We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Council houses for fixed terms only!

1…2425272930…54

Comments

  • FOURCANDLES_2
    FOURCANDLES_2 Posts: 702 Forumite
    Ninth Anniversary Photogenic
    ILW wrote: »
    Nothing personal but they should not be allocated to those who are in probably the top 20% earnings bracket. Seems crazy.

    They are not it was allocated before I earned more , so you stifle ambition?
  • ILW
    ILW Posts: 18,333 Forumite
    edited 5 August 2010 at 2:10PM
    FOURCANDLES wrote: »
    Yes it would because I would have seaked a property out as the private tenant who saw the property beneath them would seek out a dear property and get the social to pick up half the bill

    If that were the case, when your income picked up (as it has) you would have lost the housing benefit and now be paying a market rate, as it should be.
    Social housing is supposed to be for those that cannot afford the market rate.
  • Wee_Willy_Harris
    Wee_Willy_Harris Posts: 7,512 Forumite
    ILW wrote: »
    Nothing personal but they should not be allocated to those who are in probably the top 20% earnings bracket. Seems crazy.

    They aren't. But peoples circumstances change, often as the result of making the most of affordable rents. Obviously, with such a change in circs, comes a change in available choices. But they are still choices, and so should they remain. Like the millionaire who chooses to drive the 10 year old banger.
  • Wee_Willy_Harris
    Wee_Willy_Harris Posts: 7,512 Forumite
    ILW wrote: »
    What has that got to do with Council housing?

    Just follow the thread, It you are still confused, I'll repeat the entire argument just for you.
  • Wee_Willy_Harris
    Wee_Willy_Harris Posts: 7,512 Forumite
    ILW wrote: »
    Do housing associations have charitable status?

    I'm surprised you didn't know the answer to that one. Even the most basic research or knowledge of the subject would tell you.
  • ILW
    ILW Posts: 18,333 Forumite
    Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »
    They aren't. But peoples circumstances change, often as the result of making the most of affordable rents. Obviously, with such a change in circs, comes a change in available choices. But they are still choices, and so should they remain. Like the millionaire who chooses to drive the 10 year old banger.

    The millionare is quite welcome to his 10 year old banger, what he should not be entitled is a state subsidised chauffer service.
  • ILW
    ILW Posts: 18,333 Forumite
    Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »
    I'm surprised you didn't know the answer to that one. Even the most basic research or knowledge of the subject would tell you.

    Thought it may be quicker just to ask. Appears I was wrong.
  • Wee_Willy_Harris
    Wee_Willy_Harris Posts: 7,512 Forumite
    ILW wrote: »
    The millionare is quite welcome to his 10 year old banger, what he should not be entitled is a state subsidised chauffer service.

    Yet the millionaire can deprive the poor motorist who's only option of personal transport is a 10 year old banger.

    Fourcandles is paying full rent, no HB in pay. Who is subsidising him?
  • Wee_Willy_Harris
    Wee_Willy_Harris Posts: 7,512 Forumite
    ILW wrote: »
    Thought it may be quicker just to ask. Appears I was wrong.

    Thought some basic knowledge of the subject would help form an opinion. Appears I was wrong too.
  • wherediditallgothen
    wherediditallgothen Posts: 1,520 Forumite
    edited 5 August 2010 at 2:20PM
    Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »
    Yet the millionaire can deprive the poor motorist who's only option of personal transport is a 10 year old banger.

    Fourcandles is paying full rent, no HB in pay. Who is subsidising him?

    There are a fair few 10 year old bangers about. So the person earning £52k pa household income can deprive the people for whom the only option is social housing?
    Set your goals high, and don't stop till you get there.
    Bo Jackson
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.4K Life & Family
  • 258.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.
Update Your Picture