# Social Housing - Creating a monster



## Sunny

I might as well state from the beginning that I believe that there is a need for social and affordable housing in every civil society and I hate seeing families living in the hotels or homelessness and I do want us to do something

BUT

Came across a situation recently in my local area in Dublin where two new blocks of apartments were being built adjacent to an existing development on a plot of land that was in NAMA but was then sold to a developer. The developer is in the process of building over 40 apartments and nobody batted an eyelid until it came to peoples notice that the entire two blocks of over 40 apartments has been sold to a housing agency for social housing. I just found this to be staggering for a couple of reasons:
- These apartments were sold off market to a housing agency. They were never made available to the public. There are plenty of first time buyers in my area crying out for houses/apartments that they can afford and these would have been in their budget but they were never even in a position to buy. A 3 bed house in the area will cost close to 400k so these apartments were affordable for many first time buyers. How is it fair that not only do they now have to compete against other buyers but now have to compete against housing agencies with millions of state funds to spend and buy entire blocks privately?
- Two entire blocks of social housing. I thought the idea was to integrate social, affordable and private housing. 100% of this development will be social. How is that best practice?
- Social housing is there to help people and rightly so but I am curious to know how many people in social housing ever leave social housing. Has anyone ever seen any figures? I would imagine the number is small so are we just spending another couple of billion on creating a system where thousands of people are dependent on welfare?
- What impact is all this provision of social housing having on the property market? These agencies have hundreds of millions of euro to spend. This must be distorting the private market with regard to prices.
- Do we actually get value for money for all this spending? The list just seems to be getting longer and longer no matter how much money we throw at it. Beginning to look like the health service with numerous so called voluntary housing agencies competing for State Funds to spend. An entire industry seems to have been created.


----------



## Purple

Brendan brought up many of these points in TV3 a while ago. The lady from one of the housing agencies (I think it was DePaul) just kept repeating something like"But we live in a social democracy!" as if that justified waste, gaming the system and perpetuating a welfare trap which damages everyone.


----------



## Firefly

Sunny said:


> .....many first time buyers. How is it fair that not only do they now have to compete against other buyers but now have to compete against housing agencies with millions of state funds to spend and buy entire blocks privately?



That's a very good point.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sunny said:


> I might as well state from the beginning that I believe that there is a need for social and affordable housing in every civil society and I hate seeing families living in the hotels or homelessness and I do want us to do something



Agreed.



Sunny said:


> A 3 bed house in the area will cost close to 400k so these apartments were affordable for many first time buyers. How is it fair that not only do they now have to compete against other buyers but now have to compete against housing agencies with millions of state funds to spend and buy entire blocks privately?



I'm wondering, if a potential first-time buyer cannot afford a home, can they not apply for social housing? I'm going to take a guess and expect that there is a large cohort of working people who earn 'too much' to qualify for social housing and 'too little' to be able to afford a home of their own?



Purple said:


> as if that justified waste, gaming the system and perpetuating a welfare trap which damages everyone.



I think it is unfair to suggest that providing a home is 'waste', or to suggest that the recipients of social housing are 'gaming' the system.
I do agree however, that the model in place excludes a lot of working people from owning their own home by virtue of the market prices while simultaneously barring them from social housing by virtue of their income levels.

A market failure if ever there was one.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Sunny said:


> Came across a situation recently in my local area in Dublin where two new blocks of apartments were being built adjacent to an existing development on a plot of land that was in NAMA but was then sold to a developer. The developer is in the process of building over 40 apartments and nobody batted an eyelid until it came to peoples notice that the entire two blocks of over 40 apartments has been sold to a housing agency for social housing.



Hi Sunny

What is the address? 

People who have been working hard, saving hard and making sacrifices should protest this. 

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess

TheBigShort said:


> A market failure if ever there was one.



If the housing agencies and local authorities are bidding up houses beyond the means of the low paid worker, that is a bit more than a market failure.

Brendan


----------



## cremeegg

TheBigShort said:


> I'm wondering, if a potential first-time buyer cannot afford a home, can they not apply for social housing? I'm going to take a guess and expect that there is a large cohort of working people who earn 'too much' to qualify for social housing and 'too little' to be able to afford a home of their own?



How much do you have to earn for it to be "too much" to qualify for social housing?

The limit for Council (rather than Social) housing varies between local authorities, but is €35k for a single person in a number of areas, less elsewhere.


----------



## bleary

That's 35k net ,approx 50k gross


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> If the housing agencies and local authorities are bidding up houses beyond the means of the low paid worker, that is a bit more than a market failure.



Somewhat an oxymoron if it is low paid workers being allocated the housing?
But granted, the whole thing is a sorry mess. 
I read recently that the average two-income household in Dublin is €90,000 against average house prices of €360,000. 
Im sensing that those lending to income ratios are starting to get stretched once again.


----------



## TheBigShort

cremeegg said:


> How much do you have to earn for it to be "too much" to qualify for social housing?
> 
> The limit for Council (rather than Social) housing varies between local authorities, but is €35k for a single person in a number of areas, less elsewhere.



Eh, €35k so?


----------



## TheBigShort

Just an add-on to this. I do think it is highly peculiar for a social housing agency to 'bulk buy' property.
HAP is the biggest social housing support as far as I know, but they dont buy property. 

Perhaps the OP could provide more detail - location, agency involved etc, lest there be any doubt about the veracity of this thread?


----------



## Ceist Beag

How has it got to a point where people earning more than the national average wage qualify for social housing? This is indeed a monster. Surely what the state should be doing here is trying to ensure people can afford to buy their own houses, not providing them with a house for life.


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> Just an add-on to this. I do think it is highly peculiar for a social housing agency to 'bulk buy' property.
> HAP is the biggest social housing support as far as I know, but they dont buy property.
> 
> Perhaps the OP could provide more detail - location, agency involved etc, lest there be any doubt about the veracity of this thread?



Excuse me? I have been around this forum for a long time and I resent the implication that I am making up stories. I don't need to prove the veracity of anything. Basic research will show it is happening if you don't believe me. I am not going to give the location because these are still 40 homes at the end of the day and I have no desire to talk about 40 individual families on an internet forum. They are not the issue. The agency in question is Oaklee housing trust so you should be able to find the location yourself with a bit of effort. But all the housing agencies are doing it. They are even advertising looking for developments.

One other thing I should mention that it has come to light that at least one other housing agency was competing with Oaklee for this development. That means at least two voluntary housing agencies were bidding for a private development with a private developer using taxpayers money. You can't make this stuff up.........


----------



## Firefly

Sunny said:


> One other thing I should mention that it has come to light that at least one other housing agency was competing with Oaklee for this development. That means at least two voluntary housing agencies were bidding for a private development with a private developer using taxpayers money. You can't make this stuff up.........



The government is under enormous pressure to build/provide housing for the homeless. It's therefore understandable IMO that something like this would happen. Those who are not able to buy a place of their own as a result of this are the biggest losers and some must be wondering, "why bother".


----------



## Sunny

Firefly said:


> The government is under enormous pressure to build/provide housing for the homeless. It's therefore understandable IMO that something like this would happen. Those who are not able to buy a place of their own as a result of this are the biggest losers and some must be wondering, "why bother".



They might be under pressure but the taxpayer is still entitled to not have their money thrown at developers. Remember at least two housing agencies were bidding against each other and each of them were using taxpayers money. The only person who benefited was the developer. If this is going to happen, why isn’t there a central agency buying property and allocating to the housing agencies to manage. Again, it has turned into the health service and we are going to waste millions.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sunny said:


> I have been around this forum for a long time and I resent the implication that I am making up stories. I don't need to prove the veracity of anything.



First up, I apologise unreservedly for any insinuation on my part that you are making anything up. That was not my intention, rather that in the absence of finer detail its possible that all is not what it seems. 
Looking at my previous post I can understand how it could be construed as questioning your character - bad phrasing on my part.

Second up, the only info I could find on Oaklee housing is

https://www.oaklee.ie/about-us

I assume they are the organisation involved?
If so, is it not apparent that they are the developers of the housing scheme? 
It would appear that are charged with providing social housing and that is what they are doing, providing social housing for older people, single people, families and individuals with complex needs.


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> First up, I apologise unreservedly for any insinuation on my part that you are making anything up. That was not my intention, rather that in the absence of finer detail its possible that all is not what it seems.
> Looking at my previous post I can understand how it could be construed as questioning your character - bad phrasing on my part.
> 
> Second up, the only info I could find on Oaklee housing is
> 
> https://www.oaklee.ie/about-us
> 
> I assume they are the organisation involved?
> If so, is it not apparent that they are the developers of the housing scheme?
> It would appear that are charged with providing social housing and that is what they are doing, providing social housing for older people, single people, families and individuals with complex needs.



No worries, I know you didn't mean anything!

I never said they were the developers. They have bought the entire development from a private developer. And I also never accused them of not fulfilling their function. I am simply saying that is not fair that volunteer housing agencies are buying entire developments to the detriment of young first time buyers who are struggling to find property too and are facing disgraceful rents and that they are competing against each other using taxpayers money which only pushes the price of the property up. The idea of social housing is to integrate into the community but bulk buying like this is wrong for numerous reasons. I hadn't realised it was as widespread as it is until I looked into it.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sunny said:


> I never said they were the developers. They have bought the entire development from a private developer. And I also never accused them of not fulfilling their function. I am simply saying that is not fair that volunteer housing agencies are buying entire developments to the detriment of young first time buyers who are struggling to find property too and are facing disgraceful rents and that they are competing against each other using taxpayers money which only pushes the price of the property up. The idea of social housing is to integrate into the community but bulk buying like this is wrong for numerous reasons. I hadn't realised it was as widespread as it is until I looked into it.



But they are the developers are they not? 
The point being, they have a specific target clientele - old people, families, people with complex needs. The properties they develop will require specific planning criteria (wheelchair access, sufficient ground floor apts for elders, bathroom and kitchen design etc). 
The corollary of all this is that had the development been made available to the private market for first-time buyer needs, then equally those elderly people and those with complex needs would be struggling to find suitable accommodation. 

On the other hand, if social housing agencies are competing against one another, pushing up prices, then all that says to me is how desperate the situation has become - for everyone trying to find a home.


----------



## Sunny

They are not the developers. They are the buyers. What's difficult about that? No different to you and me buying an apartment except they are buying over 40 of them There is no special planning. There is no special clientele. The people going into the apartments come off the local authority housing list end of story. Housing trusts don't get to decide on the people who occupy the properties. They only manage them. The development was designed and built to the same specifications as the private development right beside it. There is absolutely no special planning. Planning and building started before the properties were sold. The developer of the apartments had the choice to sell them on the open market but instead decided to encourage voluntary housing agencies in receipt of taxpayers money to enter into a private bidding war to buy the entire development and that is what happened.

And if all you see wrong with two or more agencies using taxpayers money to buy properties and bidding against each other is that the situation is desperate, then please never put yourself in charge of getting value for someone elses money. It is no different to the Department of Transport and the Department of Health deciding they both wanted to move into the same building and entering into a private bidding war between themselves with a developer. Do you really think that it is efficient use of taxpayers money to have one taxpayer funded body bidding against another taxpayer funded body? Like, I said, we are creating an industry with the various housing trusts and charities and I am beginning to see how we are going to waste millions and millions and still not solve the housing issue.


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> Just an add-on to this. I do think it is highly peculiar for a social housing agency to 'bulk buy' property.
> HAP is the biggest social housing support as far as I know, but they dont buy property.



Oh and just so you know that it is not that peculiar and has been happening for a while now.........

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/soc...ociation-buys-up-two-dublin-estates-1.2586164


----------



## Firefly

Sunny said:


> They might be under pressure but the taxpayer is still entitled to not have their money thrown at developers.



I think you are making two separate points really: (1) taxpayer's money is being wasted by have two housing agencies competing with each other and (2) by bulk buying developments, it reduces supply to those in the market to buy a home (presumably at the lower end).

I think both points are valid. Regarding the bulk buying of developments by housing agencies, I suspect they have been told to buy what they can to get the number of social housing up, as that's where the government are feeling the pressure. Those adversely affected (those who would have bought these houses privately) don't have much of a voice unfortunately.....


----------



## dereko1969

Were they really "competing" with each other? Both housing agencies were presumably serving different "markets" and I presume it was a closed bidding process, should agencies be obliged to inform the Department of Housing which properties they're bidding on?


----------



## TheBigShort

Sunny said:


> They are not the developers. They are the buyers



Thanks for clearing that up. I was looking at their website and it suggests that they do develop accommodation for people with specific needs, like the elderly.
In this case however they have simply entered the private market and bought in bulk.
I don't disagree that having social housing agencies competing against each other is a bad thing. And, rather than dismiss the sense of desperation, I think it is a good thing to know how bad it is for _anybody _trying to find a home.



Firefly said:


> Regarding the bulk buying of developments by housing agencies, I suspect they have been told to buy what they can to get the number of social housing up, as that's where the government are feeling the pressure. Those adversely affected (those who would have bought these houses privately) don't have much of a voice unfortunately.....



I agree with this. But the problem is that current housing policy is to allow the market determine the supply and the demand of housing quantity and price. The government is only to intervene where specific categories of people, namely elderly, disabled, disadvantaged etc, have no reasonable outlook of ever owning a homing of their own, or obtaining suitable accommodation.
Everyone else is to the mercy of the market and the banking system, which has failed dismisally in providing a sustainable, affordable, housing market. This is the system we have chosen.
Unfortunately, the model of free market housing has turned housing into a commodity to be bought and sold for profit, rather than to be factored as a social necessity. Low and middle income earners, trying to get a foothold are typically being caught in the middle as this example shows.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> But the problem is that current housing policy is to allow the market determine the supply and the demand of housing quantity and price. The government is only to intervene where specific categories of people, namely elderly, disabled, disadvantaged etc, have no reasonable outlook of ever owning a homing of their own, or obtaining suitable accommodation.
> Everyone else is to the mercy of the market and the banking system, which has failed dismisally in providing a sustainable, affordable, housing market. This is the system we have chosen.



What's the alternative?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Unfortunately, the model of free market housing has turned housing into a commodity to be bought and sold for profit, rather than to be factored as a social necessity. Low and middle income earners, trying to get a foothold are typically being caught in the middle as this example shows.


Should be have soviet style housing where the state builds "units" and allocates them to the citizenry? 

What I see here is not only a waste of public money but a major buyer (the State) pushing up prices by competing with private buyers. The more the State pushes up prices the more people will need a home provided by the State. The result of that cycle is self apparent. 

The State owns half the residential development land in Dublin; no state agency should ever buy a home on the open market, rather the State should build public housing and it should be allocated by local authorities. There should be no State funding of any private bodies, charities or otherwise, seeking to provide housing for any vulnerable group. Instead the State and its employees should do their job properly. What is happening now is just a waste of money through duplication of process in order to hide chronic structural incompetence within the State bodies and government departments who should be dealing with this issue. (Note that structural incompetence does not mean that the people involved are incompetent or aren't working hard.)


----------



## KOW

In Gorey Wexford Planning permission was given for a large number of houses in a new development called Glen an Gairdin.
The new homes were slow to sell with only eleven selling over approx. 18 months. In one swoop Wexford County Council  purchase 22 houses.
When one checks the bulk buy against property price register the council payed full whack for all 22 units. The eleven private buyers are not happy bunnies.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> What's the alternative?





Purple said:


> the State should build public housing and it should be allocated by local authorities


----------



## TheBigShort

DCD said:


> In Gorey Wexford Planning permission was given for a large number of houses in a new development called Glen an Gairdin.
> The new homes were slow to sell with only eleven selling over approx. 18 months. In one swoop Wexford County Council  purchase 22 houses.
> When one checks the bulk buy against property price register the council payed full whack for all 22 units. The eleven private buyers are not happy bunnies.



But isn't this symptomatic of the dysfunction in the housing market? Why were the homes slow to sell at a time of an apparent housing shortage? Is it because that house prices are still too expensive, or that banks are still reluctant to lend, or both?


----------



## KOW

Totally symptomatic. Policy thrown out the window. Integration of social/private housing etc all out the window. Three bed semi asking price in the estate were around 250k. Council members totally panicked and need to be seen to do something/anything.
Young couples who managed to play by the rules work/save hard to buy a starter home now find the value of thier purchase go through the floor.


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> I agree with this. But the problem is that current housing policy is to allow the market determine the supply and the demand of housing quantity and price. The government is only to intervene where specific categories of people, namely elderly, disabled, disadvantaged etc, have no reasonable outlook of ever owning a homing of their own, or obtaining suitable accommodation.
> Everyone else is to the mercy of the market and the banking system, which has failed dismisally in providing a sustainable, affordable, housing market. This is the system we have chosen.
> Unfortunately, the model of free market housing has turned housing into a commodity to be bought and sold for profit, rather than to be factored as a social necessity. Low and middle income earners, trying to get a foothold are typically being caught in the middle as this example shows.



But it's not allowing the market to determine the supply and demand of housing quantity and prices. That's the problem! The Government through it's tax, social, planning strategies are manipulating the market. They are giving first time buyers a tax break on one hand and on the other hand they are giving millions to voluntary organisations to compete against the same first time buyers for property. The government are only impacting the demand side of the equation. They claim they are supplying all these new social houses but it is at the cost of ordinary people looking for property. The idea of social housing is to integrate it into the community with affordable and private housing but now we are seeing whole blocks and estates being 100% social housing. That is not fair to anyone including the people moving in. I have also seen developments being built at the moment where all the first phases are private housing and the social housing aspect is left until the end and at the very back of the estate clustered together. That's not right too.

I know I am off topic but we are spending billions on social housing and other housing inititives under various development plans and all I can see is ever increasing lists for social housing and a large number of competing vested interests. And people seem to be afraid of questioning it..


----------



## TheBigShort

DCD said:


> Young couples who managed to play by the rules work/save hard to buy a starter home now find the value of thier purchase go through the floor.



Why has the value gone through the floor? If the houses were slow to sell, it indicates that they are over valued in the first place. Or if banks were reluctant to lend is it because they believed they weren't worth it either?


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> But isn't this symptomatic of the dysfunction in the housing market? Why were the homes slow to sell at a time of an apparent housing shortage? Is it because that house prices are still too expensive, or that banks are still reluctant to lend, or both?



What does it matter if the Government is going to come in and buy them anyway? How are the prices ever going to find an affordable level for first time buyers especially? It's market manipulation and developers are now looking to do this more and more because these agencies are paying full whack rather than trying to sell them one by one.


----------



## Delboy

Sunny said:


> One other thing I should mention that it has come to light that at least one other housing agency was competing with Oaklee for this development. That means at least two voluntary housing agencies were bidding for a private development with a private developer using taxpayers money. You can't make this stuff up.........


I wonder what the C&AG Seamus McCarthy would make of that!


----------



## TheBigShort

Sunny said:


> What does it matter if the Government is going to come in and buy them anyway? How are the prices ever going to find an affordable level for first time buyers especially? It's market manipulation and developers are now looking to do this more and more because these agencies are paying full whack rather than trying to sell them one by one.



I'm not disagreeing with you. I merely pointing out that it appears that there are insufficient property developments to attract developers into the market. Government policy over the last number of decades  has been to allow the development of property to be (almost) the sole preserve of the private market. This is fine when there is a functioning market (where working people can afford a home) and developers can profit. But there appears to be either a shortage of developers, and/or a reluctance on their part to start building again for fear of another property crash. That is, the risk/reward is too low to enter the market.
As a consequence, the government is now competing in the private market with private buyers to provide social housing. I think this is wrong. 
Im not 100% sure what the policy is, but it appears to be to drive up prices back to the glory days, to bring more developers back into the market long-term. Thus hoping the 'free' market will bring all the 'efficiencies' to the housing market, as it says it will in the economic textbooks.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I merely pointing out that it appears that there are insufficient property developments to attract developers into the market.


A large proportion of the zoned development land is owned by a small number of companies, due to NAMA bundling it up and selling it off, so not it is more profitable to trade land than build houses. The doubling of the vacant site levy should help to rectify that.


----------



## Delboy

Sunny said:


> - Social housing is there to help people and rightly so but I am curious to know how many people in social housing ever leave social housing. Has anyone ever seen any figures? I would imagine the number is small so are we just spending another couple of billion on creating a system where thousands of people are dependent on welfare?


There was a lively (mostly talking over each other) debate on Radio 1, SO'R show just now, between Minister for Housing Eoghan Murphy v's Eoin O'Broin, SF spokesman on the subject.
O'Broin started his piece by saying the Minister was not giving social housing tenants security by 'only' offering 25 year leases. According to O'Broin, social housing is indeed for life and should always be viewed through that prism. SW housing incumbents put their roots down, raise their families etc and to take them out of the house they were given is cruel and unfair.


----------



## TheBigShort

Delboy said:


> social housing is indeed for life and should always be viewed through that prism. SW housing incumbents put their roots down, raise their families etc and to take them out of the house they were given is cruel and unfair.



I would agree with this. Social housing cannot be viewed through the narrow prism of providing a roof over a persons, or familys head. 
People rear families, go to schools, work in areas, contribute to building communities and relationships over many, many years. 
It makes no sense to me not to offer security of tenure. Where would social housing tenants go if after 25yrs they were told to move without the means to buy privately?  To other social housing perhaps? So what would be the point other than to disrupt?


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> I would agree with this. Social housing cannot be viewed through the narrow prism of providing a roof over a persons, or familys head.
> People rear families, go to schools, work in areas, contribute to building communities and relationships over many, many years.
> It makes no sense to me not to offer security of tenure. Where would social housing tenants go if after 25yrs they were told to move without the means to buy privately?  To other social housing perhaps? So what would be the point other than to disrupt?



Nobody is talking about taking away their security of tenure. Not like they will be kicked out after 25 years to be put back on the housing list again. There is no reason they can't buy their social house unit if their circumstances change is there? But how many times does something like that happen? How many times does someone in social housing because they lost their job actually find a job and move off social housing? I am just genuinely curious to know.

Also if a couple raise their 4 kids in a 4 bed social house and eventually the kids move out, are we really saying that we can't expect that couple to move to a smaller property (social again if needed) and allow another family take the larger property. Is that so unreasonable after 25 years of subsidised living?


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> Also if a couple raise their 4 kids in a 4 bed social house and eventually the kids move out, are we really saying that we can't expect that couple to move to a smaller property (social again if needed) and allow another family take the larger property. Is that so unreasonable after 25 years of subsidised living?


Yes, that's exactly what the policy is and what the actors within the homelessness industry are agitating to keep. Not only can those people stay there but if they have one son who never bothers to get a job he will inherit the house (tenancy) when the parents pop their clogs. If he them has one child with his partner and that child grows up, never gets a job etc then that child will inherit the house. By that stage of course the house will need to be refurbished. You'll be paying for that too. 

Sure it's a great little country really!


----------



## TheBigShort

Sunny said:


> There is no reason they can't buy their social house unit if their circumstances change is there?



Two reasons - 1) even if circumstances change, they may still not be able to afford it 2) the council may not be prepared to sell it.



Sunny said:


> But how many times does something like that happen?



I dont know.



Sunny said:


> How many times does someone in social housing because they lost their job actually find a job and move off social housing? I am just genuinely curious to know.



I dont know.



Sunny said:


> Also if a couple raise their 4 kids in a 4 bed social house and eventually the kids move out, are we really saying that we can't expect that couple to move to a smaller property (social again if needed) and allow another family take the larger property.



No, I dont think so. But I do think it is not unreasonable for the tenants to at least have a standard of accommodation that they are used to and that the accommodation is in an area where they feel comfortable. There is a lot to be said for the well being of people if they feel part of the community and are not faced with leaving their friends and neighbours.



Sunny said:


> Is that so unreasonable after 25 years of subsidised living?



I never said it was, but there are other factors outside of how many bedrooms there are in a house. People are not cattle, to be herded around.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Not only can those people stay there but if they have one son who never bothers to get a job he will inherit the house (tenancy) when the parents pop their clogs. If he them has one child with his partner and that child grows up, never gets a job etc then that child will inherit the house.



You are great one for peddling the extreme examples. Realistically, most people try to find work.
And of course, when it comes to deciding what to do with those who 'never bother to work', the answer somehow always comes up short.


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> Two reasons - 1) even if circumstances change, they may still not be able to afford it 2) the council may not be prepared to sell it.



Well if they can't afford to buy it, they should obviously still be on the social housing list or else if they are earning the same as me and you and still can't afford to buy it, they should do what me and you do and buy somewhere that they can afford. Even if that means moving from family and friends. That's what I did. And that's what most of my friends did.

If you ever hear of a case where the council refuse to sell a social housing unit to the people living in it who can afford the asking price, please let me know. Because it just proves my point about everything around social housing just getting bigger and bigger and bigger.



TheBigShort said:


> No, I dont think so. But I do think it is not unreasonable for the tenants to at least have a standard of accommodation that they are used to and that the accommodation is in an area where they feel comfortable. There is a lot to be said for the well being of people if they feel part of the community and are not faced with leaving their friends and neighbours.
> 
> I never said it was, but there are other factors outside of how many bedrooms there are in a house. People are not cattle, to be herded around.



Ah here, asking people to move into smaller property so that a family that is in the same situation that they were in 25 years ago can be helped is not treating them as cattle. We are not talking about setting up a camp and moving them all into it. Why should people be entitled to a social house for life even if they have outgrown it? Is it so extreme to suggest that people who have benefited from social housing might just have to accept that they might have to make some sacrifice at some point such a moving into a smaller property.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sunny said:


> they should do what me and you do and buy somewhere that they can afford.



Why? So that all social housing is only occupied by those who are not working, or wont work? 
God forbid someone from a socially disadvantaged area living in a social house actually gets ahead in life with an education and career. We couldnt tolerate them occupying a social house - evict them, social housing is only for the perpetual poor, we cant have them climbing the ladder lest they contribute back in taxes and give their deprived areas a good name.



Sunny said:


> Is it so extreme to suggest that people who have benefited from social housing might just have to accept that they might have to make some sacrifice at some point such a moving into a smaller property.



I didnt say it was extreme. I said there is more to moving someone out of their home than merely counting the number of bedrooms in it. That is wholly insufficient criteria to determine such a move. 
You make it sound like there are swathes of large partially occupied social houses, there are not. If there were people would organise and start protesting. You would well to read upon on the civil rights marches in Derry to learn how social housing was manipulated in favour of some people over the needs of population at large. 
The fact is, we need to start building more homes. The private sector is way behind the curve in this regard unable to provide new developments to meet demand. The public sector is also.


----------



## Sunny

Ok, that post is complete nonsense. So basically if you come from a socially disadvantaged area, you are entitled to a social house? That’s your criteria?? And yes, social house should only be for the poorest and vulnerable in society. What’s wrong with that?? If you live in a disadvantaged area and make a good life for yourself, then you deserve great credit but you don’t deserve a house.  There are thousands of people who don’t live in disadvantaged areas who struggle to pay extreme rents and mortgages. Are they less deserving of your help because they don’t fit your cosy definition of ‘socially deprived’??  

How do you know there aren’t loads of single people or couples living in three and four bedroom houses? Show me the figures since you are so definite. I don’t know there how many there are but I don’t know if there are hundreds or thousands and either do you. 

I have no idea why you are bringing Derry and civil rights into it. Show me one post where anyone suggested manipulating social housing using any other criteria than the greatest need? Derry was based on discrimination on religious grounds. Where is the one post that is suggesting discriminating against one section of society? 

As for the private sector procucing houses. Yes they are behind the curve but guess how much of this years social house supply will be met by the private sector? Read today’s report. So the private sector as you called it is Meeting the demand of social housing when there is a chronic shortage of supply for private buyers who are the biggest losers because they can’t find properties to buy since entire developments are being sold privately to the state and are paying high rents without any support or help.


----------



## Firefly

Sunny said:


> Nobody is talking about taking away their security of tenure. Not like they will be kicked out after 25 years to be put back on the housing list again. There is no reason they can't buy their social house unit...



Even 25 years would be far, far, far too long. I would think 5 years is long enough for anyone not physically or mentally impaired to be able to put a roof over their heads (either rent or buy). Giving someone a house for longer than that removes the incentive to bother and not only that, it means that those who need it most are then put into emergency accommodation.

It's a disgrace to see the next generation coming up being so dependent on the state and their fellow taxpayer as their parents are. A disgrace.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sunny said:


> So basically if you come from a socially disadvantaged area, you are entitled to a social house? That’s your criteria??



No. But if you grow up in a house, social or privately owned, it is not unreasonable to consider that your home.
I get a sense that you consider thait those who live in social housing should be eternally grateful to some other cohort of society.



Sunny said:


> And yes, social house should only be for the poorest and vulnerable in society. What’s wrong with that??



No it shouldnt only be for the poorest and most vulnerable in society. Why cant we provide more housing for working people who pay taxes but are being fleeced in private rental accomodation who cannot plausibly save for a place of their own?



Sunny said:


> If you live in a disadvantaged area and make a good life for yourself, then you deserve great credit but you don’t deserve a house.



You are simplifying the issue. You place no emphasis on a persons background, the environment they grew up in, their social links with the community they live in.
If everyone from a disadvantaged background faced eviction on foot of advancing themselves educationally and professionally can you not see how such a policy could act as a disincentive to learn, to progress a career? Thus perpetuating the cycle of poverty?



