Government to begin paying older people to downsize

Yer Man in Co Laois to me appears (to me at least) to be the most stupid decision maker in the history of the state. He sold his best asset a 3 bedroom house to buy a 1 bedroom maisonette. He had to pay costs, legal fees etc not to mention his decluttering.

All he had to do is rent out his 3 bedroom house and rent a 1 bedroom maisonette himself. He would have had a decent income from the house and it would remain a good asset for him providing an income.

A 3 bedroom house can be let out anytime and an income gained. He would have been able to move to Spain for several months in retirement and had a greater income from his house than the rent he would pay in Spain.

. . . and he feels great about it . . .
 
Delboy said:
Everyone working pays taxes, whether in social housing or private. Bringing that into the discussion on LA rents doesn't wash
Click to expand...

I didn't bring it into the discussion. I was responding to a previous comment by another poster that stated that people were afforded essentially free houses courtesy of taxpayers.
I merely pointed out, as you have, that tenants of social housing work and pay taxes too. So not 'essentially free' houses then. :)
 
Leper said:
Yer Man in Co Laois to me appears (to me at least) to be the most stupid decision maker in the history of the state. He sold his best asset a 3 bedroom house to buy a 1 bedroom maisonette. He had to pay costs, legal fees etc not to mention his decluttering.

All he had to do is rent out his 3 bedroom house and rent a 1 bedroom maisonette himself. He would have had a decent income from the house and it would remain a good asset for him providing an income.

A 3 bedroom house can be let out anytime and an income gained. He would have been able to move to Spain for several months in retirement and had a greater income from his house than the rent he would pay in Spain.

. . . and he feels great about it . . .
Click to expand...
It was social housing so don't think a sale was involved
 
Folsom said:
I didn't bring it into the discussion. I was responding to a previous comment by another poster that stated that people were afforded essentially free houses courtesy of taxpayers.
I merely pointed out, as you have, that tenants of social housing work and pay taxes too. So not 'essentially free' houses then. :)
Click to expand...
That makes no sense whatsoever
 
Leper said:
Yer Man in Co Laois to me appears (to me at least) to be the most stupid decision maker in the history of the state. He sold his best asset a 3 bedroom house to buy a 1 bedroom maisonette. He had to pay costs, legal fees etc not to mention his decluttering.

All he had to do is rent out his 3 bedroom house and rent a 1 bedroom maisonette himself. He would have had a decent income from the house and it would remain a good asset for him providing an income.

A 3 bedroom house can be let out anytime and an income gained. He would have been able to move to Spain for several months in retirement and had a greater income from his house than the rent he would pay in Spain.

. . . and he feels great about it . . .
Click to expand...
Most stupid decision makers are the people who vote in so many FF/FG far left-wing TDs,under false pretenses and fail to notice the out come of there actions,
The vibes I am getting expect more waste next time, There actions have forced the likes of paul Murphy and co to move to the right,
 
Last edited:
The Housing Options Policy Statement was published yesterday and is linked here: https://health.gov.ie/wp-content/up...nsforanAgeingPopulationEng_Web_compressed.pdf .

From a quick scan the action proposals are still quite vague and I wouldn't expect anything concrete very soon. They are establishing an "implementation group" so maybe they will make the "actions" more concrete.

There is some interestion data in the report to back the need for action, eg,

"These are based on new ESRI projections for population growth, the first projections to be published based on the 2016 Census. According to the report, titled Projections of Demand for Healthcare in Ireland, 2015-2030,


Ireland’s population is set to increase by between 640,000 and 1.1 million people in the next decade-and-a-half. Those aged 65 and over will number one in six of the population by 2030 while the number of people aged over 85 will double. Demand for health and social care will jump across the board as a result.


The population of people aged 65 and over is expected to increase by a third over the next 8 years, and to double over the next 25 years.


Thus the demand for ageing in place services and the demand for appropriate housing, including housing with support, for older people can be expected to increase correspondingly."
 
Page 19 - Housing for Older People

"Based on research findings that older people want to stay in their own homes or communities for as long as possible, the report shows that many older people can live satisfactorily in their own home."

I dont know how this fits with proposals to downsize? If people, understandably, want to stay in their own homes, then that is alot of underoccupied housing.
Are there figures to the current extent of under-occupation in the country at the moment?
 
Folsom said:
I dont know how this fits with proposals to downsize?
Click to expand...

Folsom, you seem to be fixed on the proposals as some way to pressurise people to downsize. The proposals are in relation to housing and other supports for older people. Some people will want to downsize, some people may want to if there is something suitable/attractive to them locally, some people may consider downsizing if they get support to do so, some people will prefer to stay in place and adapt, as necessary.

