Social Housing - Creating a monster

[Purple]

Or just play a game of musical chairs every week to see who gets to live where? Lets see, how many chairs have we got and how many people are looking for homes? Should be fun!

No, you're dead right, just leave things as they are; the current system is perfect and anyone who questions it is doing so out of selfishness and ignorance. You keep fighting the good fight comrade!

Taking people off the waiting lists, out of emergency accommodation, earning a living, paying taxes on that - renting out rooms, should someone wish to, is perfectly normal - happens all the time.

Absolutely, because nobody availing of a single room rental is ever young and living at home beforehand.

 

[Firefly]

You keep fighting the good fight comrade!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxcP7TRY178 turn it up!

 

[Purple]

How about, don't turn a dysfunctional and socially deteriorating situation into a chaotic impoverishing and economically destructive one!

How about building more houses, and enough with the nonsense of 5-yr assessments and musical chairs?

How about suggesting something rather than setting yourself up as the moral inquisitor of those who do?
How about being constructive?
How about more detail, something more specific than "we should build more houses"? Who should build them? How should they be funded? If nobody should ever have to move out of a socially provided house it is inevitable that eventually, within a few decades, the majority of the people in the country will be living in social housing. Where do you draw the line?

 

[TheBigShort]

You said that the first family are employed and the second are not.

Yes, and out of the two families which one had to make way for the other? Under the new regime, because of the spare capacity the working couple would have to move to make way for the non-working family. And I just touched on some of the possible knock-on consequences that may arise, as they do, in the normal course of affairs. In which case the incentive, under the new 5yr assessment regime, would be not to work, for the kids not to move out - ever!

 

[Purple]

In which case the incentive, under the new 5yr assessment regime, would be not to work, for the kids not to move out - ever!

Which is, to the morally bankrupt capitalist pigs, better than them moving into another council house.

 

[The Horseman]

Yes, and out of the two families which one had to make way for the other? Under the new regime, because of the spare capacity the working couple would have to move to make way for the non-working family. And I just touched on some of the possible knock-on consequences that may arise, as they do, in the normal course of affairs. In which case the incentive, under the new 5yr assessment regime, would be not to work, for the kids not to move out - ever!

The first family where the children have left have the option of paying a rent that reflects the house (if they want to stay there they pay on a basis of either a min rent which takes account of the property location and amenities and the differential model). They are being given a choice, if they want to stay they you have to contribute to staying and enjoying the luxury of having spare bedrooms.

if on the other hand you have the family who don't get gameful employment by choice then once their income level drops via social welfare and working on the model of charging rent based on the amenities and location and not just a differential model then if they want to stay they have to pay for that right otherwise they move to a lower cost location.

The above models both give the person the choice if you want to stay where you are you have to pay for it. Not just the differential model charges but also a charge for the location and its amenities.

This is why different areas all command different prices in private rents and private house purchases. Do you think those in social housing should be immune from those factors that everybody else has to face everyday.

 

[TheBigShort]

Which is, to the morally bankrupt capitalist pigs, better than them moving into another council house.

You said it. You would rather people stopped working, stopped educating, lived at home with their mammies & daddies all their adult lives rather than see a spare room or two in a social house go unoccupied for all the social injustice this would cause (or rather how much it is costing "your taxes". After all, you did say;

Let them live in hostels or the street. I don't care.

 

[TheBigShort]

Well, in fairness to you, Horseman, you have at least moved somewhat insofar that you are proposing a scheme with 'choices'. I do think there is an underlying assumption that most people in social are on the pigs back, free accommodation, don't work, or work very little, prime location in city centres etc....some people think its like winning the lottery, or its all one big gift courtesy of the taxpayer (blinded to the fact that working people in social housing are 'the taxpayer')

The reality is of course far from that, it is a complex business which cannot be resolved on the pages of AAM.

http://files.nesc.ie/nesc_secretari...h_Social_and_Affordable_Housing_Provision.pdf

None of the proposals made so far will go anyway to resolving the current crisis in any reasonable time-frame. In fact I would argue that all of the proposals would get tied up in administrative and legal tangles that would in fact cost the taxpayer more, in other words - they are self-defeating proposals.

I was asked to suggest something constructive -

From page 3

To me it is simple, we need to build more housing, not only for the poorest but for working people too.

