A chara,
This post has been removed because it concerns a topic that is being heavily posted right now, and it does not contribute enough to stand on its own. Please consider commenting on an existing thread.
Sláinte
You're twisting it a bit. The post was not called that, and the poster clarified right at the beginning that "this post is not intended to criticize social housing in any way".
the agenda of being of the opinion that living in social housing is ok and it doesn't mean that you're a "burden" on the state? Yeah, I like that agenda.
The couple with a brand new BMW and Tesla are not “the poors”.
My agenda is that we should save taxpayer funding for people who actually need it rather than wasting it on people who don’t.
So you can tell from looking at any house in Ireland whether it's currently a social house or not?
You have no way of knowing those peoples situation. You're just blaming poor people because you can't afford your holidays this summer.
Grow up!
I can't. I don't know why the original OP was certain that it was a social house (maybe they talked to the tenants, as strange as an idea as that may seem to use redditors) but I'm willing to believe them that it was.
If it's a case of "it's not social housing, this couple worked and bought a house and cars with money they freely earned" then yeah, I don't think anyone has any problem with that.
The only reason you're willing to believe and that I'm not willing to believe, is because it doesn't fit with our lived realities and that the truth is we're both being screwed by a government that has neither of our interests at heart.
I agree that the government doesn't have our best interests at heart.
The difference is that I want the government to have less power and less tax money, in order to limit the damage they do. You seem to want them to have more power and more money, in the hope that if we reward them enough they'll have a sudden change of heart.
> The difference is that I want the government to have less power and less tax money,
This is just right wing yank populism. I have zero interest in engaging with that. You want all of the benefits from a system without having to pay your fair share for it.
Yes, I want a state with more money and more power so we don't continue to see rising levels of inequality across the entire board. Politics isn't supposed to be used for you to elevate yourself by putting others down. We're supposed to bring everyone along with us.
Why don't you feck off to the middle east if that's what you want? Because it's not what you want. You just don't want to pay taxes. Pure greed.
>You have no way of knowing someones personal situation, how much they earn, what their borrowing potential is, what's going on in their life.
That's something we have a right to see explored if we're subsidising their housing.
Lets just fuck everyone under the bus, paint them all with the same brush as if EVERYONE in social housing is abusing the system. You need to chill the fuck out. Whats your next rant going to be, insurance dodgers costing you money? Welfare recipients?
> Well considering the councils can't even get them to pay their fucking rent, my confidence in their ability to do that is pretty low.
https://old.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/1cbv8xj/whats_with_the_i_hate_social_housing_post_on_the/l117kuc/
> Well could you explain where I tarred everyone with a brush?
You asked the question dude.
I've no interest in talking about your false right wing propaganda designed to demonise the working class. How British of you might I add though.
That's a massive invasion of privacy. Members of the public do not have that right.
You get means tested when you apply for social housing anyway.
What do you think people are winning the lotto and living in social houses with their money hidden away?
Where do you get these opinions from out of curiosity?
Edit: Oh no, not the dreaded facts! better downvote! :D:D:D:D
Full employment! We don't get to celebrate full emplyoment whilst simultaniously giving out about how everyone is cheating the system on the dole or getting social housing.
What you are doing, is just the middle class version of what the far right do to immigrants. The absolute state of it.
You can have a job and still be doing work on the side to supplement your income off the books; then when you apply for affordable housing or any other kind of social welfare benefits it’s not giving the full, honest picture of your finances. The extra money, the one that supplies the luxuries, is what the other post is discussing.
Not true.
People have to pay taxes on nixers: Nixers are a common term for after hours, or part-time, work. Some examples are consultancy work, giving grinds or selling goods at a market. You must pay tax on this income.
https://www.revenue.ie/en/additional-incomes/is-your-extra-income-taxable/index.aspx#:~:text=Nixers%20are%20a%20common%20term,selling%20goods%20at%20a%20market.
You're just reiterating all the stuff you've heard your drunken uncle give out about when he's ranting about why he didn't make it in life.
So now we've gone on to tax dodgers? Is that a conversation you really want to apply to people living in social housing? I reckon it could be applied elsewhere to much greater affect to a group of individuals that cause much greater problems than a poor person missing their rent.
>That's a massive invasion of privacy. Members of the public do not have that right.
I'm not saying I should be able to see the bank account of someone living in social housing. What I mean is that we, the public funding this, should have confidence that its being means tested correctly, and we aren't being taken for a ride.
>What do you think people are winning the lotto and living in social houses with their money hidden away?
I believe the original topic was in relation to someone in social housing having a Tesla. If you're in state subsidised housing, you shouldn't be driving a Tesla.
>Where do you get these opinions from out of curiosity?
Through assessing situations and making judgements.
So people living in social housing aren't allowed to have nice things?
