Low paid workers should be prioritised for social housing

[Brendan Burgess]

• Low and middle paid workers must be given priority for social and affordable housing. Those who are not working should be relocated to wherever in the country social housing is available or can be built quickly and cheaply.

Low paid workers should be given priority for social and affordable housing over those in receipt of social welfare.

A responsible couple who wants to provide for themselves and their family, will hold off having children until they can afford them. If they can afford to buy a house it will probably be a long distance from where they were brought up and from where they work. But those on social welfare do the opposite. They have children because they will be given priority on the housing list. And the more children they have, the higher they go on the list.

How can it be fair that people who pay their own way have to put off having children until they can afford to buy a house, while those dependent on the state have children early so that they will be allocated a house at the taxpayers’ expense?

People who are working, especially in low paid jobs, should be given the first choice of social housing close to their work or their community. If people are not working, they should be allocated housing wherever in the country it is available and cheap. Finish out some of those ghost estates and you could solve the homeless problem and reduce the taxpayers’ hotel bills in a few months. People relying on the taxpayer to pay for their housing should not get better housing than the taxpayer who pays for their own home.

Social housing should be recycled to those most in need

Under the current system, social housing is like winning the National Lottery. Once you get allocated a social house, you get it for life. And you can usually pass it on to your children.

People in social housing should be reassessed every 5 years.

· If they are not working, their house should be reassigned to someone who is working and they should be allocated housing wherever it is available.

· If they were allocated a three bedroom house because they were a family of 5 and now it’s one person living on their own, they should be moved to smaller accommodation and the house should be freed up for a working family. Alternatively if someone is living on her own in a three bed house, she should find someone else on the social housing list to share the house with her.

· When a tenant dies, the house should be allocated to the person highest on the housing list and not to their son just because he happens to be living there.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

This is when things get scary around here. The notion that we should live in a society that will uproot individuals and families purely on their current working status. Simply unworkable, but reprehensible more so

Reprehensible how?

Those who are beholden to society should have no choice with regard to where they live.

 

[TheBigShort]

Reprehensible how?

See below

Those who are beholden to society should have no choice with regard to where they live.

If someone loses their job, they are now 'beholden' to society? Where do you get this nonsense from?
And why on earth should it have anything to do with where they live?
Aside from the nonsense of it all, how would you propose such a scheme work, and how much would it cost?

 

[Sarenco]

If someone loses their job, they are now 'beholden' to society?

No but if somebody cannot fund their own shelter requirements then they are reliant on others to fund same. Again, this is absolutely basic stuff.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

See below



If someone loses their job, they are now 'beholden' to society? Where do you get this nonsense from?
And why on earth should it have anything to do with where they live?
Aside from the nonsense of it all, how would you propose such a scheme work, and how much would it cost?

There's a difference between a temporary period of bad luck, and laziness. My point is that those who CHOOSE to live off everyone else's hard work deserve no choice with regard to matters such as where they live.

It one of our problems in this country; a view has emerged that social welfare should provide some sort of gold plated lifestyle. It should not; it should not enable someone to take a holiday, buy a takeaway coffee, or go for a pint. It should be subsistence, no more and no less. That might stir society's underbelly into action.

The above has nothing to do with those who cannot work, e.g. the disabled or the elderly. They should receive benefits that enable them to live a full life.

 

[ant dee]

See below
If someone loses their job, they are now 'beholden' to society? Where do you get this nonsense from?
And why on earth should it have anything to do with where they live?
Aside from the nonsense of it all, how would you propose such a scheme work, and how much would it cost?

Is it really such a bad idea? Could it not work with an appropriate / generous timeframe before their subsidised housing would be relocated?

 

[TheBigShort]

No but if somebody cannot fund their own shelter requirements then they are reliant on others to fund same. Again, this is absolutely basic stuff.

Except that wasn't the proposal. It simply said

Low and middle paid workers must be given priority for social and affordable housing. Those who are not working should be relocated to wherever in the country social housing is available or can be built quickly and cheaply.

It didn't mention the ability or lack of, for funding shelter requirements, simply referenced 'those who are not working'. Obviously the exact detail of such a scheme would need to be outlined but there would be so many hurdles in its implementation as to make it unworkable, let alone undesirable.
For instance, how long do you have to unemployed before you are hauled away from your community? Does it apply to those facing eviction in private accommodation too? Does it apply only to those who choose not to work? Define 'choose' in this scenario. If I am an unemployed high skilled software engineer can I choose not to take up the vacancy at the car wash? Can an employer refuse to employ me too, or will they be banished to the wilderness also? How will the community that has to suddenly house all these non-working people feel about the scheme? What about families with kids in school, will there be sufficient school places available, with SNA if needed? Or is this scheme intended to foster a perpetual cycle of poverty? The list goes on....