Sunny said:


> Where is the one post that is suggesting discriminating against one section of society?



Ok granted, Derry was somewhat off the charts.



Sunny said:


> when there is a chronic shortage of supply for private buyers who are the biggest losers because they can’t find properties to buy since entire developments are being sold privately to the state and are paying high rents without any support or help.



I totally agree - but what is your proposal to solve the problem?
It seems your angst is against state funds being used to provide housing for those in social need over those first-time buyers who are also in need of housing.
To me it is simple, we need to build more housing, not only for the poorest but for working people too. The State is in the best position to resource the funding required.
The free market is dysfunctional and inept at providing a sustainable housing sector as it is predicated on the profit motive rather than the social need.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I would think 5 years is long enough for anyone not physically or mentally impaired to be able to put a roof over their heads (either rent or buy).



On what basis 5yrs? What would happen if after 5yrs someone was working a near minimum wage job as a hairdresser? Are they to be evicted?


----------



## cremeegg

Sunny said:


> I am simply saying that is not fair that *volunteer housing agencies* are buying entire developments to the detriment of young first time buyers who are struggling to find property too and are facing disgraceful rents and that they are competing against each other using taxpayers money which only pushes the price of the property up.



I seriously doubt that there are any volunteers involved.


----------



## Tebbit

DCD said:


> In Gorey Wexford Planning permission was given for a large number of houses in a new development called Glen an Gairdin.
> The new homes were slow to sell with only eleven selling over approx. 18 months. In one swoop Wexford County Council  purchase 22 houses.
> When one checks the bulk buy against property price register the council payed full whack for all 22 units. The eleven private buyers are not happy bunnies.



And why wouldn't they be unhappy, they scrimped and saved and are paying massive mortgages and the others will get it for nominal rent.  To me that's just plain wrong. Fully social housing estates should be built again and this time maybe run better than they were previously. I don't believe the public/private mix works at all. There should be no social housing for life - if your circumstances improve you should be expected to move on and pay your own way.


----------



## Delboy

Firefly said:


> It's a disgrace to see the next generation coming up being so dependent on the state and their fellow taxpayer as their parents are. A disgrace.


There are political parties in this country that view this as a perfectly reasonable state of affairs. In fact, they encourage/cultivate it as it gives them a support base to work from into the future


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> You are great one for peddling the extreme examples.


 You're a great one for ignoring reality when it doesn't suit your ideology. How do you know it's extreme? Are you suggesting that it is unusual for many generations of the to live in the same council house? I know it happens in my family.  



TheBigShort said:


> Realistically, most people try to find work.


 Can you back that up?



TheBigShort said:


> And of course, when it comes to deciding what to do with those who 'never bother to work', the answer somehow always comes up short.


 The answer to a single person who needs social housing is to give them a one bedroom apartment.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> It seems your angst is against state funds being used to provide housing for those in social need over those first-time buyers who are also in need of housing.
> To me it is simple, we need to build more housing, not only for the poorest but for working people too. The State is in the best position to resource the funding required.
> The free market is dysfunctional and inept at providing a sustainable housing sector as it is predicated on the profit motive rather than the social need.


See this is just gas; the State can't get its act together to build social housing, even though it owns half the residential land in Dublin, so it takes money from first time buyers and buys the very houses they want to live in. 

The State,"We're using your money to buy the house you wanted to buy and we are giving it to someone else. Why have you got a problem with that?"

First time buyer, "Why don't you use my money to build a house for that person?"

The State, "We really couldn't be arsed. We know that this isn't increasing housing stocks or helping working people but it's easier and it gets the loony left, the poverty industry and RTE off our backs for a while so, well, tough luck. Anyway, we live in a social democracy!"


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> On what basis 5yrs? What would happen if after 5yrs someone was working a near minimum wage job as a hairdresser? Are they to be evicted?



Again, that is just ignorant. I have a family member who is a hairdresser and she is not looking for a social house. Not everyone on minimum wage is looking for social housing either. If the minimum wage is not sufficient for people to live, then you argue for an increase in the minimum wage and live with the consequences of that as a country.  You don't say to private business, you pay the minimum house and the taxpayer will provide them with a house to balance it out.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sunny said:


> I have a family member who is a hairdresser and she is not looking for a social house. Not everyone on minimum wage is looking for social housing either



I never anything like that either!?!

It was suggested that after '5yrs' anybody who was not mentally or physically impaired should be able to put a roof over their heads. 
This is of course nonsense. Its as almost if your OP has been passed by. As if it hasnt dawned on some people that even well paid workers are finding it difficult to put a roof over their heads. Is that not the case? 
If so, then low paid workers are also finding it difficult - isnt this what your OP is about?


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> No. But if you grow up in a house, social or privately owned, it is not unreasonable to consider that your home.
> I get a sense that you consider thait those who live in social housing should be eternally grateful to some other cohort of society.



They should be grateful. When I lost my job, I was extremely grateful for the benefits I received but I also didn't stay on them one minute longer than I needed. I even took minimum wage jobs for a couple of weeks that cost me money by the time I paid for transport to work. What's wrong with saying that people should be grateful for welfare? Not saying they should be bowing and saying thanks but they can show their gratitude by trying their hardest to get off benefits like many many people do



TheBigShort said:


> No it shouldnt only be for the poorest and most vulnerable in society. Why cant we provide more housing for working people who pay taxes but are being fleeced in private rental accomodation who cannot plausibly save for a place of their own?



So basically everyone should be entitled to a house subsidised by the taxpayer? That's really what we our tax money spent on. Of course more houses need to be built but that's not the governments job and it is not even the argument here. I can guarantee you that in 5 years time despite thousands and thousands of social houses being built, that the waiting list for social housing will still be as long...It is like the health service and waiting lists. Throw money at the problem and hope for the best



TheBigShort said:


> You are simplifying the issue. You place no emphasis on a persons background, the environment they grew up in, their social links with the community they live in.
> If everyone from a disadvantaged background faced eviction on foot of advancing themselves educationally and professionally can you not see how such a policy could act as a disincentive to learn, to progress a career? Thus perpetuating the cycle of poverty?



That's exactly the point. Social housing is acting as a disincentive to learn and to progress a career. You just said it yourself. How can such  a system be right for everyone including the people involved?



TheBigShort said:


> I totally agree - but what is your proposal to solve the problem?
> It seems your angst is against state funds being used to provide housing for those in social need over those first-time buyers who are also in need of housing.
> To me it is simple, we need to build more housing, not only for the poorest but for working people too. The State is in the best position to resource the funding required.
> The free market is dysfunctional and inept at providing a sustainable housing sector as it is predicated on the profit motive rather than the social need.



My angst is not against providing social housing. My angst is against the stupidity of the government giving tax breaks to first time buyers but then competing against them to buy property. My angst is against is multiple housing agencies bidding against each other with a private developer using taxpayers money to get property on their books so they can claim to be helping the most people. My angst is against is the idea that social housing doesn't seem to be there to help people get through tough times. It almost seems like a way of life for many people. My angst is against despite full employment, social housing lists are growing and growing. My angst is against the fact that you can't criticise government policy without being accused about not caring about the disadvantaged or the homeless...


----------



## Purple

I took it that the suggestion was that the lease should expire after 5 years and the needs of the tenants be re-assessed. That could mean they stay where they are, they get a bigger house or they get a smaller one.

I rent in the private sector. I have a few months security for me and my children. 
There are tens of thousands of people like me. 
Why should the state use our money to provide better tenancies to other people?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> You're a great one for ignoring reality when it doesn't suit your ideology. How do you know it's extreme? Are you suggesting that it is unusual for many generations of the to live in the same council house? I know it happens in my family.



Its not 'unusual' but it is a tiny minority of the population. The topic is about social housing of which a great many people need, including working people and their families who cannot afford the market prices. This link is from another thread posted by BB on another thread


https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/a-very-interesting-paper-on-lifetime-income-inequality.205305/

http://www.dublineconomics.com/papers/3533.pdf


In it you will find the heading a heading – Key factor: on average, even lifetime poor spend majority of their working lives in (low-paid) work.

With that, my experience is that everyone I know who is capable of working generally tries to find work at some point. Most people will have worked at some point or another. As the study above suggests even the poorest spend a majority of their lifetimes at work. Obviously there are some exceptions to that – like those in your family, but that’s no excuse to tarnish everyone else with the same brush.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> But if you grow up in a house, social or privately owned, it is not unreasonable to consider that your home.


 My children consider our house their home. Both they and I know that we'll probably have to move out at some stage.


TheBigShort said:


> I get a sense that you consider thait those who live in social housing should be eternally grateful to some other cohort of society.


 Of course they should; they have been given a home which is being paid for my their fellow citizens. I'm grateful when someone gives me a pint; I say "thank you" and look to return the favour. I'm sure I'd feel grateful if someone gave me a house.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sunny said:


> My angst is against the stupidity of the government giving tax breaks to first time buyers but then competing against them to buy property. My angst is against is multiple housing agencies bidding against each other with a private developer using taxpayers money to get property on their books so they can claim to be helping the most people.



I am agreeable with you on these two points.



Sunny said:


> My angst is against is the idea that social housing doesn't seem to be there to help people get through tough times. It almost seems like a way of life for many people.



Social housing, or housing for that, is not a temporary fix (unless its emergency accommodation). There appears to be a misunderstanding of what housing is for and what it is. It is not a benefit or a gift...it is a social necessity. It is essential to maintain the social fabric of a society.
How we, as a country, provide that housing is up to us. The policy for many years has been to allow the market determine the supply and demand and prices of houses and to encourage private ownership, with only the government intervening to house the poorest and most vulnerable.
This model has failed, dismisally. As your OP rightly points out, working people cannot afford homes of their own and worse, they are now competing with state funded agencies to buy properties - this is madness and is a consequence of a market failure and a failed housing policy.



Sunny said:


> My angst is against despite full employment, social housing lists are growing and growing.



Yes, a symptom of a failure of the market to provide a sustainable housing sector for the population, courtesy of a housing policy not to interfere in that market by way of providing more social housing.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> The topic is about social housing of which a great many people need, including working people and their families who cannot afford the market prices.


No, this thread is about the state using the taxes of working people seeking to buy a home to price those same people out of the market by buying the same homes they are looking to buy. 
This thread is about the shambolic wastefulness of state funded bodies bidding against each other to buy private houses, thus pushing up the price of the remaining private houses on the market instead of the state building social housing directly.
Issues such as inherited tenancies etc., while irksome, are a side issue. 
Around 9% of our housing stock is social housing. I don't care if it's 25% as long as the state controls that stock efficiently and fairly. That means frequent reviews and where tenants can afford an open market rate they should be paying it. Where they can't they should have their needs assessed every 2-5 years and adjusted accordingly.

The state should be legally barred from purchasing, or funding the purchase of, a private house which is on the market for private purchasers. 
Builders/ developers should not be allowed to buy our the requirement for social and affordable housing in new developments.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, a symptom of a failure of the market to provide a sustainable housing sector for the population, courtesy of a housing policy not to interfere in that market by way of providing more social housing.


What market? The biggest sector failing to provide housing is the state.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Of course they should; they have been given a home which is being paid for my their fellow citizens



How is it being paid for by their fellow citizens.
If I am factory worker, paying taxes, living in a social house, I am paying as much as anybody else is for the house. Not only that, as a taxpayer, I am funding the houses of others who live in social housing. The only difference is that I never get to own my home legally and cannot profit off it by renting or selling it or using it to supplement my pension by selling it when I retire.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> What market? The biggest sector failing to provide housing is the state.



Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. The State is responsible for the policy of providing housing. It has abdicated that responsibility in the main to the free market. Hence, then mess we are in now.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> How is it being paid for by their fellow citizens.
> If I am factory worker, paying taxes, living in a social house, *I am paying as much as anybody else is for the house*.


Really?



TheBigShort said:


> Not only that, as a taxpayer, I am funding the houses of others who live in social housing. The only difference is that I never get to own my home legally and cannot profit off it by renting or selling it or using it to supplement my pension by selling it when I retire.


If you are on an income low enough to qualify for social housing you are a net recipient so you aren't actually paying for anything. Even if you were you are still funding housing for other who don't work. Either way the state should not provide housing beyond the needs of one family while being unable to need the needs of another. 
As someone who believed in social justice I find that deeply unjust.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. The State is responsible for the policy of providing housing. It has abdicated that responsibility in the main to the free market. Hence, then mess we are in now.


Nobody's arguing that point. In fact that's the whole point of this thread and the essence of that what Sunny said in the first post.


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> How is it being paid for by their fellow citizens.
> If I am factory worker, paying taxes, living in a social house, I am paying as much as anybody else is for the house. Not only that, as a taxpayer, I am funding the houses of others who live in social housing. The only difference is that I never get to own my home legally and cannot profit off it by renting or selling it or using it to supplement my pension by selling it when I retire.



Ah come on. Someone in social housing is not paying the same as anybody else. Going back to the OP, the development in question has privately owned apartments where the monthly rent is about €1700 a month. Nobody in the social housing properties are paying near that so to suggest that people in social housing are not benefiting or should not be grateful is just ridiculous. Surely it is not offensive to point that out. Everybody goes through times in their lives. I did. There is no shame with social welfare or benefits but lets not pretend that people who receive benefits like social housing and medical cards etc are paying the same as everyone else. That's just left wing socialist clap trap...


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Really?
> 
> 
> If you are on an income low enough to qualify for social housing you are a net recipient so you aren't actually paying for anything. Even if you were you are still funding housing for other who don't work. Either way the state should not provide housing beyond the needs of one family while being unable to need the needs of another.
> As someone who believed in social justice I find that deeply unjust.



A net recipient of what? Welfare and public services? Isnt that just about most people? Most of us use, at some point, or quite often, state-funded roads, state funded schools, state funded water services, law & order services, health services, public amenities – parks, museums, galleries, child benefit, old-age pension, back to work schemes, etc..etc.. the list is nearly endless.

An elderly neighbour of mine, who owns his own house, went through a series of life-saving operations for a heart complications he had. My understanding is that the operations would have cost the State (he had no private insurance, as such his operations were left until they became absolutely necessary), a considerable sum of money, more than the price of a two-bed townhouse in fact.

At some point, either periodically or quite frequently we avail of public services making us all, more or less, net recipients. This is the social contract we buy into. To target one group of net recipients over others is socially unjust.

Are we really going to sit and calculate what each of use individually, that what is intended to be made available to anyone of us should we need it? And then point the finger at those who we perceive to be getting the best deal?

How socially unjust is that?


----------



## TheBigShort

Sunny said:


> Ah come on. Someone in social housing is not paying the same as anybody else. Going back to the OP, the development in question has privately owned apartments where the monthly rent is about €1700 a month. Nobody in the social housing properties are paying near that so to suggest that people in social housing are not benefiting or should not be grateful is just ridiculous. Surely it is not offensive to point that out. Everybody goes through times in their lives. I did. There is no shame with social welfare or benefits but lets not pretend that people who receive benefits like social housing and medical cards etc are paying the same as everyone else. That's just left wing socialist clap trap...




If I live in social housing and am earning €50,000 a year, then I am contributing as much to the tax system as another who is earning €50,000 but cannot afford to buy a home.

If I am in a wheelchair, unable to reasonably find permanent employment I don’t think it unreasonable that I should be grateful for adequate public services provided to me to make my life more functional, but to be ‘eternally’ grateful…with the emphasis on the ‘eternally’ then no.

I have every sympathy for first-time buyers trying to buy a home. I have every sympathy for working professionals who are being fleeced with extortionate rents just so that they can live within a reasonable distance within their employment for which they have obtained through hard study and work.

My proposal is that the State adopts a policy of building more social housing, not only for the poorest and most in need, but the working population that are being fleeced through rocketing house prices (again) and exorbitant rents. The housing market, left to its own ‘invisible hand’, has failed to provide a sustainable housing sector for the population.

What is your proposal? What do you think should be done?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> A net recipient of what? Welfare and public services? Isnt that just about most people? Most of us use, at some point, or quite often, state-funded roads, state funded schools, state funded water services, law & order services, health services, public amenities – parks, museums, galleries, child benefit, old-age pension, back to work schemes, etc..etc.. the list is nearly endless.


 Yep, only the top 30% of earners are net contributors and the top 10% contribute most of that. I'm very grateful to them. 



TheBigShort said:


> An elderly neighbour of mine, who owns his own house, went through a series of life-saving operations for a heart complications he had. My understanding is that the operations would have cost the State (he had no private insurance, as such his operations were left until they became absolutely necessary), a considerable sum of money, more than the price of a two-bed townhouse in fact.


 I hope he is grateful and thankful and sees such care as a privilege of living in this society and not a right to be taken for granted. 



TheBigShort said:


> At some point, either periodically or quite frequently we avail of public services making us all, more or less, net recipients. This is the social contract we buy into. To target one group of net recipients over others is socially unjust.


Agreed. That social contract is based on us putting in while we get out. It's a bit like "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". Notice that that doesn't say "from each according to what they are arsed to bother doing and to each forever based on their needs now."


TheBigShort said:


> Are we really going to sit and calculate what each of use individually, that what is intended to be made available to anyone of us should we need it? And then point the finger at those who we perceive to be getting the best deal?


 No but it's reasonable to ask if everyone is getting a fair deal.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Notice that that doesn't say "from each according to what they are arsed to bother doing and to each forever based on their needs now."



Yes, but now you are talking about something different. You are talking about those who couldnt be bothered to contribute. The OP does not suggest this in anyway but rather notes the wasteful and self defeating policies of the State. In the terms that the OP has laid them out, I couldnt agree more.
But you have decided, in your own ignornant and prejudiced way, that the units will be provided for those who 'couldnt be arsed'. Otherwise why bring up the topic of those who 'couldnt be arsed'?
I have already provided you with a study that states that even the poorest in society, on average, spend a majottrity of their working lives in employment.
Is it beyond your reasoning to think that perhaps the units bought by the State will be allocated to working people, elderly, disabled?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> No but it's reasonable to ask if everyone is getting a fair deal.



Yes, and first-time buyers, and rental occupiers are being screwed. But thats the efficieny of the market for you, isnt it?


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> I took it that the suggestion was that the lease should expire after 5 years and the needs of the tenants be re-assessed. That could mean they stay where they are, they get a bigger house or they get a smaller one.



Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I'm not saying that someone should vacate a property provided to them automatically after 5 years, but rather, they should be assessed and if it is found that someone else is in greater need, then the person in greater need should get the property. Providing a roof over your head (buying/renting) is for most their single, largest expense. Getting this provided for you for a period of 5 years, to me is a very generous gift, worth many thousands of euro. And 5 years is long enough IMO for the vast, vast majority of people to plan to get their own place. Otherwise we end up with inter-generational dependency where not working is actually rewarded and paid for by those who do.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, and first-time buyers, and rental occupiers are being screwed. But thats the efficieny of the market for you, isnt it?



Renters would not be "getting screwed" if the tax take was not so high. I made a proposal to the govt via their public consultation process to extend the rent a room scheme to landlords. Set a fig of for example €12k that there was no tax payable any figure above that and the whole lot was taxed.

This would allow the tenant reduce there rent bill and not effect the landlord. It would be a win win, the landlord still takes the same net amount of income and the tenant saves the additional rent they were paying towards a deposit for a property they could purchase.

If the above happened you would have efficiency in the market. People would have finances to purchase properties, this would incentivize building of properties therefore supply would increase and prices would stabilize.

But the Govt wants to be seen to solve the housing crisis while at the same time disadvantaging the first time buyers. The HAP scheme is another reason tenants are being screwed. The Govt by introducing this scheme has set a floor on rents and it is negatively affecting others. I have personal expierence whereby a relative of mine and their partner both in full time jobs can't afford to purchase in their local area whereas a single mother on HAP can rent in the area no problem.

How exactly is that fair? What message does it convey? don't bother your This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language working when you can get housed where you want but if you try to get there on your own then you can't!


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> they should be assessed and if it is found that someone else is in greater need, then the person in greater need should get the property.



You will have to determine the criteria for what is the greater need. Is a non-working family with a disabled child is deemed greater need than a low-income family with three kids? 
Where does the low-income family go?




Firefly said:


> Getting this provided for you for a period of 5 years, to me is a very generous gift, worth many thousands of euro. And 5 years is long enough IMO for the vast, vast majority of people to plan to get their own place.



Havent you being following the news? Didnt you read the OP? 
First-time buyers and well paid professinals are struggling to find a place to buy or even keep the roof over their heads. What magical occurence happens after five years, where house prices are increasing at double digit rates, that low paid workers can suddenly afford to buy?



Firefly said:


> Otherwise we end up with inter-generational dependency where not working is actually rewarded and paid for by those who do.



Why do you, and others, automatically assume that social housing tenants are not working?


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> If I live in social housing and am earning €50,000 a year, then I am contributing as much to the tax system as another who is earning €50,000 but cannot afford to buy a home.
> 
> If I am in a wheelchair, unable to reasonably find permanent employment I don’t think it unreasonable that I should be grateful for adequate public services provided to me to make my life more functional, but to be ‘eternally’ grateful…with the emphasis on the ‘eternally’ then no.
> 
> I have every sympathy for first-time buyers trying to buy a home. I have every sympathy for working professionals who are being fleeced with extortionate rents just so that they can live within a reasonable distance within their employment for which they have obtained through hard study and work.
> 
> My proposal is that the State adopts a policy of building more social housing, not only for the poorest and most in need, but the working population that are being fleeced through rocketing house prices (again) and exorbitant rents. The housing market, left to its own ‘invisible hand’, has failed to provide a sustainable housing sector for the population.
> 
> What is your proposal? What do you think should be done?



You are not. One person earning €50,000 a year in social housing is better off financially than another person not in social housing because they decided to buy where they could afford or continued in shared accommodation or whatever. I have no idea how you can't grasp that people who receive welfare benefits are the recipients of help from State and taxpayer. It's not shameful. It's simply the reality. You sitting there saying there is no difference between someone in social housing and someone who is not is just ridiculous.

Who is asking for anyone to be 'eternally grateful' but you should be thankful and if ever the opportunity came where you could get a job and reduce you dependency on welfare, well then yes, you should show by gratitude by taking the job. And by the way your use of a wheelchair user is as insulting as using a hairdresser. If anyone is using the reason that they are in a wheelchair as a reason not to get work, let me know. I can introduce them to a few people.

Your proposal isn't a proposal. It is just throwing more taxpayers money at the problem that will achieve nothing. Thousands of social houses have been provided this year. Thousands. Has the waiting list gone down? Nope. So how can the solution be, get more houses. Why not do something crazy and maybe see why people need social housing. Why are young people with no disabilities or difficulties getting social housing for life? If the State provides a single mother with a house, what is the State doing to make sure this is only temporary? Can it provide free childcare to people to people on welfare for a period to get back to work? Can it provide better training and education programmes? And if people refuse to make any effort to make a better life for themselves when they can, we shouldn't be saying 'that's alright, it's not your fault. I don't have a solution because I am not an expert. I never claimed to be. But I don't need to be an expert to see that what is happening is not working.


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> Why do you, and others, automatically assume that social housing tenants are not working?



Nobody is assuming that but you said it yourself. Social housing for life is a disincentive to build a career and improve earnings for people because of they might lose social housing.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sunny said:


> Nobody is assuming that but you said it yourself. Social housing for life is a disincentive to build a career and improve earnings for people because of they might lose social housing.



I never said that.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> The housing market, left to its own ‘invisible hand’, has failed to provide a sustainable housing sector for the population.



There is no 'invisible hand' in the housing market. It is controlled and dominated by the various arms of the State. That's precisely why it's in such a mess.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, but now you are talking about something different. You are talking about those who couldnt be bothered to contribute. The OP does not suggest this in anyway but rather notes the wasteful and self defeating policies of the State. In the terms that the OP has laid them out, I couldnt agree more.


I am talking about both things. I'm glad you agree with the OP although you still keep saying that the problem is due to free market deficiencies which is just nonsense. 



TheBigShort said:


> But you have decided, in your own ignornant and prejudiced way, that the units will be provided for those who 'couldnt be arsed'. Otherwise why bring up the topic of those who 'couldnt be arsed'?


 My my, you are getting a bit personal now, but that's okay; this is just an internet discussion forum and I'm sure you're a nice bloke really.
Anyway, where have I said that these properties ill be provided for those who 'couldnt be arsed'? I brought up that point because you refuse to ever accept that some people game the system and inter-generational welfare can and does enable inter-generational poverty. You refuse to countenance the idea that the State should allocate resources based on ongoing needs and should have methods to assess and re-assess those needs. In a world of limitless resources we wouldn't have to but in this world it is the socially just thing to do.  



TheBigShort said:


> Is it beyond your reasoning to think that perhaps the units bought by the State will be allocated to working people, elderly, disabled?


 They may well be but that's not the point of this thread. The State should provide housing for those people, not take housing from other working people and give it to them.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> You will have to determine the criteria for what is the greater need. Is a non-working family with a disabled child is deemed greater need than a low-income family with three kids?
> Where does the low-income family go?


What happens now when both families are on the housing list? That criteria is used to decide which one gets the house?


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> You are simplifying the issue. You place no emphasis on a persons background, the environment they grew up in, their social links with the community they live in.
> If everyone from a disadvantaged background faced eviction on foot of advancing themselves educationally and professionally can you not see how such a policy could act as a disincentive to learn, to progress a career? Thus perpetuating the cycle of poverty?





TheBigShort said:


> I never said that.



Yes you did. People are not advancing themselves because they fear losing social housing. So considering they are no better off than other people, why would they fear that? You seem to think this a good thing. And nobody is talking about 'evicting' people on to the streets. We are talking about encouraging people to be able to make their own way without benefits. It is this that is perpetuating the cycle of poverty. For some reason, you seem to think to this is some sort of Right wing Nazi concept or something...


----------



## cremeegg

Social housing is provided by housing associations and similar bodies at below market rents, (that is high rents rather than very high rents) to people who meet certain criteria, the criteria vary by agency and even development. The criteria are usually designed to allow a broad mixture of people access social housing. This is a relatively new thing in Ireland.

Local Authority or Council housing is a different thing. This is the traditional form of housing outside the private sector. It is provided by LAs at very low rents, €35 per week for a 3 bedroom house is not uncommon. Again it is available to people who meet the criteria, generally poorer people, though the income limits are €35k AFTER TAX for a single person in many areas. There is also a waiting system heavily biased in favour of those whose application is on the books longest. The result of this is that LA housing goes *almost* exclusively to those whose parents put their name on the list the day they turn 18. In effect the children of parents who are themselves in LA housing, because they understand how the system works. this is the real reason LA housing is multigenerational. Its does not go to families who are poor across the generations, but to families who understand how the system works.

Put your kids name down for a LA house aged 18, in 10 years time they will probably be offered a house, so long as they are not earning more than the limit.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sunny said:


> I have no idea how you can't grasp that people who receive welfare benefits are the recipients of help from State and taxpayer.



Of course they are recipients. I never said they werent. I just dont single out any particular recipient or groups of recipients and blame them for all that is unfair in the world.
It wasnt that long ago that this site targeted the unemployed. But now that unemployment is falling, the economy growing, house prices are rising, its time to target other recipients, namely social housing tenants.



Sunny said:


> ever the opportunity came where you could get a job and reduce you dependency on welfare, well then yes, you should show by gratitude by taking the job.



Here we go again, the inferred assumption that social housing tenants dont work.



Sunny said:


> And by the way your use of a wheelchair



I work with people in wheelchairs. They tell me of the obstacles they face on a daily basis. One example was the hotel that had wheelchair accessible toilets, but no wheelchair ramp to access the hotel! (Admittedly since fixed).



Sunny said:


> If anyone is using the reason that they are in a wheelchair as a reason not to get work, let me know



I never said that people in wheelchairs were using that as a reason not to get work. Far from it, the opposite is the reality. It is employers who dont hire staff in wheelchairs is the problem. As was pointed out to me once, how often are you met by someone in a wheelchair when entering a shop, hotel, restaurant? Its not as if people in wheelchairs cannot do a lot of the jobs, its because the environment that is designed creates obstacles.



Sunny said:


> Why not do something crazy and maybe see why people need social housing.



Great idea.



Sunny said:


> Why are young people with no disabilities or difficulties getting social housing for life?



Are they? Can you back it up?



Sunny said:


> the State provides a single mother with a house, what is the State doing to make sure this is only temporary? Can it provide free childcare to people to people on welfare for a period to get back to work?



Great idea, and not only an issue for low-income families, the cost of childcare is prohibitive for alot of women returning to work. 
Not sure how this will resolve your OP question?



Sunny said:


> Can it provide better training and education programmes?



Great idea, bearing in mind however a great deal of FTB are educated and trained, so hard to know how this will resolve the issue you raised.



Sunny said:


> And if people refuse to make any effort to make a better life for themselves when they can, we shouldn't be saying 'that's alright, it's not your fault.



Who is saying this? Where did this nonsense come out of?


----------



## TheBigShort

TheBigShort said:


> If everyone from a disadvantaged background faced eviction on foot of advancing themselves educationally and professionally can you not see how such a policy could act as a disincentive to learn, to progress a career? Thus perpetuating the cycle of poverty?