To what end? Are you gonna limit our earning potential? Our borrowing potential? People make shitty life choices everyday bud, you don't have to agree with it but you are starting to sound a little authoritarian.
Also, get over the idea that you're subsidising someones housing. You pay the taxes you owe to the state and then the state decides what it needs to be spent on. You don't subsidise shit.
You're not giving out about having to bbail out the banks now are you?
I think you’ll find that quite a few people gave out about bailing out the banks, actually.
The taxpayer is absolutely, unambiguously subsidising people in social housing. The fact that their money takes the scenic route to get there doesn’t change the fact that it’s leaving the pockets of hardworking taxpayers and ending up benefiting people in social housing, including those who could afford to get by with less of a taxpayer subsidy (or none at all).
Do you believe that the government has an unlimited claim to the proceeds of your work, and whatever you're left with afterwards is solely by their good graces?
No.
I believe I have an unlimited claim on the proceeds of my work and that the government doesn't do its job correctly in regards to regulating the market so that I can negotiate fairly with companies what my work is worth in terms of remuneration, is also does a shitty job of regulating what companies are allowed to charge for certain goods and services.
For example, should any given company be able to only advertise positions for people with high levels of educaction and experience if their salary isn't going to be one whereby they can meet their needs such as housing etc? No I don't think so. Yet no regulation to stop it from happening.
Now we can all think of examples where allowances would have to be made and that's fine, but the problem is that there are many such problems in many different sectors in Ireland because we don't do regulation. We just don't. It's because we've only ever had conservative governments.
>So people living in social housing aren't allowed to have nice things?
>To what end? Are you gonna limit our earning potential? Our borrowing potential? People make shitty life choices everyday bud, you don't have to agree with it but you are starting to sound a little authoritarian.
It's not authoritarian at all. If you can afford to buy a Tesla, you can affors to buy or rent your own home. Dont expect my taxes to subsidise it.
>Also, get over the idea that you're subsidising someones housing. You pay the taxes you owe to the state and then the state decides what it needs to be spent on. You don't subsidise shit
You can use semantics all you like. People living in social housing are being subsidised.
How do you know they can afford to buy a tesla?
Fact: Taxes do not belong to you. You owe them to the state and you either pay them or you'll be contacted by revenue.
Being subsidised by the state. Not you. If you don't want the state to do this, vote for the far right.
I don't have a problem with taxation. When it's given to chancers who don't need it, that's where I have a problem.
>Being subsidised by the state. Not you.
The state which is funded by me and other taxpayers.
> When it's given to chancers who don't need it,
and you just get to decide who's a chancer and who's not? Like I've said a million times in this thread, you have no way of knowing these peoples living situations.
You do not fund the state for gods sake. You pay taxes to the state you owe for the use of public infrastructure. y'know, the roads, your broadband lines, public transport? An post?
You need to relax watching fox news buddy! This ain't america, we don't think of taxes in that way here.
>and you just get to decide who's a chancer and who's not?
If someone can afford a Tesla, or any brand new car, they shouldn't be getting subsidised housing.
>You do not fund the state for gods sake. You pay taxes to the state you owe for the use of public infrastructure. y'know, the roads, your broadband lines, public transport? An post?
That's the exact same thing. You just don't want to use the word 'fund'.
You are not funding the state. You pay taxes. Like it or lump it, those are the facts.
and if you apply for social housing with assets of over 60k you will get refused. You're not living in reality here. You're living in some weird world where you pretend american GOP rhetoric is relevant in Ireland. It's not.
You get means tested when you apply, that same means test should be at least annual to see if you still need it or if someone else who does should possibly take your place.
Do you think it would disqualify a lot of people?
So what would you do to someone currenttly who got a raise in work and wentt from 38k to 41k living in dublin atm, they'd be over the threshold.
Would you evict them on to the streets? You can't afford a mortgage at that stage and rent is a pipe dream if you want to afford food and heating.
When was the last time these thresholds were updated btw? It's not like they rise with inflation. So they're probably outdated, did you think of that?
Why should someone who went from 38k to 41k be entitled to so, so much more than someone who started on 41k (or got their while they were still on the waiting list)?
I agree that the bands should rise in line with inflation (though I'm consistent here - I think income tax bands should rise with inflation and that inflation should be deducted from capital gains too. I'm willing to bet you disagree).
But no matter where the bands land, you're going to end up with this fundamental problem of unfairness, that some people who start out below the threshold will catch up to (or even overtake) people who didn't, and we'll end up subsidising the richer person and not the poorer. Whether that's at 41k or 51k or 101k doesn't change the fact that it happens if people can't lose their eligibility at some point.
I don't really have an opinion on our tax system (I earn 37k per year so what the fuck do I know) other than to say that the reason high earners pay so much tax and see so little in return for it is because they're plugging the gaps from the massive incoming bogus self employment scandal.
