Council houses for fixed terms only!

FOURCANDLES_2

wherediditallgothen wrote: »

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?

NO because the person you talk about can rent private their rent is then subsidised through HB and they can then wait until a suitable HA or council house comes along. The move people to different areas is wrong ID SMITH SAID OFFER PEOPLE THE CHANCE. I do think some people are just looking for a section of society to pity and another to moan about when perhaps they should in fact be looking at their own morals, envy ,

wherediditallgothen

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Are you now proposing some sort of insecure security?

No just proposing that those who earn more than the national average wage could probably make their own arrangements, meaning that social housing is left to those who NEED it.

Are you proposing that we all live in social housing?

Mum_of_3_3

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

NO because the person you talk about can rent private their rent is then subsidised through HB and they can then wait until a suitable HA or council house comes along.

But if everyone in social housing were just as selfish as you they will be waiting for a very, very long time to move and therefore be subsidised by me & you for longer

wherediditallgothen

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

NO because the person you talk about can rent private their rent is then subsidised through HB and they can then wait until a suitable HA or council house comes along. The move people to different areas is wrong ID SMITH SAID OFFER PEOPLE THE CHANCE. I do think some people are just looking for a section of society to pity and another to moan about when perhaps they should in fact be looking at their own morals, envy ,

So the least prepared can be subject to the vagaries of private rented, while those who no longer NEED it can have a cushy little number.

Don't think it's my morals that need looking at, tbh.

Wee_Willy_Harris

wherediditallgothen wrote: »

No just proposing that those who earn more than the national average wage could probably make their own arrangements, meaning that social housing is left to those who NEED it.

Are you proposing that we all live in social housing?

I'm proposing that we maintain the entire point of social housing (security and affordability) rather than reducing it all to the level of the private sector (insecurity and high cost). Social housing is something we should be proud of, in much the same way as the NHS. Frankly, rather than reducing the security of social tenants, we should be increasing the security of private tenants.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Mum_of_3 wrote: »

But if everyone in social housing were just as selfish as you they will be waiting for a very, very long time to move and therefore be subsidised by me & you for longer

Again with this "subsidy". Most, if not all, houisng associations run at a SURPLUS, not a loss. In fact, many are now being critisised for the amount of surplus they are holding.

poppysarah

ILW wrote: »

Fair point, but the flip side is that those who can afford to pay market rents should be made to.

Maybe the market is squewed by housing benefit payments?

Low rents would benefit the UK.

FOURCANDLES_2

wherediditallgothen wrote: »

No just proposing that those who earn more than the national average wage could probably make their own arrangements, meaning that social housing is left to those who NEED it.

Are you proposing that we all live in social housing?

Well in your view the only ones that really need social housing must long term unemployed as they struggle to get private rental property, anyone working can rent private and receive HB to top it up. So you wish to create an under class? as the unemployed if they better themselves will lose the house or they stifle their ambition in order to keep secure tenure.
This is all Tory BLUSTER where was the big story yesterday? lets face it H ASSOCIATION TENANTS WILL WORK BETTER THEMSELVES AND MOVE ON WHEN THEY CAN AFFORD TO and NO labour or Tory or lib/dem will stop that.

Wee_Willy_Harris

wherediditallgothen wrote: »

So the least prepared can be subject to the vagaries of private rented, while those who no longer NEED it can have a cushy little number.

Don't think it's my morals that need looking at, tbh.

Most people in housing "need" will have ready access to social housing. And the word "need" has a very broad definition in housing terms.

FOURCANDLES_2

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Again with this "subsidy". Most, if not all, houisng associations run at a SURPLUS, not a loss. In fact, many are now being critisised for the amount of surplus they are holding.

And many posting on here care for the needy, bloody hell I live in a H association home I am not thick