Sunny said:


> Yes you did



That is what I said above, which is nothing like what you said I said.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> You will have to determine the criteria for what is the greater need. Is a non-working family with a disabled child is deemed greater need than a low-income family with three kids?
> Where does the low-income family go?


We probably have hundreds (if not thousands of civil servants) who work in the provision of social housing policy. It's not beyond reason that they should be able to decide on who gets scarce resources based on need. The current system seems to facilitate those in need at a particular time for the rest of their lives. Get a house and you're sucking diesel. Any wonder why so many think it's a system open to being gamed!





TheBigShort said:


> Havent you being following the news? Didnt you read the OP?
> First-time buyers and well paid professinals are struggling to find a place to buy or even keep the roof over their heads.


And they're finding it a whole lot harder now as the government is buying up the very houses and apartments within their price range!



TheBigShort said:


> What magical occurence happens after five years, where house prices are increasing at double digit rates, that low paid workers can suddenly afford to buy?


If there is someone with a greater need then they get the house. I'm not saying this is easy by the way, but we are dealing with a scarce resource (social housing) and therefore it should be used to faciliate those in most need. But we've been down this road before. You are happy for a single mother who is easily able to pay for something herself and whose 2 children are now adults and living somewhere else to remain in her 3 bed social house whilst a family with young kids stays in a hostel, so it's pointless really. 



TheBigShort said:


> Why do you, and others, automatically assume that social housing tenants are not working?


I didn't say that. Plenty do, but I would be willing to bed that there is a higher percentage of people living in social housing that don't work (or have never worked) than those living in non social housing.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> *At some point*, either periodically or quite frequently we avail of public services making us all, more or less, net recipients.



And this is the whole point all of us are trying to make. Social housing, like the dole, should be a safety net to help people in times of trouble, not something permanent which traps them in a perpetual cycle of poverty.


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> That is what I said above, which is nothing like what you said I said.



Yes it is.....

You said people in fear of losing social housing would be dis-incentivised to learn or progress their career. That is exactly the same as saying that social housing is encouraging people to remain reliant on benefits and forsake more or better work. Then you say that people in receipt of social housing are no better off than people without it........ Confusing to be honest


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> We probably have hundreds (if not thousands of civil servants) who work in the provision of social housing policy



Yes, and they are probably implenting it in accordance with the direction of their political masters.
But the question is to you, if you evict one low-income family in favour of a non-working family with disabled children (or vice-versa)
Where does the evicted family go?



Firefly said:


> And they're finding it a whole lot harder now as the government is buying up the very houses and apartments within their price range!



Yes, I think we are universally agreed on that.



Firefly said:


> You are happy for a single mother who is easily able to pay for something herself and whose 2 children are now adults and living somewhere else to remain in her 3 bed social house whilst a family with young kids stays in a hostel, so it's pointless really.



This is garbage. You know only too well that I am opposed to evicting anybody on the sole basis of how many rooms are in the house. Peoples lives are far more complex than that.



Firefly said:


> I didn't say that. Plenty do, but I would be willing to bed that there is a higher percentage of people living in social housing that don't work (or have never worked) than those living in non social housing.



Of course there is, by its very nature there will always be. 



Firefly said:


> And this is the whole point all of us are trying to make. Social housing, like the dole, should be a safety net to help people in times of trouble, not something permanent which traps them in a perpetual cycle of poverty.



And this is the point im making. Housing is not a temporary fix. It is a long-term permanent social need that is required for everyone - even the very wealthiest of us all. 
It is not something to dangle over peoples necks that after 5 yrs if your circumstances have changed in some regard you could face eviction to some other unknown location. There are smply too many complex variables to consider to make it impossible to work unless some form of dictatorship is imposed.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sunny said:


> Yes it is.....



Please read my quote again. This time, put some emphasis on the words 'if' and 'could'.

We dont have a policy to evict social housing tenants on foot of them advancing in their careers. _If _we did, then that _could _act as a disincentive not to advance a career for fear of losing their home and joining the ranks of all the other first time buyers who im sure you will admit are finding it tough.


----------



## TheBigShort

cremeegg said:


> Put your kids name down for a LA house aged 18, in 10 years time they will probably be offered a house, so long as they are not earning more than the limit.



So basically it is open to everyone? So whats the big fuss then?


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> Please read my quote again. This time, put some emphasis on the words 'if' and 'could'.
> 
> We dont have a policy to evict social housing tenants on foot of them advancing in their careers. _If _we did, then that _could _act as a disincentive not to advance a career for fear of losing their home and joining the ranks of all the other first time buyers who im sure you will admit are finding it tough.



Seriously? Are you just trolling for something to do or something? On one hand you say the person on 50000 in social housing contributes exactly the same as the person earning 50000 and isn’t in social housing. Then you turn around and say that IF we tell the person  in the social housing that if they earn more they could lose their social house, the person would be afraid to advance their career. Why would they if they contribute exactly as the same as person earning 50000 who isn’t in social housing and would advance their career. You have just confused yourself at this stage. You still don’t get the argument if you think that people choosing not to advance their career and trying to get off Benifits and welfare because they are afraid of losing the benefits is actually a good thing. It is that attitude that is part of the problem. That is why people are never getting off social housing and the list just gets bigger and bigger......


----------



## TheBigShort

None


----------



## TheBigShort

This is what you said;



Sunny said:


> If you live in a disadvantaged area and make a good life for yourself, then you deserve great credit but you don’t deserve a house.



to which I took to mean, that if you progress in your career and earn enough then you should make way for someone else and join the ranks of first time buyers who are struggling to buy a home.
To which I replied;



TheBigShort said:


> If everyone from a disadvantaged background faced eviction on foot of advancing themselves educationally and professionally can you not see how such a policy could act as a disincentive to learn, to progress a career?



Now you have stated that building more social homes is not the answer. You have suggested that providing more childcare places and education and training as possible solutions.
I think these are good ideas, but they go no way to assisting first time buyers to enter the market at prices they can afford.
So perhaps you could provide an concrete solution to assist the FTB's and those who are most vulnerable in society in finding a home. 
In the absence of a sustainable housing market, I suggest the state intervenes to build more social housing.


----------



## Sunny

You still don’t get it! Of course if someone from a disadvantaged area and living in social housing does well and starts earning the same as someone not from a disadvantaged area and looking to buy a private house, they should not be entitled to social housing. That’s not some right wing nazi thinking. It’s simply stating the simple fact that one person is not more derserving of help than someone else just because they might have needed help in the past. 

Just because there might be a shortage of houses to buy doesn’t mean that State should continue to provide benefits because you needed them at one stage of your life. It’s like telling someone from the same disadvantaged area that you can keep the dole even when you start working so you don’t feel disincentivised to make something of yourself. 

I have no idea how to sort out the mess of the property market. I do know that I have witnessed governments of all sides mess and intervene in the market for decades and every time, they have made the situation worse. Getting rid of bedsits, tax breaks, treatment of landlords, rent supplements, social housing policy, Nama, land hoarding, property tax, stamp duty etc etc etc. But none of that will solve the social housing list which is continuing to grow and grow. There are now over 200 housing associations in this country. Over 200. It is an industry in itself now.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sunny said:


> You still don’t get it



You are right because you are not making sense. Or rather you are not thinking through what it appears to be what you are saying.



Sunny said:


> Of course if someone from a disadvantaged area and living in social housing does well and starts earning the same as someone not from a disadvantaged area and looking to buy a private house, they should not be entitled to social housing.



Lets take an example. An unemployed couple with one child are afforded social housing (LA has determined they have no other suitable accommdation). The man eventually gets a job as truck driver, the woman trains as an accountans assistant. Joint income is now €70k. Are you suggesting that because of this new found income they should now vacate their home to make way for others in 'greater need'?


----------



## cremeegg

TheBigShort said:


> Lets take an example. An unemployed couple with one child are afforded social housing (LA has determined they have no other suitable accommdation). The man eventually gets a job as truck driver, the woman trains as an accountans assistant. Joint income is now €70k. Are you suggesting that because of this new found income they should now vacate their home to make way for others in 'greater need'?



Perhaps they should then pay market rent.


----------



## TheBigShort

cremeegg said:


> Perhaps they should then pay market rent.



I think there would be scope to increase rent for sure, but for the State to charge a rate that effectively makes them equivalent to private profiteering landlords is simply a non-runner. Aside from the disincentive it would invoke to work as a truck driver, the purpose of social housing is to provide a stable platform in which families can hopefully find ways to dignified way of life.

And it still wouldn't solve the problem outlined in the OP.


----------



## Tebbit

if social housing estates were built again - which is the only real answer to the problem of homelessness - - the couple with 70,000 would probably move on to another estate elsewhere. After all why should they with an income of 70000 be given social housing with nominal rent and someone next door with the same or slightly more/less be paying mortgage etc. There should be no social housing for life, no selling on cheaply social housing to occupiers in social housing estates. It should be kept as social housing stock. If your circumstances improve move on. I've seen social housing sold on by families who make a nice little profit, good luck tothem, but why should I subsidise this? If their circumstances improve move on and leave the house to some other family who needs it. 
I just don't think the public/private mix works at all. Social housing estates, properly managed is the only answer to the housing problem.


----------



## JohnJay

This might be off-topic, but is it unusual that Oaktree, who is a registered charity, don't name their board, their directors or their management on their website?
https://www.oaklee.ie/about-us/our-governance


----------



## TheBigShort

Tebbit said:


> If your circumstances improve move on.



I keep hearing this, and I keep asking with no reply, move onto where?
Havent you being reading the news? Did you not read the OP?
Working people with decent incomes are struggling to buy a place for themselves, they are struggling to pay the rent.
What incentive is there for anyone afforded a social house to improve their circumstances if they face being 'moved on' to some unknown location?
Can you envisage the disruption this could cause? Someone finally gets a chance to improve their circumstances and then has to face the disruption of moving. How will this affect their employment? Their childcare arrangements? Their school arrangements?
Who would oversee such a scheme? How much will this cost the taxpayer? Will the tenants have right to appeal the decision to move them on? Will they have right to appeal any proposed new location? If yes, how much will all this cost the State in legal fees?


----------



## cremeegg

TheBigShort said:


> I keep hearing this, and I keep asking with no reply, move onto where?



To their choice of the 14,658 houses currently offered for sale on Daft at €250,000 or less, perhaps.


----------



## TheBigShort

cremeegg said:


> To their choice of the 14,658 houses currently offered for sale on Daft at €250,000 or less, perhaps.



So there is no shortage after all? You mean this thread is a waste of all our time? 
What is all the fuss about then?


----------



## cremeegg

TheBigShort said:


> So there is no shortage after all? You mean this thread is a waste of all our time?
> What is all the fuss about then?



I have been wondering just that.

Do you dispute my figure of more than 14,000 homes available for €250k and under at the moment.


----------



## TheBigShort

cremeegg said:


> I have been wondering just that.
> 
> Do you dispute my figure of more than 14,000 homes available for €250k and under at the moment.



No, I take your word for it. 
But I suspect you are omitting a crucial point. Isnt that a national figure? Isnt it possible that there isnt enough properties in the areas where there is demand?


----------



## cremeegg

Yes it is a national figure,  there are 700 such properties in Dublin.

However it does mean that the expectation place on social housing, is not just to provide housing, but to provide housing in desirable locations. 

50% of housing offers in Cork are refused, I do not know the figure for Dublin.


----------



## TheBigShort

cremeegg said:


> Yes it is a national figure,  there are 700 such properties in Dublin.
> 
> However it does mean that the expectation place on social housing, is not just to provide housing, but to provide housing in desirable locations.
> 
> 50% of housing offers in Cork are refused, I do not know the figure for Dublin.




Sorry, this doesnt make sense. We are talking about a €70k income social housing tenants who it is suggested that they now 'move on'.
You inferred that they buy one of 14,500 properties for sale.
Clearly, both now in gainful employment, the number of properties plausibly available to them is restricted to those properties which are located within commuting distance to their work. In which case, (say Dublin central is where they work) they are caught up with all the other buyers with incomes of €70,000 trying to find a home.
So im asking, where is the incentive to progress a career if the reward for doing so means losing your home? In the absence of suitable alternative accommodation, all they would be doing is adding to the homeless crisis when in fact there is no need to as they already have a home.


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> You are right because you are not making sense. Or rather you are not thinking through what it appears to be what you are saying.
> 
> Lets take an example. An unemployed couple with one child are afforded social housing (LA has determined they have no other suitable accommdation). The man eventually gets a job as truck driver, the woman trains as an accountans assistant. Joint income is now €70k. Are you suggesting that because of this new found income they should now vacate their home to make way for others in 'greater need'?



Yes or else they should be paying the same rent/mortgage that their neighbors who live in the same estate but aren’t in receipt of social housing are paying. My household income is about 70k and I am not in receipt of social housing and you think I should accept finding out that people next door to me who might have been given a social house when times are tough are still paying a lot less than than me in rent and mortgage even though they earn the same as me? And it And they will continue to do so because you think it is mean that we might just have re-evaluate their need to social housing? And this is paid for by every taxpayer? And then you talk about welfare traps. You seem to believe that once you are in social or subsidized accommodation, you should always get the benefit no matter what. Why not extend that ridiculous logic to other forms of welfare? Keep your unemployment benefit even when you get a job.....


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> Sorry, this doesnt make sense. We are talking about a €70k income social housing tenants who it is suggested that they now 'move on'.
> You inferred that they buy one of 14,500 properties for sale.
> Clearly, both now in gainful employment, the number of properties plausibly available to them is restricted to those properties which are located within commuting distance to their work. In which case, (say Dublin central is where they work) they are caught up with all the other buyers with incomes of €70,000 trying to find a home.
> So im asking, where is the incentive to progress a career if the reward for doing so means losing your home? In the absence of suitable alternative accommodation, all they would be doing is adding to the homeless crisis when in fact there is no need to as they already have a home.



Dear God. Why is their situation any different to the thousands of people also earning 70k but who were ever fortunate/unfortunate enough not to need social housing at one point in their lives? You talk about not picking on one cohort of society but that is exactly what you are doing. You are saying those in social housing earning the same amount as those not in social housing should not be held to the same affordability/income criteria as people not in receipt of social housing. That they should not be paying the same rent or mortgage as people earning the exact same amount are paying privately. Or else you think everyone should just be given a social house. Which is it?


----------



## TheBigShort

Sunny said:


> Yes



So where would they move too?



Sunny said:


> else they should be paying the same rent/mortgage that their neighbors who live in the same estate but aren’t in receipt of social housing are paying.



Which is what? Do you not realise people pay different mortgage rates? Have you heard of people borrowing too much? Are you suggesting that because someone borrowed far, far too much for a property that a SH tenant should also have to pay far,far too much?
What if their neighbours have paid off their mortgage, do they get to pay nothing at all?



Sunny said:


> should accept finding out that people next door to me who might have been given a social house when times are tough are still paying a lot less than than me in rent and mortgage even though they earn the same as me?



So where is the incentive for someone in SH to advance their career if all that will happen in doing so, will to the rewards gobbled up in rents or equivalent mortgage rates?
Think about it logically.



Sunny said:


> And it And they will continue to do so because you think it is mean that we might just have re-evaluate their need to social housing? A



Again, faced with prospect of being moved to an, as yet unidentified location, and all the potential disruption with that and having your new found income gobbled up by prevailing market rates, how would that incentivise anyone to actually go and educate and train themselves? It wouldnt, thus your proposal is actually to perpetuate the welfare traps that you want to eliminate.



Sunny said:


> And this is paid for by every taxpayer?



Including SH tenants who earn €70,000.



Sunny said:


> And then you talk about welfare traps.



Your proposal is the most certain perpetuation of welfare traps. Your proposal has no insight into resolving issues in welfare traps, it is purely centred on what you perceive to be an injustice perpetuated on you.



Sunny said:


> Why not extend that ridiculous logic to other forms of welfare?



Because you obviously have zero concept of the fundamental need and function that housing brings to a society. It is an essential for everyone.
To give some perspective, the actual amounts of people and families who are either sleeping rough or in unsuitable accommodation is, in % terms, tiny and miniscule relative to whole population.
The consequences however for the homeless are quite often devastating. That is why it is such an important issue. That is why it is not anything like other welfare benefits that can be chopped and changed on rates and rules.
Housing is essential for the social well-being of any society. It has been since the dawn of civilization (FIS, JSA, CB, Widows allowance, etc, etc, havent not been.)



Sunny said:


> Keep your unemployment benefit even when you get a job..



See above - unemployment benefit and housing are not comparable. The analogy is inept.
If a SH tenant were to buy their own home, then in that circumstance they should vacate the SH property.



Sunny said:


> Why is their situation any different to the thousands of people also earning 70k but who were ever fortunate/unfortunate enough not to need social housing at one point in their lives?



It is not. Your proposals only add to the woes of those seeking to buy their own property.
Think about it logically. If there are 5 people looking to buy a property on the open market, what good would adding a sixth person do,?



Sunny said:


> You talk about not picking on one cohort of society but that is exactly what you are doing



You have admitted you havent a clue how to resolve the housing crisis. Your only proposals so far would have the effect of perpetuating welfare traps and adding price pressure to already heated markets. You singulary make things worse for everybody.
The answer is to build more houses. If the market is failing in that regard, which it has, the State should intervene - which it is doing, but time will tell if it is sufficient.


----------



## Firefly

Sunny said:


> Why is their situation any different to the thousands of people also earning 70k but who were ever fortunate/unfortunate enough not to need social housing at one point in their lives?



You're not getting it Sunny. Once someone gets a council house they are entitled to keep it regardless of the change in their circumstance. The last thing anyone in a council house should have to endure is moving somewhere else or even, God forbid, putting a roof over their heads themselves (that's reserved for those stupid enough to rent or buy a place of their own). That would be tragic and an indignity to them. You see it's all about protecting the social fabric. If someone could just educate those pesky families with young children living in hotels of this we'd all be grand.

Anyone for some prawn sandwiches?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> but for the State to charge a rate that effectively makes them equivalent to private profiteering landlords is simply a non-runner.


Are you saying that people charging the market rates for their properties are profiteering?

My landlord is charging me well below the market rate as he reduced to rent a few years back to keep me there and he's now stuck charging a low rate because of rent controls.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> The last thing anyone in a council house should have to endure is moving somewhere else or even, God forbid, putting a roof over their heads themselves (that's reserved for those stupid enough to rent or buy a place of their own).



You are not making sense Firefly. You fail to distinguish between someone being _forced _to 'move on' by virtue of their improved circumstances as is being suggested here, and _willingly _moving on by virtue of their volition.
Perhaps eventually, as someone in favour of forced eviction for having the audacity for going to work, paying taxes, and contributing to society, you could answer this - where will the SH tenants go if forced to move out?



Firefly said:


> If someone could just educate those pesky families with young children living in ohotels of this we'd all be grand.



Those 'pesky families' living in hotels are in some instances, working families, earning an income who cannot find suitable accommodation.
You want to move working people out of SH because its not fair that other working people cannot find suitable accommodation. Can you not figure how insane that is?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Are you saying that people charging the market rates for their properties are profiteering?
> 
> My landlord is charging me well below the market rate as he reduced to rent a few years back to keep me there and he's now stuck charging a low rate because of rent controls.



Sometimes you just have to accept that we are talking in general terms and not every specific case. 
Just as in business there are people losing money, I think it can be regarded that incentive to become a landlord - in the broad generalised scheme of things - is to make a profit.
I have absolutely no issue with anyone doing that, as long as they are providing value for money, but I would certainly take exception to the State charging 'market rates' off its citizens.


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> You are not making sense Firefly. You fail to distinguish between someone being _forced _to 'move on' by virtue of their improved circumstances as is being suggested here, and _willingly _moving on by virtue of their volition.
> Perhaps eventually, as someone in favour of forced eviction for having the audacity for going to work, paying taxes, and contributing to society, you could answer this - where will the SH tenants go if forced to move out?



You have wrote so much nonsense in your posts above, I don't even have the inclination to discuss it anymore. Comparing two neighbours where one might be paying a higher mortgage rate or where one might have paid off their mortgage with two neighbours where one is in receipt of public money to subsidise their rent/mortgage even when earning the same money as their next door neighbour is probably the most illogical post I have read in a long time. 

Has to be just trolling. The alternative is just scary if you actually believe your logic. No wonder you are a supporter of decentralised crypto currencies. Public finances in your world stand no chance.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sunny said:


> You have wrote so much nonsense in your posts above, I don't even have the inclination to discuss it anymore. Comparing two neighbours where one might be paying a higher mortgage rate or where one might have paid off their mortgage with two neighbours where one is in receipt of public money to subsidise their rent/mortgage even when earning the same money as their next door neighbour is probably the most illogical post I have read in a long time.
> 
> Has to be just trolling. The alternative is just scary if you actually believe your logic. No wonder you are a supporter of decentralised crypto currencies. Public finances in your world stand no chance.



So when faced with the blindingly obvious that _your _suggestion of comparing neighbours and their mortgage/ rent payments to be absolutely absurd, you decide to attack the player instead of the ball.



Sunny said:


> My household income is about 70k and I am not in receipt of social housing and you think I should accept finding out that people next door to me who might have been given a social house when times are tough are still paying a lot less than than me in rent and mortgage even though they earn the same as me?




I think you are starting to understand why any proposals to move people out of social housing by virtue of their improve circumstances - without taking into consideration where it is they are supposed to move to - is an absurd proposition.
I'm guessing you are probably starting to figure out that you would be unable to find such a proposal operating anywhere in the EU, but are simply not up to admitting that.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sunny said:


> You have wrote so much nonsense in your posts above





Sunny said:


> Has to be just trolling.



The ones that are trolling are the ones who create threads with titles like "Social Housing - Creating _a monster _[emphasis mine].
And then to attempt that you have a social conscious but really what all this is about is "Whats in for *me*?" or "What do *I* get out of it?"

You have no, or very little understanding of the function of housing in a society. You, have by your own admission, not a clue how to resolve the housing crisis. And your proposals, none of which are adopted anywhere in the EU, are shown to perpetuate welfare traps that your purport you want to eliminate.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Sometimes you just have to accept that we are talking in general terms and not every specific case.


; to make or seek to make an excessive or unfair profit, especially illegally.
Are you suggesting that, in general terms, landlords are seeking to make an excessive or unfair profit, especially illegally? If now you should withdraw your remark. If you are then you should substantiate it.


TheBigShort said:


> Just as in business there are people losing money, I think it can be regarded that incentive to become a landlord - in the broad generalised scheme of things - is to make a profit.
> I have absolutely no issue with anyone doing that, as long as they are providing value for money, but I would certainly take exception to the State charging 'market rates' off its citizens.


If someone in social housing can afford to pay the market rate and is not charged that rate then they are being subsidised by the tax payer. While we have families sleeping in hotels, a suicide epidemic among young men and boys, and many other areas which need funding I don't think that's an appropriate use of government money. I would be interested to know why you think that people who can afford to pay market rents should be subsidised by people who can not.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> make or seek to make an excessive or unfair profit, especially illegally.



My bad. I would never had attributed that definition. 'Excessive profiteering' is what I would have called that.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I think you are starting to understand why any proposals to move people out of social housing by virtue of their improve circumstances - without taking into consideration where it is they are supposed to move to - is an absurd proposition.


Why do you think that one household should subsidise another when their circumstances are the same/
Why do you think that this is a good use of state resources?
Why is it selfish to ask why one family gets a home provided to them even though they can afford to provide their own while another family with a much lower income has to live in a hotel? 
How is it socially just not to ask the higher income family to pay a market rent and use that money to house the other family?
What's selfish about asking those questions?
I think it is you who is playing the man rather than the ball by implying that anyone who doesn't agree with your views is selfish or self centered.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> 'Excessive profiteering' is what I would have called that.


 Fair enough.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> If someone in social housing can afford to pay the market rate and is not charged that rate then they are being subsidised by the tax payer. While we have families sleeping in hotels, a suicide epidemic among young men and boys, and many other areas which need funding I don't think that's an appropriate use of government money. I would be interested to know why you think that people who can afford to pay market rents should be subsidised by people who can not.




First off, if someone in social housing can afford to pay the market rate it is presumably because they are earning an income – in which case, they are_ ‘the taxpayer’._ We could spend the rest of the month detailing all of the subsidies that various different sectors of society receive by virtue of ‘the taxpayer’. A PAYE worker receives a tax credit, an effective subsidy. CT is at 12.5% and there appears to be plenty of means to reduce that liability through tax laws – an effective subsidy of the corporate sector. My wife pays full PRSI and although she can afford the ‘market rate’ of a dental check-up and cleaning, she is subsidised by ‘the taxpayer’ for a free visit to the dentist. I got a 20% rebate of the cost of a root canal procedure – why should taxpayers who have never had as much as a filling in their life subsidise my root canal treatment?

Farmers are subsidised through the CAP. The hotel & restaurant industry is subsidised through a preferential VAT rate over other businesses.

Everyone else is subsided by the taxpayer if they need to call the Gardai, or putting their kids through school, using public roads, availing of the convenience of street lighting.

Even though we can afford the ‘market rate’ for childcare, the state subsidises us with child benefit to help with the costs of raising children.

Others are subsidised by way of social housing, but if they are working and paying taxes they are contributing to the cost of that benefit, no more, no less. Simply because they are _availing_ of that provision is no different to my elderly neighbour whose life-saving operations (which I pray I don't have to endure) cost more than the cost of two-bed house.

Secondly, it is debatable as to how much of income should be used to pay mortgage/rent. If my rent is swallowing up 70% of my income – technically I am able to pay it, but I would consider that amount unaffordable, and in the long-term unsustainable.


Which brings us to -thirdly, I have every sympathy for those looking to buy a property to set up home or for those being fleeced in the rental market. But the cause of the problem is not existing social housing tenants that are now earning decent incomes. The cause of the problem is more to do with this

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2018/0423/956446-goodbody-house-completions/

The private sector housing market has failed to provide a sustainable house building program suitable for the needs of the population and the public sector housing policy, effectively allowing the market determine the supply and demand is now shown to be wholly inefficient – both in more prosperous times (building too many houses in the wrong locations) and in austere times (too few houses).

There has only been one proposal in this subject that I have seen that I would agree that it would go some way to resolving the issue



Purple said:


> rather the State should build public housing and it should be allocated by local authorities





Purple said:


> While we have families sleeping in hotels, a suicide epidemic among young men and boys, and many other areas which need funding I don't think that's an appropriate use of government money. I would be interested to know why you think that people who can afford to pay market rents should be subsidised by people who can not.



Because to do so is to actually exacerbate the problem – not resolve it.


Why is there a housing crisis? Is it because there is a shortage of houses? Is it because house prices are too high? Is it because potential buyers cannot afford the mortgage repayments of the properties that they would like to live because they then can commute to and from work? Is it because rent prices are too high? Or is it a combination of all these factors to lesser and greater degrees.

To my mind, there is not one scintilla of evidence to suggest that the housing crisis has anything to social housing tenants whose circumstances have now improved. In fact, if you were to take a look at the comments in this thread the general gist of it is that people who are living in social housing and _not working_ should make way for low and middle income families;

https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threa...uld-be-prioritised-for-social-housing.204999/

Whereas in this thread, the focus is that if you are working and earning a living you should make way for those most needy!

In all of this, I have asked the simple question - where will the people who have to 'move on' go to? Its never been answered, aif anyone thinks about it logically, there are so many hurdles and obstacles, other than a persons income, to consider implementing such a scheme would be a political and administrative quagmire causing more disruption and costing more in taxation than it could possibly save.

Everyone would lose.


----------



## Purple

It looks like your view is that because there is waste and unfairness in other parts of society it is okay to have waste in this part, because there are unfair subsidies in other areas it is okay to have unfairness in this area. 
You are just conflating everything so that nothing is addressed. Madness.

I fail to see why charging some tenants a market rate when they can afford to pay it and using that extra income to provide more social housing will make the housing crisis worse. 

The root cause of the housing crisis is that there are too few houses being built. The reasons for that are many and fall at the feet of the banking sector, the State employees who were paid to regulate it but utterly failed to do so, the ministers who failed to legislate adequately, the State employees paid to draft legislation to regulate the sector but failed to do so properly, the Social Partnership agreements which then removed the Department of finance from the table when economic policy was being formed, the greedy developers and union officials who carved up the economic cake during the boom and overheated the economy, the politicians elected and paid to run the country who abdicated that responsibility when they allowed unelected social partners to set government policy, the members of the public who borrowed unsustainable amounts and took out mortgages which not only funded the purchase of their home but also its decoration and maybe a car. 
There are many reasons why we got here and very few "leaders" of any sort can be said to be blameless. While interesting it is of little consequence in the context of how we get from where we are to where we want to be; it's hard to move forward while looking backward.

This thread is about social housing policy, not the broader housing crisis. I'm in favour of the resources which the State has been able to allocate to this problem being directed to those who need them most.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> It looks like your view is that because there is waste and unfairness in other parts of society it is okay to have waste in this part, because there are unfair subsidies in other areas it is okay to have unfairness in this area.
> You are just conflating everything so that nothing is addressed.




No, its not. Clearly when I say “_anyone that thinks about it logically, there are so many hurdles and obstacles, other than a persons income, to consider implementing such a scheme would be a political and administrative quagmire causing more disruption and costing more in taxation than it could possibly save”, _it is my view that getting people to ‘move on’ or applying ‘market rates’ would be a retrograde and costly exercise.