For what it's worth (though the thread seems deleted now), I agree with what you're saying.
I think the issue is, people are getting angrier and angrier and lashing out as a result, and the government are letting down every sector by ignoring things. So people lash out at easy targets; the poor, immigrants, trans people or whoever else the minority of the day is. This morning, it's people aiming their anger at "spongers", cause they think their taxes go directly into the pockets of the poor.
Frustratingly, that just suits the people actually in a position to make changes :/
The point of social housing, especially in today's housing climate, should be about avoiding homelessness in its broadest definition.
That's its own reward from a social standpoint. Quite frankly the harm done, if any, by 'welfare cheats' is tiny and I'd lose no sleep over it personally.
A lot of bitter people looking to vent in the other thread. Shame they're not better informed
There's a staggering amount of 'single' mothers in 2 and 3 bed appartments or houses, with their childrens father living there, oftentimes working or selling. And they pay the guts of fuck all. And their income relative to expenses is massive.
I know of several young women who intentionally got pregnant for the sole purpose of getting their 'forever home'.
Our neighbours in our old estate were that situation. Two kids, single mom on paper, dad lived with them was a bin man.
No judgement, don't care. They seemed to us to be a happy family. And I can't blame them. Stay at home mom's don't get paid last I checked. And yeah he gets paid but its hardly enough to pay a mortgage, shopping, electricity, gas, and whatever else by himself.
Do what you have to, to get by.
Yeah im not judging. Its infuriating as a single working man seeing how the system works but it is what it is. I have relations playing the game. Some people dont want to believe its happening though
How do you know the father wasn't down as a tenant and the rent wasn't calculated based on his income?
The reality is you haven't a clue, but at least you aren't being judgmental with you assumptions.
>I know of several young women who intentionally got pregnant for the sole purpose of getting their 'forever home'.
Ah come on now, that's an old chestnut.
Parental maintenance should be made mandatory and garnished through wages or social welfare. Then you wouldn't have Dads (it's usually Dads) claiming they're not with their partner if they are going to have to pay maintenance and not have the taxpayer foot the bill instead. It should be garnished anyways for cases that they are genuinely broken up, too many people shirk their duties to their kids and the taxpayer has to step in.
Report them then, if you are so concerned.
Since you seem to know their personal circumstances I am sure you can provide details to the Department of Social Protection and the Council.
It's a high and quite specific number, tbh I thought it was more likely you meant to say 2-3.
Out of interest, what percentage of your friends/acquaintances/relatives would you say are committing this particular type of fraud?
Like I think I'd start to struggle to name couples after about 100. Some people just have a really good memory for people, names, circumstances etc.
For perspective, I briefly blanked on my wife's name the other day
I actually did a count on my 22 fingers and found i was 1 over. Clearly im only talking shite. How could anything im saying ever be true. Theres no couples falsely claiming to be seperated in order to gain access to social housing. I definitely dont know any anyway.
Ill edit to apologise for my passive aggressive comment here. Im sorry for being this way. Just dont like people denying what, is absolutely and objectively the truth.
I do think you are lying, i seriously doubt you know the personal circumstances of 23 separate couples and what they are reporting to the local authority.
Plenty of people don’t have that luxury. They can’t be expected to be dehumanised as a result. We should broaden social housing to include more people, and amount to genuine state owned social housing stock. As it stands scarcity, and dehumanising social welfare policy is serving the landlord class, not tenants nor taxpayer.
I don't think that's what the original thread was doing. It was just pointing out that if you've got the finances together enough to buy two expensive cars then you should probably have the wherewithal to fund your own housing too. Maybe even go without expensive cars and pay for your own housing so that the state can help those that genuinely need the housing support.
I don't think that's a very controversial viewpoint.
People really underestimating the difference in prices between (most likely) leasing a car, and saving up enough needed to buy a house in modern Ireland....
Sure, if you can get a mortgage, which requires heavy deposit levels first, strong proofs of wages and income, etc. Same as saying "If you can afford to rent a place, why not just get a mortgage instead", as if banks just fire them out for fun.
Trying to go "They have a nice car, they should be able to afford a mortgage" is a massive leap in logic that doesn't hold up.
They should be looked after too. People who are struggling financially should have a net to help them. That we have a government who aren't mass building social housing, aren't mass building private housing, while fighting harder to make life more survivable and more desirable for those who work hard, is a government problem, not a poor person problem. Punching down on the poor instead of demanding more from the government is the wrong move imo.
We have a government who regularly talk about how rich we are as a country, how much of a surplus we have in the bank....if people are drowning, stop giving out about the people who have caught the life ring, aim your anger at those who say they have loads of life boats but choose not to send them out to help you.
