Low paid workers should be prioritised for social housing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Purple said:
That's not what I asked you.
Click to expand...

True, but why you are directing the question at me I don't know? Surely you should be asking Brendan, as this topic is based on his submission? It would actually be interesting to hear his view, and yours now that you brought it up, on the matter.

But for the record, for my part, no absolutely not. No-one, even if they make a great success of their life, be uprooted from their community along with their family, against their will and on account of that success.
 
Mathepac, could you please lay out for me an estimate on how much a high earner like above would be paying in a social housing?
In my opinion, since he is capable of supporting himself, he should either free-up the social housing or pay the State the normal market price for renting a property in that area.
 
You quoted my post and wrote under it;
Where did I say; "Oh, they get it free don't they?" notion. "They" being social welfare recipients and "it" being social housing.?

In the case I know about one family member is on disability. They are the tenant. Their son and his family live in the house. He grew up in the house and never moved out. Both he and his wife have good jobs. They drive expensive cars, go on multiple holidays every year etc. They are nice people and work hard but they shouldn't get a house from the State.
 
TheBigShort said:
But for the record, for my part, no absolutely not. No-one, even if they make a great success of their life, be uprooted from their community along with their family, against their will and on account of that success.
Click to expand...
Fair play to you for answering. I disagree, I don't think the State should provide houses for rich people when poor people are homeless. I also think that the welfare system should be a hand up, not a hand out.
 
Purple said:
Fair play to you for answering. I disagree, I don't think the State should provide houses for rich people when poor people are homeless. I also think that the welfare system should be a hand up, not a hand out.
Click to expand...


What would propose should happen in this scenario? Forced eviction?

It appears that if you are down on your luck with employment and career opportunities the State should not provide you with a basic social need – housing, unless you are working, and don't even think about not working!
But if you go to work, and make a success of that work, perhaps even breaking a chain of poverty, perhaps creating employment, perhaps contributing back into society far more than you will ever take out of it, then you should be punished for that success too?

Either or, Im not making a submission to the people of Ireland, Brendan is, perhaps you should ask him the same question? By way of raising the matter, adds weight to my assertion that this submission has not been thought out.
 
TheBigShort said:
What would propose should happen in this scenario? Forced eviction?
Click to expand...
That's a tad emotive don't you think? How about a years notice?

TheBigShort said:
It appears that if you are down on your luck with employment and career opportunities the State should not provide you with a basic social need – housing, unless you are working, and don't even think about not working!
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is advocating not providing housing for people.

That happens already; the State takes over half of any extra you earn and then 23% of what's left when you spend it. Do remember that only the top 10% contribute far more than they will ever take out. Do you think the top 10% should get social housing?

TheBigShort said:
Either or, Im not making a submission to the people of Ireland, Brendan is, perhaps you should ask him the same question? By way of raising the matter, adds weight to my assertion that this submission has not been thought out.
Click to expand...
I don't follow that bit.
 

Unfortunately they're very little appetite in the LAs to pursue rent arrears regardless of the circumstances. Last year LA rent arrears climber over €65M nationally.
 
LA's make for terrible landlords from the financial side of things. Arrears are massive, way ahead of the rates that Banks have seen during the crash.
They're also landed with the maintenance costs which the rents barely cover.
 
Here’s a scenario which outlines the injustice of the current system;

Joe and his brother were both born in Rathmines in the modest family home their parents bought in the 1970’s.

His brother went to college and always worked hard. He spent 5 years saving for a house with his girlfriend before they settled down and getting married. They couldn’t afford to buy in Rathmines but instead had to buy in Lucan. They have two young children. He works the city centre and she works in Portobello. They get the children up at 6am every weekday morning before spending an hour and a half commuting to crèche and work. They have the same journey in the evening. They don’t get to see their extended family or childhood friends and have little social infrastructure around them. Their children don’t really know their grandparents.


Joe never worked, living on welfare with his girlfriend, who also never worked, and their 2 kids. Joe and his girlfriend have a moderate drug habit and are fond of the drink. They have a modest but nice council house in Rathmines. His mother looks after the kids during the day when he and his girlfriend are in the pub and the bookies.



I think it would be fairer if Joe and his gang were given a public house in Lucan and his brother got the house in Rathmines. I do understand that must make me a horrible person I just don’t know why.
 
Purple said:
That's a tad emotive don't you think? How about a years notice?
Click to expand...
One years notice, is forcing someone to leave. Where will they go? Will they have to buy their own house? How much will they have to spend? Or will they have to take out a large mortgage? Will they have to move business premises too? That's actually a possibility also to continue to make their business viable.

