To their choice of the 14,658 houses currently offered for sale on Daft at €250,000 or less, perhaps.
I keep hearing this, and I keep asking with no reply, move onto where?
To their choice of the 14,658 houses currently offered for sale on Daft at €250,000 or less, perhaps.
So there is no shortage after all? You mean this thread is a waste of all our time?
What is all the fuss about then?
I have been wondering just that.
Do you dispute my figure of more than 14,000 homes available for €250k and under at the moment.
Yes it is a national figure, there are 700 such properties in Dublin.
However it does mean that the expectation place on social housing, is not just to provide housing, but to provide housing in desirable locations.
50% of housing offers in Cork are refused, I do not know the figure for Dublin.
You are right because you are not making sense. Or rather you are not thinking through what it appears to be what you are saying.
Lets take an example. An unemployed couple with one child are afforded social housing (LA has determined they have no other suitable accommdation). The man eventually gets a job as truck driver, the woman trains as an accountans assistant. Joint income is now €70k. Are you suggesting that because of this new found income they should now vacate their home to make way for others in 'greater need'?
Sorry, this doesnt make sense. We are talking about a €70k income social housing tenants who it is suggested that they now 'move on'.
You inferred that they buy one of 14,500 properties for sale.
Clearly, both now in gainful employment, the number of properties plausibly available to them is restricted to those properties which are located within commuting distance to their work. In which case, (say Dublin central is where they work) they are caught up with all the other buyers with incomes of €70,000 trying to find a home.
So im asking, where is the incentive to progress a career if the reward for doing so means losing your home? In the absence of suitable alternative accommodation, all they would be doing is adding to the homeless crisis when in fact there is no need to as they already have a home.
else they should be paying the same rent/mortgage that their neighbors who live in the same estate but aren’t in receipt of social housing are paying.
should accept finding out that people next door to me who might have been given a social house when times are tough are still paying a lot less than than me in rent and mortgage even though they earn the same as me?
And it And they will continue to do so because you think it is mean that we might just have re-evaluate their need to social housing? A
And this is paid for by every taxpayer?
And then you talk about welfare traps.
Why not extend that ridiculous logic to other forms of welfare?
Keep your unemployment benefit even when you get a job..
Why is their situation any different to the thousands of people also earning 70k but who were ever fortunate/unfortunate enough not to need social housing at one point in their lives?
You talk about not picking on one cohort of society but that is exactly what you are doing
Why is their situation any different to the thousands of people also earning 70k but who were ever fortunate/unfortunate enough not to need social housing at one point in their lives?
Are you saying that people charging the market rates for their properties are profiteering?but for the State to charge a rate that effectively makes them equivalent to private profiteering landlords is simply a non-runner.
The last thing anyone in a council house should have to endure is moving somewhere else or even, God forbid, putting a roof over their heads themselves (that's reserved for those stupid enough to rent or buy a place of their own).
If someone could just educate those pesky families with young children living in ohotels of this we'd all be grand.
Are you saying that people charging the market rates for their properties are profiteering?
My landlord is charging me well below the market rate as he reduced to rent a few years back to keep me there and he's now stuck charging a low rate because of rent controls.
You are not making sense Firefly. You fail to distinguish between someone being forced to 'move on' by virtue of their improved circumstances as is being suggested here, and willingly moving on by virtue of their volition.
Perhaps eventually, as someone in favour of forced eviction for having the audacity for going to work, paying taxes, and contributing to society, you could answer this - where will the SH tenants go if forced to move out?
You have wrote so much nonsense in your posts above, I don't even have the inclination to discuss it anymore. Comparing two neighbours where one might be paying a higher mortgage rate or where one might have paid off their mortgage with two neighbours where one is in receipt of public money to subsidise their rent/mortgage even when earning the same money as their next door neighbour is probably the most illogical post I have read in a long time.
Has to be just trolling. The alternative is just scary if you actually believe your logic. No wonder you are a supporter of decentralised crypto currencies. Public finances in your world stand no chance.
My household income is about 70k and I am not in receipt of social housing and you think I should accept finding out that people next door to me who might have been given a social house when times are tough are still paying a lot less than than me in rent and mortgage even though they earn the same as me?
You have wrote so much nonsense in your posts above
Has to be just trolling.
; to make or seek to make an excessive or unfair profit, especially illegally.Sometimes you just have to accept that we are talking in general terms and not every specific case.
If someone in social housing can afford to pay the market rate and is not charged that rate then they are being subsidised by the tax payer. While we have families sleeping in hotels, a suicide epidemic among young men and boys, and many other areas which need funding I don't think that's an appropriate use of government money. I would be interested to know why you think that people who can afford to pay market rents should be subsidised by people who can not.Just as in business there are people losing money, I think it can be regarded that incentive to become a landlord - in the broad generalised scheme of things - is to make a profit.
I have absolutely no issue with anyone doing that, as long as they are providing value for money, but I would certainly take exception to the State charging 'market rates' off its citizens.
make or seek to make an excessive or unfair profit, especially illegally.
Why do you think that one household should subsidise another when their circumstances are the same/I think you are starting to understand why any proposals to move people out of social housing by virtue of their improve circumstances - without taking into consideration where it is they are supposed to move to - is an absurd proposition.
Fair enough.'Excessive profiteering' is what I would have called that.