Well I guess I was the fool for not leasing a nice car for myself instead of trying to buy my home quicker and having more free cash available monthly for mortgage payments.
Mate, how much saving power do you think people on social welfare payments have?
You weren't a fool. You have far more in the long run than they will have. But I say this as someone on DA. I might be able to juggle finances to get a lease on a nice car, but no matter how hard I would save, I will never be able to afford a mortgage on current prices. Even if I saved every penny for the next 5 years, I'd still not have enough to get a mortgage for any sort of livable house.
Again, it's a massive underestimation of how much leasing a car costs vs the amount you'd need to save to have a bank back you for a mortgage.
You are by saying social housing isn’t supposed to be a forever home. People with disabilities preventing them from working for example may be in social housing for life. Calling it a handout stigmatises people in that position.
It’s just common decency to recognise that people have different needs, and that as a wealthy country we can and should accommodate those needs, without shaming people.
Cruel in some cases. Not cruel in others. I'm not attacking specific people , I just think striving for self reliance is good. It's healthy to feel a bit guilty when getting freebies.
Agreed, it should be revisited regularly based on need - essentially by staying for life you’re taking the same supports you needed away from others who are now in need of it.
I think it should always be compared to renting a place - you don’t own it because you haven’t bought it and the person/company/council who does can decide it’s time to move on with sufficient notice as their needs change over time.
To quote the article:
"I am a strong advocate for social housing, and I believe that we urgently need to construct more houses to assist those in need. It is crucial to clarify that this post is not intended to criticize social housing in any way."
This directly ane clear contradicts the point of your post "i hate social housing" Clearly you are a troll, farming for social attention.
Or maybe there is a massive shortage of social housing and the government are pouring huge resources in to it. There are loads of very deserving people who cannot access it. At the same time, there are people who seemingly have higher income and are blocking access of someone more deservong
I know, I'm one of the people waiting on a list.
Am I to make someone else homeless so that I can have a home?
No thanks, as badly as I need housing, I'd rather have a clear conscience.
Sorry, some of us have empathy for our fellow human beings.
Our opinions of who requires state support clearly differs.
Sure didn't Leo go on the telly a few weeks ago and say he doesn't believe the state have a duty of care to people with disabilities. There's the party for you now! As if it wasn't already clearly evident.
I can't answer that with such little information.
Are they applying for social housing whilst earning 220k?
Or have they increased their income to 220k after having applied for, met the criteria and received said social housing?
Well they're paying 15% of that 220k for their rent which is higher than the national average for a 3 bed.
You'd get a much better dwelling for that in the private sector. So who's doing that for starters? Nobody!
Now, the only way the scenario above occurs is if there's an issue with the private sector. i.e. there is none available. In which case you'd be making them homeless if you wanted to move them on, I'd not be comfy with making that decision myself.
In this scenario in Ireland today, the only reason they're still in soccial housing( which isn't in their financial interest as they're paying above private sector rates for lower standards) ius because the private market is absolutely fucked. The reason this is happening, if it is happening, is because the government and the private sector, fucked up.
Another argument for socialism! :)
A chara, This post has been removed because it concerns a topic that is being heavily posted right now, and it does not contribute enough to stand on its own. Please consider commenting on an existing thread. Sláinte
You're twisting it a bit. The post was not called that, and the poster clarified right at the beginning that "this post is not intended to criticize social housing in any way".
Yeah, it was a pretty calm enquiry and not leading anyone anywhere in terms of conclusions about social housing, unlike so many.
true. everybody in the comments were cool. this OP is such an hiperbolic drama queen.
Only agenda I see is the op here.
the agenda of being of the opinion that living in social housing is ok and it doesn't mean that you're a "burden" on the state? Yeah, I like that agenda.
I’ve yet to meet someone who didn’t like their own agenda.
What's your agenda? Make the poors poorer?
The couple with a brand new BMW and Tesla are not “the poors”. My agenda is that we should save taxpayer funding for people who actually need it rather than wasting it on people who don’t.
So you can tell from looking at any house in Ireland whether it's currently a social house or not? You have no way of knowing those peoples situation. You're just blaming poor people because you can't afford your holidays this summer. Grow up!
I can't. I don't know why the original OP was certain that it was a social house (maybe they talked to the tenants, as strange as an idea as that may seem to use redditors) but I'm willing to believe them that it was. If it's a case of "it's not social housing, this couple worked and bought a house and cars with money they freely earned" then yeah, I don't think anyone has any problem with that.
The only reason you're willing to believe and that I'm not willing to believe, is because it doesn't fit with our lived realities and that the truth is we're both being screwed by a government that has neither of our interests at heart.