Purple said:


> I fail to see why charging some tenants a market rate when they can afford to pay it and using that extra income to provide more social housing will make the housing crisis worse.



Because you have not outlined how such a system would work. If the ‘market rate’ for 3 bed terrace council house in D1 is €1000 a month rent, how much would the following social housing tenants pay if they were earning the following incomes; €20,000; €30,000, €40,000; €50,000, €60,000 €70,000 etc…etc…would they all be liable to pay the market rate of €1,000 pm?

Who sets the market rate? Daft.ie? Is it possible for anyone to dispute the market rate? Is it possible that whatever, or whoever sets the market rate that an individual can dispute this rate? If you think about it logically, the housing crisis is in some part, because market rates are too high! In my view the ‘market  rate’ for both property ownership and rental are way over the top. On the other hand, developers are not building and landlords are leaving the market, apparently, because it is no longer worth their while.
So how would the State set a 'market rate' when clearly all market rates are subjective?



Purple said:


> This thread is about social housing policy, not the broader housing crisis.



The two are inter-linked. Read the OP again.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Because you have not outlined how such a system would work. If the ‘market rate’ for 3 bed terrace council house in D1 is €1000 a month rent, how much would the following social housing tenants pay if they were earning the following incomes; €20,000; €30,000, €40,000; €50,000, €60,000 €70,000 etc…etc…would they all be liable to pay the market rate of €1,000 pm?


 Maybe the smart, professional, overworked and underpaid dedicated and selfless people working so hard in the RTB and Department of the Environment could come up with a mechanism for that or is the mantra in those places "It's hard to do the right thing so don't bother"?



TheBigShort said:


> Who sets the market rate? Daft.ie? Is it possible for anyone to dispute the market rate? Is it possible that whatever, or whoever sets the market rate that an individual can dispute this rate?


How do they set the rate for property tax?



TheBigShort said:


> If you think about it logically, the housing crisis is in some part, because market rates are too high! In my view the ‘market rate’ for both property ownership and rental are way over the top. On the other hand, developers are not building and landlords are leaving the market, apparently, because it is no longer worth their while.


 No, the property crisis is only because of lack of supply. Other factors caused that lack of supply and others again, such as high rents, are a result of that lack of supply.



TheBigShort said:


> So how would the State set a 'market rate' when clearly all market rates are subjective?


 By measuring the rates being charged for similar property types in the same area. It's not hard. 



TheBigShort said:


> The two are inter-linked. Read the OP again.


 They are inter-linked but so are lots of things. This thread is about how the State handles one aspect of that crisis.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Maybe the smart, professional, overworked and underpaid dedicated and selfless people working so hard in the RTB and Department of the Environment could come up with a mechanism for that or is the mantra in those places "It's hard to do the right thing so don't bother"?



But you have the said the mechanism to be the 'market rate'. Now it appears that some other 'mechanism' will need to be applied? So clearly the notion of simply applying the 'market rate' to all social housing tenants is a non-runner?



Purple said:


> How do they set the rate for property tax?



A self -assessed value of the property and charge 0.18% tax on values up to €1m. So for a property with a 'market value' of €250,000 the property tax is €405pa  - is this the amount you are now suggesting should be applied? If not, why bring it up? I would imagine it falls somewhere short of charging the 'market rate' for rent?



Purple said:


> By measuring the rates being charged for similar property types in the same area. It's not hard.



And then charge how much for tenants on varying incomes of €20,000; €30,000, €40,000; €50,000, €60,000 €70,000 etc…etc…? Oh yeah, hang on, a new mechanism to be decided by Department of Environment.

If you cant answer the question of where social housing tenants move to should their financial circumstances improve, and you cant answer the question of whether it is the 'market rate' or some other 'mechanism', as yet undefined, then what hope is there for all the other obstacles and hurdles that will be placed in front of a scheme such as this - and believe me, there will be dozens of variable circumstances within different households as to make this scheme a costly and cumbersome, and ultimately futile exercise.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> But you have the said the mechanism to be the 'market rate'. Now it appears that some other 'mechanism' will need to be applied? So clearly the notion of simply applying the 'market rate' to all social housing tenants is a non-runner?
> 
> 
> 
> A self -assessed value of the property and charge 0.18% tax on values up to €1m. So for a property with a 'market value' of €250,000 the property tax is €405pa  - is this the amount you are now suggesting should be applied? If not, why bring it up? I would imagine it falls somewhere short of charging the 'market rate' for rent?
> 
> 
> 
> And then charge how much for tenants on varying incomes of €20,000; €30,000, €40,000; €50,000, €60,000 €70,000 etc…etc…? Oh yeah, hang on, a new mechanism to be decided by Department of Environment.
> 
> If you cant answer the question of where social housing tenants move to should their financial circumstances improve, and you cant answer the question of whether it is the 'market rate' or some other 'mechanism', as yet undefined, then what hope is there for all the other obstacles and hurdles that will be placed in front of a scheme such as this - and believe me, there will be dozens of variable circumstances within different households as to make this scheme a costly and cumbersome, and ultimately futile exercise.


That's a complete nonsense post. By your logic unless you can detail how something should be designed, calculated and implemented then your view on a matter is not valid. 
I ask about property tax because there is a system, designed by those paid to do such things, in place.
I don't believe it is beyond the wit of the combined intellect of the Civil Servants who are the experts in these matters to come up with a method of calculating market rents, just as Daft.ie can do by measuring rents in a given area and breaking them down by property type. 
I don't believe that it is beyond the wit of the combined intellect of the Civil Servants who are the experts in these matters to come up with a method of assessing incomes (means testing) in this matter just as they do in other areas where the State hands out money. 
You seem to have a very low opinion of our Public Servants. I think they are more than capable of such a task, if they were let do it. 

Let me ask you this; If a person gets a council house for them and their partner and three kids and is charged only nominal rent because they are unemployed should that person always be charged that nominal rent even if they become a business owner and have an income of €250,000 a year? If not then how should the rent they pay be calculated?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> By your logic unless you can detail how something should be designed, calculated and implemented then your view on a matter is not valid.



On I beg your pardon, when you were talking about 'market rates' I automatically assumed that you were talking about the market rates applicable in the private market for rents and mortgages. Instead you are talking about 'a market rate' that is designed and applicable to income earners availing of social housing?

Like this you mean;

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e..._buying_a_home/affordable_housing.html#la9c7b

or this

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e..._buying_a_home/mortgage_allowance_scheme.html

or this

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e...help_with_buying_a_home/shared_ownership.html

or this

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e...ing/applying_for_local_authority_housing.html




Purple said:


> I ask about property tax because there is a system, designed by those paid to do such things, in place.



Yes, so what? There are plenty of systems in place - you want to create a new one, bully for you. Do you want to share how you would envisage it to work?

Here is the Department of Housing website where you can link to rules applicable to Local Authority rents; including this

_"Where you are allocated a tenancy you will be charged a rent based on your income.
This is calculated by the housing authority in accordance with its Differential Rent Scheme.
It is based on your ability to pay, i.e. the higher your income the higher the rent."
_
http://www.housing.gov.ie/node/6557

Here is where I said that there is scope to charge higher rents in response to a proposal to charge market rates where a social housing tenant had improved their financial situation;



TheBigShort said:


> I think there would be scope to increase rent for sure





Purple said:


> I don't believe it is beyond the wit of the combined intellect of the Civil Servants who are the experts in these matters to come up with a method of calculating market rents, just as Daft.ie can do by measuring rents in a given area and breaking them down by property type.



No, its not. There are plenty of schemes and methods of calculating rents as detailed above. I assumed you would have known this, thus your argument to be based on the prevailing private market rates.
It appears you know absolutely diddly-squat about social and affordable housing schemes in this country and that you are just on here for a rant proposing things that sound like one thing, but actually mean something completely different once your suggestions come under any sort of scrutiny.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> If a person gets a council house for them and their partner and three kids and is charged only nominal rent because they are unemployed should that person always be charged that nominal rent even if they become a business owner and have an income of €250,000 a year? If not then how should the rent they pay be calculated?



This would be one of those situations where there would be scope to increase the rent.
On the other hand, if they have €250,000 pa, do you think there is chance they might move willingly, of their own volition? I seriously doubt there are a many €250,000 income earners, occupying social housing, meaning that this example goes nowhere near to resolving the problem of the housing crisis.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> On I beg your pardon, *when you were talking about 'market rates' I automatically assumed that you were talking about the market rates applicable in the private market for rents* and mortgages. Instead you are talking about 'a market rate' that is designed and applicable to income earners availing of social housing?


 You were correct; I was talking about the market rates applicable in the private market for rents. I thought that was so obvious that everyone would understand it. My mistake, I apologise. 



TheBigShort said:


> Yes, so what? There are plenty of systems in place - you want to create a new one, bully for you. Do you want to share how you would envisage it to work?


 I covered that here;


Purple said:


> I don't believe it is beyond the wit of the combined intellect of the Civil Servants who are the experts in these matters to come up with a method of calculating market rents, just as Daft.ie can do by measuring rents in a given area and breaking them down by property type.
> I don't believe that it is beyond the wit of the combined intellect of the Civil Servants who are the experts in these matters to come up with a method of assessing incomes (means testing) in this matter just as they do in other areas where the State hands out money.






TheBigShort said:


> Here is the Department of Housing website where you can link to rules applicable to Local Authority rents; including this
> 
> _"Where you are allocated a tenancy you will be charged a rent based on your income.
> This is calculated by the housing authority in accordance with its Differential Rent Scheme.
> It is based on your ability to pay, i.e. the higher your income the higher the rent._


Does that keep increasing in an open ended manner or is it capped at the market rate? If not it seems unfair that social housing tenants can be charged more in rent than the market rate. 



TheBigShort said:


> Here is where I said that there is scope to charge higher rents in response to a proposal to charge market rates where a social housing tenant had improved their financial situation;


Excellent! We are getting somewhere. What rate do you think it should be capped at?



TheBigShort said:


> No, its not. There are plenty of schemes and methods of calculating rents as detailed above. I assumed you would have known this, thus your argument to be based on the prevailing private market rates.


 I did know that. That's why it's utterly bizarre that you are taking such a nonsensical stance on the issue. 



TheBigShort said:


> It appears you know absolutely diddly-squat about social and affordable housing schemes in this country and that you are just on here for a rant proposing things that sound like one thing, but actually mean something completely different once your suggestions come under any sort of scrutiny.


It may appear that way to you but we can leave it up to others at to what they says about either of us.  



TheBigShort said:


> This would be one of those situations where there would be scope to increase the rent.


 Again, should the rate be capped at the market rate or should it be increased above that rate (in line with their income) in order to force wealthy tenants to move into private rental accommodation?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> You were correct; I was talking about the market rates applicable in the private market for rents. I thought that was so obvious that everyone would understand it. My mistake, I apologise.



This is into the realm of farce. So you do consider that if the prevailing market rate for renting a property is €1000 pm that a social housing tenant should also pay that amount if they are earning an income, regardless if it is €20, 30,40,50,60,70k etc...etc...



Purple said:


> I covered that here;



No you didnt. You side-stepped the question put to you, and bizarrely you are now relying on the wit and combined intellect of civil servants that administer schemes for housing and the associated rents for your answer.



Purple said:


> Does that keep increasing in an open ended manner or is it capped at the market rate? If not it seems unfair that social housing tenants can be charged more in rent than the market rate.



And now we really have turned full circle. The unjust nature of the cost of property and rents facing first time buyers and those in the private rental market while social housing tenants get cheap accommodation, sometimes for life, has taken a back seat.
Instead, in an attempt to resolve the shortage of housing, you have concocted a scenario where _high income _social housing tenants could be targeted for rents over and above the market rates to move them out!!
This will free up how many houses? 1, 2 houses? Or are you going to bamboozle me now with detailed stats of how the social housing stock is actually occupied with high income earners? 
Oh, and by the way, if you force someone out by virtue of their high income, how does that help in any way those income earners who _dont _qualify for housing but are struggling to buy a property or pay the rent?



Purple said:


> Excellent! We are getting somewhere. What rate do you think it should be capped at?



What rate do I think what should be capped at? 



Purple said:


> Again, should the rate be capped at the market rate or should it be increased above that rate (in line with their income) in order to force wealthy tenants to move into private rental accommodation?



Nobody...nobody should be forcefully evicted from their home. If it is a private arrangement that is a different matter, but the State should not actively evict anyone from their home (save criminal behaviour), if they did, where would they put them?


----------



## dereko1969

I'm not really sure where I stand on this topic but I'd like to share a story. Now I know bad examples make for bad law/policy.
I live in Dalkey in a former council home, estate features the most expensive former council house in the country and a mixture of current and former council tenants and private owners and renters. I purchased my home in 2010, having had to prove I had a housing need as I purchased from the estate of a former council tenant who had herself purchased from the council.
There was a knock on the door last year and a neighbour (who I didn't recognise as she's from the far end of the estate) had a petition she wanted me to sign, about how the daughter of another neighbour had moved home from the UK to help her sick mum and was now being threatened with being kicked out of the house after the mother dying. I think there was a match on so I signed without thinking and then she followed up with the kicker, apparently because the daughter has an apartment in Monkstown she wasn't entitled to "inherit" the house in Dalkey which was apparently an outrage!
I agree with social housing, I agree with not kicking people out if they have bettered themselves but have children in school in the locality - but I cannot agree with inter-generational transfer of a public asset.


----------



## TheBigShort

dereko1969 said:


> about how the daughter of another neighbour had moved home from the UK to help her sick mum and was now being threatened with being kicked out of the house after the mother dying.





dereko1969 said:


> apparently because the daughter has an apartment in Monkstown she wasn't entitled to "inherit" the house in Dalkey which was apparently an outrage!



If I get this straight, the council is not permitting the daughter to stay in the house as it has been established that she already has an apartment of her own?
If so, I don't see what the issue is here.


----------



## Delboy

The issue is that some of the locals were campaigning for her to 'inherit' the council house too


----------



## TheBigShort

So what? She is being refused the apartment. They can campaign to inherit the world for all anyone cares if she is not entitled to the apartment by virtue of the fact that she has a property of her own then she wont get it.
What this has to do with the OP I do not know.


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> So what? She is being refused the apartment. They can campaign to inherit the world for all anyone cares if she is not entitled to the apartment by virtue of the fact that she has a property of her own then she wont get it.
> What this has to do with the OP I do not know.



I have no idea on where you stand on this. You agree with the council not letting her keep the social house because she was lucky enough to inherit a smaller apartment in a different location? That goes against everything you said above... is it not just cruel. What about the life she has built?Do you even know what you are trying to say anymore?


----------



## TheBigShort

Sunny said:


> I have no idea on where you stand on this. You agree with the council not letting her keep the social house because she was lucky enough to inherit a smaller apartment in a different location? That goes against everything you said above... is it not just cruel. What about the life she has built?Do you even know what you are trying to say anymore?



Perhaps you should read the...post...carefully...and get the facts right before commenting. Its the social house that she is campaigning to inherit...while owning another property in Monkstown.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> This is into the realm of farce. So you do consider that if the prevailing market rate for renting a property is €1000 pm that a social housing tenant should also pay that amount if they are earning an income, regardless if it is €20, 30,40,50,60,70k etc...etc...


 It certainly is descending into the realm of farce. I don't think you know what you are arguing about any more. That or your preconceptions about other posters is so bad that it has rendered you incapable of reading their posts clearly. Council tenants should pay rents in line with their income, increasing as their income increases until it reaches the open market rent.  



TheBigShort said:


> No you didnt. You side-stepped the question put to you, and bizarrely you are now relying on the wit and combined intellect of civil servants that administer schemes for housing and the associated rents for your answer.


 No, I answered it.



TheBigShort said:


> And now we really have turned full circle. The unjust nature of the cost of property and rents facing first time buyers and those in the private rental market while social housing tenants get cheap accommodation, sometimes for life, has taken a back seat.
> Instead, in an attempt to resolve the shortage of housing, you have concocted a scenario where _high income _social housing tenants could be targeted for rents over and above the market rates to move them out!!


 No, read... my... post... I asked you at what level income related rents should be capped. 



TheBigShort said:


> This will free up how many houses? 1, 2 houses? Or are you going to bamboozle me now with detailed stats of how the social housing stock is actually occupied with high income earners?


 Why do you ask?



TheBigShort said:


> Oh, and by the way, if you force someone out by virtue of their high income, how does that help in any way those income earners who _dont _qualify for housing but are struggling to buy a property or pay the rent?


 It doesn't. It does mean that the valuable state resources go to those who need them more.  



TheBigShort said:


> What rate do I think what should be capped at?


 The market rate. Have you not been listening?



TheBigShort said:


> Nobody...nobody should be forcefully evicted from their home. If it is a private arrangement that is a different matter, but the State should not actively evict anyone from their home (save criminal behaviour), if they did, where would they put them?


 Wow, so you think a person in a council house who gets a good job and has a good income but just decides to not pay their rent should be left where they are.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I don't think you know what you are arguing about any more



I will tell you what im arguing. I think the solution to the OP situation is to build more housing. If private developers are not up to the job then the State should intervene providing housing who have no means to do so for themselves and for working families that are struggling to buy or rent. Any yes, the state should not be in direct competition with first time buyers as I have said from page 1.



Purple said:


> No, I answered it.



You didnt answer the question put to you, you laid it off to suggest that some others would have the answer to my question.
You side-stepped the question.



Purple said:


> I asked you at what level income related rents should be capped.



No cap. Why?



Purple said:


> It doesn't. It does mean that the valuable state resources go to those who need them more.



So a working family of two, living in social housing, earning, paying taxes that go toward the provision of that housing - now faced with 'market rate' rents that are so high (by virtue of their good incomes and your, as yet undefined mechanism for determining 'market rates') they consider perhaps buying their own property or renting privately. This is good yes? As it frees up valuable state resources for an unemployed family of two who couldnt be bothered (your words) looking for work, so that they can get the house.
In the meantime, the working family are struggling to pay increasing rents on their new private rental space and the husband has been told that his hours are being cut.

Who is more needy in that situation?



Purple said:


> The market rate.



Which is what? Is the prevailing market rates in the open market or is it some other mechanism already being used in many different social housing schemes?



Purple said:


> Wow, so you think a person in a council house who gets a good job and has a good income but just decides to not pay their rent should be left where they are.



Dont be a twit all your life. Someone who has the means to pay, but wont pay - in my book criminal behaviour.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I will tell you what im arguing. I think the solution to the OP situation is to build more housing. If private developers are not up to the job then the State should intervene providing housing who have no means to do so for themselves and for working families that are struggling to buy or rent.


 But you're okay with people who have a good income and can well afford to buy their own home keeping a council home that is needed by a family currently living in a hotel. 



TheBigShort said:


> You didnt answer the question put to you, you laid it off to suggest that some others would have the answer to my question.
> You side-stepped the question.


 No, I answered it.



TheBigShort said:


> No cap. Why?


 Because then we could end up in a farcical situation where someone ends up paying more than the market rent. 



TheBigShort said:


> So a working family of two, living in social housing, earning, paying taxes that go toward the provision of that housing - now faced with 'market rate' rents that are so high (by virtue of their good incomes and your, as yet undefined mechanism for determining 'market rates') they consider perhaps buying their own property or renting privately. This is good yes? As it frees up valuable state resources for an unemployed family of two who couldnt be bothered (your words) looking for work, so that they can get the house.


 People who can't be bothered to work shouldn't get any council house. The State should help people who can't provide for themselves, not people who won't provide for themselves. 



TheBigShort said:


> In the meantime, the working family are struggling to pay increasing rents on their new private rental space and the husband has been told that his hours are being cut.


 What about the wife/husband/partner? We cherish all family types in this country now (the positive side of left-wing politics). 



TheBigShort said:


> Which is what? Is the prevailing market rates in the open market or is it some other mechanism already being used in many different social housing schemes?


The market rate is the market rate. Some other mechanism already being used in many different social housing schemes is not the market rate.



TheBigShort said:


> Dont be a twit all your life. Someone who has the means to pay, but wont pay - in my book criminal behaviour.


 Now now, be nice. This is only the inter-webie-net.
You may think it's a criminal offence not to pay rent but I don't think it is in this country. Given that I don't have access to "your book" I have to go by the law of the land. I'm happy to be proven wrong though.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> But you're okay with people who have a good income and can well afford to buy their own home keeping a council home that is needed by a family currently living in a hotel.



I must say I am still flummoxed that a so-call socialist could have this view. There are families with children sleeping in emergency accommodation at the same time that there are people who could afford their own place occupying council houses with spare bedrooms. 
The sense of entitlement is staggering. It's no wonder that the same outlook is present in all things union/work related.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> But you're okay with people who have a good income and can well afford to buy their own home keeping a council home that is needed by a family currently living in a hotel.



No, I never said I was okay with it. But the reason they are in a hotel is because they cannot find suitable accommodation for their family. The reason they cannot find suitable accommodation is because there is not enough social housing, nor is there suitable private accommodation even if they are in a position to pay for it.

So just in case you haven't been listening, or paying attention, people who are earning incomes are also struggling to find accommodation. That is, they may well be able to afford in monetary terms to buy or rent a property, but because they have jobs in fixed locations, because they have children in schools, because they have childcare in place, because they have ties to their local community with a life outside of work, because they have elderly parents that they care for, …etc…etc... they cannot find anywhere suitable to buy or rent and end up living with mammy and daddy well into their thirties, or end up in a hostel, or a hotel.

Is it beyond your thinking, beyond your comprehension, beyond your own wit and intellect…that perhaps, if a working family occupying a social house, who may well be able to afford to buy or rent a property in monetary terms, may also experience the same problems as the working families living with mammy & daddy, or those families living in a hostel or a hotel when it comes to finding private rented accommodation or purchasing a private property?




Purple said:


> No, I answered it.



You didn't, you answered my question with a presumption that others could answer and with a question of your own.

_"Maybe the smart, professional, overworked and underpaid dedicated and selfless people working so hard in the RTB and Department of the Environment could come up with a mechanism for that or is the mantra in those places "It's hard to do the right thing so don't bother"?
_
So here is a question for you again, perhaps you could answer it yourself instead of hoping that others in the RTB or civil service would be able to do it for you - considering that they already have come up with a number of mechanisms for providing social housing and the rents applicable.

What is the mechanism that you would use to determine the appropriate ‘market rate’ for social house rents to be applied to tenants in those social houses, considering also the variable amounts of income earned by the tenants in those social houses.?



Purple said:


> Because then we could end up in a farcical situation where someone ends up paying more than the market rent.



Ok so, cap it at open market rates. How on earth does this solve anything? And none of it makes sense anyway. If a 2 bed terraced hse in D1 is a €1,000 pm on the open market, it is €1,000 pm regardless of what you earn €20k or €100K. Are you suggesting a 2 bed terraced social house should apply the same criteria to its tenants, regardless of what they earn?
Perhaps, if you ever finally get around to answering the previous question we may be able to move on? To make it as easy as possible for you, should social housing tenants in D1 earning €20K pay the open market rate for rental properties in that area?



Purple said:


> People who can't be bothered to work shouldn't get any council house.



Where would they live then? Hotel? Hostel? On the street?

In any case, people who 'couldn't be bothered' is your term. I have already provided you with a link to a paper showing that the poorest in society work on average, for a majority of their working lives.

Using the same scenario, except compare the working family to the unemployed family looking for work. Its the same result, the working family earning good income makes way for the unemployed (job-seeking) family in the social house. But then the working family has their income cut and cannot afford their new private rented accommodation and face eviction. Then you, and the rest of the "whats in it for me" club,  will be on here saying how unjust it is that this working family are facing eviction while another family who aren't working are occupying free housing and not contributing. BB will then want them assessed and evicted to make way for the working family that occupied the house in the first place. And then none of you will say where the unemployed family will go to live.

Are you able to comprehend how stupid that is? Is there a modicum of the impracticalities, unfeasibility, resource wasting, of how time-consuming, how cumbersome, how futile the whole situation would be, dawning on you?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I must say I am still flummoxed that a so-call socialist could have this view. There are families with children sleeping in emergency accommodation at the same time that there are people who could afford their own place occupying council houses with spare bedrooms.
> The sense of entitlement is staggering. It's no wonder that the same outlook is present in all things union/work related.



Except I don't hold that view, so stop wasting time.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Except I don't hold that view, so stop wasting time.



You do

https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threa...or-social-housing.204999/page-13#post-1531098


----------



## dereko1969

TheBigShort said:


> So what? She is being refused the apartment. They can campaign to inherit the world for all anyone cares if she is not entitled to the apartment by virtue of the fact that she has a property of her own then she wont get it.
> What this has to do with the OP I do not know.



It is the sense of entitlement of the daughter of the council tenant and some of my neighbours that someone without a housing need should be entitled to inherit a council house whilst owning another property nearby. It is the fact that they were shocked that the council would enforce these rules, which to me seems to indicate that the council may have ignored their own rules on numerous previous occasions. It also seemed to me to indicate that these people were putting down a marker to the council that they wouldn't accept it in their own cases as well.
I really didn't think the point I was raising was that difficult to fathom. You might also rein in the personal attacks on other users here, calling someone a "twit" isn't on.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> You do
> 
> https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threa...or-social-housing.204999/page-13#post-1531098



here is my view from that discussion -

_"I never *said I would prefer that. I would never have a preference for that*.
But faced with the situation laid out, I would not turn someone's life upside down through eviction, and house them in emergency accommodation on the basis that they have a spare room or two and in favor of a family that lost their own home.
I take it you understand that losing your home is stressful? Just because you never had the chance to afford your own home (God, it's hard to believe that this topic is about prioritizing low income earners for social housing!) that losing your home is not any less stressful for people in social housing.
All you have done is compound a stressful situation."

_


----------



## TheBigShort

dereko1969 said:


> It is the sense of entitlement of the daughter of the council tenant and some of my neighbours that someone without a housing need should be entitled to inherit a council house whilst owning another property nearby.



Believe me, you don't have to travel too far around here to get a sense of entitlement. There are posters on here who believe that because they are 'net contributors' to society that they someone have a greater say in public policy that others who are 'net recipients'. Others just believe that because they pay any income tax at all, that those taxes pay for all the public services in the State and therefore have a sense of entitlement to lecture others of what is the greater good.
Having a sense of entitlement is one thing, actually imposing that sense is another.



dereko1969 said:


> It is the fact that they were shocked that the council would enforce these rules,



So they wont be imposing that sense of entitlement then? Isnt that a good thing? Just because some people who own their own private property have a sense of entitlement to council property doesn't mean they will get it, and that is the case here isn't it?



dereko1969 said:


> which to me seems to indicate that the council may have ignored their own rules on numerous previous occasions.



Or that they have a presumption, like you do now, that the council may have ignored their own rules in the past. The reality is most likely the opposite.



dereko1969 said:


> I really didn't think the point I was raising was that difficult to fathom.



Its not. A person with their own private property has a presumption that she can "inherit" social housing that was allocated to her now deceased mother (and presumably not to her). She cant.



dereko1969 said:


> You might also rein in the personal attacks on other users here, calling someone a "twit" isn't on.



Yeh, fair enough, I don't like going down that road. But I wouldn't just lay out the personal attacks to just anyone, Purple has form in that regard laying out the abuse to me personally also.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> here is my view from that discussion -
> 
> _"I never *said I would prefer that. I would never have a preference for that*.
> But faced with the situation laid out, I would not turn someone's life upside down through eviction, and house them in emergency accommodation on the basis that they have a spare room or two and in favor of a family that lost their own home.
> I take it you understand that losing your home is stressful? Just because you never had the chance to afford your own home (God, it's hard to believe that this topic is about prioritizing low income earners for social housing!) that losing your home is not any less stressful for people in social housing.
> All you have done is compound a stressful situation."
> _



This is getting ridiculous, you're arguing with yourself now! You provided a scenario in the other thread yourself. 

I asked:

"So you would leave the family with 4 kids (exhibit 1) in a hostel and the leave single woman (exhibit 3) in a 3 bed house?"

You replied:
"Yes, that is what I would do."

Honestly, I think you are quite happy to argue with anybody over anything at this stage. Time for a new hobby I think fella


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> No, I never said I was okay with it. But the reason they are in a hotel is because they cannot find suitable accommodation for their family. The reason they cannot find suitable accommodation is because there is not enough social housing, nor is there suitable private accommodation even if they are in a position to pay for it.
> 
> So just in case you haven't been listening, or paying attention, people who are earning incomes are also struggling to find accommodation. That is, they may well be able to afford in monetary terms to buy or rent a property, but because they have jobs in fixed locations, because they have children in schools, because they have childcare in place, because they have ties to their local community with a life outside of work, because they have elderly parents that they care for, …etc…etc... they cannot find anywhere suitable to buy or rent and end up living with mammy and daddy well into their thirties, or end up in a hostel, or a hotel.
> 
> Is it beyond your thinking, beyond your comprehension, beyond your own wit and intellect…that perhaps, if a working family occupying a social house, who may well be able to afford to buy or rent a property in monetary terms, may also experience the same problems as the working families living with mammy & daddy, or those families living in a hostel or a hotel when it comes to finding private rented accommodation or purchasing a private property?


