Is it fair to mix social housing with privately owned homes?

Mad_maxx

Eric Cartman wrote: »

What genuine benefit would it achieve though. Like absolutely honest question, were one of the worlds wealthiest countries , per capita excluding oil rich nordics we have the most generous welfare system in the western world, what positive benefit could a left wing government do for those who work, or is it only a benefit for those who dont,

Even the supposedly right wing parties here walk left in practice

BanditLuke

Few of you here should start up a political party seriously because not one of the present bunch are listening or even contemplating any measures like you are suggesting.

Good luck.

Mr. teddywinkles

BanditLuke wrote: »

Lol you just can't take people's possessions away. Stop talking rubbish.

Obviously never watch the program. Can't pay take it away then.

storker

Padre_Pio wrote: »

If your neighbours never bothered you and you never saw them, would you care?

I would be more interested in how they behaved than in how they got the property. That said, any trouble should result in instant eviction.

Eric Cartman

BanditLuke wrote: »

Few of you here should start up a political party seriously because not one of the present bunch are listening or even contemplating any measures like you are suggesting.

Good luck.

will you promise not to label us far right racists ?

Floppybits

storker wrote: »

I would be more interested in how they behaved than in how they got the property. That said, any trouble should result in instant eviction.

And there is the problem, there are no evictions, there is no action taken against these people. If you call the gardai or council to report them then you run the risk of these neighbours tormenting you such as house being egged, windows being smashed, tyres slashed. It will you that will end up moving probably at a loss and not the anti social neighbours.

Thelonious Monk

Floppybits wrote: »

And there is the problem, there are no evictions, there is no action taken against these people. If you call the gardai or council to report them then you run the risk of these neighbours tormenting you such as house being egged, windows being smashed, tyres slashed. It will you that will end up moving probably at a loss and not the anti social neighbours.

If you were in charge, where would you evict them to? We don't put people out on the streets in Ireland, and that would create even worse problems anyway.

Pixel Eater

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

If you were in charge, where would you evict them to? We don't put people out on the streets in Ireland, and that would create even worse problems anyway.

One of those 'Hubs' or a hotel. And, dependning on the individual, prison.

James Brown

Social housing should be built in small estates. They would be of a basic standard and any lady or gent who likely grew up in social housing can still look down their nose if living nearby. Everyone happy.

Estates that are now mostly private transitioned when tenants started buying. Those who bought had their own home they could do with what they liked. The renters didn't. So those who bought got home ownership for their troubles.

Pixel Eater wrote: »

One of those 'Hubs' or a hotel. And, dependning on the individual, prison.

Personally I'm sick to f*** paying for hotels and the profit margins of vulture funds and private landlords. Aren't you?

end of the road

Floppybits wrote: »

And this is the problem. Like i said the only thing they understand is when they're own possessions are under threat. Treat like children and start taking away their tv, bikes, motorbikes, games. Make their life a miserable as possible and they might just cop themselves on. Or else move them to another part of the country, no appealing the decision, no listening to them moan, just turn up and clear their crap out to a van and off to another part of the country. Tough

not tough as the other parts of the country they would be inflicted on have a right not to be inflicted with such individuals, just as much as the areas they are currently in.
the first suggestion you made is also unlikely to do anything.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Left wingers write and influence policy, it matters not what stripe the signing off minister is

government writes policy, i would imagine based on feedback from all walks of society.

Idbatterim wrote: »

how do we get an obscene welfare state then? free housing for many? medical cards, free transport, massively reduced drugs. Free tv license. We hit workers on modest and high incomes with scandalous rates of tax, given they get nothing for it. Huge amounts outside the tax net, no water charges, as good as no property tax. This country is a banana republic, just waiting for this **** to come crashing down again!

we get the non-obscene but necessary welfare stateand all of the necessary supports you mention, from good government which understands that there are those in society who will need various supports.
property tax and water charges could put undue hardship upon struggling people, and quite rightly they do not seem to have a lot of support, so therefore should not go any further.

