2,064 three bed council houses in Dublin with only one occupant!

One of my social welfare tenants moved out, he moved into a friends two bed apartment, which he got as he was so long on the housing list. My tenant moved in to mind it as the 'owner ' was heading off to South Africa for a year.
 
Bronte said:
One of my social welfare tenants moved out, he moved into a friends two bed apartment, which he got as he was so long on the housing list. My tenant moved in to mind it as the 'owner ' was heading off to South Africa for a year.
Click to expand...

God forbid we interfere with such a system!
 
Bronte said:
One of my social welfare tenants moved out, he moved into a friends two bed apartment, which he got as he was so long on the housing list. My tenant moved in to mind it as the 'owner ' was heading off to South Africa for a year.
Click to expand...
You're a fascist, that's your problem. Isn't that right Fintan O'Toole?
 
I just watched Karl Deeter arguing this with Brid Smith on TV3 AM this morning.

She said she had loads of constituents who would trade down if there were somewhere "safe, secure and cozy in their locality".

Personally, I don't think that people living on their own in three bed houses should be allowed to be so choosy as private renters and private owners can't.

But let's just take her positions as reasonable.

Then we should completely stop building anything other than one bed apartments in Dublin until we have built enough to move these 2,000 people into them. That means we would get 2,000 two bed, three bed and four bed houses for the price of 2,000 two bed apartments.

Brendan
 
Is it possible there's are a hell of a lot of council tenants sub-letting their houses/apartments? Lone tenant has a 3bd house but let 2 rooms to others, same with apartments. I'd be amazed if it's not happening on a large scale in the bigger towns and cities because it is certainly happening everywhere else and a blind eye seems to be the councils attitude. Nice earner too, tax free.
 
Of course it's happening, the rent a room relief is very appealing.

A UDC bought my first house, a 3 bed, in 1995 at a cost of around €50k, I was glad to get it, what followed....

Family moved in, Council upgraded Windows from alum single glazed which I installed ( all the rage at the time ) to pvc double, changed the front door, no idea about internal upgrades.

A couple of years pass by and I see the house on the property price register sold at a massive discount to market.

I moaned about it on AAM at the time I saw it as I do not understand the logic in arms of the State acquiring properties to house people requiring housing only to gift them to their tenants at less then market short years later, how's about gift tax for the purchasers, yeah right, don't get me started.

Tis only the mugs get mortgages on their own homes.
 
Not going to work no point in building 2000 two bed apartments for people who already have a house We already seen how this will play out down in Tipperary,

Dublin need to come up with a system to build homes for the increasing number of people who work to supply it with the services required on the average Industrial wage,

We need to get started on building a system to supply these people with homes and start suggesting options that we know will work ,

Most of the people who are stopping this from happening live in big houses with lots of spare bedrooms Safe secure and cozy who spend there time stopping the required expansion in building in Dublin at present,
 
Last edited:
Most of the people who are stopping this from happening live in big houses with lots of spare bedrooms Safe secure and cozy who spend there time stopping the required expansion in building in Dublin at present,[/QUOTE]

Please elaborate, any builder as we all know needs a large site to build multi family homes or apartments to get scale, the land area has to be suitable, pass planning considerations and tends to be at a premium decided by the market not by Brian and Doris now retired after a family reared and a lifetimes contribution to the system in their cozy 4 bed in Dublin 6.
 
Palerider said:
not by Brian and Doris now retired after a family reared and a lifetimes contribution to the system in their cozy 4 bed in Dublin 6
Click to expand...
I agree but if Brian and Doris had 3 or 4 kids and an income on the upper end of average then there's a good chance that they were never net contributors to the system and now receive their State pension which they may have contributed to but certainly haven't paid for so, in effect, they are now living off the taxes their grandchildren pay.
Let us not pretend that the older generation somehow supported themselves while the millenials are all infantilised freeloaders. The opposite it closer to the truth.
 

Ah here !!, If any citizen has the required number of paid contributions then they have met all conditions and have paid for their pension, what other measurement is equitable, Brian and Doris with their 2/3/4 kids are the averages joes, we need their kids to contribute as employees for the State to survive into the future, it is the wheel of life, we're all on it.

Some people advocate for the averages joes who have contributed into their retirement age to downsize from suburbia and clear the site for some magic multi family homes to be created, not me, we still have some property rights left.
 
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just pointing out that this is the best time ever to be retired; they have a better pension than their parents and a far better one than their children or grandchildren will ever have. They have contributed to their pension but come nowhere near paying for it and as a cohort they are no harder working then their children.

My point is simply that pensioners should be grateful for those younger people who are carrying them and apologetic for the utter mess their generation made of running the country. Thankfully our children, these millennials, are harder working, more honest and more tolerant than my generation (40's and 50's) and by the same measures my generation is better than those who are now retired.

We should all be apologising to those starting out for the homelessness crisis which we caused by tolerating and participating in corruption, incompetence and and selfishness and then selling their future down the river to bail ourselves out when things came crashing down instead of taking our medicine.
 
Come off it! Of course they contributed. Data on historic tax contributions from Revenue https://revenue.ie/en/corporate/information-about-revenue/statistics/receipts/receipts-taxhead.aspx show that personal income tax (i.e. PAYE) is an average of 24% of total tax revenues. (It's more if you include USC). Only VAT contributes more. And it was more, i.e. up to 32% of all revenues in the 1990s. So, as PAYE taxpayers, Brian and Doris contributed more to tax revenues than all other types of taxation, except for VAT. And Brian and Doris don't have to be high earners. In Ireland at the average wage PAYE taxpayers pay income tax at the higher band.
 
Last edited:
Because of the very high allowances we have only the top 30% of earners are net contributors.
Look at your own IBEC link, it shows that the rich pay a massively disproportionate amount of tax. Then look at PRSI contributions, allowing for the fact that PRSI covers far more than pensions, and calculate what sort of pension fund you'd need to have to pay for the OAP. Unless they paid about €150 a week in PRSI then they didn't fund their own State pension.
 


I read your posts and was fuming, absolutely angry, but then had a think about it, then a really good think again about what you said. Know something? Hate to say it, but you're damn right and my wife and myself are about to enter the retired section of society, me from the private sector, she from the public sector, and we'll do bloody well from the next 20 or so years if we get that far. Yes we worked, paid into what was required but should get back multiples of that figure. Then again, as a thank you to the young people you mention as paying for us today, our generation will probably be leaving them quite a bit of wealth which we were never left. So, I guess it's a bit like the saying, what comes around goes around. Swings and roundabouts and all that mumbo-jumbo.
 
Getting back to the topic and off the pensions question.

I'd agree with the removal of the discounted sales from social housing and the 'inheritance' of a tenancy. Both are inherently inequitable.

I would not agree with shifting people around like pawns on a chess board. The one thing you can be certain of is that elderly tenants will die, so the 'problem' is self-limiting - provided you remove the 'tenancy inheritance'.

I believe we should look at the Singapore model for house purchase where employees are allowed to take a lump sum from their pension (or mandatory savings scheme), provided it is used towards the purchase of a home. Homes (known as Utility Flats) were built in the thousands and made available to purchase. Although it's not all a garden of roses, as a solution to the then housing crisis, it was considered hugely successful.
 
Thirsty said:
I would not agree with shifting people around like pawns on a chess board. The one thing you can be certain of is that elderly tenants will die, so the 'problem' is self-limiting - provided you remove the 'tenancy inheritance'.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is talking about moving them around like pawns on a chessboard.
Limited term tenancies after which time needs are assessed. That's what people are talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register