Social Housing - Creating a monster

Purple said:
Can you state your please?
Click to expand...

Social housing should be provided for those who are unable to provide the means to their own accommodation, including low-income earners. If income improves there is scope to increase rents in line those increases. The Differential Rent Scheme is a tool that is useful here.
Under no circumstances, save in with exception of criminal behaviour, should tenants be required to leave their homes in the absence of alternative and suitable accommodation and a willingness for the tenant to leave.
To do otherwise, even in one instance, would be a futile and costly exercise that will subject the State to every obstacle and legal challenge that could tie up the system in knots and exacerbate the housing crisis for all concerned - just one attempted eviction could take years to complete in which circumstances could have changed reverting the tenant to a position of being in need again.
 

Given that scenario, the State should of course, and does provide social housing in Dun Laoighre/ Rathdown, including Dalkey. Why wouldn't it? In the circumstance you have outlined, Lucan is wholly unsuitable.
You have to consider that to qualify for social housing you are earning a low-income. This may mean relying on public transport. If such a prisons job is in Dalkey, their wife's job is in Dalkey, their kids school etc...is in Dalkey, what sense is it to locate them in Lucan? Lucan is totally unsuitable.


Purple said:
do you not think that if someone is going to buy a home, that they at least have some right to choose where they want to buy?
Click to expand...

Of course, absolutely, including social housing tenants that now have the financial means to buy. They should have some right to choose where they want to buy shouldn't they?
 
TheBigShort said:
Or are you proposing that a State agency either evicts them onto the street, effectively compelling them to buy somewhere that is not suitable? And considering they already do pay a rent that is tied to income under the Differential Rent Scheme.
Click to expand...
I'm proposing they pay the market rate of rent. How many time do I have to say the same thing?
TheBigShort said:
They are now wondering to themselves - why did they ever bother to try lift themselves out of poverty and welfare dependence? Facing repossession of their home, or eviction if they chose to rent, they now join the list of 'more needy'
Click to expand...
At the same time people are wondering why would I ever bother to get a job, work hard, buy a home and generally pay my own way as a competent adult, after all;
TheBigShort said:
It is futile to except each and every individual to act in accordance to social justice at all times, each one of us acts in our own self-interest, or perceived self-interest, isnt that right?
Click to expand...

You have described the welfare poverty trap perfectly.
 

Okay, so nobody should move to the commuter belt; the State should just build them a house.
Any suggestions where the money should come from? Should we just "tax the rich"?
 
Purple said:
I'm proposing they pay the market rate of rent. How many time do I have to say the same thing?
Click to expand...

All you have proposed is how much a social house tenant on €80k would pay if living in Crumlin. This is to be capped at market rates of €2000 - meaning someone on €160k only pays €2000 too.
If I ask the mechanism for calculating rent rates for low income households you avoid answering every time.

Purple said:
You have described the welfare poverty trap perfectly.
Click to expand...

Its nothing of the sort. If somebody has a home, and they face eviction if they earn more - that is the welfare poverty trap.
But we dont have that system - that is the system you want to introduce.
 
Don't be silly. I gave an example but you are just trolling when asking me to give a detailed breakdown of a national mechanism for calculating rent.
 
TheBigShort said:
Its nothing of the sort. If somebody has a home, and they face eviction if they earn more - that is the welfare poverty trap
Click to expand...
If somebody has a home and an income and will retain both whether they work of not that's a welfare trap but yes, despite having no earned income, they could certainly not be described as being in poverty.
So you're right; it's a welfare trap, not a poverty trap.
 
This thread really is going around in circles. From skimming over the pages it sounds to me like the ideal solution to all of this is to provide all social housing in Mullingar. Then once people in social housing earn enough money to pay for their own place they'll be only too happy to move out, leaving the house open for the next family on the list. Problem solved.
 
Purple said:
Don't be silly. I gave an example but you are just trolling when asking me to give a detailed breakdown of a national mechanism for calculating rent.
Click to expand...

I gave you an example - 1/6 of income - you said that is too low for high earners. You suggested €2000 cap on in income of €80000. I had to work that out as 30%. I suggested 30% to be too high on €21k, you agreed - im asking what is the mechanism (if its not 1/6th nor 30%) for calculating rent rates on social housing tenants. All we know is that someone earns over €80,000 their rent is capped at €2,000.
I think perhaps, its becoming obvious that if a simple mechanism for calculating rents cannot be identified there is zero hope that any complex issues will ever be resolved.
 
Purple said:
Okay, so nobody should move to the commuter belt; the State should just build them a house.
Any suggestions where the money should come from? Should we just "tax the rich"?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about now??
Every LA builds social housing for the population who are not in a position to buy or rent of their own accord.
Why would a prospective tenant from Dalkey, in the circumstance that you outlined, ever be offered accommodation in Lucan?
What will the LA in Lucan do with prospective tenants in their areas, move them to Dalkey??
Can you pick up on how daft that would be?
 
