Who speaks for the taxpayer?

[Purple]

I hope you dont ever need help from someone in a union, if this is what you feel when you look at them.

I hope I don't either because other than pushing the government around unions are just about useless when it comes to helping people who really need it. They used to represent the working poor but after seeing them close down so many businesses the working poor generally avoid them so as not to become the unemployed poor. Now they are almost totally the sole preserve of the middle-class employee in the protected sector.
I'm a tradesman. My family were founding members of SIPTU. I was at a book launch in the ironically named Liberty Hall which was written about one of them. The person who wrote it said that they would be ashamed as how unions behave today.

 

[Leo]

But you are missing the whole point.

I'm not really, you're just deflecting again.

 

[llgon]

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?

Hello Brendan,

I don't want to annoy you any more but some county councillors are predicting another fodder crisis for 2019. And guess what? It's solely the Minister for Agriculture's responsibility to sort it out!

https://www.leitrimobserver.ie/news...is-in-2019-say-north-leitrim-councillors.html

 

[TheBigShort]

I'm not really, you're just deflecting again.

How so?

 

[Itchy]

I hope I don't either because other than pushing the government around unions are just about useless when it comes to helping people who really need it.

Unions help people who are members of unions. Who are the people who really need it in your view? Are they members of a union? They should raise the issues they need help with, with the union. If they have an issue that a union can help with, they should join it.

I cant see any merit in you argument that every member of a union is in it for themselves? The substance of your comments are founded in stereotypes and prejudice and you seem to have a jaundiced view that because these bodies (that anyone could join and influence) are not doing things the way you like them, you get to throw the toys out of the pram.

They used to represent the working poor but after seeing them close down so many businesses the working poor generally avoid them so as not to become the unemployed poor. Now they are almost totally the sole preserve of the middle-class employee in the protected sector.

Doesn't seem like sustainable strategy for a union to pursue, it would be farcical in fact.

I'm a tradesman. My family were founding members of SIPTU. I was at a book launch in the ironically named Liberty Hall which was written about one of them. The person who wrote it said that they would be ashamed as how unions behave today.

You just seem to be hurling from the ditch here Purple. Do members not have an opportunity to have their voice heard, put themselves up for election etc. The unions actions are a reflection of the collective.

As your family were founding members of SIPTU, perhaps you understand how and why unions were formed in the first place? You would swear from your statements that unions are operating in a vacuum ("pushing the government around", closing businesses willy nilly), agitating the ethical and moral business executives of the land (some of whom are definitely not in it for themselves)!

This is not to say that there are not problems with how society functions as a whole, singling out one cog in a machine is a folly.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

It's getting worse and worse.

The ESRI is now attacking pension reliefs and the Minister has said that they are generous, which suggests that they might be cut in the next Budget:

ESRI recommending cutting tax relief on pensions to 20%

And it appears that house buyers are being squeezed out of the market by the state's social housing policy:

Is the State competing against homebuyers?

Brendan

 

[TheBigShort]

Agree with the sentiment re house buying.

The problem as I see it is that the policy on housing is to treat it like a commodity to be bought and sold for profit or loss.
As the state competes with taxpaying citizens who want to own their own home, the price increases, inducing private developers to return to the market.
The State is building more social housing, but not of a policy of social need, but market forces have dictated the policy to start building social housing. These take time to come on stream, in the meantime taxpayer v state pushing up house prices to once again, unsustainable levels.

This is not just an Irish problem, it is an economic and housing policy adopted across the Western world. It is manifesting itself in increasing numbers of homeless in capital and major cities of nation states.
The tech editor in the Irish Independent got a sense of it recently.

https://www.independent.ie/business...tant-adrian-weckler-in-san-jose-36993520.html

Until we return to recognising that housing is first and foremost a social need fundamental to the establishment and development of civil society, then this problem will continue to ebb and flow, exacerbating the problem.

As for "who speaks for the taxpayer". Im a taxpayer, and I consider it in all our interests to end a housing policy that operates on market prices.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

market forces have dictated the policy to start building social housing.

Social housing leases should be for 5 years and not for life.

If someone is living in a three bed social house on their own, they should either give it up or take in at least two other people from the social housing list.

We should not be building any social housing in Dublin or other congested areas.

Low paid workers should be prioritised for social housing close to where they work.

New social housing should be built in villages and towns outside the congested areas.

Anyone in social housing in a congested area who is not working should have their lease terminated and they should be allocated social housing in a less congested area.

Brendan

 

[TheBigShort]

Social housing leases should be for 5 years and not for life.

Whats with the magic figure of 5yrs? What happens within, and after 5yrs?

If someone is living in a three bed social house on their own, they should either give it up or take in at least two other people from the social housing list.

What happens if the two people on the social housing list refuse to live with strangers? If your housing policy is to coerce strangers to live with other strangers then perhaps an expansion of the policy of housing homeless in hostels would be preferable?

We should not be building any social housing in Dublin or other congested areas.

Why not? Is it not working people in Dublin and congested areas that are finding it difficult to buy a home?