BanditLuke

Eric Cartman wrote: »

will you promise not to label us far right racists ?

No but I promise I'll never vote for you is that fair enough

James Brown

Eric Cartman wrote: »

What genuine benefit would it achieve though. Like absolutely honest question, were one of the worlds wealthiest countries , per capita excluding oil rich nordics we have the most generous welfare system in the western world, what positive benefit could a left wing government do for those who work, or is it only a benefit for those who dont,

Have less people relying on hand outs, more people able to pay their own way? Better value for your taxes? Quality over sweet deals and crony appointments? The balls to tackle the HSE?
These are what I consider, what most people want. FF/FG aren't doing any of the above and in most cases making matters worse.

Now you can jump in with, 'sure who's going to do that?'. I don't know, but we need give the possibility a chance IMO. Voting FF/FG will not achieve any of the above. They've no interest. It suits them to have things as is.

As a tax payer, would you trade less billionaires for less people using state aid?

Geuze

Bowie wrote: »

Have less people relying on hand outs, more people able to pay their own way? Better value for your taxes? Quality over sweet deals and crony appointments? The balls to tackle the HSE?
These are what I consider, what most people want. FF/FG aren't doing any of the above and in most cases making matters worse.

Now you can jump in with, 'sure who's going to do that?'. I don't know, but we need give the possibility a chance IMO. Voting FF/FG will not achieve any of the above. They've no interest. It suits them to have things as is.

But sure left-wing Govts plan to increase welfare benefits, and they will not "tackle" the HSE, they will give its staff pay increases.

James Brown

Geuze wrote: »

But sure left-wing Govts plan to increase welfare benefits, and they will not "tackle" the HSE, they will give its staff pay increases.

Which ones, all of them? I can't see any party, except maybe FF, raising welfare for kicks. If it's needed, great, do it. However the majority are low to middle income working tax payers. I can't see even a selfish, in it for seats, party raising welfare with no justification.
As to HSE staff, nurses? Again while welcome if needed, I'm talking about restructuring.

Anyway, we know what FF/FG are at it it's none of the things I listed, so they are a waste of time for certain.

mariaalice

What a leftish government would do and its to everybodys benefit is universalism such as everybody benefiting from subsidised child care, for example, no means testing which tends to pit everyone against everyone else.

Everyone under 80k should be able to apply for social housing and the rent should be the same for everyone but thos on low incomes or on welfare would get a rebate. Its a subtle but important point.

It would cost more though.

Eric Cartman

mariaalice wrote: »

What a leftish government would do and its to everybodys benefit is universalism such as everybody benefiting from subsidised child care, for example, no means testing which tends to pit everyone against everyone else.

Everyone under 80k should be able to apply for social housing and the rent should be the same for everyone but thos on low incomes or on welfare would get a rebate. Its a subtle but important point.

It would cost more though.

Therein lies the problem, the tax payer is already at breaking point. There is literally no demographic over 30k that you could tax more, spending would have to come from savings and cuts, something no party is willing to do.

Dorakman

mariaalice wrote: »

What a leftish government would do and its to everybodys benefit is universalism such as everybody benefiting from subsidised child care, for example, no means testing which tends to pit everyone against everyone else.

Everyone under 80k should be able to apply for social housing and the rent should be the same for everyone but thos on low incomes or on welfare would get a rebate. Its a subtle but important point.

It would cost more though.

Where’s the money for this going to come from?

Geuze

Bowie wrote: »

Which ones, all of them? I can't see any party, except maybe FF, raising welfare for kicks. If it's needed, great, do it. .