TheBigShort said:
Ok so the criteria is "they no longer qualify for social housing". So once someone, or a family, occupying a social house starts earning a relatively modest income at best they are given notice to vacate, is that it?
Click to expand...
No. (Again) they would get the house for a period of say 5 years. After which they would be re-assessed and their need for a social house compared to those who are also deemed in need. Those in most need would get the house. Simples. Of course, those in a council house would have had a fantastic opportunity (5 years of extremely low rent!) to make sure that when the 5 years are up they should be ready to put a roof over their heads themselves. The added benefit of this, is that the council house would be then available to someone else in need, who in turn would be incentivised to house themselves 5 years later.

Rather than removing the incentive for someone by giving them a council house for life, this way they would be incentivised to get their own place. You speak about social fabric....give me one where people are incentivised to put a roof over their heads any day before one where people are rewarded for doing nothing.


Thousands and thousands of people live in commuter belts and most of them commute to Dublin every morning. You can make up all the excuses you want but yet these people do it every morning.
 

You are right, if they have a home and an income that is not poverty. It is neither a welfare trap, as they are earning, paying taxes, paying rent (linked to their income) all of which go to covering the cost of the provision of social housing.
If however they earn too much, then under your proposal they face eviction. So the incentive is not to earn, instead to depend on welfare - that is the welfare that you wish to inflict on people who have managed, from a place of total dependency, to bring a bit more dignity to their lives by going out and earning a living for themselves, contributing back to society through paying taxes and paying rent for the property they are in.
 
TheBigShort said:
If however they earn too much, then under your proposal they face eviction. So the incentive is not to earn, instead to depend on welfare
Click to expand...

They would be playing a very dangerous game as they would need to be very sure that there aren't more people deemed in need of a council house than they are after the 5 years.....I think the vast majority of people would look to provide a roof over their heads.
 

You are not making any sense (again). Are you deliberately avoiding reality? Are you deliberately avoiding the CSO stat that shows average incomes in LA homes to be not much more than minimum wage? Im guessing a lot of these tenants are there longer than 5yrs too. So what good is your assessment? Who is to be 'moved on'? Where will they go?
 
TheBigShort said:
Are you deliberately avoiding the CSO stat that shows average incomes in LA homes to be not much more than minimum wage?
Click to expand...
That's the average. It would imply a cohort earning more.

TheBigShort said:
Im guessing a lot of these tenants are there longer than 5yrs too.
Click to expand...
The vast majority over the age of 30 I would guess. And they're right!....they're getting a house for next to nothing and even if they have spare rooms they can stay there whilst a family with young children "lives" in emergency accommodation.

TheBigShort said:
Who is to be 'moved on'?
Click to expand...
For the millionth time, they would be assessed by the provider of social housing against everyone else looking for a council house.

TheBigShort said:
Where will they go?
Click to expand...
Either remain in a council house if they are deemed still in need and there isn't anyone above them, or the best alternative or, shock horror, get the place of their own.

It's not going to be easy I admit that, but I think social housing needs to be like the dole should be, a safety net to help those who need it at a particular point in time. It shouldn't be permanent (except for the mentally and physically impaired) as it rewards dependency and that's the worst outcome.

You seem to have a very low opinion of human resilience - people are a lot more resilient and resourceful than you would give them credit for. In my own industry, IT, there is a chronic shortage of skills. Someone prepared to spend 1 or 2 hours a day studying free and really cheap courses on Udemy would be very proficient in 5 years believe me.
 
TheBigShort said:
Every LA builds social housing for the population who are not in a position to buy or rent of their own accord.
Why would a prospective tenant from Dalkey, in the circumstance that you outlined, ever be offered accommodation in Lucan?
Click to expand...
Right, so if I am from Dalkey and "only" earn €80,000 a year the State should provide a house for me and my family in Dalkey.
I grew up in Rathfarnham. Most of the people I grew up with had to move to the outer suburbs. Some even moved to Lucan. They didn't know that the State should have just built a house for them in Rathfarnham. They, stupidly, thought that they should provide for themselves and could only have things that they could afford. Idiots. Wow, socialism is great! I'm sure it's also economically sustainable. Oh, and even though there's no building land available in the area for all the necessary houses I'm sure the Comrades have a solution for that too.
 
Purple said:
I grew up in Rathfarnham. Most of the people I grew up with had to move to the outer suburbs. Some even moved to Lucan.
Click to expand...

The shame! How ARE they coping? No wonder society has broken down. How can we as taxpayers look at ourselves in the mirror knowing that we are treating our fellow citizens with such impunity and forcing them to the wilderness like cattle?
 
Ha brilliant! Only problem though is that most of the houses in Mullingar would probably need to be brought up to the building regs needed for social housing...
 
TheBigShort said:
Under no circumstances, save in with exception of criminal behaviour, should tenants be required to leave their homes in the absence of alternative and suitable accommodation and a willingness for the tenant to leave.
Click to expand...
We've already established that not paying rent is not a criminal matter. Should people who refuse to pay their rent be required to leave their home?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register