Who speaks for the taxpayer?

[RETIRED2017]

I got really annoyed watching the farmers yet again for criticising the government for doing nothing about the fodder crisis. I heard one commentator saying that they had been warning the government since last September. But why should the tax payer be subsidising this? If the farmers and their co-ops and their representatives had known since last September, they should have been buying in feedstuffs to prepare for this.

And the teachers who are already very highly paid want more money. If they want equality, then let the existing teachers take a pay cut. Dan O'Brien had a great article on it yesterday in the Indo, although it does not appear to be online. The gist of it was that teachers are paid more per hour than any other profession. This is overstating the case a bit, as some of them do preparation which is not paid. But he also pointed out that there is no shortage of applications at the current salary levels.

But both of these issues are portrayed as "the teachers vs. the government" or "the farmers vs. the government".

It's not. It's the teachers vs. the taxpayers and the farmers vs. the taxpayers.

Likewise with putting homeless people up in hotels. The taxpayers are paying for this.

And it's not just the top 20% who pay the majority of income taxes. It's everyone who pays the high rates of VAT and excise duties on drink and fuel.

But there is no one to speak for these taxpayers and so the vocal pressure groups push the government into high taxation and high borrowing.

Brendan

I wonder has any poster made a submission before closing date on contributory pensions PAYE employees and there employers are getting a very raw deal seeing they were paying away more through payroll than other groups for the same contributory pension and employees also had to pay a USC type surcharge up until the USC came in for other groups,

 

[The Horseman]

Sarenco, stop with the jibberish and stop pretending all is black and white, just because you read it in a school text book.

If, by your definition, a rent adjusted LA tenant is automatically "wont pay", I have already stated that an eviction should be invoked in such circumstances. Let me know if you can understand this much;



If you get past that, then perhaps you can join reality for a while. Because what you are saying is that a LA tenant who "wont pay" will face eviction, possibly homelessness if they have nowhere else to go, and go back on the waiting list for a...LA house!!!

How many of the 15% LA tenants in arrears are we talking about here - 1, maybe 2? Is this how you envisage the housing crisis might be resolved?

On the other hand, despite the rent differential applicable, is it possible that substandard, unrepaired properties, unresolved landlord/tenant disputes are contributing to the arrears?
Perhaps there are households with young families but daddy (or mammy) has taken to the drink or has wracked up gambling debts, that has put that household in arrears? Perhaps LA's take real life complications such as that into account before evicting anyone as that may only cement the poverty trap for the children?
Perhaps you could take time to wonder why 50% of homeless families in Cork refuse accommodation? Drug-dealing in the chosen area is apparently a regularly cited deterrent to taking up accommodation.
Perhaps you could take time to read BB new thread on a RTE report citing homeless families refusing to take accommodation?

Why you keep bleating on about housing units being destroyed or erased is beyond me.

I am amazed by your approach to this whole issue we have 26% of all social housing tenants in rent arrears across the four Dublin LA. [broken link removed] are you saying that 26% of the social housing stock in Dublin suffers from mold, damp, rodent infestation?

 

[TheBigShort]

I am amazed by your approach to this whole issue we have 26% of all social housing tenants in rent arrears across the four Dublin LA. [broken link removed] are you saying that 26% of the social housing stock in Dublin suffers from mold, damp, rodent infestation?

No, im not.
Im simply trying to add a bit realism to the situation that identifies complex factors outside the simplistic views of long-term arrears should equal automatic eviction.

One such factor may be unresolved landlord/tenant disputes. Other factors may be to do with social disorders such as drug addiction, alcoholism, gambling debt typically associated with socially deprived areas where, it just so happens, a large portion of LA housing is located.

I dont know, perhaps they are all just 'gaming' the system. In such case then, yes, they should be evicted.
But if you evict them, where do they live?
And once you have evicted them, there is still no gaurantee that homeless tenants in emergency accommodation will take up the newly vacated LA house, in a socially deprived area, with a reputation for drug-dealing, is there?
And if a homeless family in emergency accommodation is refusing to take up the accommodation, what hope hard-working, career-building, taxpaying, family aspiring John & Mary FTB?
So in the end, instead of taking measures to resolve the housing crisis, you end up taking measures to exacerbate the homeless crisis.

 

[Leo]

What hope getting them into rat infested, water contaminated houses?
What would be the point in evicting someone from such dire properties over arrears?