Wow, that was a long way of rebutting something I didn't say.

I said _"people who have a good income *and can well afford to buy their own home* keeping a council home that is needed by a family currently living in a hotel"_
What part of that do you not understand?

Do you think the State should provide subsidised housing for everyone who can't afford a home where they grew up and have family connections? What about all the people who grow up in Dalkey, Killiney, Foxrock and Mallahide? If they have family connections there, get married and start a family and move in with a one set of parents and have their kids in school should the State provide them with a home in those areas?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Ok so, cap it at open market rates. How on earth does this solve anything? And none of it makes sense anyway. If a 2 bed terraced hse in D1 is a €1,000 pm on the open market, it is €1,000 pm regardless of what you earn €20k or €100K. Are you suggesting a 2 bed terraced social house should apply the same criteria to its tenants, regardless of what they earn?
> Perhaps, if you ever finally get around to answering the previous question we may be able to move on? To make it as easy as possible for you, should social housing tenants in D1 earning €20K pay the open market rate for rental properties in that area?


See you really aren't listening. 

You said that you think that rents should be tied to income, increasing as incomes go up. 
I asked you if there should be a cap on the rents or should they just continue to increase as the tenants income increases. 
You said they they should not be capped and asked me at when level they should be capped.
I replied that they should be capped at market rates.
So my position is that rents should be tied to income, increasing as income increases until they get to the market rate. You think they should just keep increasing.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Where would they live then? Hotel? Hostel? On the street?


Let them live in hostels or the street. I don't care. The social safety net should be for people who can't provide for themselves, not those who won't. Given that that's a small minority, or a non-existent one in your view (in your world only rich people are dishonest) I don't see why you keep bringing it up.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Then you, and the rest of the "whats in it for me" club, will be on here saying how unjust it is that this working family are facing eviction while another family who aren't working are occupying free housing and not contributing.


 That's right, because you are a socialist and therefore morally superior to the rest of us. Anyone who disagrees with you isn't motivated by a contrary view of what's best for society in general and the socially marginalised in particular, no they are just selfish. 
Maybe if you came down out of that rarefied air and got close enough to us inferior types to actually read and listen to what other posters said you might be able to grasp that other people can hold different opinions without being bad people.


----------



## Seagull

I find the idea that someone should be permanently entitled to social housing because it was needed at some stage completely incomprehensible. How does this differ from a suggestion that someone should keep the dole regardless of how much they earn? Social housing is supposed to be there for people who need it, not people who want it, or can't be bothered to pay for things they can afford


----------



## T McGibney

The other, more general, problem (I may have voiced it earlier in this thread or elsewhere on these forums - if I did, apologies) on social housing is that the ballooning cost of it is becoming impossible for governments to sustain.

It was manageable enough when a unit could be built for £50-60k, or even €100k, but with new builds now seeming to start at €250k, exclusive of site cost, it is a huge cost.

100,000 new units would barely meet demand but would cost €25 billion, before a cent is added to reflect site cost, contingencies ,inflation etc.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> This is getting ridiculous, you're arguing with yourself now! You provided a scenario in the other thread yourself.
> 
> I asked:
> 
> "So you would leave the family with 4 kids (exhibit 1) in a hostel and the leave single woman (exhibit 3) in a 3 bed house?"
> 
> You replied:
> "Yes, that is what I would do."
> 
> Honestly, I think you are quite happy to argue with anybody over anything at this stage. Time for a new hobby I think fella



Of course you conveniently omit from that discussion that when it was asked of you where the working woman would live (in the context of there only being limited options to accommodate - a charateristic of a housing crisis) you answered, lamely, where she would _not _live!


----------



## The Horseman

T McGibney said:


> The other, more general, problem (I may have voiced it earlier in this thread or elsewhere on these forums - if I did, apologies) on social housing is that the ballooning cost of it is becoming impossible for governments to sustain.
> 
> It was manageable enough when a unit could be built for £50-60k, or even €100k, but with new builds now seeming to start at €250k, exclusive of site cost, it is a huge cost.
> 
> 100,000 new units would barely meet demand but would cost €25 billion, before a cent is added to reflect site cost, contingencies ,inflation etc.




This is the point the Govt does not want to provide social housing but is unwilling to actually come out and say it. Hence the reason for the Approved Housing Bodies etc, these are bodies funded by the State who can raise additional finance if they need.

The beauty of this from the Govt's perspective is that if a tenant needs to be evicted for any reason it is the Approved Housing Body doing it and not the State! so the politicians are not held responsible and they will no doubt fight for the tenant not to be evicted.

I think the old model of Social housing is gone and security of tenure in a specific house indefinitely will become a thing of the past within the near future.


----------



## Firefly

T McGibney said:


> It was manageable enough when a unit could be built for £50-60k, or even €100k, but with new builds now seeming to start at €250k, exclusive of site cost, it is a huge cost.



Never mind the maintenance costs..


----------



## The Horseman

Firefly said:


> Never mind the maintenance costs..




I could never understand why the council were responsible for the maintenance costs. If you get a council house now even a second hand one they are brought up to current building reg's (including insulation etc) and most achieve high BER ratings while if you purchase a property privately and you want to meet current building regs you have to do everything yourself (which is extremely expensive).


----------



## Firefly

The Horseman said:


> I could never understand why the council were responsible for the maintenance costs.



Which is why I believe schemes like the HAP are introduced - it outsources both the provision and maintenance of social housing to the private sector.


----------



## Delboy

Firefly said:


> Never mind the maintenance costs..


And the very high levels of rent arrears


----------



## The Horseman

Firefly said:


> Which is why I believe schemes like the HAP are introduced - it outsources both the provision and maintenance of social housing to the private sector.




Exactly and this is a dangerous game as the number of landlords leaving the market is increasing because of HAP and the other anti landlord policies.

I really feel sorry for anybody looking for accommodation either to buy, rent or social housing!


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Of course you conveniently omit from that discussion that when it was asked of you where the working woman would live (in the context of there only being limited options to accommodate - a charateristic of a housing crisis) you answered, lamely, where she would _not _live!



Please stop trying (yet again) to deflect & drag the discussion off topic. I made reference to a viewpoint you have, which you denied, but which is true..


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> So im asking, where is the incentive to progress a career if the reward for doing so means losing your home?





TheBigShort said:


> Perhaps eventually, as someone in favour of forced eviction for having the audacity for going to work, paying taxes, and contributing to society, you could answer this - where will the SH tenants go if forced to move out?



The incentive is that after having received a fantastically generous gift from their fellow tax payer, those receiving a social house would essentially have a choice (1) take their chances that at the end of 5 years they will have a greater need for social housing, compared to everyone else on the list or (2) plan to provide for themselves over those 5 years. If you think (2) is not possible for the vast majority of able people, then you have a very low opinion of human resilience. That's the incentive.




TheBigShort said:


> Where does the evicted family go?


You keep saying "evicted" but I don't agree. What I and others are proposing is that someone gets a social house for a period of time (e.g. 5 years) after which if they are no longer deemed by the authorities as most in need, they vacate the house for someone else.


----------



## Purple

T McGibney said:


> The other, more general, problem (I may have voiced it earlier in this thread or elsewhere on these forums - if I did, apologies) on social housing is that the ballooning cost of it is becoming impossible for governments to sustain.
> 
> It was manageable enough when a unit could be built for £50-60k, or even €100k, but with new builds now seeming to start at €250k, exclusive of site cost, it is a huge cost.
> 
> 100,000 new units would barely meet demand but would cost €25 billion, before a cent is added to reflect site cost, contingencies ,inflation etc.


The solution to that has been around for over 50 years. We'd rather waste scarce public (and private) funds using Victorian construction methods to make our over-built and under-engineered houses.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I said _"people who have a good income *and can well afford to buy their own home* keeping a council home that is needed by a family currently living in a hotel"_



Yes and I said, 



TheBigShort said:


> That is, they may well be able to afford in monetary terms to buy or rent a property, but because they have jobs in fixed locations, because they have children in schools, because they have childcare in place, because they have ties to their local community with a life outside of work, because they have elderly parents that they care for, …etc…etc... they cannot find anywhere suitable to buy or rent and end up living with mammy and daddy well into their thirties, or end up in a hostel, or a hotel.



So being well able to afford to buy a home does not guarantee that you will be able to buy a home. If your job is in Dublin, your wifes job in Dublin, your kids going to school in Dublin, your elderly parents that need looking after in Dublin, your sick brother or sister is in Dublin, your GAA club is in Dublin, your friends and associates are in Dublin, but the only affordable home available for you to buy is in Mullingar, do you not think that if someone is going to buy a home, that they at least have some right to choose where they want to buy?
I make no distinction here, unlike you, between social housing tenants and non-social housing tenants. If either or both, can 'well afford to buy their own home', then both have a right to at least make the choice of where it is that they want to live (seeing as they are paying for it and all) dont you think? Or do you think that only social housing tenants who can 'well afford to buy a their own home' should be compelled to buy any home that they can afford, regardless of its suitability? Are you for real?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Yes and I said,
> 
> 
> 
> So being well able to afford to buy a home does not guarantee that you will be able to buy a home. If your job is in Dublin, your wifes job in Dublin, your kids going to school in Dublin, your elderly parents that need looking after in Dublin, your sick brother or sister is in Dublin, your GAA club is in Dublin, your friends and associates are in Dublin, but the only affordable home available for you to buy is in Mullingar, do you not think that if someone is going to buy a home, that they at least have some right to choose where they want to buy?
> I make no distinction here, unlike you, between social housing tenants and non-social housing tenants. If either or both, can 'well afford to buy their own home', then both have a right to at least make the choice of where it is that they want to live (seeing as they are paying for it and all) dont you think? Or do you think that only social housing tenants who can 'well afford to buy a their own home' should be compelled to buy any home that they can afford, regardless of its suitability? Are you for real?


Where did I say they would have to move far away from where they currently live?
If someone in a social house in Crumlin can afford to buy or rent a private house in Crumlin but chooses not to I think that at the very least they should pay open market rent for the house they live in. That's all. That rent can then be used to provide more social housing to those who can't afford open market rates. 
Do you think they should continue to enjoy subsidised (below market) rates of rent? If so why?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> See you really aren't listening.
> 
> You said that you think that rents should be tied to income, increasing as incomes go up.



I never said that. I said that there was scope to raise rents on social housing tenants where their financial situations improves. I then pointed out to you that councils do indeed having a policy of tying rents to income through the "Differential Rent Scheme". So its all ready in place.



Purple said:


> I asked you if there should be a cap on the rents or should they just continue to increase as the tenants income increases.
> 
> You said they they should not be capped and asked me at when level they should be capped.
> 
> I replied that they should be capped at market rates.





Purple said:


> So my position is that rents should be tied to income, increasing as income increases until they get to the market rate. You think they should just keep increasing.



You are not paying attention



TheBigShort said:


> Ok so, cap it at open market rates



You cant even agree with me when I agree with you!

What I wanted to know is what good will this do (whether capped or not, but lets go with the cap for the moment) in resolving the problem of the shortage of housing? And I also wanted to know what 'mechanism' you would use to calculate the rent owed. Im pretty sure you wouldnt expect a family on €20K a year to be paying €1000 pm if that what the prevailing market rate is?
To help you along, as far as Im aware the Differential Rent Scheme applies a rent of one-sixth of income (subject to other considerations such as how many adults occupy the house, how many are at work, care for the elderly etc).


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Im pretty sure you wouldnt expect a family on €20K a year to be paying €1000 pm if that what the prevailing market rate is?


Of course not. I've continuously said that rents should be ties to income but increase as income increases until it gets to the market rate.



TheBigShort said:


> as far as Im aware the Differential Rent Scheme applies a rent of one-sixth of income (subject to other considerations such as how many adults occupy the house, how many are at work, care for the elderly etc).


It varies from area to area (just another costly complexity) but one-sixth of income is way too low for higher earners. That means that someone with an income of €80,000 in a council house in Crumlin only pays a maximum of €1100 a month and probably far less while their lower income neighbour in private rental accommodation with the same family circumstances is paying well over €2000 a month.
I don't think that's fair.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> If someone in a social house in Crumlin can afford to buy or rent a private house in Crumlin but chooses not to I think that at the very least they should pay open market rent for the house they live in.



Ok, great, we have a location. You have heard of the 'housing crisis' right?

So if we take a typical, not uncommon family size of two adults, two children living in  a 2 bed social house. What would be a suitable type accommodation, if they were to buy, using their own income? I dont think a 2 bed apt is unreasonable. On daft.ie there are none available as of today (housing crisis and all that!). So I searched for a 2 bed house. There are a number of them ranging from €250,000 to €450,000.

But lets take the 2 bed at €250,000. Obviously we are talking about a couple being "well able to afford" to buy their own, so lets say they earn €90,000  a year.  And lets say  with a 10% deposit saved, they would need a a €225,000 mortgage over 30yrs equals roughly along €930 a month according to mortgage calculator.ie.
On the other hand, with the Differential Rent Scheme, paying at 1/6 of income, they would be forking out €1,250 - but you think it should be capped at €930? The market rate?
On yet another hand you reference €2,000 a month for private rented accommodation, so €2,000 would be the cap. (How did you decide to apply the rental market rate, instead of the mortgage rate when considering we were talking about those 'well able to buy...'?)

You think this isnt fair - you are correct, its extortionate. But your attitude is because the private rental market dictates that €2,000 is the market rate, then the social housing rate should be capped at that - _even though you know that these rates are causing people to become homeless. _
So why on earth, would the State impose extortionate rents on their citizens akin to the extortionate rates applied by private landlords whose sole motive is not to provide a social need but to make a profit (and Im not against them making a profit, Im simply distinguishing between the social need which is the governments objective and the profit motive).
If a social housing tenant is paying €930  a month, equal to a mortgage - will they ever get to own the property?

And of course the other problem here is that as social housing tenants are typically occupied by low and middle incomes. How many tenants are earning €80,000 or €90,000?  How many are we talking about?



Purple said:


> That means that someone with an income of €80,000 in a council house in Crumlin only pays a maximum of €1100 a month and probably far less while their lower income neighbour in private rental accommodation with the same family circumstances is paying well over €2000 a month.



On €80,000  a year paying €2,000 a month Im working it out at around 30% of income. So is 30% the mechanism you want to use for social housing rents? A social housing family with  €21K is expected to hand over €7,000 of that back to the State? Bearing in mind that one of your qualifying conditions is that this 30% would apply to social housing tenants "who can well afford to buy their own home". So Im guessing now, that given the price of houses that the vast majority of social housing tenants are going to be excluded from your 'mechanism'. At €21K, or €40K or even €70K wont buy you much in Crumlin will it?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> So being well able to afford to buy a home does not guarantee that you will be able to buy a home. If your job is in Dublin, your wifes job in Dublin, your kids going to school in Dublin, your elderly parents that need looking after in Dublin, your sick brother or sister is in Dublin, your GAA club is in Dublin, your friends and associates are in Dublin, but the only affordable home available for you to buy is in Mullingar, do you not think that if someone is going to buy a home, that they at least have some right to choose where they want to buy?



What about all the people who have had to buy in Mullingar due to not being able to afford a place in Dublin, yet have all their ties in Dublin....what should happen for them???


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Please stop trying (yet again) to deflect & drag the discussion off topic. I made reference to a viewpoint you have, which you denied, but which is true..



Firefly, you made reference to a viewpoint I have. I made reference to a viewpoint you have - from the very same discussion! But Im the one taking this 'off topic'? I merely pointed out that when it comes to making a decision in the context of that discussion you failed to answer. 



Firefly said:


> What I and others are proposing is that someone gets a social house for a period of time (e.g. 5 years) after which if they are no longer deemed by the authorities as most in need, they vacate the house for someone else.



And...where...will...they...go...once...they...have....vacated...the...property...considering...there...is...a...housing...shortage...which...I...am...sure....you...have...heard...of?




Firefly said:


> What about all the people who have had to buy in Mullingar due to not being able to afford a place in Dublin, yet have all their ties in Dublin....what should happen for them???



I dont know, what should happen to them? Do you think they should swap places with all the social housing tenants in Dublin?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> And...where...will...they...go...once...they...have....vacated...the...property...considering...there...is...a...housing...shortage...which...I...am...sure....you...have...heard...of?



Assuming they no longer qualify for social housing as there is someone in greater need they will have to provide for themselves like everyone else. At least they will have 5 years to plan for it!


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Firefly, you made reference to a viewpoint I have.



At least now you are admitting it rather than denying it...


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I dont know, what should happen to them? Do you think they should swap places with all the social housing tenants in Dublin?



I am not saying anything should be done for them, I am trying to make the point that why should someone lucky enough to win the council house lottery get to stay in Dublin as they have connections there when people who put a roof over their own heads have to move to where ever they can afford??


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Assuming they no longer qualify for social housing as there is someone in greater need they will have to provide for themselves like everyone else. At least they will have 5 years to plan for it!



Ok so the criteria is "they no longer qualify for social housing". So once someone, or a family, occupying a social house starts earning a relatively modest income at best they are given notice to vacate, is that it?

Where will they go? Mullingar? Perhaps. Or perhaps they will consider the onerous task of travelling from Dublin (say Crumlin, where they have a job as truck delivery driver) and Mullingar not really worth the money they are earning? Perhaps this could consider this to be a de-motivating factor for them? Perhaps, they will call in sick so often that their employer lets them go and now have no job. But now with no job, they once again qualify for social housing!
Or maybe the employer wants them in at 6am in the morning, mullinagar to crumlin on public transport just wont cut it.




Firefly said:


> At least now you are admitting it rather than denying it...



I never denied anything...I still stand over it. I would just appreciate it if you would considered the context upon which I made the comment rather than cherry-picking comments in classic tabloid form to suit your agenda (you a big fan of The Scum newspaper?).

You brought up my comment from that discussion but you still wont answer where the working woman, who raised a family, who you want to evict, will live? Why is that? As far as I recall, in the scenario outlined, if you move the family of four (who turned down gainful employment) into her home, the only place available for the taxpaying working woman was in the hostel? Is this how we treat our citizens who go out to work and pay taxes and raise families? Evict them out of their homes and put them in hostels so other families, who wont take up gainful employment, get to enjoy the "national lottery win gifted to them" by the taxes of the working woman?




Firefly said:


> I am not saying anything should be done for them, I am trying to make the point that why should someone lucky enough to win the council house lottery get to stay in Dublin as they have connections there when people who put a roof over their own heads have to move to where ever they can afford??



So you havent read any of the points made in the last 9 pages or from the previous discussion "Low income earners should be prioritized for social housing"?


----------



## Seagull

When we bought a house, my wife and I worked in Dublin. We couldn't afford to buy in Dublin, so we bought where we could afford in the commuter belt. Social housing is not supposed to be there to provide your forever house and keep you living in luxury in your perfect world. Once someone is earning enough, they should move on. It's up to them to sort out where.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> On the other hand, with the Differential Rent Scheme, paying at 1/6 of income, they would be forking out €1,250 - but you think it should be capped at €930? The market rate?
> On yet another hand you reference €2,000 a month for private rented accommodation, so €2,000 would be the cap. (How did you decide to apply the rental market rate, instead of the mortgage rate when considering we were talking about those 'well able to buy...'?)


Yes, I'd cap it at €2000 in the above example. I picket the market rate for rent as they are renting. Why would you cap the market rate for renting at the market rate for mortgages?
That would mean it would be cheaper for them to buy so there would be an economic imperative for them to move out, buy in the area, and thus make a social house available for one of the families living in a hotel. That would be socially just. 


TheBigShort said:


> even though you know that these rates are causing people to become homeless.


If people who can afford to provide for themselves did so it would mean resourced could be used to provide for those who can't. 
If people who can afford to pay market rents did so there would be more money to build social housing which would mean more resourced could be used to provide for those who can't.


TheBigShort said:


> A social housing family with €21K is expected to hand over €7,000 of that back to the State?


 As incomes increase the amount required for basics such as food and clothing remain about the same and so more income is available for other expenditure. I don't think anyone expects a family with a household income of €21K to hand over €7K on rent though they would be left with €277 a week in net income. I don't have much more than that myself and I've 4 kids to look after.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Believe me, you don't have to travel too far around here to get a sense of entitlement.


 I agree!

For the record, this is my position;


Purple said:


> Council tenants should pay rents in line with their income, increasing as their income increases until it reaches the open market rent.


Can you state your please?

Can you answer this please?


Purple said:


> Do you think the State should provide subsidised housing for everyone who can't afford a home where they grew up and have family connections? What about all the people who grow up in Dalkey, Killiney, Foxrock and Mallahide? If they have family connections there, get married and start a family and move in with a one set of parents and have their kids in school should the State provide them with a home in those areas?


I would suggest that far fewer people born in Killiney and Mallahide end up living in Killiney and Mallahide than people born in Crumlin or Killinarden. 
Should the State provide social housing for those people who can't afford to live in Dakley if their job is in Dalkey, their wifes job in Dalkey, their kids going to school in Dalkey, their elderly parents that need looking after in Dalkey, their sick brother or sister is in Dalkey, their GAA club is in Dalkey, their friends and associates are in Dalkey, but the only affordable home available for them to buy is in Lucan, do you not think that if someone is going to buy a home, that they at least have some right to choose where they want to buy?


----------



## TheBigShort

Seagull said:


> so we bought where we could afford in the commuter belt.



Were you compelled to so by anyone? Or did you enter freely into the transaction?



Seagull said:


> Social housing is not supposed to be there to provide your forever house and keep you living in luxury in your perfect world.



I never said it was.  But you are missing the point that the vast majority of people who occupy social housing are low-average income households (at best) who never have the opportunity to 'move on' because they cannot afford to. 



Seagull said:


> Once someone is earning enough, they should move on. _It's up to them to sort out where_.



And there you have the crux of the issue - firstly, they need to be earning enough. I dont think its unreasonable to assume that a family of two adults two children, living in Crumlin, would need to be earning minimum €70K before they consider moving on? If you consider their employment, their kids schooling, day care etc.
Secondly, once they are 'earning enough', then in your words - its up to them to sort out where. Exactly, in other words there is no compulsion on anyone to move anywhere unless they are _*willing*_ to move to another location, to rent privately or to buy on their own accord. 
The reasons for this are many, from Universal Declarations of Human Rights (Article 12 - No one shall be subject to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.....) to the simple practicalities that compelling someone to enter the private market is the exact opposite to 'its up to them to sort out where'.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Why would you cap the market rate for renting at the market rate for mortgages?


 I wasnt sure which cap you were applying...you mentioned people who can "well afford to buy", so I assumed mortgage amounts were an option. You have clarified it that it is market rents, so we will go with that.



Purple said:


> That would mean it would be cheaper for them to buy so there would be an economic imperative for them to move out, buy in the area, and thus make a social house available for one of the families living in a hotel. That would be socially just.



You see this is where it gets confusing. I have asked you what your mechanism is for calculating appropriate rents to social housing tenants to be. We have somewhat established that a 30% is applicable to earnings of €80K. But thats about it. But it is not clear what it would be for €70, 60, 50, 40K etc.



Purple said:


> If people who can afford to provide for themselves did so it would mean resourced could be used to provide for those who can't.



Yes, I agree, if it were all so simple.

But here is the crux, as long as there is insufficient houses available, then if people "who can afford to buy" join the first time buyers market, it further squeezes that cohort of working people out of the FTB housing market, who never qualified for social housing by virtue of their incomes. They may well be able to afford to buy, they may well be able to rent, but as it is there money, they do have some entitlement to decide what is and what is not suitable for their needs and wants. Ditto, the social housing tenants who are also working, earning their own money. They may well be able to afford to buy, they may well be able to rent, but as it is their money, they do have some entitlement to decide what is and what is not suitable for their needs and wants - no different. They cannot be compelled to buy or rent a property that they think is unsuitable for their needs especially if it is their own earned money that they will be using to pay the rent or mortgage.

I have rented houses in the past, and I have bought two houses. So I know exactly what it is like to look for suitable accommodation. By myself, I was never fussy. But with a wife and children it is a whole different ball game. Anything from the neighbours next door, the size of the back or front garden, is there a garden shed, a reasonably sized bathroom, living room, south-facing, north-facing, proximity to public transport, proximity to local amenities, schools, jobs, etc...etc...the list goes on.
As someone who is a tenant in a social house, who can well afford to buy or rent their own property, are they not entitled to consider these factors if they are actually going to spend their own income on a property? Do they not have a say? Or are you proposing that a State agency either evicts them onto the street, effectively compelling them to buy somewhere that is not suitable? And considering they already do pay a rent that is tied to income under the Differential Rent Scheme.

In the meantime the house they vacated is now occupied by a family in need. This family, like the family before them now have an opportunity for a stable platform, to educate and train, to pursue a better living for themselves and one day, just like the previous occupants, earn enough to buy or rent themselves. Except, they know how precarious the private rental market is, they know how hard it is to find somewhere more suitable to buy - so they renege on social justice. They only work intermittently, earning more than the minimum wage but never enough to ever be considered as "well able to buy or rent" their own private dwelling. Thus ensuring perpetuity in the property, not contributing in any meaningful way to the cost of providing the social house.
Back into the house where our previous tenants have been compelled to buy, who do go out and earn and pay taxes and educate themselves and pursue better careers, one of the earners has lost their job, the company he worked for went bust. They are now behind in arrears, under severe pressure (like thousands others)
They are now wondering to themselves - why did they ever bother to try lift themselves out of poverty and welfare dependence? Facing repossession of their home, or eviction if they chose to rent, they now join the list of 'more needy'.

This is just one example of a tiny amount of the complexities that will arise if people are compelled to leave their homes - we could spend the rest of the year talking about all the other obstacles the proposals to move people on would cause, tying the whole system up in knots.

Saying that they "should" leave for notions of social justice is fine. A bit like me saying Apple "should" just pay the €15bn tax for notions of social justice, but will it make a difference? Social justice can only ever be administered by the law. It is futile to except each and every individual to act in accordance to social justice at all times, each one of us acts in our own self-interest, or perceived self-interest, isnt that right?


----------



## TheBigShort

Here is a stat from CSO about LA household incomes

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-hbs/hbs20152016/hinc/

_Households rented from a local authority had the lowest average weekly gross household income at €495.57.  State transfers were the main source of income in these households, accounting for nearly two-thirds (66.4%) of gross income.  Less than 21% of persons in these households classified themselves as unemployed_.

From that, it would appear, that we are a long way off tenants in LA housing ever being able to afford a place of their own, rental or ownership.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Can you state your please?



Social housing should be provided for those who are unable to provide the means to their own accommodation, including low-income earners. If income improves there is scope to increase rents in line those increases. The Differential Rent Scheme is a tool that is useful here. 
Under no circumstances, save in with exception of criminal behaviour, should tenants be required to leave their homes in the absence of alternative and suitable accommodation and a willingness for the tenant to leave. 
To do otherwise, even in one instance, would be a futile and costly exercise that will subject the State to every obstacle and legal challenge that could tie up the system in knots and exacerbate the housing crisis for all concerned - just one attempted eviction could take years to complete in which circumstances could have changed reverting the tenant to a position of being in need again.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Should the State provide social housing for those people who can't afford to live in Dakley if their job is in Dalkey, their wifes job in Dalkey, their kids going to school in Dalkey, their elderly parents that need looking after in Dalkey, their sick brother or sister is in Dalkey, their GAA club is in Dalkey, their friends and associates are in Dalkey, but the only affordable home available for them to buy is in Lucan,



Given that scenario, the State should of course, and does provide social housing in Dun Laoighre/ Rathdown, including Dalkey.  Why wouldn't it? In the circumstance you have outlined, Lucan is wholly unsuitable. 
You have to consider that to qualify for social housing you are earning a low-income. This may mean relying on public transport. If such a prisons job is in Dalkey, their wife's job is in Dalkey, their kids school etc...is in Dalkey, what sense is it to locate them in Lucan? Lucan is totally unsuitable. 




Purple said:


> do you not think that if someone is going to buy a home, that they at least have some right to choose where they want to buy?



Of course, absolutely, including social housing tenants that now have the financial means to buy. They should have some right to choose where they want to buy shouldn't they?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Or are you proposing that a State agency either evicts them onto the street, effectively compelling them to buy somewhere that is not suitable? And considering they already do pay a rent that is tied to income under the Differential Rent Scheme.


I'm proposing they pay the market rate of rent. How many time do I have to say the same thing?


TheBigShort said:


> They are now wondering to themselves - why did they ever bother to try lift themselves out of poverty and welfare dependence? Facing repossession of their home, or eviction if they chose to rent, they now join the list of 'more needy'


At the same time people are wondering why would I ever bother to get a job, work hard, buy a home and generally pay my own way as a competent adult, after all; 


TheBigShort said:


> It is futile to except each and every individual to act in accordance to social justice at all times, each one of us acts in our own self-interest, or perceived self-interest, isnt that right?



You have described the welfare poverty trap perfectly.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Given that scenario, the State should of course, and does provide social housing in Dun Laoighre/ Rathdown, including Dalkey.  Why wouldn't it? In the circumstance you have outlined, Lucan is wholly unsuitable.
> You have to consider that to qualify for social housing you are earning a low-income. This may mean relying on public transport. If such a prisons job is in Dalkey, their wife's job is in Dalkey, their kids school etc...is in Dalkey, what sense is it to locate them in Lucan? Lucan is totally unsuitable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, absolutely, including social housing tenants that now have the financial means to buy. They should have some right to choose where they want to buy shouldn't they?



