Social Housing - Creating a monster

[Purple]

Yes, a symptom of a failure of the market to provide a sustainable housing sector for the population, courtesy of a housing policy not to interfere in that market by way of providing more social housing.

What market? The biggest sector failing to provide housing is the state.

 

[TheBigShort]

Of course they should; they have been given a home which is being paid for my their fellow citizens

How is it being paid for by their fellow citizens.
If I am factory worker, paying taxes, living in a social house, I am paying as much as anybody else is for the house. Not only that, as a taxpayer, I am funding the houses of others who live in social housing. The only difference is that I never get to own my home legally and cannot profit off it by renting or selling it or using it to supplement my pension by selling it when I retire.

 

[TheBigShort]

What market? The biggest sector failing to provide housing is the state.

Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. The State is responsible for the policy of providing housing. It has abdicated that responsibility in the main to the free market. Hence, then mess we are in now.

 

[Purple]

How is it being paid for by their fellow citizens.
If I am factory worker, paying taxes, living in a social house, I am paying as much as anybody else is for the house.

Really?

Not only that, as a taxpayer, I am funding the houses of others who live in social housing. The only difference is that I never get to own my home legally and cannot profit off it by renting or selling it or using it to supplement my pension by selling it when I retire.

If you are on an income low enough to qualify for social housing you are a net recipient so you aren't actually paying for anything. Even if you were you are still funding housing for other who don't work. Either way the state should not provide housing beyond the needs of one family while being unable to need the needs of another.
As someone who believed in social justice I find that deeply unjust.

 

[Purple]

Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. The State is responsible for the policy of providing housing. It has abdicated that responsibility in the main to the free market. Hence, then mess we are in now.

Nobody's arguing that point. In fact that's the whole point of this thread and the essence of that what Sunny said in the first post.

 

[Sunny]

How is it being paid for by their fellow citizens.
If I am factory worker, paying taxes, living in a social house, I am paying as much as anybody else is for the house. Not only that, as a taxpayer, I am funding the houses of others who live in social housing. The only difference is that I never get to own my home legally and cannot profit off it by renting or selling it or using it to supplement my pension by selling it when I retire.

Ah come on. Someone in social housing is not paying the same as anybody else. Going back to the OP, the development in question has privately owned apartments where the monthly rent is about €1700 a month. Nobody in the social housing properties are paying near that so to suggest that people in social housing are not benefiting or should not be grateful is just ridiculous. Surely it is not offensive to point that out. Everybody goes through times in their lives. I did. There is no shame with social welfare or benefits but lets not pretend that people who receive benefits like social housing and medical cards etc are paying the same as everyone else. That's just left wing socialist clap trap...

 

[TheBigShort]

Really?


If you are on an income low enough to qualify for social housing you are a net recipient so you aren't actually paying for anything. Even if you were you are still funding housing for other who don't work. Either way the state should not provide housing beyond the needs of one family while being unable to need the needs of another.
As someone who believed in social justice I find that deeply unjust.

A net recipient of what? Welfare and public services? Isnt that just about most people? Most of us use, at some point, or quite often, state-funded roads, state funded schools, state funded water services, law & order services, health services, public amenities – parks, museums, galleries, child benefit, old-age pension, back to work schemes, etc..etc.. the list is nearly endless.

An elderly neighbour of mine, who owns his own house, went through a series of life-saving operations for a heart complications he had. My understanding is that the operations would have cost the State (he had no private insurance, as such his operations were left until they became absolutely necessary), a considerable sum of money, more than the price of a two-bed townhouse in fact.

At some point, either periodically or quite frequently we avail of public services making us all, more or less, net recipients. This is the social contract we buy into. To target one group of net recipients over others is socially unjust.

Are we really going to sit and calculate what each of use individually, that what is intended to be made available to anyone of us should we need it? And then point the finger at those who we perceive to be getting the best deal?

How socially unjust is that?

 

[TheBigShort]

Ah come on. Someone in social housing is not paying the same as anybody else. Going back to the OP, the development in question has privately owned apartments where the monthly rent is about €1700 a month. Nobody in the social housing properties are paying near that so to suggest that people in social housing are not benefiting or should not be grateful is just ridiculous. Surely it is not offensive to point that out. Everybody goes through times in their lives. I did. There is no shame with social welfare or benefits but lets not pretend that people who receive benefits like social housing and medical cards etc are paying the same as everyone else. That's just left wing socialist clap trap...

If I live in social housing and am earning €50,000 a year, then I am contributing as much to the tax system as another who is earning €50,000 but cannot afford to buy a home.

If I am in a wheelchair, unable to reasonably find permanent employment I don’t think it unreasonable that I should be grateful for adequate public services provided to me to make my life more functional, but to be ‘eternally’ grateful…with the emphasis on the ‘eternally’ then no.

I have every sympathy for first-time buyers trying to buy a home. I have every sympathy for working professionals who are being fleeced with extortionate rents just so that they can live within a reasonable distance within their employment for which they have obtained through hard study and work.