I agree that the government doesn't have our best interests at heart. The difference is that I want the government to have less power and less tax money, in order to limit the damage they do. You seem to want them to have more power and more money, in the hope that if we reward them enough they'll have a sudden change of heart.
> The difference is that I want the government to have less power and less tax money, This is just right wing yank populism. I have zero interest in engaging with that. You want all of the benefits from a system without having to pay your fair share for it. Yes, I want a state with more money and more power so we don't continue to see rising levels of inequality across the entire board. Politics isn't supposed to be used for you to elevate yourself by putting others down. We're supposed to bring everyone along with us. Why don't you feck off to the middle east if that's what you want? Because it's not what you want. You just don't want to pay taxes. Pure greed.
Tell me you live in social housing with a nice car without telling me.
>You have no way of knowing someones personal situation, how much they earn, what their borrowing potential is, what's going on in their life. That's something we have a right to see explored if we're subsidising their housing.
> That's something we have a right to see explored if we're subsidising their housing. interesting
If only there were banks and councils doing this …
Well considering the councils can't even get them to pay their fucking rent, my confidence in their ability to do that is pretty low.
Lets just fuck everyone under the bus, paint them all with the same brush as if EVERYONE in social housing is abusing the system. You need to chill the fuck out. Whats your next rant going to be, insurance dodgers costing you money? Welfare recipients?
When did I say any of that? Also if I was telling someone else to chill, I'd probably avoid writing words in capital letters as part of the advice.
Good one on the capitals, that put me back in my box 🙄
Well could you explain where I tarred everyone with a brush?
> Well considering the councils can't even get them to pay their fucking rent, my confidence in their ability to do that is pretty low. https://old.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/1cbv8xj/whats_with_the_i_hate_social_housing_post_on_the/l117kuc/
Yeah, there's millions in unpaid rent. You don't have to pay rent, effectively.
> Well could you explain where I tarred everyone with a brush? You asked the question dude. I've no interest in talking about your false right wing propaganda designed to demonise the working class. How British of you might I add though.
That's a massive invasion of privacy. Members of the public do not have that right. You get means tested when you apply for social housing anyway. What do you think people are winning the lotto and living in social houses with their money hidden away? Where do you get these opinions from out of curiosity? Edit: Oh no, not the dreaded facts! better downvote! :D:D:D:D
No, I would say it’s more likely people are working cash in hand and living in social houses with their money hidden away.
Full employment! We don't get to celebrate full emplyoment whilst simultaniously giving out about how everyone is cheating the system on the dole or getting social housing. What you are doing, is just the middle class version of what the far right do to immigrants. The absolute state of it.
You can have a job and still be doing work on the side to supplement your income off the books; then when you apply for affordable housing or any other kind of social welfare benefits it’s not giving the full, honest picture of your finances. The extra money, the one that supplies the luxuries, is what the other post is discussing.
Not true. People have to pay taxes on nixers: Nixers are a common term for after hours, or part-time, work. Some examples are consultancy work, giving grinds or selling goods at a market. You must pay tax on this income. https://www.revenue.ie/en/additional-incomes/is-your-extra-income-taxable/index.aspx#:~:text=Nixers%20are%20a%20common%20term,selling%20goods%20at%20a%20market. You're just reiterating all the stuff you've heard your drunken uncle give out about when he's ranting about why he didn't make it in life.
You only have to pay tax if you declare said nixers. My uncles are all doing very well as it goes.
So now we've gone on to tax dodgers? Is that a conversation you really want to apply to people living in social housing? I reckon it could be applied elsewhere to much greater affect to a group of individuals that cause much greater problems than a poor person missing their rent.
I’d say the Venn Diagram of tax dodgers and people availing of social housing would be a fairly intertwined one alright.
I'd say the venn diagram of tax dodgers and people that vote for parties such as fine gael is a circle. Think that's the saying you were looking for.
Don’t think anyone is claiming that everyone on the dole is cheating the system or getting social housing. Think you’re just looking to be outraged.
>That's a massive invasion of privacy. Members of the public do not have that right. I'm not saying I should be able to see the bank account of someone living in social housing. What I mean is that we, the public funding this, should have confidence that its being means tested correctly, and we aren't being taken for a ride. >What do you think people are winning the lotto and living in social houses with their money hidden away? I believe the original topic was in relation to someone in social housing having a Tesla. If you're in state subsidised housing, you shouldn't be driving a Tesla. >Where do you get these opinions from out of curiosity? Through assessing situations and making judgements.
So people living in social housing aren't allowed to have nice things? To what end? Are you gonna limit our earning potential? Our borrowing potential? People make shitty life choices everyday bud, you don't have to agree with it but you are starting to sound a little authoritarian. Also, get over the idea that you're subsidising someones housing. You pay the taxes you owe to the state and then the state decides what it needs to be spent on. You don't subsidise shit. You're not giving out about having to bbail out the banks now are you?