 

[The Horseman]

Well, in fairness to you, Horseman, you have at least moved somewhat insofar that you are proposing a scheme with 'choices'. I do think there is an underlying assumption that most people in social are on the pigs back, free accommodation, don't work, or work very little, prime location in city centres etc....some people think its like winning the lottery, or its all one big gift courtesy of the taxpayer (blinded to the fact that working people in social housing are 'the taxpayer')

The reality is of course far from that, it is a complex business which cannot be resolved on the pages of AAM.

http://files.nesc.ie/nesc_secretari...h_Social_and_Affordable_Housing_Provision.pdf

None of the proposals made so far will go anyway to resolving the current crisis in any reasonable time-frame. In fact I would argue that all of the proposals would get tied up in administrative and legal tangles that would in fact cost the taxpayer more, in other words - they are self-defeating proposals.

I was asked to suggest something constructive -

From page 3

Building more houses on its own is not the answer. A cultural shift is required whereby people are held responsible for their actions. The current political establishment don't have the desire to tackle this problem and we have this bizarre notion everybody is entitled to housing no matter what. If people pay their rent and its set at a reasonable level as I have suggested above then I think that's a move in the right direction.

All building more houses will do is increase the entitlement culture we have. We need to tackle the abuses of the system and make people responsible for their situations. If this means making people homeless when they don't pay rent their differential rent which the State has decided is fair than so be it.

I am however not aware of this ever happening. Maybe if it did it would send a message to others gaming the system and go some way to dispel the stereotyping you feel is ongoing.

 

[Purple]

You said it. You would rather people stopped working, stopped educating, lived at home with their mammies & daddies all their adult lives rather than see a spare room or two in a social house go unoccupied for all the social injustice this would cause (or rather how much it is costing "your taxes". After all, you did say;

Why would people stop working and stop being educated just because they live at home with their parents?
If they are getting a free/subsidised house the way things are why would there be more of an imperative to work and get educated?
I'm sure there's agreat answer to that but I'm a recent convert so I still think the old way the odd time. Soon I'll know what questions I'm allowed ask and what I'm not.

To me it is simple, we need to build more housing, not only for the poorest but for working people too.

That's when I was an inferior capitalist pig. Now I'm a socialist and better than everyone else and so want to help those who can't help themselves; those downtrodden and unwashed masses. The old part of my brain is telling me that sounds patronising and degrading and the way the Victorians talked about "the darkies" but I know that must be wrong.

To me it is simple, we need to build more housing, not only for the poorest but for working people too.

Cool! Problem solved! (that voice again; Who's going to pay for them? Who's going to build them? How much will it cost? How long will it take? Given that there's no mobility within the housing stock how do we use our resourced efficiently to ensure that those in most need get what they need?)

 

[Purple]

Building more houses on its own is not the answer. A cultural shift is required whereby people are held responsible for their actions. The current political establishment don't have the desire to tackle this problem and we have this bizarre notion everybody is entitled to housing no matter what. If people pay their rent and its set at a reasonable level as I have suggested above then I think that's a move in the right direction.

All building more houses will do is increase the entitlement culture we have. We need to tackle the abuses of the system and make people responsible for their situations. If this means making people homeless when they don't pay rent their differential rent which the State has decided is fair than so be it.

I am however not aware of this ever happening. Maybe if it did it would send a message to others gaming the system and go some way to dispel the stereotyping you feel is ongoing.

See you are dead wrong there and there's a great example for all to see; We used to have a real problem with access to Health Services. We then massively increased the amount of money we spent on Healthcare and the problem was solved. That's why there are no waiting lists or people on trolleys in A&E's any more.

I bet you feel stupid now!

 

[TheBigShort]

Building more houses on its own is not the answer.

It is not the panacea, but in the absence of housing shortage it would be a significant step.

A cultural shift is required whereby people are held responsible for their actions.

Why does everyone associate social housing with irresponsible people? Most people in social housing of working age, are working. They are responsible. I think it was highlighted that an area in Tallaght has the highest unemployment rate at 30%. Meaning that 70% of that community is at work. Meaning if any of them are low paid, they cannot buy their own house or rent privately due to the high costs.
The biggest problem facing the housing crisis is not those 'gaming' the system, it is those who are responsible, who are working who cannot get suitable accommodation. Even those who do get accommodation, if rented, are being fleeced and are in precarious situations.

If this means making people homeless when they don't pay rent their differential rent which the State has decided is fair than so be it.