Low paid workers should be prioritised for social housing close to where they work.

Are there no low paid workers in Dublin or congested areas?

New social housing should be built in villages and towns outside the congested areas.

On what basis? How can you advocate this?
How can you advocate on the one hand that social housing should be provided for low paid working people near where they work, whilst simultaneously suggest that the very houses they need should be built away from the areas where they work?

Anyone in social housing in a congested area who is not working should have their lease terminated and they should be allocated social housing in a less congested area.

This has been done to death. It doesn't, and cannot work. Probably why such a policy in the Western world does not exist.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

I am not sure which bit you are missing.

People who are not working should be relocated out of congested areas.

Then those who are working would be allocated their housing.

Brendan

 

[TheBigShort]

The bit where the working person quits their job upon winning "the national lottery" of a social house in Dublin city centre and the relocated tenant takes up employment in Dublin city centre.
What happens then, a game of musical chairs?

 

[Brendan Burgess]

You are dead right. Just let single people continue living on their own in the city centre in three bed houses paying no rent and leave the families in hotels. Sure it doesn't matter as we can just continuously squeeze the rich and bring in builders from abroad to build social housing on every plot of land in the centre of Dublin.

Brendan

 

[TheBigShort]

Just let single people continue living on their own in the city centre in three bed houses paying no rent and leave the families in hotels.

Brendan, are you talking about swapping single people who work with families in hostels where the parents are out of work?

 

[Brendan Burgess]

I am suggesting a number of things

Single people should not be allowed to retain three bed houses for life - whether they work or not.

People who are not working should not be allowed to retain social housing in congested areas, whether they are single or families.

Brendan

 

[Purple]

Part of the reason we could build so many houses at the start of the boom was that we were one of the few countries in the EU 15 which let in immigrants from the new Eastern European EU member states straight away. That gave us a large pool of skilled and semi-skilled labour for our last construction boom. That resource isn't there any more.
Not withstanding the "but what if" scenarios presented by The BS I am in broad agreement with Brendan on social housing. An endless list of "but what if" scenarios means nothing is done and the poverty industry continues to bleat and mewl about homelessness without ever actually grasping the reality of the situation and dealing with the facts. They rather ideological pontifications to realistic solutions. Change nothing structurally but just get "the rich" to pay for it.

 

[TheBigShort]

the poverty industry continues to bleat and mewl about homelessness without ever actually grasping the reality of the situation and dealing with the facts.

The “poverty industry” is who exactly? The working people who pay taxes but cannot afford to rent or buy their own home? Or if they can, they are drowning in high rents and mortgage repayments?

The proposal to move tenants of social housing around in a game of musical chairs, on the apparently sole criteria of whether they are at work or not is simply ridiculous, unworkable, and will probably cost the State millions in administration and legal fee’s.

As for the “but what if” scenarios, I would have thought that at this point that if a handful of simple, straightforward “what if” scenarios cannot be answered, then what chance the more complex “what if” scenarios ever being resolved? It would appear that this penny is taking a long time to drop with some folk.

Is there any similar type social housing model as is being proposed here, being implemented in practice anywhere in Europe? And if there is, how is it fairing? Perhaps then there would be something of substance to discuss.

In the meantime, the economic policies that have transformed housing from a social need into commodities to be bought and sold for profit continue unabated.

Aside from the San Jose homeless article I attached earlier, here is the headlines from The Independent in the UK today;

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-housing-crisis-theresa-may-policy-challenge-young-voters-support-a8400766.html

Here is a report from France 24

http://www.france24.com/en/20150214-down-out-paris-homeless-france-poverty-sdf-housing/

Another one about homelessness in the EU

https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2017/mar/21/homelessness-housing-problems-crisis-point-all-eu-countries-except-finland

I could go on, New York, Toronto, Sydney, Tokyo etc…etc….housing and rent is becoming more unaffordable, meaning that even if someone is out of work for a short period they could be facing into a situation of homelessness quite quickly.

It could all of course be a coincidence, but I think I'm detecting a pattern here? Games of musical chairs wont solve anything.

 

[Purple]

The “poverty industry” is who exactly? The working people who pay taxes but cannot afford to rent or buy their own home? Or if they can, they are drowning in high rents and mortgage repayments?

No, none of them. The people who make a living out of homelessness, the organisations which exist because of homelessness, the businesses which exist because of homelessness; they are the homeless industry. They are part of the broader charity industry.

The proposal to move tenants of social housing around in a game of musical chairs, on the apparently sole criteria of whether they are at work or not is simply ridiculous, unworkable, and will probably cost the State millions in administration and legal fee’s.

Yea, that's exactly what's being proposed alright.

As for the “but what if” scenarios, I would have thought that at this point that if a handful of simple, straightforward “what if” scenarios cannot be answered, then what chance the more complex “what if” scenarios ever being resolved? It would appear that this penny is taking a long time to drop with some folk.

