Do children inherit their parent's social housing?

[TheBigShort]

We will have to change legislation before we can change policy but in the interests of a socially just society we should do so.

Go ahead, as long as the legislation is 'socially just', no problem there.

It is damaging to the fabric of society to see people exploiting their fellow citizens like that.

Who is exploiting who? If there is no suitable alternative accommodation, you can hardly expect someone to be moved to unsuitable alternative accommodation?

I'm glad to see that you agree that the "In all cases there must be no suitable alternative accommodation available" clause is nonsense

I never agreed any such thing.

and, as Brendan and others have pointed out, it is the norm for people to inherit their parents social house.

I would say the norm is that people succeed tenancy of the property where there is no suitable alternative accommodation.

 

[Purple]

Who is exploiting who?

The person living in a house that is bigger than they need, which is being provided by their fellow citizens, when they can afford to buy or rent their own home; that is the person doing the exploiting.

I never agreed any such thing.

I would say the norm is that people succeed tenancy of the property where there is no suitable alternative accommodation.

Are you familiar with the concept of the "Reasonable Person" in law? We're looking for the same standard in this scenario.

If there is no suitable alternative accommodation, you can hardly expect someone to be moved to unsuitable alternative accommodation?

Are you familiar with the concept of the "Reasonable Person" in law? We're looking for the same standard in this scenario.

Go ahead, as long as the legislation is 'socially just', no problem there.

Are you familiar with the concept of the "Reasonable Person" in law? We're looking for the same standard in this scenario.

 

[TheBigShort]

The person living in a house that is bigger than they need, which is being provided by their fellow citizens, when they can afford to buy or rent their own home; that is the person doing the exploiting.

We are talking about tenants of LA housing, right?
The tendency of which is that they come from and live in socially disadvantaged areas, low to average incomes (at best), lack of educational facilities and who are stuck in cyclical poverty traps reliant on welfare dependency?

Or are we talking about swatehes of well-educated, highly trained, high income earners who, as high paid professionals having broken through the cycle of poverty and disadvantage, deliberately choose to continue to occupy city centre flats that have crime and drug problems etc?

How many are we actually talking about here? And in the context of resolving the housing crisis, what impact will shifting these people out have?

 

[TheBigShort]

Are you familiar with the concept of the "Reasonable Person" in law?

Enlighten me.

 

[Purple]

How many are we actually talking about here? And in the context of resolving the housing crisis, what impact will shifting these people out have?

I have, on more than one occasion, pointed out that there only needs to be a small improvement in the utilisation of our current social housing stock to make big inroads into the homelessness problem.
If I lived in a social housing unit in Dalkey or just off St. Stephen's Green in Dublin why on earth would I ever move out?
I used to live near Christchurch in Dublin. The Iveagh Buildings behind my apartment were far bigger and better than my home. If I lived there why would I ever move out? I work with lots of guys from Cabra. They generally stay in the area no matter what they earn. Why would they move out of their council houses? Greenhills is the same, as are many parts of Tallaght. I can't speak for other areas but I'm sure they are not unique.

 

[Purple]

Enlighten me.

See here.

 

[dub_nerd]

If I lived in a social housing unit in Dalkey or just off St. Stephen's Green in Dublin why on earth would I ever move out?.

I grew up in social housing in Dalkey. My parents were poor as church mice, and economic conditions were grim for much of my upbringing. However, all the children of the family were financially very successful (eventually). The purchase of the family home from the council for a knock-down price in the early 1980s -- while brilliant for us , and for my Dad in retirement -- was probably a bonus that we shouldn't have had, and could have helped someone else in more straitened circumstances. Now these ex-corpo houses sell for stupid money and make a massive difference between working to pay the rent and considerable financial comfort.

 

[TheBigShort]

I have, on more than one occasion, pointed out that there only needs to be a small improvement in the utilisation of our current social housing stock to make big inroads into the homelessness problem.

Yes, but the question was how many high income earners are occupying social housing are we talking about here? And in the context of resolving the housing crisis, what impact will shifting these people out have?

Here is stat that was provide in another thread from CSO;

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.

It indicates to me low-levels of income are broadly the norm. Im sure there are exceptions, but again, how many and what impact will shifting these people out have on the housing and homeless crisis?

If I lived in a social housing unit in Dalkey or just off St. Stephen's Green in Dublin why on earth would I ever move out?

I don’t know, why on earth would you ever move out?