Why the obsession with rat infested water contaminated houses? Are you suggesting all vacant LA housing is in such a state? As has been pointed out above and many other times, it's just more deflection and rabbit holes...

If you've ever seen the works carried out on turning over a social housing unit is handed over you'd realise how ridiculous that statement is.

 

[TheBigShort]

What are you talking about?
Im merely pointing out to you rhe reality that of what is reported.
Ireland has been found in breach of sub standard social housing.
Homeless people in emergency accommodation ARE refusing housing, for a multitude of reasons from rat infestations, water contamination, drug dealing, locality and even interior decoration!!!

So if homeless families are refusing accommodation, preferring to stay in emergency accommodation, what makes you think FTB's who are trying to build careers and families and who pay taxes would take up accommodation in socially deprived areas?

 

[The Horseman]

No, im not.
Im simply trying to add a bit realism to the situation that identifies complex factors outside the simplistic views of long-term arrears should equal automatic eviction.

One such factor may be unresolved landlord/tenant disputes. Other factors may be to do with social disorders such as drug addiction, alcoholism, gambling debt typically associated with socially deprived areas where, it just so happens, a large portion of LA housing is located.

I dont know, perhaps they are all just 'gaming' the system. In such case then, yes, they should be evicted.
But if you evict them, where do they live?
And once you have evicted them, there is still no gaurantee that homeless tenants in emergency accommodation will take up the newly vacated LA house, in a socially deprived area, with a reputation for drug-dealing, is there?
And if a homeless family in emergency accommodation is refusing to take up the accommodation, what hope hard-working, career-building, taxpaying, family aspiring John & Mary FTB?
So in the end, instead of taking measures to resolve the housing crisis, you end up taking measures to exacerbate the homeless crisis.

Why should the state be responsible to house somebody who does not have any addiction issues and is "gaming" the system. These people who are gaming the system have been offered low cost accommodation based on their ability to pay and still refuse to pay. Why should we still house them.

At what point do we say that they have to take responsibility for their actions?

 

[TheBigShort]

Why should the state be responsible to house somebody who does not have any addiction issues and is "gaming" the system. These people who are gaming the system have been offered low cost accommodation based on their ability to pay and still refuse to pay. Why should we still house them.

At what point do we say that they have to take responsibility for their actions?

If someone is capable of paying rent but refuses they should be evicted. I have said this plenty of times.
But we are talking about specifically tenants of LA housing, right? So, their rent is set in accordance with their income, right? So, without wanting to generalise, but in the interests of simplicity, we are talking about low-income families here, right? You have heard of housing crisis, where low and middle income families cannot afford to buy or rent, right?
So a low-income family LA tenancy that can pay, but refuses to pay should be evicted right?
Now im asking you, where will they go (bearing in my the housing crisis)?
Once you have answered that, then perhaps you might consider why would they put themselves in that position im the first place? Perhaps you might figure that there may be other factors impeding on their ability to pay other than the automatic assumption that they are gaming the system?

 

[Purple]

So, without wanting to generalise, but in the interests of simplicity, we are talking about low-income families here, right?

No, not necessarily. They were probably low income when they got their house, unless they inherited the tenancy, but they could well be high income earners now.

You seem to be concerned about the housing crisis but you don't think that people in LA housing who can afford to provide their own housing should be forced to do so and you don't think that people who don't pay their rent should be evicted as long as they can come up with some semi-plausible sob-story.
You have attempted to rubbish every suggestion that other posters have made but have failed to suggest any way in which we could manage out existing housing stock better. We have around 140,000 LA housing units in this country. If we improved the efficiency of how we manage that stock by 2% we'd have an extra 2,800 units available.
Your solution is to build more houses and apartments; great, we all agree with that. The cost of building that 2% worth of units will be over a half a billion Euro. I'd rather we didn't waste that money. If you agree than why not try to be constructive rather than assigning ideological motives to those who are trying to be constructive.

 

[The Horseman]

If someone is capable of paying rent but refuses they should be evicted. I have said this plenty of times.
But we are talking about specifically tenants of LA housing, right? So, their rent is set in accordance with their income, right? So, without wanting to generalise, but in the interests of simplicity, we are talking about low-income families here, right? You have heard of housing crisis, where low and middle income families cannot afford to buy or rent, right?
So a low-income family LA tenancy that can pay, but refuses to pay should be evicted right?
Now im asking you, where will they go (bearing in my the housing crisis)?
Once you have answered that, then perhaps you might consider why would they put themselves in that position im the first place? Perhaps you might figure that there may be other factors impeding on their ability to pay other than the automatic assumption that they are gaming the system?

