Workers of the world unite

The_White_Horse

drc wrote: »

It's crazy that you can be given a house or flat for life by the council on account of having a baby without having the economic means to pay for it.

I understand the need for council housing for the truly vulnerable/handicapped. However, I think there is something really wrong with a situation where say, a young girl gets pregnant, claims she is being kicked out of her parents house and is given a council house which she can live in for life and do with as she pleases on a subsidised rent (and I see this situation all the time on another forum I read). She is then rewarded further by being able to purchase this property at a subsidised rate only a few years later.

In contrast a person who has worked all their life, saved a bit of money and then starts a family is not entitled to anything because they have been prudent. So, the person who has not planned and possibly contributed very little is rewarded with an asset (house for life) with subsidised rent that the rest of the population would have to pay a mortgage on for 25 years and hold down a job or pay 3 times as much in private rental without being able to do anything to the property they live in.

The situation is really rubbish and totally unfair.

100% correct.

ninky_2

my shake up of housing and the benefits system would involve the following;

priority for council housing given to the low waged and physically disabled. they would queue jump ahead of the unwaged.

unwaged to be given a housing allowance rather than council housing. it is then their job to find suitable housing within that allowance in the private sector.

provide subsidised nursery places and/or childcare for single parents who return to work.

drc

The_White_Horse wrote: »

there is a difference between giving them something and taking the pi55. i have seen the council flats in St Katherines Dock next to Tower of London, overlooking the yachts and the bridge. If you wanted a private flat around there, probably looking at 700-800k minimum. there is no need for council flats to be in this area!!! The council could (and should) have sold these blocks off. they could have made a fortune and built better flats for the benefits brigade in a worse part of town.

I suppose it's Labour's idea of redistribution of wealth. I mean god forbid people who work hard are able to buy more that those that can't be bothered. All must have prizes.

thetrampledtaxpayer

The point was made that we need a safet net. I honestly couldn't agree more. But the load of Luddites in No.10 who spend other people's money like water have turned it from a safety net into a career choice. Not a safety net. And it's being paid for by people who work for a living.

The problem with lefties is that eventually they run out of someone else's money. And we are getting to that point now.

And to the chap who felt that the council flats overlooking Tower Bridge and St Katherine's Dock were merely 'rundown flats in Bermondsey', he ought to pop over to St K's Dock (otherside of the river from Bermondsey) and see them - it would make him sick. And hopefully consider using his vote to get rid of the spiteful dinosaurs 'running' the country at the moment.

PasturesNew

These bits already exist:

ninky wrote: »

unwaged to be given a housing allowance rather than council housing. it is then their job to find suitable housing within that allowance in the private sector.

provide subsidised nursery places and/or childcare for single parents who return to work.

1] LHA does that, but because of the points system they just wait it out until they get a council house.
2] If you work 16 hours/week, taxpayers pay up to 80% of childcare costs. It's all part of that WTC thing.