Purple said:
I don't think anyone is advocating not providing housing for people.
Click to expand...

True, my err, just advocating forced evictions for unemployed social welfare recipients and relocations to random locations across the country.

Purple said:
Do you think the top 10% should get social housing?
Click to expand...

No, not if they don't need it. Do you think the top 10% have applied for social housing?

Purple said:
I don't follow that bit.
Click to expand...

Why not ask Brendan how he would deal with the scenario you raised of someone in social housing but makes €200,000 a year from a successful plumbing business.
 
Delboy said:
LA's make for terrible landlords from the financial side of things. Arrears are massive, way ahead of the rates that Banks have seen during the crash.
They're also landed with the maintenance costs which the rents barely cover.
Click to expand...

Yip, which is why the state has stopped building social housing and is paying private landlords instead I would imagine.
 
Two years then. They can rent in the private sector or buy a house. That may involve taking out a large mortgage; welcome to reality for normal people. Do you think they state should subsidise usinesses by providing housing for the owner?
TheBigShort said:
Why not ask Brendan how he would deal with the scenario you raised of someone in social housing but makes €200,000 a year from a successful plumbing business.
Click to expand...
'cause I don't wanna.
You have my permission to ask him if you wanna.
 
If a Social tenant is not paying their rent (even the differential rate) they should be evicted full stop. That's what happens in the private sector, no rent payment then you are evicted.
 
The Horseman said:
If a Social tenant is not paying their rent (even the differential rate) they should be evicted full stop. That's what happens in the private sector, no rent payment then you are evicted.
Click to expand...
and if their circumstances change and they can afford to buy a house they should be removed from the house and it should be given to someone who can't afford to pay their own way.
Neither scenario happens; once they are in they stay there.
 
Purple said:
and if their circumstances change and they can afford to buy a house they should be removed from the house and it should be given to someone who can't afford to pay their own way.
Neither scenario happens; once they are in they stay there.
Click to expand...

If circumstances change then they should be offered to buy the house for the market value and the money from the sale is used to purchase another property to go into the Social's pool of properties.
 
mathepac said:
@PurpleIf the LAs aren't doing their jobs,
Click to expand...

Many Local Authorities have in excess of 20% rent arrears and some in excess of 30%, so I think it is fair to say that they are not doing their jobs.

Of course as public bodies, no one is ever held accountable for this.

From the annual report of DCC

"During 2016, the City Council collected just over €74.5 million in rental income. While the situation with mortgage loan repayments is more difficult, the Council achieved a 65.3% collection rate which amounted to €23.4m with total arrears of €12.5m."

[broken link removed]
 
The Horseman said:
If circumstances change then they should be offered to buy the house for the market value and the money from the sale is used to purchase another property to go into the Social's pool of properties.
Click to expand...

I think part ownership should be built into social housing where some of the asset would transfer to the tenant over a period of years, even if it was free to the tenant. The estates would change for the better with those living in the houses taking more pride and care of the houses resulting in lower maintenance costs and lower crime. Don't ask me for the specifics, it's just an idea and it shouldn't cost the earth.
 
Purple said:
Here’s a scenario which outlines the injustice of the current system;
Click to expand...

But which is actually separate to Brendans proposal.
Under Brendans proposal social housing should be prioritized for low paid working people.
They will assessed every 5 yrs. And if they are not working they will be relocated. In your scenario;

Purple said:
Joe never worked, living on welfare with his girlfriend, who also never worked
Click to expand...

thus they are not the subject of Brendans proposal. Unless of course Brendan actually intended to include those who have never worked a day in their life. But therein lies more clarifications. As it stands, Brendan prioritizes low paid working people. They will be assessed every five years and if they are not working will be evicted from their homes and re-located to "wherever". In effect, he is lumping in hard working people who are trying their best to get by, but who may have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own, with those as described in your scenario.

Purple said:
They couldn’t afford to buy in Rathmines but instead had to buy in Lucan.
Click to expand...

Did they ever apply for social housing, if not, why not? If yes, what was the outcome of their application?

Purple said:
I think it would be fairer if Joe and his gang were given a public house in Lucan
Click to expand...

Why? Why should the good people of Lucan have to deal with the drug addicts and alcoholics of Rathmines?
 

Some very lazy generalisations there Purple, I'm surprised at you. The commute from Lucan isn't that bad!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register