Okay, so nobody should move to the commuter belt; the State should just build them a house.
Any suggestions where the money should come from? Should we just "tax the rich"?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I'm proposing they pay the market rate of rent. How many time do I have to say the same thing?



All you have proposed is how much a social house tenant on €80k would pay if living in Crumlin. This is to be capped at market rates of €2000 - meaning someone on €160k only pays €2000 too. 
If I ask the mechanism for calculating rent rates for low income households you avoid answering every time.



Purple said:


> You have described the welfare poverty trap perfectly.



Its nothing of the sort. If somebody has a home, and they face eviction if they earn more - that is the welfare poverty trap. 
_But we dont have that system - that is the system you want to introduce._


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> All you have proposed is how much a social house tenant on €80k would pay if living in Crumlin. This is to be capped at market rates of €2000 - meaning someone on €160k only pays €2000 too.
> If I ask the mechanism for calculating rent rates for low income households you avoid answering every time.


Don't be silly. I gave an example but you are just trolling when asking me to give a detailed breakdown of a national mechanism for calculating rent.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Its nothing of the sort. If somebody has a home, and they face eviction if they earn more - that is the welfare poverty trap


If somebody has a home and an income and will retain both whether they work of not that's a welfare trap but yes, despite having no earned income, they could certainly not be described as being in poverty.
So you're right; it's a welfare trap, not a poverty trap.


----------



## Ceist Beag

This thread really is going around in circles. From skimming over the pages it sounds to me like the ideal solution to all of this is to provide all social housing in Mullingar. Then once people in social housing earn enough money to pay for their own place they'll be only too happy to move out, leaving the house open for the next family on the list. Problem solved.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Don't be silly. I gave an example but you are just trolling when asking me to give a detailed breakdown of a national mechanism for calculating rent.



I gave you an example - 1/6 of income - you said that is too low for high earners. You suggested €2000 cap on in income of €80000. I had to work that out as 30%. I suggested 30% to be too high on €21k, you agreed - im asking what is the mechanism (if its not 1/6th nor 30%) for calculating rent rates on social housing tenants. All we know is that someone earns over €80,000 their rent is capped at €2,000. 
I think perhaps, its becoming obvious that if a simple mechanism for calculating rents cannot be identified there is zero hope that any complex issues will ever be resolved.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Okay, so nobody should move to the commuter belt; the State should just build them a house.
> Any suggestions where the money should come from? Should we just "tax the rich"?



What are you talking about now??
Every LA builds social housing for the population who are not in a position to buy or rent of their own accord. 
Why would a prospective tenant from Dalkey, in the circumstance that you outlined, ever be offered accommodation in Lucan?
What will the LA in Lucan do with prospective tenants in their areas, move them to Dalkey??
Can you pick up on how daft that would be?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Ok so the criteria is "they no longer qualify for social housing". So once someone, or a family, occupying a social house starts earning a relatively modest income at best they are given notice to vacate, is that it?


No. (Again) they would get the house for a period of say 5 years. After which they would be re-assessed and their need for a social house compared to those who are also deemed in need. Those in most need would get the house. Simples. Of course, those in a council house would have had a fantastic opportunity (5 years of extremely low rent!) to make sure that when the 5 years are up they should be ready to put a roof over their heads themselves. The added benefit of this, is that the council house would be then available to someone else in need, who in turn would be incentivised to house themselves 5 years later.

Rather than removing the incentive for someone by giving them a council house for life, this way they would be incentivised to get their own place. You speak about social fabric....give me one where people are incentivised to put a roof over their heads any day before one where people are rewarded for doing nothing.




TheBigShort said:


> Where will they go? Mullingar? Perhaps. Or perhaps they will consider the onerous task of travelling from Dublin (say Crumlin, where they have a job as truck delivery driver) and Mullingar not really worth the money they are earning? Perhaps this could consider this to be a de-motivating factor for them? Perhaps, they will call in sick so often that their employer lets them go and now have no job. But now with no job, they once again qualify for social housing!


Thousands and thousands of people live in commuter belts and most of them commute to Dublin every morning. You can make up all the excuses you want but yet these people do it every morning.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> If somebody has a home and an income and will retain both whether they work of not that's a welfare trap but yes, despite having no earned income, they could certainly not be described as being in poverty.
> So you're right; it's a welfare trap, not a poverty trap.



You are right, if they have a home and an income that is not poverty. It is neither a welfare trap, as they are earning, paying taxes, paying rent (linked to their income) all of which go to covering the cost of the provision of social housing. 
If however they earn too much, then under your proposal they face eviction. So the incentive is not to earn, instead to depend on welfare - that is the welfare that you wish to inflict on people who have managed, from a place of total dependency, to bring a bit more dignity to their lives by going out and earning a living for themselves, contributing back to society through paying taxes and paying rent for the property they are in.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> If however they earn too much, then under your proposal they face eviction. So the incentive is not to earn, instead to depend on welfare



They would be playing a very dangerous game as they would need to be very sure that there aren't more people deemed in need of a council house than they are after the 5 years.....I think the vast majority of people would look to provide a roof over their heads.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> They would be playing a very dangerous game as they would need to be very sure that there aren't more people deemed in need of a council house than they are after the 5 years.....I think the vast majority of people would look to provide a roof over their heads.



You are not making any sense (again). Are you deliberately avoiding reality? Are you deliberately avoiding the CSO stat that shows average incomes in LA homes to be not much more than minimum wage? Im guessing a lot of these tenants are there longer than 5yrs too. So what good is your assessment? Who is to be 'moved on'? Where will they go?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Are you deliberately avoiding the CSO stat that shows *average* incomes in LA homes to be not much more than minimum wage?


That's the average. It would imply a cohort earning more.



TheBigShort said:


> Im guessing a lot of these tenants are there longer than 5yrs too.


The vast majority over the age of 30 I would guess. And they're right!....they're getting a house for next to nothing and even if they have spare rooms they can stay there whilst a family with young children "lives" in emergency accommodation.



TheBigShort said:


> Who is to be 'moved on'?


For the millionth time, they would be assessed by the provider of social housing against everyone else looking for a council house.



TheBigShort said:


> Where will they go?


Either remain in a council house if they are deemed still in need and there isn't anyone above them, or the best alternative or, shock horror, get the place of their own.

It's not going to be easy I admit that, but I think social housing needs to be like the dole should be, a safety net to help those who need it at a particular point in time. It shouldn't be permanent (except for the mentally and physically impaired) as it rewards dependency and that's the worst outcome.

You seem to have a very low opinion of human resilience - people are a lot more resilient and resourceful than you would give them credit for. In my own industry, IT, there is a chronic shortage of skills. Someone prepared to spend 1 or 2 hours a day studying free and really cheap courses on Udemy would be very proficient in 5 years believe me.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> If however they earn too much, then under your proposal they face eviction.


Where did I say that?
I propose they pay the market rent. That's all.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Every LA builds social housing for the population who are not in a position to buy or rent of their own accord.
> Why would a prospective tenant from Dalkey, in the circumstance that you outlined, ever be offered accommodation in Lucan?


Right, so if I am from Dalkey and "only" earn €80,000 a year the State should provide a house for me and my family in Dalkey.
I grew up in Rathfarnham. Most of the people I grew up with had to move to the outer suburbs. Some even moved to Lucan. They didn't know that the State should have just built a house for them in Rathfarnham. They, stupidly, thought that they should provide for themselves and could only have things that they could afford. Idiots. Wow, socialism is great! I'm sure it's also economically sustainable. Oh, and even though there's no building land available in the area for all the necessary houses I'm sure the Comrades have a solution for that too.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> I grew up in Rathfarnham. Most of the people I grew up with had to move to the outer suburbs. Some even moved to Lucan.



The shame! How ARE they coping? No wonder society has broken down. How can we as taxpayers look at ourselves in the mirror knowing that we are treating our fellow citizens with such impunity and forcing them to the wilderness like cattle?


----------



## Firefly

Ceist Beag said:


> This thread really is going around in circles. From skimming over the pages it sounds to me like the ideal solution to all of this is to provide all social housing in Mullingar. Then once people in social housing earn enough money to pay for their own place they'll be only too happy to move out, leaving the house open for the next family on the list. Problem solved.


Ha brilliant! Only problem though is that most of the houses in Mullingar would probably need to be brought up to the building regs needed for social housing...


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Under no circumstances, save in with exception of criminal behaviour, should tenants be required to leave their homes in the absence of alternative and suitable accommodation and a willingness for the tenant to leave.


We've already established that not paying rent is not a criminal matter. Should people who refuse to pay their rent be required to leave their home?


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> The shame! How ARE they coping? No wonder society has broken down. How can we as taxpayers look at ourselves in the mirror knowing that we are treating our fellow citizens with such impunity and forcing them to the wilderness like cattle?


I know. Where's Social Justice Ireland when you need them? I feel ashamed, although I'm part of the problem; I also moved away because I couldn't afford to buy in the area. 


I feel like the guy who shot Bambi's mother...


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> I also moved away because I couldn't afford to buy in the area.


I'd be straight onto Rich Boyd Barrett if I were you. Oh and get yourself a medical card to while your at it.


----------



## Seagull

I give up. We have one proposition that it doesn't matter how much you earn. The state has a responsibility to provide you with a house in your selected location, and you get to keep it and pass it on to the next generation indefinitely.

Or there's the real world where reasonable people consider that it's their own responsibility to provide a house for themselves once they can afford it. And that you don't get to cherry pick the conditions to suit you. You get what you can afford where you can afford.


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> I'd be straight onto Rich Boyd Barrett if I were you. Oh and get yourself a medical card to while your at it.


I'll email him, thanks.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I'm proposing they pay the market rate of rent. How many time do I have to say the same thing?



As many times as it takes to explain how much a household of €21K will pay, as you have already agreed it _wont _be market rate. Im not looking for a detailed blueprint but some basic specific detail would help. If a household on €21k is not to pay market rate, why do you keep then saying they will?
Why will social housing household on €160K have their rent capped at €2000 - surely this flies in the face of everything you stand for?



Purple said:


> At the same time people are wondering why would I ever bother to get a job, work hard, buy a home and generally pay my own way as a competent adult, after all;



The same reason as social housing tenant gets a job, works hard, pay rent and generally pays their own way. If they are paying taxes and a rent that is linked to their income (the Differential Rate Scheme) they are paying their way.



Firefly said:


> That's the average. It would imply a cohort earning more.



And a cohort earning even less.

You are avoiding the reality. People living in social housing do not, in the main, earn incomes high enough to buy or rent in the private market. The highest sector of unemployment is found with people living in unemployment blackspots in LA housing. LA housing can quite often be found in run-down areas, prone to high levels of crime, disorder, drugs abuse etc...these are not uncommon features. The quality of housing is often of sub-standard quality. So much so that last year Ireland was found in breach of EU law

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irelands-social-housing-in-breach-of-european-law-461411.html

Here is some detail required to obtain LA housing;

https://www.housingagency.ie/housin...-housing/renting-from-my-local-authority.aspx


* How much rent do I have to pay?*
_Local authority rents are based on a system called ‘differential rents’. This means that the amount of rent you pay depends on the amount of your total household income.
_

_If your income is low, your rent payment will reflect this and will be low._
_If your income increases so will your rent payment._
_The income of all household members is considered and rent calculations are adjusted accordingly._
_If your income or the income of anyone in your household changes, you must inform the local authority and rent will be adjusted upwards or downwards in accordance to the change._
_Each local authority operates its own rent scheme and you should contact your local authority to review the rent scheme it operates.

*Is there a tenancy agreement?*
Yes. Once you accept accommodation you enter into a tenancy agreement with your local authority. The conditions of your tenancy are set out in detail in the Letting Agreement. It sets out the general rules and terms of the tenancy such as:
_

_use of the property as your *principle home*_
_how the rent is calculated by reference to the Differential Rents Scheme_
_repair and maintenance responsibilities  _
_how to deal with disputes, anti-social behaviour and it usually sets out the consequences of not abiding by the terms of the tenancy._
I've highlighted 'principle home' to emphasis that the property is now the _home_ of the tenant.





Firefly said:


> they're getting a house for next to nothing and even if they have spare rooms they can stay there whilst a family with young children "lives" in emergency accommodation.



See above - if they have low incomes, they pay low rent. And as for your family with young children, you do realise that not every social home is suitable? You do realise that even if you evict a working woman, who raised a family, who pays her taxes, pays housing rent, that the home you want to evict her out of may not actually be suitable for the family in the hostel? Or do you think people and their families can just be herded to wherever suits?
What if the woman in the house by herself lives in Dublin, but the family in the hostel or hotel are located in Letterkenny, and one of the family is working in Letterkenny? Are you suggesting they give up their job in order to get the house to evict the woman who now ends up depressed living in a hostel, because of the housing crisis she is not able to find suitable accommodation (because she earns a low income) to get to her job everyday, so she then loses her job, and the family in the house are depressed because they cant get work and have been taken out of their community and the kids are upset.
Is this how it works? Everyone losing? Or can you guarantee it will be to benefit of everyone?

Here is some stats about housing in Ireland - there are over 200,000 vacant dwellings in the country. Primarily private owned. Where is the sense of 'social justice' that these people have? Why cant these homes be used to ease the homeless crisis?

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpub...sofpopulation2016-preliminaryresults/housing/


It was mentioned earlier in this thread that Cork City has a 50% refusal rate for social housing. Is this because people living in hostels, like  family with children you keep relaying to , are turning _down_ properties? Are you suggesting we evict working people because people in hostels and hotels are fussy?
Or is it because there lies within all of this a valid question of suitability? I mentioned it in the previous thread but you are all fixated on the blind notion that social housing policy is defined by a back-of-the-envelope calculations of income earnings and the number of available bedrooms. That is basically the depth of your knowledge in all of this.
Here is a little bit more detail that expands on the complexities of housing

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/workingpapers/soci/w14/text1_en.htm

Is there any concept that a working family, who after the economic crisis, lost their home, their business, their high standard of living, may....just may feel, that a LA house in a run-down estate, with drug dealers and crime gangs prevalent in the community, that this is not suitable for their children? That perhaps the hotel or hostel is preferential?

By the way, I havent been able to source figures yet but my understanding is that around 25%, or more, of LA housing is already over-crowded. So it really is going to be a hard job matching up your family in a hostel with suitable accommodation - as in reality, that is the case.

So between incomes that barely beat minimum wage, houses that are run-down and in breach of EU guidelines, unemployment blackspots, drug and criminal gangs prevalent in the community, your focus is on the (relatively few) €80,000K+ income earners who pay taxes, pays rent toward social housing, that they should be evicted for some other unfortunate family to be hurled into a community of welfare dependency? This is your answer to the housing crisis - based on notions of swathes of under-occupied gifted homes that are occupied by high income classes!!

Here is some detail you can study at your leisure at the effects of eviction



Social housing tenants are not immune to the negative effects just because they are social housing tenants.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> You are avoiding the reality. People living in social housing do not, in the main, earn incomes high enough to buy or rent in the private market.



Because they don't have to! They can stay where they are knowing well that they will continue to occupy council housing even if someone with a greater need is in emergency accommodation.



TheBigShort said:


> I've highlighted 'principle home' to emphasis that the property is now the _home_ of the tenant.


I'm happy it's called a home, just not with the permanency of it. Lots of people rent and have various "homes" in their lives.






TheBigShort said:


> And as for your family with young children, you do realise that not every social home is suitable? You do realise that even if you evict a working woman, who raised a family, who pays her taxes, pays housing rent, that the home you want to evict her out of may not actually be suitable for the family in the hostel? Or do you think people and their families can just be herded to wherever suits?
> What if the woman in the house by herself lives in Dublin, but the family in the hostel or hotel are located in Letterkenny, and one of the family is working in Letterkenny? Are you suggesting they give up their job in order to get the house to evict the woman who now ends up depressed living in a hostel, because of the housing crisis she is not able to find suitable accommodation (because she earns a low income) to get to her job everyday, so she then loses her job, and the family in the house are depressed because they cant get work and have been taken out of their community and the kids are upset.


If everyone living in social housing was assessed there could be many, many suitable house types available.





TheBigShort said:


> Is there any concept that a working family, who after the economic crisis, lost their home, their business, their high standard of living, may....just may feel, that a LA house in a run-down estate, with drug dealers and crime gangs prevalent in the community, that this is not suitable for their children? That perhaps the hotel or hostel is preferential?


Very valid concern and they would be the first to go in my book and preferably an extended holiday in the Joy


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Because they don't have to! They can stay where they are knowing well that they will continue to occupy council housing even if someone with a greater need is in emergency accommodation.



So, unlike Purple, your issue isn't just with people who can "well afford to buy", your issue is with those who cannot afford a place of their own also? You think taking people out of social housing who can't afford to stay anywhere is a good idea so that people in emergency accommodation can be looked after?  So the low paid workers who cannot afford anywhere else can presumably move into the emergency accommodation?



Firefly said:


> I'm happy it's called a home, just not with the permanency of it. Lots of people rent and have various "homes" in their lives.



Yes, so what? I'm in my fifth home now, I intend to settle down now. I pay for it myself, but if it were social housing I don't think I could fathom many more changes. 



Firefly said:


> If everyone living in social housing was assessed there could be many, many suitable house types available.



Have you anything to back this up? Again, I ask you, Cork City has reported a 50% refusal rate in their offers of accommodation. I'm guessing suitability is a key factor here, particularly when it comes to employment opportunities.
I hate to put a pin in the bubble of your 5yr Plan - but a married couple, both working in low income employment, she a hairdresser, he a cleaner in a factory. They occupy a social house, earn €55k a year are in their mid 50's. They have two kids, 18yr old girl who has aspirations of being a model, 20 yr son apprentice mechanic. Both living at home in the social house all their lives. The son qualifies as a mechanic and now earning a wage decides with his girlfriend to move into together in private rental accommodation. They decide they want to stand on their own two feet, how good is that? The daughter, hired by a modelling agency gets a contract to work in England for six months. 
Both kids have flown the nest. 
You send your assessor around to the home as part of your State controlled 5yr plan. The assessor decides that this 3 bed terrace is not suitable anymore (too big) and that in the grip of a housing crisis others are more needy. The State assessor orders them to move to a more suitable 1 bed apartment, or buy a place of their own. Buying or renting in the private market is out of the question with today's prices and the banks won't give them a mortgage in their mid 50's on the incomes they have, or what mortgage they would give, wouldn't buy a garden shed in Killiney! The new apartment it's a little further away from where they work, but only two bus rides to and from new home to employment. The 3 bed is now occupied by a family with no income, two kids, but they are more needy!
Six months after the assessment circumstances have changed - the son has broken up with his girlfriend (not his fault, she dumped him) neither can afford the apartment on their own so they have to leave, the daughter discovered the modelling agency in the UK was not all that it was cracked up to be, broken dreams (stuff like this does happen). 
Both the son and the daughter return home only to find that you, under your plan, have evicted their parents to a one bed apt. There is nowhere now for them to stay. The son is looking for alternative accommodation but by himself he is in the same boat as all the other first time buyers. The daughter has no income until offered a trainee hairdresser position for €8 ph. But as she has nowhere to stay, as her home has been taken, she and her brother qualify for social housing and in turn are placed in emergency accommodation. 
The family that now occupy the house have no employment - why should they? They don't need to work, they have been gifted a free house by the taxpayer which they can stay in for the rest of their lives and the working family, the mother, father, son and daughter have all been rightly screwed. But what's worse is, the house next door to one they live in was also assessed. At the time of the assessment it was fully occupied, but six months on, the two children in that house flew the nest. It is now perfectly suitable for the working family to return home (albeit next door) and live together again. But as your plan is to assess the accommodation needs of each family every 5yrs, then this house won't be assessed for another 4.5 yrs - shame!





Firefly said:


> Very valid concern and they would be the first to go in my book and preferably an extended holiday in the Joy



Great, I'm guessing you have another back of the envelope solution to the drug problem that has plagues Western societies for the last 50yrs or so. When you have all the drug dealers in prison come back and we can discuss how we can accommodate the homeless more.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> If they are paying taxes and a rent that is linked to their income (the Differential Rate Scheme) they are paying their way.


If they are paying lower rents than their neighbour who is renting privately then they are being subsidised. I have no problem with that unless they can reasonably afford to pay the market rents. I don't like poor people subsidising richer people. I don't like welfare payments covering the cost of a holiday when they could be used to cover the cost of getting someone out of a hostel.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I hate to put a pin in the bubble of your 5yr Plan - but a married couple, both working in low income employment, she a hairdresser, he a cleaner in a factory. They occupy a social house, earn €55k a year are in their mid 50's. They have two kids, 18yr old girl who has aspirations of being a model, 20 yr son apprentice mechanic. Both living at home in the social house all their lives. The son qualifies as a mechanic and now earning a wage decides with his girlfriend to move into together in private rental accommodation. They decide they want to stand on their own two feet, how good is that? The daughter, hired by a modelling agency gets a contract to work in England for six months.
> Both kids have flown the nest.
> You send your assessor around to the home as part of your State controlled 5yr plan. The assessor decides that this 3 bed terrace is not suitable anymore (too big) and that in the grip of a housing crisis others are more needy. The State assessor orders them to move to a more suitable 1 bed apartment, or buy a place of their own. Buying or renting in the private market is out of the question with today's prices and the banks won't give them a mortgage in their mid 50's on the incomes they have, or what mortgage they would give, wouldn't buy a garden shed in Killiney! The new apartment it's a little further away from where they work, but only two bus rides to and from new home to employment. The 3 bed is now occupied by a family with no income, two kids, but they are more needy!
> Six months after the assessment circumstances have changed - the son has broken up with his girlfriend (not his fault, she dumped him) neither can afford the apartment on their own so they have to leave, the daughter discovered the modelling agency in the UK was not all that it was cracked up to be, broken dreams (stuff like this does happen).
> Both the son and the daughter return home only to find that you, under your plan, have evicted their parents to a one bed apt. There is nowhere now for them to stay. The son is looking for alternative accommodation but by himself he is in the same boat as all the other first time buyers. The daughter has no income until offered a trainee hairdresser position for €8 ph. But as she has nowhere to stay, as her home has been taken, she and her brother qualify for social housing and in turn are placed in emergency accommodation.
> The family that now occupy the house have no employment - why should they? They don't need to work, they have been gifted a free house by the taxpayer which they can stay in for the rest of their lives and the working family, the mother, father, son and daughter have all been rightly screwed. But what's worse is, the house next door to one they live in was also assessed. At the time of the assessment it was fully occupied, but six months on, the two children in that house flew the nest. It is now perfectly suitable for the working family to return home (albeit next door) and live together again. But as your plan is to assess the accommodation needs of each family every 5yrs, then this house won't be assessed for another 4.5 yrs - shame!


Same family; he inherits his parents home, the wife inherits her parents home and €70,000 in cash. they do up and rent out those homes, getting €2,000 a year for each. Their household income is now €103,000 a month. Their son gets a new girlfriend and they have a baby. Rather than live in one of his parents houses he goes on the housing list. The parents never pay the market rate for their council house.
Does that sound fair to you?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Have you anything to back this up? Again, I ask you, Cork City has reported a 50% refusal rate in their offers of accommodation. I'm guessing suitability is a key factor here, particularly when it comes to employment opportunities.
> I hate to put a pin in the bubble of your 5yr Plan - but a married couple, both working in low income employment, she a hairdresser, he a cleaner in a factory. They occupy a social house, earn €55k a year are in their mid 50's. They have two kids, 18yr old girl who has aspirations of being a model, 20 yr son apprentice mechanic. Both living at home in the social house all their lives. The son qualifies as a mechanic and now earning a wage decides with his girlfriend to move into together in private rental accommodation. They decide they want to stand on their own two feet, how good is that? The daughter, hired by a modelling agency gets a contract to work in England for six months.
> Both kids have flown the nest.
> You send your assessor around to the home as part of your State controlled 5yr plan. The assessor decides that this 3 bed terrace is not suitable anymore (too big) and that in the grip of a housing crisis others are more needy. The State assessor orders them to move to a more suitable 1 bed apartment, or buy a place of their own. Buying or renting in the private market is out of the question with today's prices and the banks won't give them a mortgage in their mid 50's on the incomes they have, or what mortgage they would give, wouldn't buy a garden shed in Killiney! The new apartment it's a little further away from where they work, but only two bus rides to and from new home to employment. The 3 bed is now occupied by a family with no income, two kids, but they are more needy!
> Six months after the assessment circumstances have changed - the son has broken up with his girlfriend (not his fault, she dumped him) neither can afford the apartment on their own so they have to leave, the daughter discovered the modelling agency in the UK was not all that it was cracked up to be, broken dreams (stuff like this does happen).
> Both the son and the daughter return home only to find that you, under your plan, have evicted their parents to a one bed apt. There is nowhere now for them to stay. The son is looking for alternative accommodation but by himself he is in the same boat as all the other first time buyers. The daughter has no income until offered a trainee hairdresser position for €8 ph. But as she has nowhere to stay, as her home has been taken, she and her brother qualify for social housing and in turn are placed in emergency accommodation.
> The family that now occupy the house have no employment - why should they? They don't need to work, they have been gifted a free house by the taxpayer which they can stay in for the rest of their lives and the working family, the mother, father, son and daughter have all been rightly screwed. But what's worse is, the house next door to one they live in was also assessed. At the time of the assessment it was fully occupied, but six months on, the two children in that house flew the nest. It is now perfectly suitable for the working family to return home (albeit next door) and live together again. But as your plan is to assess the accommodation needs of each family every 5yrs, then this house won't be assessed for another 4.5 yrs - shame!



Good God you should consider writing a fantasy novel, you could make a fortune!

You're right though...let's leave things as they are...empty bedrooms in social houses whilst families live in hostels. Let's do our utmost to facilitate inter-generational dependency. After all, isn't this the real socialist utopia?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Good God you should consider writing a fantasy novel, you could make a fortune!



Unfortunately when it's obvious that the futility of your proposals cannot sink in, then the Ladybird explanation needs to be used.

What empty rooms are you talking about? 25% of social housing is already over-crowded and in Cork City the refusal rate  by those in homeless and emergency accommodation is at 50%. Do you think it's because they are fussy, or would it have something to do with the sub-standard accommodation being offered that Ireland has been found in breach of by the EU this year?

When it comes to fantasising, it's clear you have next to zero knowledge on the subject nor are you even prepared to do a little bit of background checking before spouting off about Stalinist type solutions.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Same family; he inherits his parents home, the wife inherits her parents home and €70,000 in cash. they do up and rent out those homes, getting €2,000 a year for each. Their household income is now €103,000 a month. Their son gets a new girlfriend and they have a baby. Rather than live in one of his parents houses he goes on the housing list. The parents never pay the market rate for their council house.
> Does that sound fair to you?



How can the son, girlfriend and new baby live in one of the inherited houses when they are already occupied in the private rental market? Are you suggesting that multiple families live in the same house?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> What empty rooms are you talking about? 25% of social housing is already over-crowded



Which means 75% isn't and of that 75% I am sure that there are spare bedrooms wouldn't you think? Lots of people whose kids have flown the nest with spare bedrooms, even in your example above!


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> How can the son, girlfriend and new baby live in one of the inherited houses when they are already occupied in the private rental market? Are you suggesting that multiple families live in the same house?


SO the children of wealthy families should get social housing. Then when that son's parents die he'll live in a house provided by the State, paying subsidised rent, while renting out the three houses he owns. Do you think that's fair?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Unfortunately when it's obvious that the futility of your proposals cannot sink in



It IS obvious at this stage...you're just too far gone.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> So, unlike Purple, your issue isn't just with people who can "well afford to buy", your issue is with those who cannot afford a place of their own also? You think taking people out of social housing who can't afford to stay anywhere is a good idea so that people in emergency accommodation can be looked after?  So the low paid workers who cannot afford anywhere else can presumably move into the emergency accommodation?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, so what? I'm in my fifth home now, I intend to settle down now. I pay for it myself, but if it were social housing I don't think I could fathom many more changes.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you anything to back this up? Again, I ask you, Cork City has reported a 50% refusal rate in their offers of accommodation. I'm guessing suitability is a key factor here, particularly when it comes to employment opportunities.
> I hate to put a pin in the bubble of your 5yr Plan - but a married couple, both working in low income employment, she a hairdresser, he a cleaner in a factory. They occupy a social house, earn €55k a year are in their mid 50's. They have two kids, 18yr old girl who has aspirations of being a model, 20 yr son apprentice mechanic. Both living at home in the social house all their lives. The son qualifies as a mechanic and now earning a wage decides with his girlfriend to move into together in private rental accommodation. They decide they want to stand on their own two feet, how good is that? The daughter, hired by a modelling agency gets a contract to work in England for six months.
> Both kids have flown the nest.
> You send your assessor around to the home as part of your State controlled 5yr plan. The assessor decides that this 3 bed terrace is not suitable anymore (too big) and that in the grip of a housing crisis others are more needy. The State assessor orders them to move to a more suitable 1 bed apartment, or buy a place of their own. Buying or renting in the private market is out of the question with today's prices and the banks won't give them a mortgage in their mid 50's on the incomes they have, or what mortgage they would give, wouldn't buy a garden shed in Killiney! The new apartment it's a little further away from where they work, but only two bus rides to and from new home to employment. The 3 bed is now occupied by a family with no income, two kids, but they are more needy!
> Six months after the assessment circumstances have changed - the son has broken up with his girlfriend (not his fault, she dumped him) neither can afford the apartment on their own so they have to leave, the daughter discovered the modelling agency in the UK was not all that it was cracked up to be, broken dreams (stuff like this does happen).
> Both the son and the daughter return home only to find that you, under your plan, have evicted their parents to a one bed apt. There is nowhere now for them to stay. The son is looking for alternative accommodation but by himself he is in the same boat as all the other first time buyers. The daughter has no income until offered a trainee hairdresser position for €8 ph. But as she has nowhere to stay, as her home has been taken, she and her brother qualify for social housing and in turn are placed in emergency accommodation.
> The family that now occupy the house have no employment - why should they? They don't need to work, they have been gifted a free house by the taxpayer which they can stay in for the rest of their lives and the working family, the mother, father, son and daughter have all been rightly screwed. But what's worse is, the house next door to one they live in was also assessed. At the time of the assessment it was fully occupied, but six months on, the two children in that house flew the nest. It is now perfectly suitable for the working family to return home (albeit next door) and live together again. But as your plan is to assess the accommodation needs of each family every 5yrs, then this house won't be assessed for another 4.5 yrs - shame!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great, I'm guessing you have another back of the envelope solution to the drug problem that has plagues Western societies for the last 50yrs or so. When you have all the drug dealers in prison come back and we can discuss how we can accommodate the homeless more.



