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

Geuze

Dorakman wrote: »

48k each or between them?

Approx 48k, 49k in total.

Both over 65.

Zero PRSI.

Reduced USC as they have full med cards.

Adding tax and reduced USC equals about 8% direct tax on their income.

Dorakman

Geuze wrote: »

Approx 48k, 49k in total.

Both over 65.

Zero PRSI.

Reduced USC as they have full med cards.

Adding tax and reduced USC equals about 8% direct tax on their income.

Considering the average salary is in or around 40k, and at that rate you pay significantly more tax. 70k-80k, you keep less than 2/3 of your salary. Above 70k, you get 45c for every euro you earn. We pay huge rates of tax in Ireland.

Fred Cryton

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.

But it's interesting that you don't actually live AMONG the people in social housing. Would you be saying the same thing if you lived in an estate for a year that was mostly social housing?



It's this kind of softy nieve attitude which allows these people to run riot in the first place. Pretending that because some in social housing might be good people, that somehow excuses everything that happens in social housing. In fact it's your attitude i find most revolting of all.



You are making excuses for their behavior!! Poverty or how they grew up is not an excuse for the crime, thuggery, burning cars, robbery, thievery, happy slapping and everything else.



We want these people out of sight and out of mind. We DO NOT want to live among them.

Odyssey 2005

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

I paid 350K for my house, I'll be 70 when I've finally paid off the mortgage.

4 doors down are the socials who pay 45 euros a week. They all drive more expensive cars that me. Simply not fair. Thank you FFG.

If or when SF/IRA get into government itll be worse.

Fred Cryton

Fred Cryton wrote: »

We want these people out of sight and out of mind. We DO NOT want to live among them.

Kinda.. although I don't think it's simply that we want them "out of sight and out of mind". We want them fixed.

Before anyone goes nuts over the idea of "fixing them"... it's more the case of uplifting them out of their current situation, rather than supporting that existing situation. Which is what I find many people seem to want to do. Rather than seek ways to educate them, and provide them with decent work, it's easier to give them handouts and a house.

It's a lot like the mentality regarding charity for Africa. Throw money at a problem, and hope it resolves. It's someone elses problem to fix, because you're being good enough to cough up the cash.

I can see the need for social housing in the short term, but we've already allowed it to grow beyond what it used to be. It's not getting better by pandering to those "in need". Severe Limits need to be put in place so that social housing is available for those truly incapable of providing for themselves effectively (the mentally or physically ill who want some sense of normal living), but the idea that the average person really needs that kind of financial help, is.. a cop out. Skills can be taught. Jobs can be found both in RL and online.

end of the road

Fred Cryton wrote: »

But it's interesting that you don't actually live AMONG the people in social housing. Would you be saying the same thing if you lived in an estate for a year that was mostly social housing?

his point is still valid, regardless of where he lives.

Fred Cryton wrote: »

It's this kind of softy nieve attitude which allows these people to run riot in the first place.

no, it's few gards to enforce the laws and light sentences.

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Pretending that because some in social housing might be good people, that somehow excuses everything that happens in social housing. In fact it's your attitude i find most revolting of all.

i have never saw such a view on this site.
that because many/most in social housing are good that those who engage incriminality and antisocial behaviour are fine and their behaviour is fine.
if you find his attitude revolting, that is your problem.

Fred Cryton wrote: »

You are making excuses for their behavior!!

he isn't, you are simply imagining that he is to suit your agenda.

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Poverty or how they grew up is not an excuse for the crime, thuggery, burning cars, robbery, thievery, happy slapping and everything else.

nobody ever said it was, or if they did, they certainly haven't in this thread, or any of the other threads i have took part in over the years on this site discussing such issues.

Fred Cryton wrote: »

We want these people out of sight and out of mind. We DO NOT want to live among them.

tough, that's not possible and never going to happen, having them out of sight and out of mind is undeliverable.
mixed developments and integration are likely going to continue to be policy, so in time chances are you may be living near people in social housing, so you will need to get over it.