Low paid workers should be prioritised for social housing

[AlbacoreA]

Such as?

I don't really now. How can you incentivize people to move to an unattractive location for many reasons.

 

[Purple]

Maybe we should start another thread on this subject.

Fair enough. I think it would alleviate it by encouraging people to work.

 

[TheBigShort]

Fair enough. I think it would alleviate it by encouraging people to work.

That's interesting , because only short while ago after I made a comment referring to one the terms of Brendans proposals you said this;

The logical conclusion to that is that our social welfare system is a poverty trap.

Perhaps, just a random off-topic blurt?

 

[Purple]

That's interesting , because only short while ago after I made a comment referring to one the terms of Brendans proposals you said this;



Perhaps, just a random off-topic blurt?

Yes, so Brendan's proposal is a small step in the right direction in the overall context of the existing welfare system.

 

[TheBigShort]

Yes, so Brendan's proposal is a small step in the right direction in the overall context of the existing welfare system.

How so? How would it operate? How much would it cost to operate? Would people be allowed to appeal decisions to evict them? What would human rights organisations have to say about such a system? Is there a comparable system anywhere else in Europe, now or ever?
If workers have to work to stave off the threat of eviction will employers be compelled to employ them? Will any consideration be given to the suitability of employment? Or can hairdressers expect unemployed plumbers and bricklayers to be sending in their CV's looking for work? Will any consideration be given to the reasons as to why someone is long-term unemployed? Illness or disability for instance?
Not only all that but if I understand Brendans proposal, then someone who has have advanced in their careers to a point that they ordinarily wouldn't be classed as in priority need of house, will also face the threat of eviction. So its not even limited to people who are not working, but it is also extended to working people who actually advance in their careers!!
The incentive would be, not to take the promotion at work, not to advance the career for fear of being evicted. In the event that someone who does advance their career and is subsequently evicted, then they need to find a home (perhaps their family too?). In doing so, they may quit their job for a vacancy in their new locality. If an economy is growing, employers may find it hard to find the right people to employ in the first instance, without having to consider a state run project of eviction also!

 

[Purple]

TBS, do you think it is satisfactory that a single person on a high income can be living in a 3 or 4 bedroom family home provided by the State while there are homeless families in hotels?
Do you think it is fair or equitable that the taxes of low paid earners go towards providing that house?
Do you think it is fair that the low paid worker can't afford to live in that area where he or she works and so has to commute for an hour or more each way each day?

Brendan's proposal also addresses that unfairness.
I don't think we should tolerate that sort of injustice because fixing it, or just improving it a bit, is bothersome for the State and it's offices.

 

[AlbacoreA]

This is just another avoiding building more housing stock.

Secondly if we are looking at it in purely monetary terms, value for tax payer money. if it costs more to run than it saves then whats the point...

 

[TheBigShort]

TBS, do you think it is satisfactory that a single person on a high income can be living in a 3 or 4 bedroom family home provided by the State while there are homeless families in hotels?

No it is not satisfactory. I propose that if someone who is afforded social housing and subsequently advances in their career to earn a high income that, upon assessment, the householder can start to begin to pay a reasonable contribution to the cost of providing that house.

I also propose that if the economy of a country sees a demand for social housing, as is the case in Ireland today, that we should get on and start building those houses instead of this half-baked idea of evicting people

Do you think it is fair or equitable that the taxes of low paid earners go towards providing that house?

No more or less fairer than the taxes of the high income occupant that contributes towards the provision of that house.
But are you confirming that Brendans proposal is also to evict working people who have made a decent life for themselves? This would a be a step further than his initial proposal which was only to evict non-working people?

Do you think it is fair that the low paid worker can't afford to live in that area where he or she works and so has to commute for an hour or more each way each day?

No I don’t think its fair, but I don’t see anything in Brendans proposal that actually fixes the issue. In fact all it does is exacerbate the housing crisis.

Brendan's proposal also addresses that unfairness.

No it does not, see my questions in post #125

 

[TheBigShort]

This is just another avoiding building more housing stock.

Secondly if we are looking at it in purely monetary terms, value for tax payer money. if it costs more to run than it saves then whats the point...

Exactly. I thought the whole point of Brendans proposal was to reduce State expenditure. Instead all he has done is create more schemes, more administration without one reference to how much all of this would cost or what the savings would be (if any).

