The Daily Wire: Poor People? - The Daily Wire

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1

Poor People?

#1 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 23 May 2013 - 09:05 AM

I note in the news that Gina Reinhardt has lost some billions of dollars last year where her assets now stand at only 26 billion dollars.
Poor woman....she is going to end up- homeless I bet...unlike of course NSW public housing tenants living around Sydney Harbour where it is rumoured that the O'Farrell Government is going to displace them to the outer suburbs of Sydney in favor of selling privately this prime real estate in order to boost, with the income, and ostensibly, further public housing construction.
Of course the cover up (and it is a giant one involving the media as well) remains, not only in NSW, but in every state of Australia and Federally, as to the progress of reducing the 10-15 year waiting lists for public housing and the plan (if any) of finally eradicating them and in what time period is this going to occur.These statistics are to be, as it seems, permanently locked in the "secret vault"
It seems that all governments in Australia have ready cash to the tune of billions of dollars for road construction, but when it comes to public housing construction....."sorry mate...we are cash strapped...cannot afford it"
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#2 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 04 July 2013 - 04:40 PM

The O'Farrell government have decided to slug the poor with a great big tax on - get this - spare bedrooms.

NSW public housing tenants to be hit with spare bed tax

For affected tenants, this tax - without a mandate - could cost $1000 a year, hitting those who can least afford it.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#3 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 05 July 2013 - 08:39 AM

Yes it seems that Housing NSW have a problem with tenants living in "oversize" homes. This means that these tenants who in the majority are elderly had been allocated 3 and 4 bedroom (and sometimes of more bedrooms) homes when they obtained that home years ago. However then they had large families.....3 or more children so they actually needed that bedroom space. However the present problem now lies in the fact that their families have grown up.....got married and moved on.....leaving only an elderly couple occupying a 3 or 4 bedroom home and many do not want to leave.
That is purpose of that "tax". It is a problem.....a big one
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#4 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 05 July 2013 - 09:08 AM

View Postdumbcluck, on 05 July 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

Yes it seems that Housing NSW have a problem with tenants living in "oversize" homes. This means that these tenants who in the majority are elderly had been allocated 3 and 4 bedroom (and sometimes of more bedrooms) homes when they obtained that home years ago. However then they had large families.....3 or more children so they actually needed that bedroom space. However the present problem now lies in the fact that their families have grown up.....got married and moved on.....leaving only an elderly couple occupying a 3 or 4 bedroom home and many do not want to leave.
That is purpose of that "tax". It is a problem.....a big one

The obvious solution - build more homes.

The elderly that you have used as an example would be reluctant to move because they have lived in the house and in the neighbourhood for years. Expecting them to move to a different home in a different area would sever all the ties that they have built up over the years. Not to mention that moving house is always inconvenient - from finding the best shops to what day of the week the garbage is collected.

For such elderly couples, Housing NSW should obtain a smaller home in the same area - if possible the same street - and move the couple into that home for free. If no suitable home is available then buy one. A waiting list of 15 years is a strong indication that more homes are needed. That many homes allegedly have spare bedrooms is an indication that the housing shortage can be alleviated by buying smaller homes to free up the larger ones.

Buying more homes would be a sensible idea. However, Liberal party governments are not known for making sensible decisions regarding social issues. The former Labor government didn't do much better, but at least they're not slugging the poor with a great big new tax to cover up their inadequacies.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#5 User is offline   Trogdor 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 17-January 11

Posted 16 July 2013 - 06:37 PM

View Postdumbcluck, on 23 May 2013 - 09:05 AM, said:

I note in the news that Gina Reinhardt has lost some billions of dollars last year where her assets now stand at only 26 billion dollars.
Poor woman....she is going to end up- homeless I bet...unlike of course NSW public housing tenants living around Sydney Harbour where it is rumoured that the O'Farrell Government is going to displace them to the outer suburbs of Sydney in favor of selling privately this prime real estate in order to boost, with the income, and ostensibly, further public housing construction.


No conspiracy or coverup - successive governments have been doing this since the mid-2000s. Having maintenance- intensive public housing worth millions apiece simply can't be justified when there's a waiting list like we have now. Hence the sell off.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1


Fast Reply