The SF manifesto lists many welfare benefit increases.

https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2020/SF_GE2020_Manifesto.pdf

James Brown

Geuze wrote: »

The SF manifesto lists many welfare benefit increases.

https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2020/SF_GE2020_Manifesto.pdf

Do they explain why? Does it include rental aid and the like? As I said if it is for a particular reason other than 'just cause' it might be needed.
What I can gather is any raises are for specific demographics with higher poverty levels. Very different from bumping up the brew for all comers.

Idbatterim

Bowie wrote: »

Do they explain why? Does it include rental aid and the like? As I said if it is for a particular reason other than 'just cause' it might be needed.
What I can gather is any raises are for specific demographics with higher poverty levels. Very different from bumping up the brew for all comers.

what group would have high poverty levels? many workers in general would have higher poverty levels than any one getting welfare! because they are likely ripped off on housing or have become homeless..

El Duda

I work on residential developments and the way most clients speak about social housing and the occupants is disgusting. It's almost as if they think they're sub-human.

From my experience, the sort of people that live in social housing may be poor and some of them are untidy, but there a lot of good people. Salt of the earth types. Just because someone owns a property privately doesn't mean that they won't be a nuisance/take drugs/be anti-social.

Sickens me hearing constant remarks in meetings. They never even stop to consider for a second that the person they're talking to may have grown up in or have relatives that live in social housing. I recently had a meeting about some houses with sloping ceilings upstairs. We asked the client if we should push the walls out to the lowest ceiling points (1200mm high) and his response was; "No. Don't do that. They'll probabaly just use the room to grow cannabis"

A truly revolting thing to say.

Idbatterim

this is what happens, when one person breaks their balls to pay for it all and pay massive rent and mortgage and the neighbour lives a relatively stress free existence, same living standard and gets it handed to them on a plate...

there has been far too much focus from the meeja and RTE in particular, about "de vulneable" and the people paying for it all, stressed out and knackered, many broke themselves, arent interested in the bull**** any more...

end of the road

Idbatterim wrote: »

this is what happens, when one person breaks their balls to pay for it all and pay massive rent and mortgage and the neighbour lives a relatively stress free existence, same living standard and gets it handed to them on a plate...

there has been far too much focus from the meeja and RTE in particular, about "de vulneable" and the people paying for it all, stressed out and knackered, many broke themselves, arent interested in the bull**** any more...

no, it's what happens when people think they are superior, think they are big shots, think they are special and are entitled to more and a higher standing in society, think people should fawn over them and fall at their feat and tell them how brilliant and great they are, all because they either own property, or privately rent, and all because of what they have/own and have achieved.
thankfully such people are a tiny minority, but they are ridiculously vocal dispite their size, thanks to the internet. the up side is at least they will be challenged.
rte and jaa meeja are not responsible for this attitude and the nonsense excuses made for having such an attitude, the people with this attitude are the ones who are responsible for having it, nobody else.

Helgagirl

Why assume anti social behaviour is only in social housing. A family member who owns their own home and their neighbour who also owns their own home has caused my family member a great deal of stress since they moved in, constantly having parties where they blare music loudly till six or so in the morning. Have television blaring so loud that it can be heard in my family member's home. Been asked on numerous occasions to lower music down and they just ignore the requests. The previous neighbours couldn't be heard like this. It all depends on the person not the social housing aspect. To add to the earlier post about some people thinking they are special, and above others I would agree on this. Where my husband works the office staff think nothing of throwing their rubbish around the communal areas as their opinion is that it is the cleaners job to pick up after them! I am sorry but that is just blatant ignorance to treat another human being with that attitude, maybe they are lesser paid but they are not lesser people.

BarnardsLoop

Even the dogs in the street know that not mixing social and private housing leads to ghettoisation but oh no! The ****ing geniuses of CA/IMHO have it all figured out! Of course the usual 'hang 'em and flog 'em' crowd think doing the same things that've been done for centuries with no success will THIS TIME lead to a different result.

God forbid you bring any sort of sense into these threads when the mighty pea-brains have their sacred and inviolate anecdotes that trump everything else. Keep doing what you're doing, lads, and keep cribbing that nothing changes.