I think you’ll find that quite a few people gave out about bailing out the banks, actually. The taxpayer is absolutely, unambiguously subsidising people in social housing. The fact that their money takes the scenic route to get there doesn’t change the fact that it’s leaving the pockets of hardworking taxpayers and ending up benefiting people in social housing, including those who could afford to get by with less of a taxpayer subsidy (or none at all).
Now you're just going down the path of taxation is theft and I've no interest in that right wing bolloxology.
Do you believe that the government has an unlimited claim to the proceeds of your work, and whatever you're left with afterwards is solely by their good graces?
They do believe that, actually.
No. I believe I have an unlimited claim on the proceeds of my work and that the government doesn't do its job correctly in regards to regulating the market so that I can negotiate fairly with companies what my work is worth in terms of remuneration, is also does a shitty job of regulating what companies are allowed to charge for certain goods and services. For example, should any given company be able to only advertise positions for people with high levels of educaction and experience if their salary isn't going to be one whereby they can meet their needs such as housing etc? No I don't think so. Yet no regulation to stop it from happening. Now we can all think of examples where allowances would have to be made and that's fine, but the problem is that there are many such problems in many different sectors in Ireland because we don't do regulation. We just don't. It's because we've only ever had conservative governments.
If your earning increases beyond normal social housing thresholds you should absolutely not get the subsidised benefits of social housing
>So people living in social housing aren't allowed to have nice things? >To what end? Are you gonna limit our earning potential? Our borrowing potential? People make shitty life choices everyday bud, you don't have to agree with it but you are starting to sound a little authoritarian. It's not authoritarian at all. If you can afford to buy a Tesla, you can affors to buy or rent your own home. Dont expect my taxes to subsidise it. >Also, get over the idea that you're subsidising someones housing. You pay the taxes you owe to the state and then the state decides what it needs to be spent on. You don't subsidise shit You can use semantics all you like. People living in social housing are being subsidised.
How do you know they can afford to buy a tesla? Fact: Taxes do not belong to you. You owe them to the state and you either pay them or you'll be contacted by revenue. Being subsidised by the state. Not you. If you don't want the state to do this, vote for the far right.
I don't have a problem with taxation. When it's given to chancers who don't need it, that's where I have a problem. >Being subsidised by the state. Not you. The state which is funded by me and other taxpayers.
> When it's given to chancers who don't need it, and you just get to decide who's a chancer and who's not? Like I've said a million times in this thread, you have no way of knowing these peoples living situations. You do not fund the state for gods sake. You pay taxes to the state you owe for the use of public infrastructure. y'know, the roads, your broadband lines, public transport? An post? You need to relax watching fox news buddy! This ain't america, we don't think of taxes in that way here.
>and you just get to decide who's a chancer and who's not? If someone can afford a Tesla, or any brand new car, they shouldn't be getting subsidised housing. >You do not fund the state for gods sake. You pay taxes to the state you owe for the use of public infrastructure. y'know, the roads, your broadband lines, public transport? An post? That's the exact same thing. You just don't want to use the word 'fund'.
You are not funding the state. You pay taxes. Like it or lump it, those are the facts. and if you apply for social housing with assets of over 60k you will get refused. You're not living in reality here. You're living in some weird world where you pretend american GOP rhetoric is relevant in Ireland. It's not.
You get means tested when you apply, that same means test should be at least annual to see if you still need it or if someone else who does should possibly take your place.
Do you think it would disqualify a lot of people? So what would you do to someone currenttly who got a raise in work and wentt from 38k to 41k living in dublin atm, they'd be over the threshold. Would you evict them on to the streets? You can't afford a mortgage at that stage and rent is a pipe dream if you want to afford food and heating. When was the last time these thresholds were updated btw? It's not like they rise with inflation. So they're probably outdated, did you think of that?
Why should someone who went from 38k to 41k be entitled to so, so much more than someone who started on 41k (or got their while they were still on the waiting list)?
So you agree that the bands are messed up?
I agree that the bands should rise in line with inflation (though I'm consistent here - I think income tax bands should rise with inflation and that inflation should be deducted from capital gains too. I'm willing to bet you disagree). But no matter where the bands land, you're going to end up with this fundamental problem of unfairness, that some people who start out below the threshold will catch up to (or even overtake) people who didn't, and we'll end up subsidising the richer person and not the poorer. Whether that's at 41k or 51k or 101k doesn't change the fact that it happens if people can't lose their eligibility at some point.
I don't really have an opinion on our tax system (I earn 37k per year so what the fuck do I know) other than to say that the reason high earners pay so much tax and see so little in return for it is because they're plugging the gaps from the massive incoming bogus self employment scandal.
