC currently charge (€1,152 a month)
- €15 million was owed by the council’s best-paid tenants – those with household incomes of more than €800 a week.
- 25 tenants owe more than €27,000 each

Source from the Irish Times - I cant post URLS

Umm. You set up an account to post that :rolleyes:

BanditLuke

Idbatterim wrote: »

ridiculous, the robbinghoold council ;robbing from the working screwed, **** housing situation poor - to give to the mostly idle time rich, free housing, cash "poor" :rolleyes:

Social housing isn't free. You pay a percentage of your income based on year ends P60 towards the rent.

Gatling

BanditLuke wrote: »

Social housing isn't free

The figures suggest otherwise .

So much for fair

BanditLuke

Gatling wrote: »

The figures suggest otherwise .

So much for fair

Must be just giving that money to that scammer from Nigeria so. Ill have to inform my bank.

BanditLuke

BanditLuke wrote: »

Social housing isn't free. You pay a percentage of your income based on year ends P60 towards the rent.

According to above stats:

- 48% of DCC tenants are charged €111 a month which they pay out of their social welfare received from the government (free in my books)
- 72% of DCC tenants are behind in their rent (mostly free in my books)

Yeah some pay, like your good self, but most take the piss unfortunately.

Antares35

BanditLuke wrote: »

Umm. You set up an account to post that :rolleyes:

I found it rather helpful, being based in fact and all that

Antares35

BanditLuke wrote: »

Social housing isn't free. You pay a percentage of your income based on year ends P60 towards the rent.

Feels like going in circles. It's not "free". It's not "nominal". What is it then? I wouldn't mind only paying a percentage of my income on rent however I never had that luxury. Was up to me to make sure I earned enough to cover it, and if there was a shortage, cuts had to be made elsewhere.

You still didn't tell us what % you actually pay.