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,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
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?
What hope getting them into rat infested, water contaminated houses?
What would be the point in evicting someone from such dire properties over arrears?
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?
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.So, without wanting to generalise, but in the interests of simplicity, we are talking about low-income families here, right?
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?
People in private houses who don't pay their rent get to stay there for months as well.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.
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?
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)?
They were probably low income when they got their house, unless they inherited the tenancy, but they could well be high income earners now.
Out of one rabbit hole and into another...if they are refusing to pay, perhaps rat infestations, water contamination and other unresolved landlord/tenant disputes?
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?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?
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.
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?
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?
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?
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
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.
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.
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?