There's a difference between a temporary period of bad luck, and laziness.

Yes, that difference would need to be defined. Your may consider a person to be having bad luck, someone else may consider them lazy.

My point is that those who CHOOSE to live off everyone else's hard work deserve no choice with regard to matters such as where they live.

See above comments.

Is it really such a bad idea? Could it not work with an appropriate / generous timeframe before their subsidised housing would be relocated?

What is the purpose behind moving people? Define the appropriate/generous timeframe?
What I am getting at is simply the unworkable nature of such a scheme, let alone anything else that I would think about it.

 

[Sarenco]

TheBS

Brendan can speak to his own proposals.

I was simply trying to explain the obvious to you that if somebody cannot provide shelter for themselves then they are reliant on others. You apparently had a difficulty with that simple concept.

 

[TheBigShort]

TheBS

Brendan can speak to his own proposals.

I was simply trying to explain the obvious to you that if somebody cannot provide shelter for themselves then they are reliant on others. You apparently had a difficulty with that simple concept.

But where have I ever said otherwise?

 

[odyssey06]

• Low and middle paid workers must be given priority for social and affordable housing. Those who are not working should be relocated to wherever in the country social housing is available or can be built quickly and cheaply.

In general, an excellent submission, great to see it in national newspaper.

Two minor suggestions to this specific point:
(1) This should apply to areas designated as RPZs.
(2) The state should not purchase any new private property in RPZs for use as social housing as this is contributing to increased prices for workers seeking to buy their own homes. Land may be purchased for development of new property.

 

[Sarenco]

But where have I ever said otherwise?

I understood you were suggesting that people were not beholden to society simply because they could not afford to provide their own shelter. No?

 

[TheBigShort]

I understood you were suggesting that people were not beholden to society simply because they could not afford to provide their own shelter. No?

No I didn't suggest that at all.

Those who are not working should be relocated to wherever in the country

To which I responded

The notion that we should live in a society that will uproot individuals and families purely on their current working status.

It was then followed by

Those who are beholden to society should have no choice with regard to where they live.

Which, in the context of the previous comments, I understood to be

If someone loses their job, they are now 'beholden' to society?

At no point did I refer to an individual's financial status.
But it's ok, the proposal itself doesn't appear to be backed by any detail which probably implies not much thought went into it.

 

[Sarenco]

No I didn't suggest that at all.

Well what exactly were you suggesting so?

With the greatest of respect, your posts read like smartalecy undergraduate debating points.

Answer me this - do you think if somebody cannot afford to provide shelter for themselves, then the State should be entitled to house them wherever it sees fit?

 

[Pinesky]

The "untermenchen" could always be relocated to camps , fed very little and those that could do menial work kept alive . Probably the cheapest option for the Goverment but it was tried before and was followed by the Nuremberg trials and everlasting odium and shame .

 

[TheBigShort]

Well what exactly were you suggesting so?

I've outlined it in the previous post, did you not read it?

With the greatest of respect, your posts read like smartalecy undergraduate debating points.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Answer me this - do you think if somebody cannot afford to provide shelter for themselves, then the State should be entitled to house them wherever it sees fit?

Yes of course. But why do you keep bringing this up? The proposal was for people who aren't working. Instead of wasting time trying to deride my comments, it would be useful if you actually read them.
Answer me this - do you think that if someone is not working (as per the proposal) that the state can simply uproot them and house them to wherever they see fit?

 

[Gordon Gekko]

The "untermenchen" could always be relocated to camps , fed very little and those that could do menial work kept alive . Probably the cheapest option for the Goverment but it was tried before and was followed by the Nuremberg trials and everlasting odium and shame .

Godwin's Law once again...

 

[Pinesky]

Godwin's Law once again...

I think you are confusing the Final Solution with the Financial Solution .

 

[Cervelo]

The Final solution

Rule 1: you cannot be unemployed
Rule 2: You cannot be unemployed and live here
Rule 3: You cannot live

 

[Sarenco]

TheBS

I did read your posts but I still have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make.

Are you drawing a distinction between an independently wealthy person that loses their job and somebody that relies on that job to provide for themselves?

 

[TheBigShort]

Are you drawing a distinction between an independently wealthy person that loses their job and somebody that relies on that job to provide for themselves?

Not making any distinction, just asking you a straight forward question similar in content to one you asked me, and which I answered.

Here it is again, don't concern yourself about the point I'm making, just try focus on the answering the question. I wouldn't have thought the answer to be hard

Answer me this - do you think that if someone is not working (as per the proposal) that the state can simply uproot them and house them to wherever they see fit?

See how you go this time?