I used to live near Christchurch in Dublin. The Iveagh Buildings behind my apartment were far bigger and better than my home. If I lived there why would I ever move out?

I don’t know? Why would you, or anybody ever move out of any place that they live?

I work with lots of guys from Cabra. They generally stay in the area no matter what they earn. Why would they move out of their council houses?

I don’t know? Why does anybody ever move out of their homes?

See here.

All very interesting, but how it relates to this discussion is wide open to interpretation.

 

[TheBigShort]

I grew up in social housing in Dalkey. My parents were poor as church mice, and economic conditions were grim for much of my upbringing. However, all the children of the family were financially very successful (eventually). The purchase of the family home from the council for a knock-down price in the early 1980s -- while brilliant for us , and for my Dad in retirement -- was probably a bonus that we shouldn't have had, and could have helped someone else in more straitened circumstances. Now these ex-corpo houses sell for stupid money and make a massive difference between working to pay the rent and considerable financial comfort.

I totally agree that housing that is provided for those less well-off should not be sold to private profiteers so that they can extract extortionate rents for ordinary working people who otherwise could have utilized the house and at least lived in relative financial comfort.
But it is interesting to note that even though you grew up in social housing, none of you 'inherited' the house for life. Instead, and I'm just assuming here, that upon your financial success that you left home and bought your own place.
I was under the impression that folk like you (as in tenants of poor economic background) stayed in the social housing for life, regardless of how much income you earned?

 

[Purple]

I totally agree that housing that is provided for those less well-off should not be sold to private profiteers so that they can extract extortionate rents for ordinary working people who otherwise could have utilized the house and at least lived in relative financial comfort.

So if the tenant buys the house and later buys another house to live in and rents out the old house is that former tenant no longer one the the "ordinary working people" but rather a "private profiteers" extracting "extortionate rents"?

But it is interesting to note that even though you grew up in social housing, none of you 'inherited' the house for life. Instead, and I'm just assuming here, that upon your financial success that you left home and bought your own place. I was under the impression that folk like you (as in tenants of poor economic background) stayed in the social housing for life, regardless of how much income you earned.

He pointed out that his father bought the house at a significant discount. That means that the asset is no longer in private ownership. Did you miss that bit?
Be careful dub_nerd, if you ever rent out your father's house you'll stop being an ordinary working person (I presume it's a good and virtuous thing to be part of that group) and become a private profiteer (they must be the bad guys).
Given you background you are already dangerously close to being part of the intelligentsia and so may already be a class trator (that's another word for someone who betters themself). When the revolution comes you may well be in the firing line.

My landlord is in the same boat; humble background but he's done well for himself by careful saving and hard work. Both he and I thought he provided a social good by renting a house to me and providing a home for me and my children. I must let him know that he's a private profiteer and generally a bad sort.

 

[TheBigShort]

So if the tenant buys the house and later buys another house to live in and rents out the old house is that former tenant no longer one the the "ordinary working people" but rather a "private profiteers" extracting "extortionate rents"?

No.

He pointed out that his father bought the house at a significant discount. That means that the asset is no longer in private ownership. Did you miss that bit?

No, I got that bit. I was just linking his comment with the question in the title of thread. In his case, obviously not - did you miss that bit?

 

[The Horseman]

No.

So what is he in your eyes?

 

[dub_nerd]

So what is he in your eyes?

I shudder to think. Six of us now own nine houses between us, but only one of those is making filthy lucre from rental.

 

[Purple]

I shudder to think. Six of us now own nine houses between us, but only one of those is making filthy lucre from rental.

You may laugh now but when the revolution comes...
Just keep a red armband in your pocket at all times, that's my advice.

 

[TheBigShort]

Im not sure what the last few comments are about or why im being quoted? Just to re-cap on what was said previously.

The purchase of the family home from the council for a knock-down price in the early 1980s -- while brilliant for us , and for my Dad in retirement -- was probably a bonus that we shouldn't have had, and could have helped someone else in more straitened circumstances.

Perhaps I misinterpreted, but I took from the above comment that Dub_nerd considers, that while beneficial to his family, that social housing should not be sold to tenants at 'knock-down' prices only for the beneficiaries to profit later?
Instead social housing should remain in public ownership for the benefit of those who cannot afford to buy or rent in the private market?
Correct me if im wrong.

