What market? The biggest sector failing to provide housing is the state.
What market? The biggest sector failing to provide housing is the state.Yes, a symptom of a failure of the market to provide a sustainable housing sector for the population, courtesy of a housing policy not to interfere in that market by way of providing more social housing.
Of course they should; they have been given a home which is being paid for my their fellow citizens
What market? The biggest sector failing to provide housing is the state.
Really?How is it being paid for by their fellow citizens.
If I am factory worker, paying taxes, living in a social house, I am paying as much as anybody else is for the house.
If you are on an income low enough to qualify for social housing you are a net recipient so you aren't actually paying for anything. Even if you were you are still funding housing for other who don't work. Either way the state should not provide housing beyond the needs of one family while being unable to need the needs of another.Not only that, as a taxpayer, I am funding the houses of others who live in social housing. The only difference is that I never get to own my home legally and cannot profit off it by renting or selling it or using it to supplement my pension by selling it when I retire.
Nobody's arguing that point. In fact that's the whole point of this thread and the essence of that what Sunny said in the first post.Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. The State is responsible for the policy of providing housing. It has abdicated that responsibility in the main to the free market. Hence, then mess we are in now.
How is it being paid for by their fellow citizens.
If I am factory worker, paying taxes, living in a social house, I am paying as much as anybody else is for the house. Not only that, as a taxpayer, I am funding the houses of others who live in social housing. The only difference is that I never get to own my home legally and cannot profit off it by renting or selling it or using it to supplement my pension by selling it when I retire.
Really?
If you are on an income low enough to qualify for social housing you are a net recipient so you aren't actually paying for anything. Even if you were you are still funding housing for other who don't work. Either way the state should not provide housing beyond the needs of one family while being unable to need the needs of another.
As someone who believed in social justice I find that deeply unjust.
Ah come on. Someone in social housing is not paying the same as anybody else. Going back to the OP, the development in question has privately owned apartments where the monthly rent is about €1700 a month. Nobody in the social housing properties are paying near that so to suggest that people in social housing are not benefiting or should not be grateful is just ridiculous. Surely it is not offensive to point that out. Everybody goes through times in their lives. I did. There is no shame with social welfare or benefits but lets not pretend that people who receive benefits like social housing and medical cards etc are paying the same as everyone else. That's just left wing socialist clap trap...
Yep, only the top 30% of earners are net contributors and the top 10% contribute most of that. I'm very grateful to them.A net recipient of what? Welfare and public services? Isnt that just about most people? Most of us use, at some point, or quite often, state-funded roads, state funded schools, state funded water services, law & order services, health services, public amenities – parks, museums, galleries, child benefit, old-age pension, back to work schemes, etc..etc.. the list is nearly endless.
I hope he is grateful and thankful and sees such care as a privilege of living in this society and not a right to be taken for granted.An elderly neighbour of mine, who owns his own house, went through a series of life-saving operations for a heart complications he had. My understanding is that the operations would have cost the State (he had no private insurance, as such his operations were left until they became absolutely necessary), a considerable sum of money, more than the price of a two-bed townhouse in fact.
Agreed. That social contract is based on us putting in while we get out. It's a bit like "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". Notice that that doesn't say "from each according to what they are arsed to bother doing and to each forever based on their needs now."At some point, either periodically or quite frequently we avail of public services making us all, more or less, net recipients. This is the social contract we buy into. To target one group of net recipients over others is socially unjust.
No but it's reasonable to ask if everyone is getting a fair deal.Are we really going to sit and calculate what each of use individually, that what is intended to be made available to anyone of us should we need it? And then point the finger at those who we perceive to be getting the best deal?
Notice that that doesn't say "from each according to what they are arsed to bother doing and to each forever based on their needs now."
No but it's reasonable to ask if everyone is getting a fair deal.
I took it that the suggestion was that the lease should expire after 5 years and the needs of the tenants be re-assessed. That could mean they stay where they are, they get a bigger house or they get a smaller one.
Yes, and first-time buyers, and rental occupiers are being screwed. But thats the efficieny of the market for you, isnt it?
they should be assessed and if it is found that someone else is in greater need, then the person in greater need should get the property.
Getting this provided for you for a period of 5 years, to me is a very generous gift, worth many thousands of euro. And 5 years is long enough IMO for the vast, vast majority of people to plan to get their own place.
Otherwise we end up with inter-generational dependency where not working is actually rewarded and paid for by those who do.
If I live in social housing and am earning €50,000 a year, then I am contributing as much to the tax system as another who is earning €50,000 but cannot afford to buy a home.
If I am in a wheelchair, unable to reasonably find permanent employment I don’t think it unreasonable that I should be grateful for adequate public services provided to me to make my life more functional, but to be ‘eternally’ grateful…with the emphasis on the ‘eternally’ then no.
I have every sympathy for first-time buyers trying to buy a home. I have every sympathy for working professionals who are being fleeced with extortionate rents just so that they can live within a reasonable distance within their employment for which they have obtained through hard study and work.
My proposal is that the State adopts a policy of building more social housing, not only for the poorest and most in need, but the working population that are being fleeced through rocketing house prices (again) and exorbitant rents. The housing market, left to its own ‘invisible hand’, has failed to provide a sustainable housing sector for the population.
What is your proposal? What do you think should be done?
Why do you, and others, automatically assume that social housing tenants are not working?
Nobody is assuming that but you said it yourself. Social housing for life is a disincentive to build a career and improve earnings for people because of they might lose social housing.
The housing market, left to its own ‘invisible hand’, has failed to provide a sustainable housing sector for the population.
I am talking about both things. I'm glad you agree with the OP although you still keep saying that the problem is due to free market deficiencies which is just nonsense.Yes, but now you are talking about something different. You are talking about those who couldnt be bothered to contribute. The OP does not suggest this in anyway but rather notes the wasteful and self defeating policies of the State. In the terms that the OP has laid them out, I couldnt agree more.
My my, you are getting a bit personal now, but that's okay; this is just an internet discussion forum and I'm sure you're a nice bloke really.But you have decided, in your own ignornant and prejudiced way, that the units will be provided for those who 'couldnt be arsed'. Otherwise why bring up the topic of those who 'couldnt be arsed'?
They may well be but that's not the point of this thread. The State should provide housing for those people, not take housing from other working people and give it to them.Is it beyond your reasoning to think that perhaps the units bought by the State will be allocated to working people, elderly, disabled?
What happens now when both families are on the housing list? That criteria is used to decide which one gets the house?You will have to determine the criteria for what is the greater need. Is a non-working family with a disabled child is deemed greater need than a low-income family with three kids?
Where does the low-income family go?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?