Are you therefore suggesting that somebody who refuses to pay their rent which has been means tested and they are not suffering from any addictions etc should still be housed by the State despite their refusal to pay rent?

Perhaps they put themselves in the position of not paying rent because they know there are no sanctions and they can get away with it.

 

[Purple]

Perhaps they put themselves in the position of not paying rent because they know there are no sanctions and they can get away with it.

People in private houses who don't pay their rent get to stay there for months as well.
People don't pay their mortgage because they know that their house won't be repossessed.
It's not just LA tenants gaming the system and it all costs the taxpayer money.

We have a disconnect between what happens and what it costs us as a society. When we waste hundreds of millions because we don't manage our LA housing stock in the best possible way that means money is lost which could build primary care units or resource TUSLA properly or provide better homeless services for rough sleepers. Every cent we waste is a cent which can't be spent elsewhere. It builds a little bit more resentment in tax payers. It is a little bit more of a push to the extremes on the left and right. When a democratically elected government and the Public service which supports them is inefficient, incompetent or wasteful it undermines democracy and the social contract which binds us together. It undermines the legitimacy of the authority of the State.
The title of this thread is "Who speaks for the taxpayer?" but it could be "Who is ensuring the social contract is maintained?".

 

[TheBigShort]

Are you therefore suggesting that somebody who refuses to pay their rent which has been means tested and they are not suffering from any addictions etc should still be housed by the State despite their refusal to pay rent?

Why do keep asking the same question but in different wording when the question has already been answered and shown to you to have been answered?
Tenants who can afford to pay their rent but refuse to do so should face eviction.

Perhaps you can answer some of the questions I put to you earlier?

So a low-income family LA tenancy that can pay, but refuses to pay should be evicted right?
Now im asking you, where will they go (bearing in my the housing crisis)?

 

[TheBigShort]

They were probably low income when they got their house, unless they inherited the tenancy, but they could well be high income earners now.

Speaking of rabbit holes!
Thinking logically Purple, a LA tenant has occupancy of a Dublin city centre flat. They have educated, trained and progressed themselves to the point of earning a good imcome, contributing back to society in taxes etc.
They are liable to pay the rent differential rate, wholly more favourable than the extortionate private sector rates that are crucifying other hard working people.

What % of the overall 15% of LA arrears do you think they make up?
What is their incentive, having progressed in their careers is there for them to refuse to pay?
Or is it more likely, more probable, that they account in part for the 85% who do pay the rent.
Think about logically now. And when you have, perhaps you can then consider that the 15% arrears are not solely down to refusing to pay, but that there are other factors that may be cause for those LA tenants not being able to pay (chronic social disorders like drug addiction, alcoholism, gambling debt etc) or if they are refusing to pay, perhaps rat infestations, water contamination and other unresolved landlord/tenant disputes?
Is it possible that any of these factors may be cause for the overall 15% LA authority arears, and not solely down to tenants gaming the system?

 

[Purple]

if they are refusing to pay, perhaps rat infestations, water contamination and other unresolved landlord/tenant disputes?

Out of one rabbit hole and into another...

Is it possible that any of these factors may be cause for the overall 15% LA authority arears, and not solely down to tenants gaming the system?

Yep, nobody is suggesting otherwise although you are putting most emphasis on "rat infestations, water contamination and other unresolved landlord/tenant disputes". Think logically now; what proportion of that 15% do you think your posterboys make up?

 

[Purple]

They are liable to pay the rent differential rate, wholly more favourable than the extortionate private sector rates that are crucifying other hard working people.

Yes, a subsidy paid to rich people while they occupy a home that could be given to someone who can't provide one for themselves. You solution is to take mone money from the people subsidising the rich guy to build another LA home. Sure with logic like that it's no wonder we have a housing crisis.

 

[TheBigShort]

Out of one rabbit hole and into another...

Yep, nobody is suggesting otherwise although you are putting most emphasis on "rat infestations, water contamination and other unresolved landlord/tenant disputes". Think logically now; what proportion of that 15% do you think your posterboys make up?

Yep, so out of the 15% arrears in LA's you, me nor anyone else has come up with any breakdown of how many are actually gaming the system and how many are actually afflicted by other factors which give cause for the arrears in the first place.
But its my inkling, just an inkling mind, that the breakdown of those 15% in arrears who can afford to pay but refuse to pay is on the very low side of the figures.