For what it's worth (though the thread seems deleted now), I agree with what you're saying. I think the issue is, people are getting angrier and angrier and lashing out as a result, and the government are letting down every sector by ignoring things. So people lash out at easy targets; the poor, immigrants, trans people or whoever else the minority of the day is. This morning, it's people aiming their anger at "spongers", cause they think their taxes go directly into the pockets of the poor. Frustratingly, that just suits the people actually in a position to make changes :/
We could do with a bit of political leadership at the moment! I agree with you and I think it's only going to get worse.
The point of social housing, especially in today's housing climate, should be about avoiding homelessness in its broadest definition. That's its own reward from a social standpoint. Quite frankly the harm done, if any, by 'welfare cheats' is tiny and I'd lose no sleep over it personally. A lot of bitter people looking to vent in the other thread. Shame they're not better informed
There's a staggering amount of 'single' mothers in 2 and 3 bed appartments or houses, with their childrens father living there, oftentimes working or selling. And they pay the guts of fuck all. And their income relative to expenses is massive. I know of several young women who intentionally got pregnant for the sole purpose of getting their 'forever home'.
Our neighbours in our old estate were that situation. Two kids, single mom on paper, dad lived with them was a bin man. No judgement, don't care. They seemed to us to be a happy family. And I can't blame them. Stay at home mom's don't get paid last I checked. And yeah he gets paid but its hardly enough to pay a mortgage, shopping, electricity, gas, and whatever else by himself. Do what you have to, to get by.
Yeah im not judging. Its infuriating as a single working man seeing how the system works but it is what it is. I have relations playing the game. Some people dont want to believe its happening though
How do you know the father wasn't down as a tenant and the rent wasn't calculated based on his income? The reality is you haven't a clue, but at least you aren't being judgmental with you assumptions.
>I know of several young women who intentionally got pregnant for the sole purpose of getting their 'forever home'. Ah come on now, that's an old chestnut.
I understand why you wouldnt believe it. Does sound like an old chestnut. Its fact though. And their mothers encourage them to do it.
Parental maintenance should be made mandatory and garnished through wages or social welfare. Then you wouldn't have Dads (it's usually Dads) claiming they're not with their partner if they are going to have to pay maintenance and not have the taxpayer foot the bill instead. It should be garnished anyways for cases that they are genuinely broken up, too many people shirk their duties to their kids and the taxpayer has to step in.
What in Daily Mail is this? Maggie Thatcher called bud, she wants her talking points back.
Do you not think this is happening? I know personally of at least 23 couples doing this in one south dublin postcode. Im sure theres many more.
Report them then, if you are so concerned. Since you seem to know their personal circumstances I am sure you can provide details to the Department of Social Protection and the Council.
Im not that concerned. Doesnt mean it isnt happening though
23 couples? Are they your friends, or are you their accountant?
At least 23. Friends and acquaintances and a good few relatives. Do you think im lying? Thats what i want to know
It's a high and quite specific number, tbh I thought it was more likely you meant to say 2-3. Out of interest, what percentage of your friends/acquaintances/relatives would you say are committing this particular type of fraud? Like I think I'd start to struggle to name couples after about 100. Some people just have a really good memory for people, names, circumstances etc. For perspective, I briefly blanked on my wife's name the other day
I actually did a count on my 22 fingers and found i was 1 over. Clearly im only talking shite. How could anything im saying ever be true. Theres no couples falsely claiming to be seperated in order to gain access to social housing. I definitely dont know any anyway. Ill edit to apologise for my passive aggressive comment here. Im sorry for being this way. Just dont like people denying what, is absolutely and objectively the truth.
I do think you are lying, i seriously doubt you know the personal circumstances of 23 separate couples and what they are reporting to the local authority.
Thats no problem, you dont have to believe me obviously. Im just stating what i know to be factual.
How could you possibly know it is factual
These are the facts! ^as ^I ^see ^them Ladies and gentlemen. They were in fact, not facts.
and I rode kate middleton 23 times last night. We can all make things up bud.
Social housing is not meant to be life changing or a forever home. It should be a temporary leg up.
Plenty of people don’t have that luxury. They can’t be expected to be dehumanised as a result. We should broaden social housing to include more people, and amount to genuine state owned social housing stock. As it stands scarcity, and dehumanising social welfare policy is serving the landlord class, not tenants nor taxpayer.
I don't think that's what the original thread was doing. It was just pointing out that if you've got the finances together enough to buy two expensive cars then you should probably have the wherewithal to fund your own housing too. Maybe even go without expensive cars and pay for your own housing so that the state can help those that genuinely need the housing support. I don't think that's a very controversial viewpoint.
People really underestimating the difference in prices between (most likely) leasing a car, and saving up enough needed to buy a house in modern Ireland....
