Low paid workers should be prioritised for social housing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brendan,

Don’t you think you need to clarify what you mean by “not working”.

Do you mean people who have not worked for a specific time period?

Are you referring to individual or household unemployment?

Would the age or state of health of the unemployed person or household matter?
 
Sophrosyne said:
Brendan,

Don’t you think you need to clarify what you mean by “not working”.

Do you mean people who have not worked for a specific time period?

Are you referring to individual or household unemployment?

Would the age or state of health of the unemployed person or household matter?
Click to expand...

I would add to that, are the individuals actively seeking work?
It must be remembered that in order to take up employment, a job offer must exist.
The job offer should also be of reasonable suitability, and by that I mean that just because there is a vacancy at the local butchers doesn't mean that the unemployed hairdresser living in social housing must apply for the job or face losing their home.
 
ant dee said:
In my opinion, since he is capable of supporting himself, he should either free-up the social housing or pay the State the normal market price for renting a property in that area.
Click to expand...
I have no issue whatsoever with this. I agree wholeheartedly with you and others making the same case. Make them pay the going rate, issue notice to quit, offer them the address of a mortgage broker. Refer to your LA housing officer or the council, you won't hear a peek (or a tweet) out of me. There is no defence for the indefensible.
 
Purple said:
They are nice people and work hard but they shouldn't get a house from the State.
Click to expand...
Multipurpose response on my part read it again. I have no issue with your statement that I quote above. I agree, no ifs ands or buts. Talk to the LA housing officer or your Councillor as I don't know these people and can't voice my dissatisfaction with the circumstances you so eloquently describe, as Miss Cotter would say to me in elocution classes in Ely Place all those years ago.
 
I can see why people would suggest this. But would it move families to places where its impossible to get work.
 
BS

I can't understand how we ended up with a society where some people expect to be housed for free, in an area of their choosing. Can you explain why that is desirable? I can't.
 
Noone gets housed "for free" these days, please educate yourself about the cost to the tenant of social housing. If in an area of their own choosing means close to family there can be significant saving to the state by having family members operate as the primary carers rather than have LA/HSE deploy social workers, district nurses, etc.
 
TheBigShort said:
I can't, can anyone explain why we want a society that evicted people and their families from their homes simply because they were out of work?
Click to expand...

Its not simply out of work, it long term out of work, and I assume those that refuse to work. So its an incentive to work. Maybe. Not that I think it would work, its more like to cause more problems and cost more than its saves or solves.
 
Sarenco said:
I can't understand how we ended up with a society where some people expect to be housed for free, in an area of their choosing. Can you explain why that is desirable? I can't.
Click to expand...

Who are these people that you speak of? How many are there? And what has it got to do with the vast majority of people in social housing that go to work everyday, but if Brendan got his way, would be evicted from home if they ever became unemployed?
 
Well, the Irish Times didn't like your your suggestion one bit, Brendan. Really surprised by that :p
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/...-kenny-s-nation-a-chilling-scenario-1.3220902
So a radical suggestion from financial pontificator [broken link removed] – roughly, that “working families” be prioritised for social housing in Dublin, and reviewed regularly, while the unemployed are banished to the sticks – is something “some people will not like”.
Actually, everybody hates it. Burgess has been retained as our Thatcherite piñata, with so little self-awareness his retort to the challenge of living on social welfare is to say “I’d go out and get a job.” Presumably as a pantomime villain.
Click to expand...
If your not careful, the only station that will have you on will be Newstalk!
 
AlbacoreA said:
Its not simply out of work, it long term out of work, and I assume those that refuse to work.
Click to expand...

Well, according to the proposal low paid workers would be prioritized for social housing. But then be assessed every 5 years. If they are not working then, they are out. If they have started a family, then Brendan thinks they are irresponsible.

AlbacoreA said:
So its an incentive to work. Maybe. Not that I think it would work, its more like to cause more problems and cost more than its saves or solves.
Click to expand...

My brother is long-term unemployed, 2yrs, fork lift driver, 59yrs, had a bad injury to his leg. He has put on weight and not very mobile. Finding it hard to compete against younger guys for jobs.
Fortunately, he already owns his own home. But if he were living in a social house (as a low paid worker), under Brendans scheme, he and his family would be evicted to "wherever".
I think you are right, it won't work.
 
mathepac said:
Noone gets housed "for free" these days, please educate yourself about the cost to the tenant of social housing.
Click to expand...

Check out the level of rent arrears in the various local authority areas and the (practically non-existent) level of evictions.

In practice, there are plenty of people that are currently being housed for free.
 
Sarenco said:
Check out the level of rent arrears in the various local authority areas and the (practically non-existent) level of evictions. In practice, there are plenty of people that are currently being housed for free.
Click to expand...
And also the peppercorn rents that some pay. This is then used as an argument against those who say houses are free for some
 
Sarenco said:
Check out the level of rent arrears in the various local authority areas and the (practically non-existent) level of evictions.
Click to expand...

After you have evicted someone where will they go, on the street?
Also the fact that you have acknowledged 'arrears' proves there are payments to be made.
Funny that I don't think the same mentality applies to private housing where mortgages are in arrears? I mean, what a cheek, why should they get their houses for free?
 
Sarenco said:
BS

Do you think a local authority tenant should be evicted if they fail to make their rent payments? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

No I don't think they should be evicted. If they fail because of lack of income, what good is it to evict?
Do you think that they should be evicted? If so, where will they go?
 
BS

Why would any local authority tenant bother paying their rent if there is no penalty for not doing so?

Where would they go following their eviction for non-payment of rent? Wherever there is available public housing.
 
Sarenco said:
Where would they go following their eviction for non-payment of rent? Wherever there is available public housing.
Click to expand...

So you would evict them from public housing for non-payment of rent, only to house them in public housing?
Can't you see the waste of resources here?

Sarenco said:
Why would any local authority tenant bother paying their rent if there is no penalty for not doing so?
Click to expand...

Because like most people, they have a have a sense of duty to pay what they owe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top