You appear to believe that people should take no responsibility for the circumstances they find themselves in. If I can give a brief synopsis of the above to explain my position.

As part of the allocation of social housing people are advised that your housing needs are assessed every 5 yrs to consider both over and undercrowding. If the property is to big for you then you know when you got the property in first place that your situation will be assessed every 5 yrs and you could and would be moved if the property is no longer suitable.

I thought you example of the son breaking up with his girlfriend and the daughter wanting to be a model was comical to say the least. Life sucks, we all have problems, life never turns out the way we want.

On a slightly separate all be it relevant topic the who concept of differential rent needs a serious overhaul. Why is the differential rate charged not tied in some way to the prevailing local rents and not just the income of the household. It is unfair to have two properties paying the same rent simply because of the income of the households are the same where one property is located in an area that has a lot of amenties and the other has none but both are charged the same rent simply because the household income is the same.

Also, there should be a min rent charged which relates to the property type and location. If the differential rate is the only method of charging rent and you have one person living in a three bed property and they are paying rent based on the differential model do you think this is fair on those looking for accommodation. After all we do have a housing shortage!


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Which means 75% isn't and of that 75% I am sure that there are spare bedrooms wouldn't you think? Lots of people whose kids have flown the nest with spare bedrooms, even in your example above!




Im sure there are spare rooms. But you cant devise a housing policy based on the narrow prism of a persons income nor how many spare rooms a household has. There are too many other intrinsic, complex and variable factors to consider that will impede any such system from working properly – such as current employment location, employment opportunities, healthcare, access to education other social services, the condition of the property, community ties, crime levels in the location of social house (perceived or real). These factors are pertinent to the viewpoint of the existing tenant and the prospective tenant in emergency accommodation.

And despite the made-up scenario I gave, things do like that do occur – when the young ones leave the nest, sometimes they do return. Sometimes it takes a number of attempts before they finally establish themselves outside of their home. I left home when I got my first job in Tallaght, I rented digs with three others. When I changed jobs for a job in city centre I returned home to my parents on the northside for another 12 months. I moved to Australia, I was offered a sponsorship to stay and work permanently. My then girlfriend wasn’t offered a sponsorship. We returned to Ireland and again we moved back to my parents to save a deposit for a house in Dublin.

How would have all of that worked out for me, working and paying taxes, if having moved out my parents were then evicted to a 1 bed apartment? Truth is, I probably wouldn’t have left home at all in the first place. I would have stayed in the house with my girlfriend insuring that I would have somewhere to live long-term.

Your proposal puts a block on mobility, a barrier to risk-taking, imposes increased hardship, uses up more State resources than could ever be possibly saved – (nevermind the administration, but the mental healthcare costs associated with eviction would spiral) would get tied up in legal challenges.

When you start dictating to citizens where and when they can live, you are only a short hop and jump away from then dictating where and when they should work. And in that instance, welcome to Stalins USSR!


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> You appear to believe that people should take no responsibility for the circumstances they find themselves in.



Where have I ever said that people should take no responsibility. In the scenario I provided, the working family and their children took the responsibility of getting up and going to work, to taking risks - moving to England to pursue a dream career.
The family that subsequently took their home take no risks, take no responsibility - but hey, they are more needy! This is the system that is being proposed. And if you are convinced that it is futile, then perhaps point to me to the similar system operating anywhere in the Western world. Or do you think that in the pages of AAM that a ground-breaking realization has just occurred that no other civilized and modern society in the democratic world has thought of yet?



The Horseman said:


> As part of the allocation of social housing people are advised that your housing needs are assessed every 5 yrs to consider both over and undercrowding. If the property is to big for you then you know when you got the property in first place that your situation will be assessed every 5 yrs and you could and would be moved if the property is no longer suitable.



So, if I don't want to lose my home (I'm funny about things like that) upon assessment day, my kids come to visit (luggage in hand) and I explain to the assessor they have moved back in, no room at the inn here - see you in 5yrs! What do you do then?



The Horseman said:


> Life sucks, we all have problems, life never turns out the way we want.



So just get on with it then and stop moaning about the housing crisis as if any of you really care.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> When you start dictating to citizens where and when they can live, you are only a short hop and jump away from then dictating where and when they should work. And that instance, welcome the to Stalins USSR!



That's brilliant so it is!


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Im sure there are spare rooms. But you cant devise a housing policy based on the narrow prism of a persons income nor how many spare rooms a household has. There are too many other intrinsic, complex and variable factors to consider that will impede any such system from working properly – such as current employment location, employment opportunities, healthcare, access to education other social services, the condition of the property, community ties, crime levels in the location of social house (perceived or real). These factors are pertinent to the viewpoint of the existing tenant and the prospective tenant in emergency accommodation.
> 
> And despite the made-up scenario I gave, things do like that do occur – when the young ones leave the nest, sometimes they do return. Sometimes it takes a number of attempts before they finally establish themselves outside of their home. I left home when I got my first job in Tallaght, I rented digs with three others. When I changed jobs for a job in city centre I returned home to my parents on the northside for another 12 months. I moved to Australia, I was offered a sponsorship to stay and work permanently. My then girlfriend wasn’t offered a sponsorship. We returned to Ireland and again we moved back to my parents to save a deposit for a house in Dublin.
> 
> How would have all of that worked out for me, working and paying taxes, if having moved out my parents were then evicted to a 1 bed apartment? Truth is, I probably wouldn’t have left home at all in the first place. I would have stayed in the house with my girlfriend insuring that I would have somewhere to live long-term.
> 
> Your proposal puts a block on mobility, a barrier to risk-taking, imposes increased hardship, uses up more State resources than could ever be possibly saved – (nevermind the administration, but the mental healthcare costs associated with eviction would spiral) would get tied up in legal challenges.
> 
> When you start dictating to citizens where and when they can live, you are only a short hop and jump away from then dictating where and when they should work. And that instance, welcome the to Stalins USSR!




So you are saying that we should just leave people in properties with spare rooms on the odd chance the children who have flown the nest might want to come back. At what point does this end, should we allow people keep empty bedrooms on the off chance that grandchildren may or may not need a room on the odd occasion?

By adopting the existing social housing model your are actually dictating to non social housing people ie those who are purchasing their homes and those who are privately renting. So by your logic it is not okay to dictate to social housing tenants but it is okay to dictate to non social housing people by simply doing nothing for them but looking after the social tenants at all costs!


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> That's brilliant so it is!



Its the direction that your proposal is headed. If you are dictating to where somewhere should live, then presumably you have a plan to provide employment opportunites for them in those locations?

But I have laid down a challenge to the Horseman above - can you point to a similar system, anywhere in the civilized and modern Western world?
Or are we saying that amongst these pages of AAM a ground-breaking idea has occurred that no-one has ever thought (not since Stalins time anyway)?


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> So you are saying that we should just leave people in properties with spare rooms on the odd chance the children who have flown the nest might want to come back. At what point does this end, should we allow people keep empty bedrooms on the off chance that grandchildren may or may not need a room on the odd occasion?



Not at all, I'm asking you that upon the arrival of my 5yr assessment, the assessor arrives at my door to find that house is actually full, what do you do then?


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Where have I ever said that people should take no responsibility. In the scenario I provided, the working family and their children took the responsibility of getting up and going to work, to taking risks - moving to England to pursue a dream career.
> The family that subsequently took their home take no risks, take no responsibility - but hey, they are more needy! This is the system that is being proposed. And if you are convinced that it is futile, then perhaps point to me to the similar system operating anywhere in the Western world. Or do you think that in the pages of AAM that a ground-breaking realization has just occurred that no other civilized and modern society in the democratic world has thought of yet?
> 
> 
> So, if I don't want to lose my home (I'm funny about things like that) upon assessment day, my kids come to visit (luggage in hand) and I explain to the assessor they have moved back in, no room at the inn here - see you in 5yrs! What do you do then?
> 
> 
> 
> So just get on with it then and stop moaning about the housing crisis as if any of you really care.



The family that take the home are more needy yes but if rent is linked to income with a min amount (not just based on a differential rate) and if this family are not trying to get gameful employment then their social welfare payments will reduce (therefore less income) if they have less income then they can't pay their rent (not just one based on a differential model but a min rent).

By adopting the above methodology there is an incentive to take responsibility otherwise they will lose their social house in a particular location and will need to be relocated to a lower cost location.

You don't want to lose your house as you are funny about things like that, well hey welcome to the real world. If I can't pay my mortgage do you think I can go to the bank manager and say hey I can't afford my mortgage because I lost my job or something else happened! Do you think he will just say no worries, or what about the private landlord what do you think he will say

I actually do care about the housing crisis as it affects us all! What I have a particular issue with is those gaming the system and never being held to account for it. When people are held to account for their actions then I will be happy, until then I will continue to voice my opinion about where my tax's are going if I believe they are not being spent correctly.

I am one of those who is a net tax giver to the state and always have been. I do have an issue with those who in my view are given an easy ride through life.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Its the direction that your proposal is headed. If you are dictating to where somewhere should live, then presumably you have a plan to provide employment opportunites for them in those locations?
> 
> But I have laid down a challenge to the Horseman above - can you point to a similar system, anywhere in the civilized and modern Western world?
> Or are we saying that amongst these pages of AAM a ground-breaking idea has occurred that no-one has ever thought (not since Stalins time anyway)?



I actually was in favour of the bedroom tax model that the UK introduced. I thought it was a very progressive method similar to our tax system.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Not at all, I'm asking you that upon the arrival of my 5yr assessment, the assessor arrives at my door to find that house is actually full, what do you do then?




You make unannounced visits to verify who is actually living in the house. You visit at different times of the day or night to see who is living there. You look for proof of who is living there.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> You make unannounced visits to verify who is actually living in the house. You visit at different times of the day or night to see who is living there. You look for proof of who is living there.



So its not every five years then?
You call to house, no-one is in (it being unannounced). You follow up on with all the other relevant agencies and authorities to find out where the supposed occupants are living now, what they are doing, how much they are earning. Then upon 'assessment day', having got all the information you need to 'prove' there is spare capacity, you arrive at the door only to meet the sons and daughters who have returned home, that very day!
The son has 'separated with his girlfriend' again, and the daughter is moving back to care for the dad as he hasn't been feeling well lately.
What do you put on your assessment form - evict?


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> So its not every five years then?
> You call to house, no-one is in (it being unannounced). You follow up on with all the other relevant agencies and authorities to find out where the supposed occupants are living now, what they are doing, how much they are earning. Then upon 'assessment day', having got all the information you need to 'prove' there is spare capacity, you arrive at the door only to meet the sons and daughters who have returned home, that very day!
> The son has 'separated with his girlfriend' again, and the daughter is moving back to care for the dad as he hasn't been feeling well lately.
> What do you put on your assessment form - evict?



I see this is as ridiculous as ever.......Son and daughter over 18 and have moved out like the majority of young adults. Son and daughter encounter difficulties in life as adults like the majority of adults. Son and daughter make their own way in the world like the majority of other adults.  If that means joining a housing list on their own right then so be it. Do you think my parents still have a room for me in case I need to move home like a child? No, they downsized when we all went off to live our lives. Very traumatic but I will survive.

Daughter needs to move in to after sick father but it is only a one bed apartment? Sure it happens in the other world as well. Either make do, look into home care, nursing homes like all of us have to do at some stage. If you want to apply for a bigger property, then absolutely no problem. There is probably a single mother living in a three bed house after her kids have moved out in the area that you can swap with. Oh wait, the UN would probably drag us to hague for crimes against humanity for even suggesting such a thing.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> The family that take the home are more needy yes but if rent is linked to income with a min amount (not just based on a differential rate) and if this family are not trying to get gameful employment then their social welfare payments will reduce (therefore less income) if they have less income then they can't pay their rent (not just one based on a differential model but a min rent).



So all they have to do is show that they are 'trying' to get gameful employment and they are quids in? You need to watch the movie 'Trainspotting' if you haven't already, or watch it again if you have.
You do realise that for every employment relationship that there has to be a job _offer _in order for there to be a job _acceptance?_



The Horseman said:


> By adopting the above methodology there is an incentive to take responsibility otherwise they will lose their social house in a particular location and will need to be relocated to a lower cost location.



So they will lose their social house if they don't show 'responsibilty'? Where will they live then? No income, no home, I'm guessing its out on the street?



The Horseman said:


> If I can't pay my mortgage do you think I can go to the bank manager and say hey I can't afford my mortgage because I lost my job or something else happened! Do you think he will just say no worries, or what about the private landlord what do you think he will say



Yes, you can enter to a mortgage re-structuring plan to delay, or reduce repayments for a period until you improve your circumstances. I assume it would be in your interest to do so? If not, then don't pay the mortgage, face eviction and join the top of social housing waiting list - because you will be the needy one.



The Horseman said:


> What I have a particular issue with is those gaming the system



If people are gaming the system they should be penalized. But having a spare room or two in a house or earning a high income while living in a house is not gaming the system. You may think it should be considered as 'gaming the system' but it is not. There are many, many reasons as to why it is not. Least of all the few scenarios I have outlined, the administration burden, the certain legal challenges (from evictees, human rights groups, and the EU), and all other factors attributable to mental health issues and evictions.



The Horseman said:


> I will continue to voice my opinion about where my tax's are going if I believe they are not being spent correctly.



So will I, and hopefully it will never be on half-baked proposals like this which will cost a fortune with no end product.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sunny said:


> I see this is as ridiculous as ever



I'm not surprised. You have a repeated habit of not picking up the jist of the point laid out in the post.



Sunny said:


> Son and daughter over 18 and have moved out like the majority of young adults. Son and daughter encounter difficulties in life as adults like the majority of adults. Son and daughter make their own way in the world like the majority of other adults. If that means joining a housing list on their own right then so be it. Do you think my parents still have a room for me in case I need to move home like a child? No, they downsized when we all went off to live our lives. Very traumatic but I will survive.



The point is, _before_ the parents get evicted out of their home they decide they don't want to leave (they are going to game the system under the new regime). So they concoct a plan to have their son and daughter move back in with them for 'assessment day!'. What do you do then? You have to start a time-consuming investigation into proving they are gaming the system. That takes more costly resources.
Wouldn't it better just to build more housing (creating employment) to meet the population needs rather than all this nonsense?


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> So all they have to do is show that they are 'trying' to get gameful employment and they are quids in? You need to watch the movie 'Trainspotting' if you haven't already, or watch it again if you have.
> You do realise that for every employment relationship that there has to be a job _offer _in order for there to be a job _acceptance?_
> 
> 
> 
> So they will lose their social house if they don't show 'responsibilty'? Where will they live then? No income, no home, I'm guessing its out on the street?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can enter to a mortgage re-structuring plan to delay, or reduce repayments for a period until you improve your circumstances. I assume it would be in your interest to do so? If not, then don't pay the mortgage, face eviction and join the top of social housing waiting list - because you will be the needy one.
> 
> 
> 
> If people are gaming the system they should be penalized. But having a spare room or two in a house or earning a high income while living in a house is not gaming the system. You may think it should be considered as 'gaming the system' but it is not. There are many, many reasons as to why it is not. Least of all the few scenarios I have outlined, the administration burden, the certain legal challenges (from evictees, human rights groups, and the EU), and all other factors attributable to mental health issues and evictions.
> 
> 
> 
> So will I, and hopefully it will never be on half-baked proposals like this which will cost a fortune with no end product.




I would suggest you read my posts fully before you go off on your rant.

If somebody can't get a job then their social welfare payments are reduced. I don't hold with the idea that "I am trying to get a job" so my welfare payments should not reduce. Anybody who is not sick and can't get a job after a couple of years on the social welfare needs to be investigated. If they have medical/physiological issues and have been medically assessed as so they that's fine they are excluded from the above.

If they don't have these issues and are doing everything not to get work then I have an issue with that. Your proposals don't do anything to incentivize these people to get gameful employment. They have a house for life, with a low rent and they will never be chastised or moved based on your stance.

I did not say you make somebody homeless if they don't show responsibility I said that you move them to a lower cost location. I don't know whether you are deliberately misinterpreting what is being said to have an argument or you are just missing whats being said.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> Daughter needs to move in to after sick father but it is only a one bed apartment? Sure it happens in the other world as well. Either make do, look into home care, nursing homes like all of us have to do at some stage.


See you are not getting it; the State should give them a two bedroom apartment on the off chance that a parent gets sick and the daughter moves in. In fact they should have a three bedroom house in case the son and his girlfriend move back in, no, wait, what if the son and the girlfriend break up? You can't expect her to move out so they'll need an extra bedroom for her just in case... what about the daughter, what about her partner? They might want to move in as well and sure what if they break up? Jasus, they need at least 5 bedrooms. There's no way I thought of everything so maybe 6, just in case. 
Then when everyone but the daughter moves out and the parents die she can keep the house and rent out a few rooms.


----------



## Purple

The Horseman said:


> If somebody can't get a job then their social welfare payments are reduced. I don't hold with the idea that "I am trying to get a job" so my welfare payments should not reduce. Anybody who is not sick and can't get a job after a couple of years on the social welfare needs to be investigated. If they have medical/physiological issues and have been medically assessed as so they that's fine they are excluded from the above.
> 
> If they don't have these issues and are doing everything not to get work then I have an issue with that. Your proposals don't do anything to incentivize these people to get gameful employment. They have a house for life, with a low rent and they will never be chastised or moved based on your stance.
> 
> I did not say you make somebody homeless if they don't show responsibility I said that you move them to a lower cost location. I don't know whether you are deliberately misinterpreting what is being said to have an argument or you are just missing whats being said.



You think people should provide for themselves?!! You're just one step away from being a fascist!
Next you'll be saying that there's a dignity in work and self reliance and people prosper mentally and physically when they stand on their own two feet. Sure you're very close to saying that State funding should be valued and allocate to those who need it most. People like you are what's wrong with this country.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> See you are not getting it; the State should give them a two bedroom apartment on the off chance that a parent gets sick and the daughter moves in. In fact they should have a three bedroom house in case the son and his girlfriend move back in, no, wait, what if the son and the girlfriend break up? You can't expect her to move out so they'll need an extra bedroom for her just in case... what about the daughter, what about her partner? They might want to move in as well and sure what if they break up? Jasus, they need at least 5 bedrooms. There's no way I thought of everything so maybe 6, just in case.


What about the grand kids? I mean they're surely not expected to share a room?


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> What about the grand kids? I mean their surely not expected to share a room?


I knew I missed something. I should be sent to a Social Democracy re-education Camp for a few weeks.


----------



## Purple

I now realise that TheBigShort is correct and the system we have now is perfect, the only problem is that there are too few social houses.
Eventually we'll all get a social house with the current model, which is of course sustainable and fair (just like our State pension system, Public sector pay and pensions and all other forms of welfare) and everything will be great.

The only problem is the private sector, which unlike the Public Sector, is dysfunctional and inefficient. The reason for that is that all rich people, and people who work in banks in particular (but aren't in Unions), are greedy and immoral.


The State controlling more and more of our economy is a good thing and addressing the symptoms of inequality through wealth transfers rather than addressing the root cause of that inequality is the way to go.


We don't have to change any systems.
We don't have to reform any structures.
There is no waste.
The solution to every problem is to just spend more money.

Anyone who suggests otherwise is greedy, selfish, ignorant, uneducated, right-wing and morally bankrupt.

The scales have fallen from my eyes; I am reborn, Comrades!


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> I would suggest you read my posts fully



I did.



The Horseman said:


> If somebody can't get a job then their social welfare payments are reduced. I don't hold with the idea that "I am trying to get a job" so my welfare payments should not reduce. Anybody who is not sick and can't get a job after a couple of years on the social welfare needs to be investigated. If they have medical/physiological issues and have been medically assessed as so they that's fine they are excluded from the above.




But what if they are genuinely trying to get a job but are not being offered one? What if, god forbid, there is an economic crisis with tight employment markets? Not that anything like that would ever happen in a country like ours...Doh!

Will employers be investigated if they continually refuse to offer jobs?



The Horseman said:


> If they don't have these issues and are doing everything not to get work then I have an issue with that.



Yes, I have an issue with that as well, but your answer is to starve them and force them onto the street until they act 'responsibily', which would just perpetuate the problem. How else am I supposed to read into this comment  you made?



The Horseman said:


> if this family are not trying to get gameful employment then their social welfare payments will reduce (therefore less income) if they have less income then they can't pay their rent





The Horseman said:


> Your proposals don't do anything to incentivize these people to get gameful employment



Didn't you read my post in full? The family that ends up getting evicted under the new regime, ARE AT WORK! All of them!



The Horseman said:


> I said that you move them to a lower cost location



What is a ‘lower cost location’?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> the State should give them a two bedroom apartment on the off chance that a parent gets sick and the daughter moves in. In fact they should have a three bedroom house in case the son and his girlfriend move back in, no, wait, what if the son and the girlfriend break up? You can't expect her to move out so they'll need an extra bedroom for her just in case... what about the daughter, what about her partner? They might want to move in as well and sure what if they break up? Jasus, they need at least 5 bedrooms. There's no way I thought of everything so maybe 6, just in case.



Or just play a game of musical chairs every week to see who gets to live where? Lets see, how many chairs have we got and how many people are looking for homes? Should be fun!



Purple said:


> Then when everyone but the daughter moves out and the parents die she can keep the house and rent out a few rooms.



Taking people off the waiting lists, out of emergency accommodation, earning a living, paying taxes on that - renting out rooms, should someone wish to, is perfectly normal - happens all the time.


----------



## TheBigShort

TheBigShort said:


> that the model in place excludes a lot of working people from owning their own home by virtue of the market prices while simultaneously barring them from social housing by virtue of their income levels.
> 
> A market failure if ever there was one.





TheBigShort said:


> the whole thing is a sorry mess.





TheBigShort said:


> On the other hand, if social housing agencies are competing against one another, pushing up prices, then all that says to me is how desperate the situation has become - for everyone trying to find a home.





TheBigShort said:


> I don't disagree that having social housing agencies competing against each other is a bad thing. And, rather than dismiss the sense of desperation, I think it is a good thing to know how bad it is for _anybody _trying to find a home.





TheBigShort said:


> Everyone else is to the mercy of the market and the banking system, which has failed dismisally in providing a sustainable, affordable, housing market. This is the system we have chosen.
> Unfortunately, the model of free market housing has turned housing into a commodity to be bought and sold for profit, rather than to be factored as a social necessity. Low and middle income earners, trying to get a foothold are typically being caught in the middle as this example shows.





TheBigShort said:


> But isn't this symptomatic of the dysfunction in the housing market?





TheBigShort said:


> To me it is simple, we need to build more housing, not only for the poorest but for working people too. The State is in the best position to resource the funding required.
> The free market is dysfunctional and inept at providing a sustainable housing sector as it is predicated on the profit motive rather than the social need.





TheBigShort said:


> The State is responsible for the policy of providing housing. It has abdicated that responsibility in the main to the free market. Hence, then mess we are in now.





TheBigShort said:


> I have every sympathy for first-time buyers trying to buy a home. I have every sympathy for working professionals who are being fleeced with extortionate rents just so that they can live within a reasonable distance within their employment for which they have obtained through hard study and work.



From all of the above you deduced that I think the system is perfect? 



Purple said:


> I now realise that TheBigShort is correct and the system we have now is perfect



How about, don't turn a dysfunctional and socially deteriorating situation into a chaotic impoverishing and  economically destructive one!

How about building more houses, and enough with the nonsense of 5-yr assessments and musical chairs?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, I have an issue with that as well


And what would be your solution?


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what if they are genuinely trying to get a job but are not being offered one? What if, god forbid, there is an economic crisis with tight employment markets? Not that anything like that would ever happen in a country like ours...Doh!
> 
> Will employers be investigated if they continually refuse to offer jobs?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I have an issue with that as well, but your answer is to starve them and force them onto the street until they act 'responsibily', which would just perpetuate the problem. How else am I supposed to read into this comment  you made?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you read my post in full? The family that ends up getting evicted under the new regime, ARE AT WORK! All of them!
> 
> 
> 
> What is a ‘lower cost location’?




You said that the first family are employed and the second are not. My reference was to the second family. You are now cherry picking your quotes and using them out of context!


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Or just play a game of musical chairs every week to see who gets to live where? Lets see, how many chairs have we got and how many people are looking for homes? Should be fun!


No, you're dead right, just leave things as they are; the current system is perfect and anyone who questions it is doing so out of selfishness and ignorance. You keep fighting the good fight comrade! 



TheBigShort said:


> Taking people off the waiting lists, out of emergency accommodation, earning a living, paying taxes on that - renting out rooms, should someone wish to, is perfectly normal - happens all the time.


 Absolutely, because nobody availing of a single room rental is ever young and living at home beforehand.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> You keep fighting the good fight comrade!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxcP7TRY178 turn it up!


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> How about, don't turn a dysfunctional and socially deteriorating situation into a chaotic impoverishing and economically destructive one!
> 
> How about building more houses, and enough with the nonsense of 5-yr assessments and musical chairs?


How about suggesting something rather than setting yourself up as the moral inquisitor of those who do?
How about being constructive?
How about more detail, something more specific than "we should build more houses"? Who should build them? How should they be funded? If nobody should ever have to move out of a socially provided house it is inevitable that eventually, within a few decades, the majority of the people in the country will be living in social housing. Where do you draw the line?


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> You said that the first family are employed and the second are not.



Yes, and out of the two families which one had to make way for the other? Under the new regime, because of the spare capacity the working couple would have to move to make way for the non-working family. And I just touched on some of the possible knock-on consequences that may arise, as they do, in the normal course of affairs. In which case the incentive, under the new 5yr assessment regime, would be not to work, for the kids not to move out - ever!


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> In which case the incentive, under the new 5yr assessment regime, would be not to work, for the kids not to move out - ever!


Which is, to the morally bankrupt capitalist pigs,  better than them moving into another council house.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, and out of the two families which one had to make way for the other? Under the new regime, because of the spare capacity the working couple would have to move to make way for the non-working family. And I just touched on some of the possible knock-on consequences that may arise, as they do, in the normal course of affairs. In which case the incentive, under the new 5yr assessment regime, would be not to work, for the kids not to move out - ever!




The first family where the children have left have the option of paying a rent that reflects the house (if they want to stay there they pay on a basis of either a min rent which takes account of the property location and amenities and the differential model). They are being given a choice, if they want to stay they you have to contribute to staying and enjoying the luxury of having spare bedrooms.

if on the other hand you have the family who don't get gameful employment by choice then once their income level drops via social welfare and working on the model of charging rent based on the amenities and location and not just a differential model then if they want to stay they have to pay for that right otherwise they move to a lower cost location.

The above models both give the person the choice if you want to stay where you are you have to pay for it. Not just the differential model charges but also a charge for the location and its amenities.

This is why different areas all command different prices in private rents and private house purchases. Do you think those in social housing should be immune from those factors that everybody else has to face everyday.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Which is, to the morally bankrupt capitalist pigs,  better than them moving into another council house.



You said it. You would rather people stopped working, stopped educating, lived at home with their mammies & daddies all their adult lives rather than see a spare room or two in a social house go unoccupied for all the social injustice this would cause (or rather how much it is costing _"your taxes_".  After all, you did say;



Purple said:


> Let them live in hostels or the street. I don't care.


----------



## TheBigShort

Well, in fairness to you, Horseman, you have at least moved somewhat insofar that you are proposing a scheme with 'choices'.  I do think there is an underlying assumption that most people in social are on the pigs back, free accommodation, don't work, or work very little, prime location in city centres etc....some people think its like winning the lottery, or its all one big gift courtesy of the taxpayer (blinded to the fact that working people in social housing are 'the taxpayer')

The reality is of course far from that, it is a complex business which cannot be resolved on the pages of AAM.

http://files.nesc.ie/nesc_secretari...h_Social_and_Affordable_Housing_Provision.pdf

None of the proposals made so far will go anyway to resolving the current crisis in any reasonable time-frame. In fact I would argue that all of the proposals would get tied up in administrative and legal tangles that would in fact cost the taxpayer more, in other words - they are self-defeating proposals.