 

[The Horseman]

Why do keep asking the same question but in different wording when the question has already been answered and shown to you to have been answered?
Tenants who can afford to pay their rent but refuse to do so should face eviction.

Perhaps you can answer some of the questions I put to you earlier?

If they refuse to pay rent which the state has calculated they can afford based on the differential rates then the state has fulfilled its obligations and the tenant refuses to pay then they should be left to find their own accommodation. If they can't then its their own fault.

You appear to think we should provide accommodation to everyone and they should not take any responsibility for their situation even after being offered the differential rate and they still refuse to pay. With this logic nobody should bother pay any rent safe in the knowledge that the state will house them no matter what.

 

[TheBigShort]

Out of one rabbit hole and into another...

Yep, nobody is suggesting otherwise although you are putting most emphasis on "rat infestations, water contamination and other unresolved landlord/tenant disputes". Think logically now; what proportion of that 15% do you think your posterboys make up?

You didn't read the article then?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irelands-social-housing-in-breach-of-european-law-461411.html

Unfortunately, another breach by Ireland was a failure to keep recorded stats on the housing stock, but the EU Committee on Social Justice found that a 'significant amount' of housing is of sub-standard accommodation.
Kind of plays into my reasoning that there are factors, other than bare faced refusal to pay although affordable, coming into play for the overall 15% arrears in LA.

 

[TheBigShort]

If they refuse to pay rent which the state has calculated they can afford based on the differential rates then the state has fulfilled its obligations

Interesting, you ignored this finding also?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irelands-social-housing-in-breach-of-european-law-461411.html

the tenant refuses to pay then they should be left to find their own accommodation. If they can't then its their own fault.

Again, some logic required here. Faced with the prospect of eviction for refusing to pay, faced with the prospect of being homeless, or living in emergency accommodation, and joining the waiting list for a LA house (hard to believe that this needs explaining!) and having the capability to pay to keep a roof over their head and the heads of their children what do you think the vast, vast, vast majority of people, throughout the world and throughout the history of humankind would opt to do?
Put it another way, other than social disorders such as drug addiction,alcoholism, gambling debt, domestic violence, child abuse etc, or economic disorders such as unemployment, bankruptcy, deprivation etc, or health disorders such as depression, has anybody throughout the history of humankind opted to be evicted when they were capable of paying for their accommodation.

 

[TheBigShort]

You appear to think we should provide accommodation to everyone and they should not take any responsibility for their situation even after being offered the differential rate and they still refuse to pay.

You are constantly making the simplistic assumption that the 15% of arrears is nothing more than a bare faced refusal to pay where there is means to pay.
You ignore all other possible factors despite repeated reports of substandard accommodation, homeless families refusing accommodation, social disorders and deprivation.
Why?

 

[The Horseman]

Interesting, you ignored this finding also?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irelands-social-housing-in-breach-of-european-law-461411.html



Again, some logic required here. Faced with the prospect of eviction for refusing to pay, faced with the prospect of being homeless, or living in emergency accommodation, and joining the waiting list for a LA house (hard to believe that this needs explaining!) and having the capability to pay to keep a roof over their head and the heads of their children what do you think the vast, vast, vast majority of people, throughout the world and throughout the history of humankind would opt to do?
Put it another way, other than social disorders such as drug addiction,alcoholism, gambling debt, domestic violence, child abuse etc, or economic disorders such as unemployment, bankruptcy, deprivation etc, or health disorders such as depression, has anybody throughout the history of humankind opted to be evicted when they were capable of paying for their accommodation.

I read the article and the state has been found to have substandard housing this does not mean you just stop paying rent. Using your logic then two wrongs make a right! By the way if you think you need to explain the waiting lists please refrain from your high and mighty condescending tone. I am well schooled in life and am also well educated academically and have seen the LA areas first hand and I know exactly what goes on.

You seem to think people should be housed no matter what. I have repeatedly specially referred to those who can afford to pay and blatantly refuse to pay and you constantly refer to drug addiction, alcoholism etc. I have kept my comments specific to those who refuse to pay.

Why should we house people who are given the support of the state with differential rates and are not suffering any of the addictions you repeatedly refer to and refuse to pay and you suggest they can still join the housing list.

Perhaps you could offer some constructive suggestions rather than sitting and pontificating about what's wrong and that its everybody else's fault and never then tenants.