If some people downsize and put their larger house on the market that is a bonus.
 
Early Riser said:
you seem to be fixed on the proposals as some way to pressurise people to downsize.
Click to expand...

???...not at all. Im just commenting in a topic about downsizing. Using the report that you have linked, about housing and other supports, I noted a paragraph that suggests 'downsizing' for elderly people, if it is to be promoted or measures adopted to direct it, is more complicated than simply counting bedrooms and offering a few grand to move.
People, and elderly people in particular, need security and familiarity with locality and locals. Such ties will often hold more value to the person than the promise of €€€'s.

Early Riser said:
Some people will want to downsize, some people may want to if there is something suitable/attractive to them locally, some people may consider downsizing if they get support to do so, some people will prefer to stay in place and adapt, as necessary.
Click to expand...

All of that is true to an extent. But based on the paragraph I quoted from the report you uploaded, when it comes to elderly people it is a somewhat complex issue.
If this topic is about downsizing to assist with the housing shortage, then this is a reasonable factor to consider.
 
Folsom said:
???...social housing tenants pay taxes....thus contributing to the cost of social housing provision. :)
Click to expand...
I very much doubt that social housing tenants are net contributors to the exchequer, even before the cpst of the provision of their social housing is taken into account. I'm not saying that they shouldn't get them, far from it, but the idea that they are contributing to the house which is provided for them is suspect to say the least.
 
Purple said:
I very much doubt that social housing tenants are net contributors to the exchequer, even before the cpst of the provision of their social housing is taken into account. I'm not saying that they shouldn't get them, far from it, but the idea that they are contributing to the house which is provided for them is suspect to say the least.
Click to expand...

If they are working and paying their share of taxes, then they are contributing no more, no less than any other taxpayers.
 
RETIRED2017 said:
It is when you get back more in benefit than you pay in income tax ,

It is better known By (Chip On Your Shoulder Tax);)
Click to expand...

Ok, seems a bit of a blunt and limited way of measuring contributions to society and social needs.
We have a massive voluntary sector in this country without whom alot of public and social services would simply not get done.
How is their contribution measured?
 
Last edited:
Folsom said:
Ok, seems a bit of a blunt and limited way of measuring contributions to society and social needs.
We have a massive voluntary sector in this country without whom alot of public and social services would simply not get done.
How is their contribution measured?
Click to expand...
I agree. It's like using the "I/they pay taxes as a justification for the consumption of services or welfare or accomodation which someone doesn't need or is more than they need.
I'm a bit of a socialist so when it comes to welfare I'm a fan of the whole "to each according to their needs" thing. While there is so much which we should fund and don't I think it is morally reprehensible that so much welfare funding is given to people who don't need it so that the Government can buy their votes. The disgraceful funnelling of money and tax breaks to the richest demographic in the country, pensioners, is the most blatant example but allowing someone to keep a precious State asset which they don't need, but needed years before, while young families are living in a single hotel room is disgusting.
 
Instead of guilt-tripping people about the alleged “homelessness” of young families, why not focus on people recklessly having children when they’re broke or social welfare fraud involving fathers purporting not to live with mothers?

The sad reality of this country is that we have three main cohorts of people: 1) People who work and keep the show on the road 2) Genuinely unfortunate people who need the help and support of the first cohort 3) Parasitic scum who are stealing from the first and second cohort

That Owen Keegan chap was pilloried recently for having the gall to suggest that certain groups are “choosing” homelessness. The sooner people wake up and smell the propaganda being spouted by the likes of Sinn Fein/IRA, the PPP/AAA clowns, and populist fools like Emmet Kirwan, the better.

Cohort 3 and their apologists should be the ones residing under a rock but it’s the normal people who we need to hear more of.
 
Gordon, you are now allowed to say that sort of thing. You are right of course but you will allow reality to pollute the populist narrative with that sort of talk.

I would add that working people who don't pay their taxes; solicitors and doctors taking cash and not declaring it, Tradespeople doing nixers, teachers doing grinds etc. They are all part of the third cohort as well. Then there are the criminals who don't pay insurance, engage in insurance fraud etc. Those people are as bad of worse than people on low income engaging in welfare fraud.

The thing is that when those in cohort 3 retire they become part of the "we built the country" cohort even if they never worked a day in their life.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
The sooner people wake up and smell the propaganda being spouted by the likes of Sinn Fein/IRA, the PPP/AAA clowns, and populist fools like Emmet Kirwan, the better.
Click to expand...

I wonder to people who indulge in pupulist rants recognise that they are indulging in populist rants? Whether that be left wing populist rants or right wong populist rants?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top