BanditLuke

El Duda wrote: »

I work on residential developments and the way most clients speak about social housing and the occupants is disgusting. It's almost as if they think they're sub-human.

From my experience, the sort of people that live in social housing may be poor and some of them are untidy, but there a lot of good people. Salt of the earth types. Just because someone owns a property privately doesn't mean that they won't be a nuisance/take drugs/be anti-social.

Sickens me hearing constant remarks in meetings. They never even stop to consider for a second that the person they're talking to may have grown up in or have relatives that live in social housing. I recently had a meeting about some houses with sloping ceilings upstairs. We asked the client if we should push the walls out to the lowest ceiling points (1200mm high) and his response was; "No. Don't do that. They'll probabaly just use the room to grow cannabis"

A truly revolting thing to say.

This site is full of it also tbh. Seems to me the mods could care less also.

Helgagirl

Helgagirl wrote:

Why assume anti social behaviour is only in social housing.

The assumption is that those who have bought a house, and paid into a mortgage over time, will be invested in their residential area, and so will be less likely to do anything to lower the overall value or livability of the area. It does tend to bear out that those who have invested their own money, and struggled to pay a mortgage will have a vested interest in keeping the area clean and safe.

The issue is more to do with children/teenagers who don't have that invested interest, and become an issue for vandalism/crime/etc. It's something that most homeowners are aware of. That's not to say that all homeowners take care of their properties or respect others. I've had various neighbors who didn't with their own property, and I've also taken a neighbor to court over damages done to my own property by him.

As regards social housing, I don't want it in my area because it will lower the overall value of the residential estate. It's not directly about who occupies the social housing, but the perception of what social housing involves. You, and others, can rail about the injustice of it all, but that stereotype, and more importantly, that perception exists. With buyers. With people seeking to buy a home to raise a family, who generally are the buyers seeking to buy into an estate.

BarnardsLoop wrote:

Even the dogs in the street know that not mixing social and private housing leads to ghettoisation but oh no! The ****ing geniuses of CA/IMHO have it all figured out! Of course the usual 'hang 'em and flog 'em' crowd think doing the same things that've been done for centuries with no success will THIS TIME lead to a different result.

God forbid you bring any sort of sense into these threads when the mighty pea-brains have their sacred and inviolate anecdotes that trump everything else. Keep doing what you're doing, lads, and keep cribbing that nothing changes..

Well, thanks for lumping us all together... We must all be part of the 'hang 'em and flog 'em' crowd if we don't automatically fall in line. :rolleyes:

The problem with these threads is that reasonable debate isn't really encouraged. Your post is a perfect example of that. If someone doesn't praise and worship those in social housing, then they're being unreasonable... and anecdotes are, generally, what counts with homeowners.. For all your complaint about nothing changing... where are your suggestions for how it's to change? Give us some details, rather than simply passing judgment on others.

Geuze

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Therein lies the problem, the tax payer is already at breaking point. There is literally no demographic over 30k that you could tax more, spending would have to come from savings and cuts, something no party is willing to do.

My parents on 48k pay 8% direct income tax.

Taxes are very low on some groups.

NB: I do not agree with the previous proposal of more universalism, just pointing out that taxes are not high in Ireland.

Geuze

mariaalice wrote: »

What a leftish government would do and its to everybodys benefit is universalism such as everybody benefiting from subsidised child care, for example, no means testing which tends to pit everyone against everyone else.

Rather than more Nordic-style universal welfare, I favour more continental-style social insurance.

You paid more PRSI, you get more benefits.

You never paid PRSI, you get much less.

Dorakman

Geuze wrote: »

My parents on 48k pay 8% direct income tax.

Taxes are very low on some groups.

NB: I do not agree with the previous proposal of more universalism, just pointing out that taxes are not high in Ireland.

48k each or between them?