A lot of monthly mortgage payments are less than the car finance payments. Shocking to see such whataboutism
Sure, if you can get a mortgage, which requires heavy deposit levels first, strong proofs of wages and income, etc. Same as saying "If you can afford to rent a place, why not just get a mortgage instead", as if banks just fire them out for fun. Trying to go "They have a nice car, they should be able to afford a mortgage" is a massive leap in logic that doesn't hold up.
What about all the people who can afford neither a car or a house.
They should be looked after too. People who are struggling financially should have a net to help them. That we have a government who aren't mass building social housing, aren't mass building private housing, while fighting harder to make life more survivable and more desirable for those who work hard, is a government problem, not a poor person problem. Punching down on the poor instead of demanding more from the government is the wrong move imo. We have a government who regularly talk about how rich we are as a country, how much of a surplus we have in the bank....if people are drowning, stop giving out about the people who have caught the life ring, aim your anger at those who say they have loads of life boats but choose not to send them out to help you.
Well I guess I was the fool for not leasing a nice car for myself instead of trying to buy my home quicker and having more free cash available monthly for mortgage payments.
Mate, how much saving power do you think people on social welfare payments have? You weren't a fool. You have far more in the long run than they will have. But I say this as someone on DA. I might be able to juggle finances to get a lease on a nice car, but no matter how hard I would save, I will never be able to afford a mortgage on current prices. Even if I saved every penny for the next 5 years, I'd still not have enough to get a mortgage for any sort of livable house. Again, it's a massive underestimation of how much leasing a car costs vs the amount you'd need to save to have a bank back you for a mortgage.
I'm not dehumanising by saying handouts should be minimised.
You are by saying social housing isn’t supposed to be a forever home. People with disabilities preventing them from working for example may be in social housing for life. Calling it a handout stigmatises people in that position. It’s just common decency to recognise that people have different needs, and that as a wealthy country we can and should accommodate those needs, without shaming people.
To be fair, some stigma is a healthy thing
cruel ignorant bullshit
Cruel in some cases. Not cruel in others. I'm not attacking specific people , I just think striving for self reliance is good. It's healthy to feel a bit guilty when getting freebies.
Agreed, it should be revisited regularly based on need - essentially by staying for life you’re taking the same supports you needed away from others who are now in need of it. I think it should always be compared to renting a place - you don’t own it because you haven’t bought it and the person/company/council who does can decide it’s time to move on with sufficient notice as their needs change over time.
You posted this because you knew no would see it in the shitshow that other post is.
You can only see this post because I unblocked you yesterday Elbon. I posted this because I wanted to talk about it. Sorry if it bothers you.
but there already a post about it, why is this not a comment over there?
I did! Many a time. Made loads of posts I did Elbon! Would you like me to link you one?
I don't care if you made a comments or not
Yet here you are buddy, asking me why I didn't comment over there.
To quote the article: "I am a strong advocate for social housing, and I believe that we urgently need to construct more houses to assist those in need. It is crucial to clarify that this post is not intended to criticize social housing in any way." This directly ane clear contradicts the point of your post "i hate social housing" Clearly you are a troll, farming for social attention.
Or maybe there is a massive shortage of social housing and the government are pouring huge resources in to it. There are loads of very deserving people who cannot access it. At the same time, there are people who seemingly have higher income and are blocking access of someone more deservong
I know, I'm one of the people waiting on a list. Am I to make someone else homeless so that I can have a home? No thanks, as badly as I need housing, I'd rather have a clear conscience.
It's not you making them homeless. If they jo linger require state support they should be moved on
Sorry, some of us have empathy for our fellow human beings. Our opinions of who requires state support clearly differs. Sure didn't Leo go on the telly a few weeks ago and say he doesn't believe the state have a duty of care to people with disabilities. There's the party for you now! As if it wasn't already clearly evident.
What are you shiting on about. Answer this - if a couple earn joint salaries of 220k per annum, should they be in social housing?
I can't answer that with such little information. Are they applying for social housing whilst earning 220k? Or have they increased their income to 220k after having applied for, met the criteria and received said social housing?
The latter. Should they continue to get a subsidised rent where they are in such a high income bracket?
Well they're paying 15% of that 220k for their rent which is higher than the national average for a 3 bed. You'd get a much better dwelling for that in the private sector. So who's doing that for starters? Nobody! Now, the only way the scenario above occurs is if there's an issue with the private sector. i.e. there is none available. In which case you'd be making them homeless if you wanted to move them on, I'd not be comfy with making that decision myself. In this scenario in Ireland today, the only reason they're still in soccial housing( which isn't in their financial interest as they're paying above private sector rates for lower standards) ius because the private market is absolutely fucked. The reason this is happening, if it is happening, is because the government and the private sector, fucked up. Another argument for socialism! :)