Does that apply to the thousands of families in emergency accommodation? They didn't pay their rent or mortgage, or never had the means to pay rent or mortgage. Are they to roam the streets?
I'm sure the retail business owners will be delighted to have move people out of their doorways so they open up for trade.
I'm sure the tourists will be delighted to see the sight of thousands of homeless on our capital streets.
I'm sure the drug-dealers will be delighted to move in and 'relieve' the misery inflicted by sleeping on the streets
I'm sure the Gardaí will appreciate the chaotic nature of that, and our medical staff as they deal with increasing alcoholism and drug-addiction associated with being homeless.
Nice!

 

[TheBigShort]

Why would people stop working and stop being educated just because they live at home with their parents?
If they are getting a free/subsidised house the way things are why would there be more of an imperative to work and get educated?

You are kidding right? Have you not read anything at all? Is all of this just to try get one over me?

I grew up near a large council estate, some 15,000 houses. Out of those houses I went to school with many of the kids. Of any of them that I am still in contact with, not one lives in a council house. They all grew up, educated themselves, got jobs and careers of varying sorts and all bought private properties of their own.
The imperative to work and get educated is not determined by where you have a free/subsidized house or not. A barrier to educate and work would be if you were not sure where you were going to be living on foot of earning an income. If earning a living could mean joining the queues of FTB or living in emergency accommodation - the impertative would be not to work and be classed as 'needy'.

 

[Sunny]

You said it. You would rather people stopped working, stopped educating, lived at home with their mammies & daddies all their adult lives rather than see a spare room or two in a social house go unoccupied for all the social injustice this would cause (or rather how much it is costing "your taxes". After all, you did say;

The UK has the bedroom tax where benefits are cut for each under utilised bedroom. They even have the concept of mutual exchange that lets people swap houses. France has rent reviews every two years on household income with supplements applying on everything over a certain level with no ceiling. I don't exactly see people being kicked to streets. Denmark and Sweden has seen huge amounts of social housing being bought out by tenants as their circumstances changed. Hardly earth shattering.....

Dublin City council has a waiting list for people looking to downsize from their existing social property so some people are actually not aghast at such an idea of trying to eliminate under utilisation of social housing stock. Maybe instead of your 'build it and they will come' philosophy, we should actually try to use our existing stock as efficiently as possible? I know it's a crazy idea. Why not add another 25% tax on people earning over 100k instead and build and build instead...Bloody rich people.....

 

[Sunny]

You are kidding right? Have you not read anything at all? Is all of this just to try get one over me?

I grew up near a large council estate, some 15,000 houses. Out of those houses I went to school with many of the kids. Of any of them that I am still in contact with, not one lives in a council house. They all grew up, educated themselves, got jobs and careers of varying sorts and all bought private properties of their own.
The imperative to work and get educated is not determined by where you have a free/subsidized house or not. A barrier to educate and work would be if you were not sure where you were going to be living on foot of earning an income. If earning a living could mean joining the queues of FTB or living in emergency accommodation - the impertative would be not to work and be classed as 'needy'.

An estate of 15,000 houses??????

Poor Postman!

 

[Purple]

The reality is of course far from that, it is a complex business which cannot be resolved on the pages of AAM.

http://files.nesc.ie/nesc_secretari...h_Social_and_Affordable_Housing_Provision.pdf

Your link supports many of the points made by the capitalists pigs here. The authors must also be capitalist pigs.

 

[Purple]

Of any of them that I am still in contact with, not one lives in a council house.

Does that mean you don't consort with riffraff or does it mean all your classmates got jobs?

 

[Firefly]

I grew up near a large council estate, some 15,000 houses. Out of those houses I went to school with many of the kids. Of any of them that I am still in contact with, not one lives in a council house. They all grew up, educated themselves, got jobs and careers of varying sorts and all bought private properties of their own.

More of those spare bedroom so

 

[Sunny]

A barrier to educate and work would be if you were not sure where you were going to be living on foot of earning an income.

Eh, is that not everyone???? I wish my career guidance teacher had included the option of social housing when I was younger...Would probably have ended up in a much better location with a shorter commute than where I live now.....

 

[Firefly]

Eh, is that not everyone???? I wish my career guidance teacher had included the option of social housing when I was younger...Would probably have ended up in a much better location with a shorter commute than where I live now.....

Also, I can think of no better incentive to help secure your future than being less and less dependent on the State.