They can and have been answered. We are not in a position to set the bar for every scenario and a tiresome series of follow on questions which just drill into more detail but require the same answer add nothing to the discussion.
If you think it is fair and just that a single person can inherit a family home from their parents when neither they nor their parents owned the house while a family is homeless in the same locality then shame on you. If you think the solution is to leave that person there but take tax payers money to build another family home then shame on you again.
When faced with something which is utterly unjust and causes human suffering crumbling because a solution is difficult is also shameful.

In the meantime, the economic policies that have transformed housing from a social need into commodities to be bought and sold for profit continue unabated.

What does that mean? How do you separate social housing from private housing when they will always compete with each other for physical and financial resources?
Since when is spending money on a social problem not also an economic decision?
All private houses are bought and sold for profit. Do they not form part of the social need?
Are you against private housing ownership? If not then why not?

 

[TheBigShort]

No, none of them. The people who make a living out of homelessness, the organisations which exist because of homelessness, the businesses which exist because of homelessness; they are the homeless industry. They are part of the broader charity industry.

So put them out of business then and build more houses and stop prancing about with half-baked notions of moving people about because of whether they are at work or not.

Yea, that's exactly what's being proposed alright

I know, its insane isn’t it?

Just to recap;

People who are not working should be relocated out of congested areas.

Then those who are working would be allocated their housing.

They can and have been answered.

Your kidding right? Im still waiting for you answer as to why you think some welfare dependent drug addict alcoholic should be moved to Lucan from Rathmines. What have the good people of Lucan done to you that they deserve to live with drug addicts from Rathmines?

And therein lies the crux, with a supply of housing that falls short of the demands of a growing population, re-locating anybody, anywhere, will probably put someone else’s nose, undeservedly so, out of joint – so the whole concept is pointless.

If you think it is fair and just that a single person can inherit a family home from their parents when neither they nor their parents owned the house while a family is homeless in the same locality then shame on you. If you think the solution is to leave that person there but take tax payers money to build another family home then shame on you again.
When faced with something which is utterly unjust and causes human suffering crumbling because a solution is difficult is also shameful.

I never said the system was fair, far from it. Im simply opposed to making matters worse.

It really is limited thinking on your part. Even the language of “leave that person there” suggests mere begrudgery on your part being the prime motivator of all this nonsense.

There is almost this sense that there are swathes of under-occupied social houses to begin with. Are there? Im sure there are incidences of such but again, the complexities of moving prospective tenants in and out of housing under a policy that ties the employment status of prospective tenants is wholly unfeasible.
All of this has been pointed out to you, but you want to persist with convincing yourself...go ahead.

Speaking as a taxpayer, I would not want my taxes wasted further on barmy notions such as this. Thankfully, such notions have gained no traction anywhere.

 

[Purple]

So put them out of business then and build more houses and stop prancing about with half-baked notions of moving people about because of whether they are at work or not.

How obtuse can you get?

I know, its insane isn’t it?

What's insane is doing nothing other than proposing throwing more and more money at the problem.

Your kidding right? Im still waiting for you answer as to why you think some welfare dependent drug addict alcoholic should be moved to Lucan from Rathmines. What have the good people of Lucan done to you that they deserve to live with drug addicts from Rathmines?

When did you ask that question? Do you think it's fair that your welfare dependent drug addict alcoholic should be given a family home in Rathmines because his parents were given that same home 30 years ago when there are homeless families in the area?

And therein lies the crux, with a supply of housing that falls short of the demands of a growing population, re-locating anybody, anywhere, will probably put someone else’s nose, undeservedly so, out of joint – so the whole concept is pointless.

Okay, so any policy that puts someones nose out of joint is pointless, is that what you are saying? Do you think we should build more social housing in expensive areas where there is little available building land rather than build far more houses for the same money elsewhere, just so that people can live where they want?

I never said the system was fair, far from it. Im simply opposed to making matters worse.

So how do you propose we make it better (try to keep within the bounds of reality now)?

It really is limited thinking on your part.

Yes, doing nothing is far more imaginative.

Even the language of “leave that person there” suggests mere begrudgery on your part being the prime motivator of all this nonsense.

Indeed, anyone who disagrees with you is morally inferior. Sorry, I forgot.
Maybe your opposition to such a change suggests a bias on your part because it's a bit close to the bone?

There is almost this sense that there are swathes of under-occupied social houses to begin with. Are there? Im sure there are incidences of such but again, the complexities of moving prospective tenants in and out of housing under a policy that ties the employment status of prospective tenants is wholly unfeasible.

That's a great strawman argument you came up with there.

Speaking as a taxpayer, I would not want my taxes wasted further on barmy notions such as this.

But you are cool with inter-generational tenancies and single people being given new tenancies in family homes just because their parents lived there... but that's not barmy. You're a gas man!

 

[Deiseblue]

You are dead right. Just let single people continue living on their own in the city centre in three bed houses paying no rent and leave the families in hotels. Sure it doesn't matter as we can just continuously squeeze the rich and bring in builders from abroad to build social housing on every plot of land in the centre of Dublin.

Brendan

“ paying no rent “ - really Brendan ?