I was asked to suggest something constructive -

From page 3



TheBigShort said:


> To me it is simple, we need to build more housing, not only for the poorest but for working people too.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Well, in fairness to you, Horseman, you have at least moved somewhat insofar that you are proposing a scheme with 'choices'.  I do think there is an underlying assumption that most people in social are on the pigs back, free accommodation, don't work, or work very little, prime location in city centres etc....some people think its like winning the lottery, or its all one big gift courtesy of the taxpayer (blinded to the fact that working people in social housing are 'the taxpayer')
> 
> The reality is of course far from that, it is a complex business which cannot be resolved on the pages of AAM.
> 
> http://files.nesc.ie/nesc_secretari...h_Social_and_Affordable_Housing_Provision.pdf
> 
> None of the proposals made so far will go anyway to resolving the current crisis in any reasonable time-frame. In fact I would argue that all of the proposals would get tied up in administrative and legal tangles that would in fact cost the taxpayer more, in other words - they are self-defeating proposals.
> 
> I was asked to suggest something constructive -
> 
> From page 3



Building more houses on its own is not the answer. A cultural shift is required whereby people are held responsible for their actions. The current political establishment don't have the desire to tackle this problem and we have this bizarre notion everybody is entitled to housing no matter what. If people pay their rent and its set at a reasonable level as I have suggested above then I think that's a move in the right direction.

All building more houses will do is increase the entitlement culture we have. We need to tackle the abuses of the system and make people responsible for their situations. If this means making people homeless when they don't pay rent their differential rent which the State has decided is fair than so be it.

I am however not aware of this ever happening. Maybe if it did it would send a message to others gaming the system and go some way to dispel the stereotyping you feel is ongoing.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> You said it. You would rather people stopped working, stopped educating, lived at home with their mammies & daddies all their adult lives rather than see a spare room or two in a social house go unoccupied for all the social injustice this would cause (or rather how much it is costing _"your taxes_". After all, you did say;


Why would people stop working and stop being educated just because they live at home with their parents?
If they are getting a free/subsidised house the way things are why would there be more of an imperative to work and get educated?
I'm sure there's agreat answer to that but I'm a recent convert so I still think the old way the odd time. Soon I'll know what questions I'm allowed ask and what I'm not.



			
				Purple said:
			
		

> To me it is simple, we need to build more housing, not only for the poorest but for working people too.


That's when I was an inferior capitalist pig. Now I'm a socialist and better than everyone else and so want to help those who can't help themselves; those downtrodden and unwashed masses. The old part of my brain is telling me that sounds patronising and degrading and the way the Victorians talked about "the darkies" but I know that must be wrong.



TheBigShort said:


> To me it is simple, we need to build more housing, not only for the poorest but for working people too.


Cool! Problem solved! (that voice again; Who's going to pay for them? Who's going to build them? How much will it cost? How long will it take? Given that there's no mobility within the housing stock how do we use our resourced efficiently to ensure that those in most need get what they need?)


----------



## Purple

The Horseman said:


> Building more houses on its own is not the answer. A cultural shift is required whereby people are held responsible for their actions. The current political establishment don't have the desire to tackle this problem and we have this bizarre notion everybody is entitled to housing no matter what. If people pay their rent and its set at a reasonable level as I have suggested above then I think that's a move in the right direction.
> 
> All building more houses will do is increase the entitlement culture we have. We need to tackle the abuses of the system and make people responsible for their situations. If this means making people homeless when they don't pay rent their differential rent which the State has decided is fair than so be it.
> 
> I am however not aware of this ever happening. Maybe if it did it would send a message to others gaming the system and go some way to dispel the stereotyping you feel is ongoing.


See you are dead wrong there and there's a great example for all to see; We used to have a real problem with access to Health Services. We then massively increased the amount of money we spent on Healthcare and the problem was solved. That's why there are no waiting lists or people  on trolleys in A&E's any more.

I bet you feel stupid now!


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> Building more houses on its own is not the answer.



It is not the panacea, but in the absence of housing shortage it would be a significant step.



The Horseman said:


> A cultural shift is required whereby people are held responsible for their actions.



Why does everyone associate social housing with irresponsible people? Most people in social housing of working age, are working. They are responsible. I think it was highlighted that an area in Tallaght has the highest unemployment rate at 30%. Meaning that 70% of that community is at work. Meaning if any of them are low paid, they cannot buy their own house or rent privately due to the high costs.
The biggest problem facing the housing crisis is not those 'gaming' the system, it is those who are responsible, who are working who cannot get suitable accommodation. Even those who do get accommodation, if rented, are being fleeced and are in precarious situations.



The Horseman said:


> If this means making people homeless when they don't pay rent their differential rent which the State has decided is fair than so be it.



Does that apply to the thousands of families in emergency accommodation? They didn't pay their rent or mortgage, or never had the means to pay rent or mortgage. Are they to roam the streets?
I'm sure the retail business owners will be delighted to have move people out of their doorways so they open up for trade.
I'm sure the tourists will be delighted to see the sight of thousands of homeless on our capital streets.
I'm sure the drug-dealers will be delighted to move in and 'relieve' the misery inflicted by sleeping on the streets
I'm sure the Gardaí will appreciate the chaotic nature of that, and our medical staff as they deal with increasing alcoholism and drug-addiction associated with being homeless.
Nice!


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Why would people stop working and stop being educated just because they live at home with their parents?
> If they are getting a free/subsidised house the way things are why would there be more of an imperative to work and get educated?



You are kidding right? Have you not read anything at all? Is all of this just to try get one over me?

I grew up near a large council estate, some 15,000 houses. Out of those houses I went to school with many of the kids. Of any of them that I am still in contact with, not one lives in a council house. They all grew up, educated themselves, got jobs and careers of varying sorts and all bought private properties of their own.
The imperative to work and get educated is not determined by where you have a free/subsidized house or not. A barrier to educate and work would be if you were not sure where you were going to be living on foot of earning an income. If earning a living could mean joining the queues of FTB or living in emergency accommodation - the impertative would be not to work and be classed as 'needy'.


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> You said it. You would rather people stopped working, stopped educating, lived at home with their mammies & daddies all their adult lives rather than see a spare room or two in a social house go unoccupied for all the social injustice this would cause (or rather how much it is costing _"your taxes_".  After all, you did say;



The UK has the bedroom tax where benefits are cut for each under utilised bedroom. They even have the concept of mutual exchange that lets people swap houses.  France has rent reviews every two years on household income with supplements applying on everything over a certain level with no ceiling. I don't exactly see people being kicked to streets. Denmark and Sweden has seen huge amounts of social housing being bought out by tenants as their circumstances changed. Hardly earth shattering.....

Dublin City council has a waiting list for people looking to downsize from their existing social property so some people are actually not aghast at such an idea of trying to eliminate under utilisation of social housing stock. Maybe instead of your 'build it and they will come' philosophy, we should actually try to use our existing stock as efficiently as possible? I know it's a crazy idea. Why not add another 25% tax on people earning over 100k instead and build and build instead...Bloody rich people.....


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> You are kidding right? Have you not read anything at all? Is all of this just to try get one over me?
> 
> I grew up near a large council estate, some 15,000 houses. Out of those houses I went to school with many of the kids. Of any of them that I am still in contact with, not one lives in a council house. They all grew up, educated themselves, got jobs and careers of varying sorts and all bought private properties of their own.
> The imperative to work and get educated is not determined by where you have a free/subsidized house or not. A barrier to educate and work would be if you were not sure where you were going to be living on foot of earning an income. If earning a living could mean joining the queues of FTB or living in emergency accommodation - the impertative would be not to work and be classed as 'needy'.



An estate of 15,000 houses?????? 

Poor Postman!


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> The reality is of course far from that, it is a complex business which cannot be resolved on the pages of AAM.
> 
> http://files.nesc.ie/nesc_secretari...h_Social_and_Affordable_Housing_Provision.pdf


Your link supports many of the points made by the capitalists pigs here. The authors must also be capitalist pigs.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Of any of them that I am still in contact with, not one lives in a council house.


Does that mean you don't consort with riffraff or does it mean all your classmates got jobs?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I grew up near a large council estate, some 15,000 houses. Out of those houses I went to school with many of the kids. Of any of them that I am still in contact with, not one lives in a council house. They all grew up, educated themselves, got jobs and careers of varying sorts and all bought private properties of their own.



More of those spare bedroom so


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> A barrier to educate and work would be if you were not sure where you were going to be living on foot of earning an income.



Eh, is that not everyone???? I wish my career guidance teacher had included the option of social housing when I was younger...Would probably have ended up in a much better location with a shorter commute than where I live now.....


----------



## Firefly

Sunny said:


> Eh, is that not everyone???? I wish my career guidance teacher had included the option of social housing when I was younger...Would probably have ended up in a much better location with a shorter commute than where I live now.....



Also, I can think of no better incentive to help secure your future than being less and less dependent on the State.


----------



## Sunny

Firefly said:


> Also, I can think of no better incentive to help secure your future than being less and less dependent on the State.



Ah don't worry, there will always be some rich person earning over 75k that we can tax some more to pay for things...You just relax and don't get stressed. Actually have a medical card as well. Sure life is hard....


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> We used to have a real problem with access to Health Services



No we didn't, we had terrific access to the Health Services, but then we bought into the notion that a private health service would be better. Now we have the worst of both worlds - increasing waiting lists in the public system and ever increasing costs to enter the private system.



Sunny said:


> The UK has the bedroom tax where benefits are cut for each under utilised bedroom. They even have the concept of mutual exchange that lets people swap houses.



Mutual exchange  swaps? You mean...nobody is...



TheBigShort said:


> ....being _forced _to 'move on' by virtue of their improved circumstances as is being suggested here, and _willingly _moving on by virtue of their volition.





Sunny said:


> France has rent reviews every two years on household income with supplements applying on everything over a certain level with no ceiling. I don't exactly see people being kicked to streets.



Because they don't have a policy to evict...haven't you been paying attention!



Sunny said:


> Denmark and Sweden has seen huge amounts of social housing being bought out by tenants as their circumstances changed.



Same here, same in UK, what has this got to do with being compelled to leave a property as is being suggested here?



Sunny said:


> Dublin City council has a waiting list for people looking to downsize from their existing social property so some people are actually not aghast at such an idea of trying to eliminate under utilisation of social housing stock.



So more of this _willingly _stuff? Great...have they got a list of people they are going to evict?


----------



## seamless

This discussion has raised an interesting question (for me).

Should I as a matter of course be encouraging my children to register with the social housing services of our local authority as a life strategy on turning 18 ?

Given the level and increasing rate of price rises of housing and given that *one* of the criteria for selection appears to be time elapsed, is it not a useful hedge for ones' children ?

I just had a look at some of the social housing properties available from DLR CC and some are in very nice locations indeed !

[broken link removed]


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> No we didn't, we had terrific access to the Health Services, but then we bought into the notion that a private health service would be better. Now we have the worst of both worlds - increasing waiting lists in the public system and ever increasing costs to enter the private system.
> 
> 
> 
> Mutual exchange  swaps? You mean...nobody is...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they don't have a policy to evict...haven't you been paying attention!
> 
> 
> 
> Same here, same in UK, what has this got to do with being compelled to leave a property as is being suggested here?
> 
> 
> 
> So more of this _willingly _stuff? Great...have they got a list of people they are going to evict?



Yawn. The only person using emotionally charged words like 'eviction' is you.

So anyway, tell us more about the council estate with 15,000 houses that you lived beside....I really want to know where this was..


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Your link supports many of the points made by the capitalists pigs here. The authors must also be capitalist pigs.



You may read the detail and _think _it supports your points, but nowhere does it advocate sleeping on the streets as you did, or any of the loony eviction policies spouted out here.



Purple said:


> Does that mean you don't consort with riffraff or does it mean all your classmates got jobs?



Your inherent prejudice is rising to the fore again Purple, just because they come from council estates does not make mean they are any more riff-raff than you.



Firefly said:


> More of those spare bedroom so



I'm sure there are spare rooms, some have been re-cycled housing new (working) families, some have been taken into private ownership by people who grew up in council estates, made a career for themselves and bought out the property from the council - imagine that!



Sunny said:


> Eh, is that not everyone????



Not under the new 5yr assessment regime its not. If you dare educate yourself and earn a decent living, you are out of there.



Firefly said:


> Also, I can think of no better incentive to help secure your future than being less and less dependent on the State.



Yes me too, but you have weird assertion that the less dependent I come by educating and earning the more likely the State should threaten that independence by moving you to unknown locations without any consideration as to how that would effect your employment prospects.


----------



## Sunny

seamless said:


> This discussion has raised an interesting question (for me).
> 
> Should I as a matter of course be encouraging my children to register with the social housing services of our local authority as a life strategy on turning 18 ?
> 
> Given the level and increasing rate of price rises of housing and given that *one* of the criteria for selection appears to be time elapsed, is it not a useful hedge for ones' children ?
> 
> I just had a look at some of the social housing properties available from DLR CC and some are in very nice locations indeed !
> 
> [broken link removed]



Yep. Or else just encourage them to be unemployed or earn very little for a couple of years while on the housing list, get the house and then go and get large rewarding careers with 6 figure salaries. They will be sorted and never need to worry about expensive rent or mortgages. Their kids will be sorted (for when they break up with their boyfriends/girlfriends and want to move back home) and then when your kids die, your grandkids will get the house.....Sorted!!


----------



## TheBigShort

Sunny said:


> Yawn. The only person using emotionally charged words like 'eviction' is you.



Yawn. Because I'm the only one calling it out for what it is - are you going to tell me all along it was always intended that people would only have to leave their homes if they were willing to do so?  Seriously??



Sunny said:


> So anyway, tell us more about the council estate with 15,000 houses that you lived beside....I really want to know where this was



Housing estat_es_….my bad, typo. The area is Cabra, Dublin 7

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabra,_Dublin

Wait until you read about all the riff-raff that emerged out of those council estates. Particularly this guy

"_One of the world's most famous mathematicians, __William Rowan Hamilton__, who freed algebra from the commutative postulate of multiplication (that the order or sequence of factors does not determine the result) was associated with the area. There is a plaque in his honour at the __Broom Bridge__."_


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> Yawn. Because I'm the only one calling it out for what it is - are you going to tell me all along it was always intended that people would only have to leave their homes if they were willing to do so?  Seriously??



Well, show me where I used any word like evict or forcibly remove or anything similar. One example??? 



TheBigShort said:


> Housing estat_es_….my bad, typo. The area is Cabra, Dublin 7
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabra,_Dublin
> 
> Wait until you read about all the riff-raff that emerged out of those council estates. Particularly this guy
> 
> "_One of the world's most famous mathematicians, __William Rowan Hamilton__, who freed algebra from the commutative postulate of multiplication (that the order or sequence of factors does not determine the result) was associated with the area. There is a plaque in his honour at the __Broom Bridge__."_



Mate, there you go making assumptions and judgements again. I come from a much worse area than Cabra so don't make me out to some sort of middle/upper class snob who looks down on people. You don't know me. You have never seen me. You have never heard me speak. You know nothing about me.....


----------



## Sunny

Oh and show me where there was 15,000 social or council houses in Cabra? Considering the population of cabra must be no more than 30,000 I would imagine, I would be very interested.....


----------



## TheBigShort

seamless said:


> Should I as a matter of course be encouraging my children to register with the social housing services of our local authority as a life strategy on turning 18 ?



Given the lack house building in the country

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2018/0423/956446-goodbody-house-completions/

it might be an idea to advise them of their options. Private ownership and rental markets are getting beyond the reach working people and even people with decent incomes. This is reality, if your kids want a quality of life for all their efforts and there aren’t enough houses being built to accommodate the working population, its quite possible their only option to hope for a social house – that or they live with you forever (which is ok if you and they don’t mind that).  Take this bit of advice;



Sunny said:


> There is no shame with social welfare or benefits but lets not pretend that people who receive benefits like social housing....are paying the same as everyone else.



except I'm sure if your kids avail of social housing they will be paying in their taxes and rent...just like other working people in social housing.



seamless said:


> Given the level and increasing rate of price rises of housing and given that *one* of the criteria for selection appears to be time elapsed, is it not a useful hedge for ones' children ?



Exactly, being saying this since page 1



TheBigShort said:


> I do agree however, that the model in place excludes a lot of working people from owning their own home by virtue of the market prices while simultaneously barring them from social housing by virtue of their income levels.





TheBigShort said:


> To me it is simple, we need to build more housing, not only for the poorest but for working people too


----------



## TheBigShort

You are a peculiar sort Sunny



Sunny said:


> Well, show me where I used any word like evict or forcibly remove or anything similar. One example???



You haven't said it directly, nor has anyone else. But inferred in the expectation that people should 'move on' was that the current system of allowing people to move on, willingly, is insufficient. By that I understood we were talking about compulsory moves (or to put it another way - eviction). I think it was obvious that I was setting out my stall against compulsory evictions from very early on. If you, or anybody else never intended a policy of compulsory evictions why allow this to go on so long?

From page 3



TheBigShort said:


> God forbid someone from a socially disadvantaged area living in a social house actually gets ahead in life with an education and career. We couldnt tolerate them occupying a social house - *evict them*, social housing is only for the perpetual poor, we cant have them climbing the ladder lest they contribute back in taxes and give their deprived areas a good name.



But if you are confirming that eviction, or rather compulsion to move, is not your agenda ( and I accept that you do) then I gladly welcome that view. We may, if you choose, discuss other policies set in different countries to resolve their similar problems - including the UK bedroom tax, that has mixed results.

In the meantime, and what  I find peculiar about you, is here is a list of my immediate responses to your quotes from the first few pages of this topic.



TheBigShort said:


> First up, I apologise unreservedly for any insinuation on my part that you are making anything up. That was not my intention, rather that in the absence of finer detail its possible that all is not what it seems.
> Looking at my previous post I can understand how it could be construed as questioning your character - bad phrasing on my part.





TheBigShort said:


> Thanks for clearing that up.





TheBigShort said:


> I don't disagree that having social housing agencies competing against each other is a bad thing.





TheBigShort said:


> I'm not disagreeing with you.





TheBigShort said:


> Why cant we provide more housing for working people who pay taxes but are being fleeced in private rental accomodation who cannot plausibly save for a place of their own?





TheBigShort said:


> I totally agree - but what is your proposal to solve the problem?





TheBigShort said:


> It was suggested that after '5yrs' anybody who was not mentally or physically impaired should be able to put a roof over their heads.
> This is of course nonsense. Its as almost if your OP has been passed by.





TheBigShort said:


> I am agreeable with you on these two points.





TheBigShort said:


> I have every sympathy for first-time buyers trying to buy a home. I have every sympathy for working professionals who are being fleeced with extortionate rents just so that they can live within a reasonable distance within their employment for which they have obtained through hard study and work.





TheBigShort said:


> My proposal is that the State adopts a policy of building more social housing, not only for the poorest and most in need, but the working population that are being fleeced through rocketing house prices (again) and exorbitant rents



Funnily, for the most part I was in agreement with you - for some reason however you did not appear to pick up on that? As such, I held the view that were simply being coy about your real intentions.
I do have some proposals that I think may go towards resolving the housing crisis, but probably best for another thread at this point.

* Oh, typo on my part - Cabra 5,000 houses!


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> I actually was in favour of the bedroom tax model that the UK introduced. I thought it was a very progressive method similar to our tax system.



I would be opposed to it as it doesnt account for a persons means to pay, if they cant pay their benefits are cut.
Ive an idea, instead of penalising people for having the audacity to raise a family and who have now flown the nest (working, contributing to the economy, keeping property prices, pension funds ticking over) leaving a spare room or two. Why not offer a tax credit or rebate if they voluntarily move into a more suitable location?
Moving can be disruptive and costly, but at least with a tax credit it softens the financial upheaval. Not only that, people can move at a time of their own choosing - meaning they are more likely to be happier with the outcome (or at least only themselves to blame if the move turns sour for whatever reason).
That way the State can dismantle the Ministry of Housing Assessment and the 5yr Plan as advocated here. Stop interfering directly in peoples lives in such an authoritarian manner.
If people choose not to avail of the tax rebate, it probably indicates other extenuating circumstances that Big Brother could not possibly be aware of.
People could live in peace, as they see fit.


----------



## Delboy

seamless said:


> This discussion has raised an interesting question (for me).
> *Should I as a matter of course be encouraging my children to register with the social housing services of our local authority as a life strategy on turning 18* ?
> Given the level and increasing rate of price rises of housing and given that *one* of the criteria for selection appears to be time elapsed, is it not a useful hedge for ones' children ?
> I just had a look at some of the social housing properties available from DLR CC and some are in very nice locations indeed !
> [broken link removed]


I would seriously consider it. Given the limits on income, the encroachment of the gig economy/contract work and the cost of housing...it's an insurance policy.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Your inherent prejudice is rising to the fore again Purple, just because they come from council estates does not make mean they are any more riff-raff than you.


I'm originally from a similar area. I think your comment says more about your inherent prejudice than mine. Inverted snobbery is the worst kind. 



Delboy said:


> I would seriously consider it. Given the limits on income, the encroachment of the gig economy/contract work and the cost of housing...it's an insurance policy.


Sure, but why would anyone bother paying for their own house when they can just get someone else to pay for it?


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> Oh and show me where there was 15,000 social or council houses in Cabra? Considering the population of cabra must be no more than 30,000 I would imagine, I would be very interested.....





TheBigShort said:


> * Oh, typo on my part - Cabra 5,000 houses!


The population of Cabra is around 22,000. Of the many people I know in Carba most of them own their own home so if there's 5000 council houses there there must be a lot of empty rooms!

I know that people don't like to acknowledge that they are getting hand-outs from their fellow citizens, especially if they are doing okay financially but if you live in a council house then that's exactly what you are getting. What taxes you pay outside of that are irrelevant. 

Just say thanks and acknowledge that you are just playing the system and not breaking any rules.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> The population of Cabra is around 22,000. Of the many people I know in Carba most of them own their own home so if there's 5000 council houses there there must be a lot of empty rooms!
> 
> I know that people don't like to acknowledge that they are getting hand-outs from their fellow citizens, especially if they are doing okay financially but if you live in a council house then that's exactly what you are getting. What taxes you pay outside of that are irrelevant.
> 
> Just say thanks and acknowledge that you are just playing the system and not breaking any rules.



As my previous comment stated, many of the people I know in Cabra, grew up, got themselves jobs and bought private property – _including in Cabra.
_
Its not a handout, it’s a public service. No different to putting your kids through the state school system, regardless of your income. No different receiving healthcare through the public system, regardless of your income. No different to availing of subsidised public transport, regardless of your income. No different to availing of all other public services from museums and art galleries, public playing pitches for sports clubs, to the justice and law & order services, to the emergency services…housing is simply a public need for everybody.

Its hard to know who you consider playing the system – the social houses tenants that are not working, or the ones who do work with low incomes unable to afford a place of their own? Or it is some cohort of tenants with decent incomes (paying taxes, paying rents) that can well afford a place of their own but choose to live in social housing?

You asked me to be more constructive.
Here is some data from CSO;
including out of total housing stock of 2m, 40% (740,000) are underoccupied. 10% are over occupied. LA housing stock is circa 145,000.

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp1hii/cp1hii/
http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp1hii/cp1hii/vac/
http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp1hii/cp1hii/od/
http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp1hii/cp1hii/od/


This is Dublin City Council guidelines on the letting of Council Housing Accommodation

http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/Housing/Home/Documents/HousingAllocationsScheme2013.pdf


_Including this guideline for occupants with spare capacity;
_
*Tenants Surrendering Larger Accommodation in High Demand Areas*
_
Tenants prepared to surrender high demand accommodation which is larger than their needs._

Again, all voluntary, no evictions.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Its not a handout, it’s a public service. No different to putting your kids through the state school system, regardless of your income. No different receiving healthcare through the public system, regardless of your income. No different to availing of subsidised public transport, regardless of your income. No different to availing of all other public services from museums and art galleries, public playing pitches for sports clubs, to the justice and law & order services, to the emergency services…housing is simply a public need for everybody.


I think that's the nub of it; I fundamentally disagree that giving an adult a house for life is the same thing as providing funding to keep a child in school or a to keep a museum open. 
In the same way I support subsidised public transport (within reason) but I don't think the State should give people cars.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I think that's the nub of it; I fundamentally disagree that giving an adult a house for life is the same thing as providing funding to keep a child in school or a to keep a museum open.
> In the same way I support subsidised public transport (within reason) but I don't think the State should give people cars.



You are of course entitled to that view - but what would you propose?


----------



## Seagull

TheBigShort said:


> You are of course entitled to that view - but what would you propose?



What just about everyone on this thread bar yourself is arguing - That people recognise that council/social housing is not supposed to be your permanent home. It should be a temporary measure that allows you to get yourself sorted. Once you are able to, you should be moving on and supporting yourself.


----------



## Purple

Seagull said:


> What just about everyone on this thread bar yourself is arguing - That people recognise that council/social housing is not supposed to be your permanent home. It should be a temporary measure that allows you to get yourself sorted. Once you are able to, you should be moving on and supporting yourself.


And if you are not able, despite your best efforts, then stay where you are... and if you have the means to provide your own housing then you should do so in order to free us the house and so enable the State to provide housing for another who can't provide it for themselves.

People who can't afford healthcare get a medical card but when they can afford to provide it they lose their medical card.

People with no job get the dole but then they get a job they no longer get the dole.

People who can't afford a home get one provided for them but when they can afford it they continue to have that home provided for them.


----------



## TheBigShort

Seagull said:


> That people recognise that council/social housing is not supposed to be your permanent home. It should be a temporary measure that allows you to get yourself sorted. Once you are able to, you should be moving on and supporting yourself.



Says who? Back it up with some facts, links, documents...anything, at this point, that says social housing is only supposed to be a temporary measure.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Says who? Back it up with some facts, links, documents...anything, at this point, that says social housing is only supposed to be a temporary measure.


This is a discussion forum where people give their opinion. The current pseudo-socialist policy of not allocating resources on an ongoing needs basis is the topic of this thread and many posters, including me, are offering their opinion that the current policy is wasteful, socially unjust and socially damaging. That's all.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> This is a discussion forum where people give their opinion. The current pseudo-socialist policy of not allocating resources on an ongoing needs basis is the topic of this thread and many posters, including me, are offering their opinion that the current policy is wasteful, socially unjust and socially damaging. That's all.



As I said before;



TheBigShort said:


> You are of course entitled to that view




The point is, we can all argue the day and night as to what should or shouldn’t be – with a plethora of different issues. But at some point, when trying to figure out why things aren’t as they “should be” it might be worthwhile doing some background on the issue.

Housing is a complex issue. It would be wonderful if we could neatly pack up families and individuals move them around as required – but it is not realistic, and since housing policy dates back before the foundation of the state, that it is subject today to EU directives and policy

http://www.housingeurope.eu/

that there is a vast, vast amount of study and research and policy implementation, all subject to innumerable and variable factors, not least budgetary requirements, that the notion of simplifying by what “should be” and moving people on “ when they sort themselves out” goes nowhere to resolving the current housing crisis in Ireland.

If he State requires people to move, it should incentivise them not coerce or compel them. A tax rebate or tax credit to cover the costs of moving into more suitable accommodation might be a start?

A house building program, using borrowed funds if need be, might also help – it might be worth pointing out that given the high cost of private ownership and rental, that this acts as a barrier to foreign investment and talent setting up in this country. Borrowing today, to accommodate the future might be a worthwhile option.

Aside from that, it has already been shown to you that social housing tenants already pay a rent based on their income. They also pay tax on that income, which goes no more, no less, to the provision of that housing too.

It has also already been shown to you that in LA housing, the average incomes are not much above minimum wage (with some 60% of that made up of welfare benefits), so the reality of ‘sorting themselves out’ can be somewhat a challenge if the household consists of elderly or disabled, or people with poor education.

I could go on, but the magic cohort of high income earners “who could well afford to buy” but choose to continue living in social housing is simply not there. And of the rare incidences where it does happen, ‘moving on’ will make very little difference to the housing crisis which consists of FTB’s who also want to buy but are unable to get in on the market.


----------



## Purple

I'm certainly not proposing tearing the whole thing down, just tweaking it so that there is a greater actual and perceived fairness. That legitimises the system we pay into and many gain from. The statistics behind the stories we hear about homeless families are a tiny proportion of those in need of social housing; The State provides about 134,000 families with social housing, directly (107,000 units) of through the private rental sector(27,000 units). There are 1,700 homeless families. That means that we only need to make 1.27% of the current stock available in order to solve the immediate problem. If we can make 5% available then we will free up 6000 homes for first time buyers and the so-called hidden homeless.
There are too many housing associations with too few houses which leads to a duplication of services and waste. There are lots of issues and factors which contribute to the housing crisis and the efficient and fair management of the State's housing stock should be of concern to everyone who is concerned about this issue.


----------