My proposal is that the State adopts a policy of building more social housing, not only for the poorest and most in need, but the working population that are being fleeced through rocketing house prices (again) and exorbitant rents. The housing market, left to its own ‘invisible hand’, has failed to provide a sustainable housing sector for the population.

What is your proposal? What do you think should be done?

 

[Purple]

A net recipient of what? Welfare and public services? Isnt that just about most people? Most of us use, at some point, or quite often, state-funded roads, state funded schools, state funded water services, law & order services, health services, public amenities – parks, museums, galleries, child benefit, old-age pension, back to work schemes, etc..etc.. the list is nearly endless.

Yep, only the top 30% of earners are net contributors and the top 10% contribute most of that. I'm very grateful to them.

An elderly neighbour of mine, who owns his own house, went through a series of life-saving operations for a heart complications he had. My understanding is that the operations would have cost the State (he had no private insurance, as such his operations were left until they became absolutely necessary), a considerable sum of money, more than the price of a two-bed townhouse in fact.

I hope he is grateful and thankful and sees such care as a privilege of living in this society and not a right to be taken for granted.

At some point, either periodically or quite frequently we avail of public services making us all, more or less, net recipients. This is the social contract we buy into. To target one group of net recipients over others is socially unjust.

Agreed. That social contract is based on us putting in while we get out. It's a bit like "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". Notice that that doesn't say "from each according to what they are arsed to bother doing and to each forever based on their needs now."

Are we really going to sit and calculate what each of use individually, that what is intended to be made available to anyone of us should we need it? And then point the finger at those who we perceive to be getting the best deal?

No but it's reasonable to ask if everyone is getting a fair deal.

 

[TheBigShort]

Notice that that doesn't say "from each according to what they are arsed to bother doing and to each forever based on their needs now."

Yes, but now you are talking about something different. You are talking about those who couldnt be bothered to contribute. The OP does not suggest this in anyway but rather notes the wasteful and self defeating policies of the State. In the terms that the OP has laid them out, I couldnt agree more.
But you have decided, in your own ignornant and prejudiced way, that the units will be provided for those who 'couldnt be arsed'. Otherwise why bring up the topic of those who 'couldnt be arsed'?
I have already provided you with a study that states that even the poorest in society, on average, spend a majottrity of their working lives in employment.
Is it beyond your reasoning to think that perhaps the units bought by the State will be allocated to working people, elderly, disabled?

 

[TheBigShort]

No but it's reasonable to ask if everyone is getting a fair deal.

Yes, and first-time buyers, and rental occupiers are being screwed. But thats the efficieny of the market for you, isnt it?

 

[Firefly]

I took it that the suggestion was that the lease should expire after 5 years and the needs of the tenants be re-assessed. That could mean they stay where they are, they get a bigger house or they get a smaller one.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I'm not saying that someone should vacate a property provided to them automatically after 5 years, but rather, they should be assessed and if it is found that someone else is in greater need, then the person in greater need should get the property. Providing a roof over your head (buying/renting) is for most their single, largest expense. Getting this provided for you for a period of 5 years, to me is a very generous gift, worth many thousands of euro. And 5 years is long enough IMO for the vast, vast majority of people to plan to get their own place. Otherwise we end up with inter-generational dependency where not working is actually rewarded and paid for by those who do.

 

[The Horseman]

Yes, and first-time buyers, and rental occupiers are being screwed. But thats the efficieny of the market for you, isnt it?

Renters would not be "getting screwed" if the tax take was not so high. I made a proposal to the govt via their public consultation process to extend the rent a room scheme to landlords. Set a fig of for example €12k that there was no tax payable any figure above that and the whole lot was taxed.

This would allow the tenant reduce there rent bill and not effect the landlord. It would be a win win, the landlord still takes the same net amount of income and the tenant saves the additional rent they were paying towards a deposit for a property they could purchase.

If the above happened you would have efficiency in the market. People would have finances to purchase properties, this would incentivize building of properties therefore supply would increase and prices would stabilize.

But the Govt wants to be seen to solve the housing crisis while at the same time disadvantaging the first time buyers. The HAP scheme is another reason tenants are being screwed. The Govt by introducing this scheme has set a floor on rents and it is negatively affecting others. I have personal expierence whereby a relative of mine and their partner both in full time jobs can't afford to purchase in their local area whereas a single mother on HAP can rent in the area no problem.

How exactly is that fair? What message does it convey? don't bother your This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language working when you can get housed where you want but if you try to get there on your own then you can't!

 

[TheBigShort]

they should be assessed and if it is found that someone else is in greater need, then the person in greater need should get the property.

You will have to determine the criteria for what is the greater need. Is a non-working family with a disabled child is deemed greater need than a low-income family with three kids?
Where does the low-income family go?

Getting this provided for you for a period of 5 years, to me is a very generous gift, worth many thousands of euro. And 5 years is long enough IMO for the vast, vast majority of people to plan to get their own place.

