Rent supplement is in the crosshairs




<deleted: story already posted>


While I agree it probably will happen whenever this debate rears it head (with the usual sprinkling of the most vulnerable in society) does anyone (outside this board) ever mention the impact on people with stagnant wages having to pay ever increasing rents


Rent Supplement Recipients by County … a.25#g27.r


That’s a dramatic drop from 2012 to 2013. Have they all been given council houses or emigrated?
year number costx1000
2012 87,684 422,536
2013 79,788 372,909
End October 2014 72,444 284,000


Micheal Martin was on Radio1 this morning. Presenter said that if rent supplement maximum levels were raised, then landlords would match the new limits. Martin stated that rent supplement does not put a floor on rents :unamused:


And he was quite categoric about it too. As far as he’s concerned, it’s a myth that rent supplement rises all boats.

In Ireland, it’s your constitutional right to live across the road from your ma, up the road from your grand ma and in the same area as your great grand ma. A land where all your mas have medical cards (and not the over-70s cards either).



Q2 2011 to Q3 2014
-48,500 15-34 year olds Employed
-58,100 15-34 year olds Unemployed
-106,600 15-34 year olds in Labour Force


According to this there are 90,000 on housing waiting lists and they are pledging billions to address the issue. … 76277.html

I wonder do the Councils actually confirm that those who applied years ago are still in need of housing. I’m ignorant of the process.
8k drop from 2012 to 2013 and looks like a 6 or 7k drop in 2014.
That’s the size of two medium sized Irish towns each year.


I reckon you can add 50,000 to 100,000 pensioners on top of that (most of whom earn more from their pension than those in these “new” jobs).

And don’t forget the job activation program skew - unemployment numbers should really be higher and the “employed” (i.e. properly employed) figures should be lower.


You can buy Cherrywood, South Co. Dublin for €200m.

Why is it costing the taxpayer €3.5bn to house the most unproductive members of society? Why do we continue to incentivise them to reproduce, yet force working couples to delay and delay into their 40s. It’s too late then - yet we’re still expected to pay for their IVF treatment and their kids’ asthma/aspergers/down syndrome. I know fellas who’ve their kids in college while their “geeky” school chums who went to work in a multinational and are in and out of the fertility clinic.

8- XD


I’m not really keen on many aspects of your post, but to address the point above – as was highlighted in another post, councils house social housing tenants to a much higher standard than what many private individuals buy. Councils rejected a few new-build apartment blocks because they weren’t up to snuff for social housing tenants.

I have ambiguous feelings about this – on the one hand, it’s good to see the councils taking a position that people shouldn’t live in shitboxes. But then why did they grant planning permission for shitboxes in the first place? There’s something very wring with social housing tenants getting a higher standard than people who actually buy.


I don’t trust the statistics.
15-34 year olds are falling out of the labour force, gone God knows where.

According to this report there are 90,000 on the waiting lists. … 76277.html
According to this report there are 98,000 on the waiting lists.
Housing list numbers differ but are on an upward trajectory despite those who are at home formation stage of their lives decreasing in number. They’re dropping out of the workforce so I doubt they are being listed as being on disability allowance in any great numbers; they must be emigrating or in student digs or there is a hippy movement springing up where they go completely off the grid.

I suspect that Government doesn’t have reliable statistics which are up to date statistics and don’t have the BI reporting tools needed to handle it.

Either that or this is a genius plan by the construction industry to get 3.8bn out of the public purse through remote manipulation of numbers.


Many public commentators (of the non-establishment variety) have been questioning official statistics recently. and Constance Gurdiev, for example.


You do realise the 400 acres of land in Cherrywood was sold for approx €270m (or €675k per acre)?


Completely agree. I read a report recently where the number of social housing units built and added to the existing stock between 1976 and 1996 was 90,000 and in that period 1/5th of the SH stock was sold to tenants.

Now I personally know relatives who live in Social Housing and their families are grown up and gone, they now live alone in 3 and 4 bedroom homes. It used to be the case that to enable the home to stay within the family, the tenant would add a grandchild onto the home and pay rent, it was often the case when the tenant died, the grandchild would end up in the house.

This is not the case now, but it’s only recently and DubCoCo successfully challenged this in the courts last year.

Now if you want to add a name then that person has to prove that they have a housing need and if they do and the tenant dies then instead of having automatic entitlement to that home, they only have entitlement to a suitable unit, for example a 1 bed if they are single.

My question now is - who is living in the family Social Housing units from 1996 - 18 years ago?

Has there been an audit done?

Who are the 90,000 on the list now?


it would be interesting to know if anyone living in social housing had an investment property :nin


Well if TD’s on 90k + a year are living in council houses, then anything is possible.


Well if TD’s on 90k + a year are living in council houses, then anything is possible.

I presume there are some SF, any Labour or independents?


The whole idea of rent supplement is flawed, it would seem the money could be much better spent in buying / building social housing. However in the context of social housing being held for life regardless of continuing need, i.e. increased income or windfall, children having grown up and moved on, etc… and the inevitable waves of selling off the social housing stock to tenants at knocked down prices, it starts to make sense in that it will only continue on the basis of ongoing need and it will be scaled according to the ongoing need.