 

[PGF2016]

Would people be allowed to appeal decisions to evict them? What would human rights organisations have to say about such a system?

Is it a human right to never be evicted from housing? Even if alternative housing is offered? What about those paying their own way? Do they have the human right to never be evicted?

 

[TheBigShort]

Is it a human right to never be evicted from housing? Even if alternative housing is offered? What about those paying their own way? Do they have the human right to never be evicted?

No, I wouldn't imagine it is a human right never to be evicted. But I would consider a government policy that evicts people purely on their working status, as presented here, to be a form of persecution.
I would consider that a life free from State persecution a human right.
As for those 'paying their own way', they have entered into a private agreement between themselves and the bank. The terms of that agreement are known. Should a person be evicted under the terms of the private agreement, the State will/should assist in providing shelter. It shouldn't make that shelter conditional on somebody's employment status.

 

[PGF2016]

It shouldn't make that shelter conditional on somebody's employment status.

Why?

 

[TheBigShort]

Why?

Why shouldnt it? The State is committed to providing secure private shelter for all those that can't afford to buy a home of their own. The concept of imposing a condition such as your working status to prioritize shelter is discriminatory in nature.

 

[The Horseman]

Why shouldnt it? The State is committed to providing secure private shelter for all those that can't afford to buy a home of their own. The concept of imposing a condition such as your working status to prioritize shelter is discriminatory in nature.

The responsibility of the State maybe to provide you with secure accommodation be it private or social, it is not however the States responsibility to provide this accommodation where you want the accommodation to be. If you need to rely on State support and you are not making any effort to better yourself to eventually no longer need State housing support then you can't choose. I accept the old and sick should be excluded from this situation but not those who make no effort to improve their lot.

The State and by extension the Social system is there as a safeguard not a way of life.

 

[TheBigShort]

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Here is a link to UN Declaration of Human Rights to which Ireland is a signatory. Obviously it's not legally binding and the articles can can be interpreted in different ways, but I would hazard a guess that Brendans proposal may come into conflict with a few, at least, of the articles.

 

[PGF2016]

Why shouldnt it? The State is committed to providing secure private shelter for all those that can't afford to buy a home of their own. The concept of imposing a condition such as your working status to prioritize shelter is discriminatory in nature.

Brendan said the following: "If people are not working, they should be allocated housing wherever in the country it is available and cheap."

They will still have accommodation. There is no mention of people not having 'secure private shelter'.

Discrimination happens all the time. Those with kids are prioritised (positive discrimination) for housing. Why can't those with jobs be on the receiving end of positive discrimination?

 

[TheBigShort]

it is not however the States responsibility to provide this accommodation where you want the accommodation to be.

No it's not, but the proposal isn't about that. It about evicting unemployed people from their homes on the basis that they are unemployed.

If you need to rely on State support and you are not making any effort to better yourself to eventually no longer need State housing support then you can't choose.

We are not talking about people who are not making any effort to better themselves. We are talking about people living in social welfare houses, who lose their job, will be facing eviction under Brendans proposal.

I accept the old and sick should be excluded from this situation but not those who make no effort to improve their lot.

Well at least you have added some exclusions, unlike Brendan. I would add to that people who have a track record of employment. People who have qualifications but are operating in a tight labour market. People attending college. People actively seeking work etc.

 

[TheBigShort]

Brendan said the following: "If people are not working, they should be allocated housing wherever in the country it is available and cheap."

And you said

I accept the old and sick should be excluded from this situation

And I said;

I would add to that people who have a track record of employment. People who have qualifications but are operating in a tight labour market. People attending college. People actively seeking work, etc.

And if you put all those people together, the pool of people living in social housing that could actually be subject to this scheme is so small as to render it meaningless.

 

[The Horseman]

Well at least you have added some exclusions, unlike Brendan. I would add to that people who have a track record of employment. People who have qualifications but are operating in a tight labour market. People attending college. People actively seeking work etc.

These exclusions are for the genuinely sick and that the old are relocated into more appropriate accommodation (eg a one bed property when children have left the family house and not retaining a three bed house when only one person a couple remain in the property).

 

[TheBigShort]

Discrimination happens all the time. Those with kids are prioritised (positive discrimination) for housing. Why can't those with jobs be on the receiving end of positive discrimination?

I'm all for building social housing and prioritizing people on low and middle incomes. I'm simply opposed to the concept that if any of them subsequently lose their jobs that they will then be subject to possible eviction.