Now these ex-corpo houses sell for stupid money

Again, just my interpretation, but 'stupid money' sounds like a euphemism for profiteering? And if my interpretation of the quote is correct, then the Dub_nerd is against the profiteering of social housing that were sold at 'knock-down' prices to tenants?

But hey, that is just my interpretation.
But more interestingly, the Dub_nerds post points to a reality that where people who do occupy social housing and progress in their careers/lives to earn good incomes, that in general they do vacate social housing and do buy for themselves.
Not only that, they didnt 'inherit' the house, instead the house was bought and sold for profit (im assuming his father then had to buy/rent in the private market)?
Which begs the question, if children 'inherit' their parents social housing, why would they buy the house if the option to live in it for a lifetime is there and their kids will inherit it?

 

[Sunny]

Which begs the question, if children 'inherit' their parents social housing, why would they buy the house if the option to live in it for a lifetime is there and their kids will inherit it?

You mean you need to ask why anyone would buy a house at a deep discount to market value as has happened in the past? You really need to ask that question??? Question you really need to ask is why people who can afford to buy the house even at a deep discount are in LA housing and not privately renting or buying like the majority of people......

 

[TheBigShort]

You mean you need to ask why anyone would buy a house at a deep discount to market value as has happened in the past? You really need to ask that question???

No I don't need to ask it, its obvious. But I dont think others up above actually understand what it is they are saying sometimes.

Question you really need to ask is why people who can afford to buy the house even at a deep discount are in LA housing and not privately renting or buying like the majority of people......

Case in point .

 

[Purple]

Im not sure what the last few comments are about or why im being quoted? Just to re-cap on what was said previously.



Perhaps I misinterpreted, but I took from the above comment that Dub_nerd considers, that while beneficial to his family, that social housing should not be sold to tenants at 'knock-down' prices only for the beneficiaries to profit later?
Instead social housing should remain in public ownership for the benefit of those who cannot afford to buy or rent in the private market?
Correct me if im wrong.



Again, just my interpretation, but 'stupid money' sounds like a euphemism for profiteering? And if my interpretation of the quote is correct, then the Dub_nerd is against the profiteering of social housing that were sold at 'knock-down' prices to tenants?

But hey, that is just my interpretation.
But more interestingly, the Dub_nerds post points to a reality that where people who do occupy social housing and progress in their careers/lives to earn good incomes, that in general they do vacate social housing and do buy for themselves.
Not only that, they didnt 'inherit' the house, instead the house was bought and sold for profit (im assuming his father then had to buy/rent in the private market)?
Which begs the question, if children 'inherit' their parents social housing, why would they buy the house if the option to live in it for a lifetime is there and their kids will inherit it?

Everyone posting, with the exception of you it seems, agreed with that summation ages ago. If you can't see why such a setup makes the homelessness problem worse then there's not much point in continuing to talk about it.

 

[TheBigShort]

Everyone posting, with the exception of you it seems, agreed with that summation ages ago. If you can't see why such a setup makes the homelessness problem worse then there's not much point in continuing to talk about it.

Your whole mantra is about getting those who occupy social housing but who can well afford to buy/rent their own housing that they should vacate the social housing.
Ive been saying you cannot compel people to leave in the absence of alternative suitable accommodation.

High income earners do not occupy social housing. Im sure there are some exceptions, but how many are we actually talking about? And compelling them to move will have what impact?

Perhaps you might actually answer these questions directly?

 

[Purple]

Your whole mantra is about getting those who occupy social housing but who can well afford to buy/rent their own housing that they should vacate the social housing.

Correct. Do you agree in principle that this should be so?

Ive been saying you cannot compel people to leave in the absence of alternative suitable accommodation.

Does that mean nobody should ever leave a any house in the absence of suitable accommodation? If not then why should Social Housing Tenants be different?

High income earners do not occupy social housing.

Yes they do.

Im sure there are some exceptions,

Exactly.

but how many are we actually talking about?

I don't know but given that there are 150,000 social housing units in the country even if it's 2 in every 1000 tenants that would free up 300 houses, house 300 homeless families and save the State over a €100,000,000 in houses that they would not have to build. Think of all the pay rises they could give to Public Servants with that money!

And compelling them to move will have what impact?

There will be the same amount of people in social housing but more people in social housing that actually need it. It would also make the system fairer and therefore more legitimate to the public at large.

Perhaps you might actually answer these questions directly?

Done.

Now answer this; do you think it is fair that high earners should occupy social housing while poor families are homeless?