Havent you being following the news? Didnt you read the OP?
First-time buyers and well paid professinals are struggling to find a place to buy or even keep the roof over their heads. What magical occurence happens after five years, where house prices are increasing at double digit rates, that low paid workers can suddenly afford to buy?

Otherwise we end up with inter-generational dependency where not working is actually rewarded and paid for by those who do.

Why do you, and others, automatically assume that social housing tenants are not working?

 

[Sunny]

If I live in social housing and am earning €50,000 a year, then I am contributing as much to the tax system as another who is earning €50,000 but cannot afford to buy a home.

If I am in a wheelchair, unable to reasonably find permanent employment I don’t think it unreasonable that I should be grateful for adequate public services provided to me to make my life more functional, but to be ‘eternally’ grateful…with the emphasis on the ‘eternally’ then no.

I have every sympathy for first-time buyers trying to buy a home. I have every sympathy for working professionals who are being fleeced with extortionate rents just so that they can live within a reasonable distance within their employment for which they have obtained through hard study and work.

My proposal is that the State adopts a policy of building more social housing, not only for the poorest and most in need, but the working population that are being fleeced through rocketing house prices (again) and exorbitant rents. The housing market, left to its own ‘invisible hand’, has failed to provide a sustainable housing sector for the population.

What is your proposal? What do you think should be done?

You are not. One person earning €50,000 a year in social housing is better off financially than another person not in social housing because they decided to buy where they could afford or continued in shared accommodation or whatever. I have no idea how you can't grasp that people who receive welfare benefits are the recipients of help from State and taxpayer. It's not shameful. It's simply the reality. You sitting there saying there is no difference between someone in social housing and someone who is not is just ridiculous.

Who is asking for anyone to be 'eternally grateful' but you should be thankful and if ever the opportunity came where you could get a job and reduce you dependency on welfare, well then yes, you should show by gratitude by taking the job. And by the way your use of a wheelchair user is as insulting as using a hairdresser. If anyone is using the reason that they are in a wheelchair as a reason not to get work, let me know. I can introduce them to a few people.

Your proposal isn't a proposal. It is just throwing more taxpayers money at the problem that will achieve nothing. Thousands of social houses have been provided this year. Thousands. Has the waiting list gone down? Nope. So how can the solution be, get more houses. Why not do something crazy and maybe see why people need social housing. Why are young people with no disabilities or difficulties getting social housing for life? If the State provides a single mother with a house, what is the State doing to make sure this is only temporary? Can it provide free childcare to people to people on welfare for a period to get back to work? Can it provide better training and education programmes? And if people refuse to make any effort to make a better life for themselves when they can, we shouldn't be saying 'that's alright, it's not your fault. I don't have a solution because I am not an expert. I never claimed to be. But I don't need to be an expert to see that what is happening is not working.

 

[Sunny]

Why do you, and others, automatically assume that social housing tenants are not working?

Nobody is assuming that but you said it yourself. Social housing for life is a disincentive to build a career and improve earnings for people because of they might lose social housing.

 

[TheBigShort]

Nobody is assuming that but you said it yourself. Social housing for life is a disincentive to build a career and improve earnings for people because of they might lose social housing.

I never said that.

 

[T McGibney]

The housing market, left to its own ‘invisible hand’, has failed to provide a sustainable housing sector for the population.

There is no 'invisible hand' in the housing market. It is controlled and dominated by the various arms of the State. That's precisely why it's in such a mess.

 

[Purple]

Yes, but now you are talking about something different. You are talking about those who couldnt be bothered to contribute. The OP does not suggest this in anyway but rather notes the wasteful and self defeating policies of the State. In the terms that the OP has laid them out, I couldnt agree more.

I am talking about both things. I'm glad you agree with the OP although you still keep saying that the problem is due to free market deficiencies which is just nonsense.

But you have decided, in your own ignornant and prejudiced way, that the units will be provided for those who 'couldnt be arsed'. Otherwise why bring up the topic of those who 'couldnt be arsed'?

My my, you are getting a bit personal now, but that's okay; this is just an internet discussion forum and I'm sure you're a nice bloke really.
Anyway, where have I said that these properties ill be provided for those who 'couldnt be arsed'? I brought up that point because you refuse to ever accept that some people game the system and inter-generational welfare can and does enable inter-generational poverty. You refuse to countenance the idea that the State should allocate resources based on ongoing needs and should have methods to assess and re-assess those needs. In a world of limitless resources we wouldn't have to but in this world it is the socially just thing to do.

Is it beyond your reasoning to think that perhaps the units bought by the State will be allocated to working people, elderly, disabled?

They may well be but that's not the point of this thread. The State should provide housing for those people, not take housing from other working people and give it to them.

 

[Purple]

You will have to determine the criteria for what is the greater need. Is a non-working family with a disabled child is deemed greater need than a low-income family with three kids?
Where does the low-income family go?

What happens now when both families are on the housing list? That criteria is used to decide which one gets the house?