The wonderous way 'social' housing is allocated

geri1965_2

chewmylegoff wrote: »

it isn't though is it. e.g. once you get social housing, you can keep it, regardless of your wealth. it isn't removed when the need for it has gone away. frankly, it should be. there is no reason for the state to be levying taxation in order to subsidise housing for people who could pay for it themselves.

The trouble with that argument is that it would be a disincentive for people to better themselves - why would you bother getting a job, for example, if it would lead to losing your home and having to move into the insecure private rental market? Housing associations like to have employed tenants to ensure a genuine mix of people in the properties they own.

Wee_Willy_Harris

chewmylegoff wrote: »

it isn't though is it. e.g. once you get social housing, you can keep it, regardless of your wealth. it isn't removed when the need for it has gone away. frankly, it should be. there is no reason for the state to be levying taxation in order to subsidise housing for people who could pay for it themselves.

in any case, this article doesn't appear to be anything to do with social housing.

Are you suggesting that homeowners, when they reach a certain level of "wealth", should be forced to buy a more expensive house? An interesting idea. I mean, it WOULD free up a lot of property for FTBs.

chewmylegoff

geri1965 wrote: »

The trouble with that argument is that it would be a disincentive for people to better themselves - why would you bother getting a job, for example, if it would lead to losing your home and having to move into the insecure private rental market? Housing associations like to have employed tenants to ensure a genuine mix of people in the properties they own.

well on that basis we shoudl all just get subsidised housing.

geri1965_2

chewmylegoff wrote: »

well on that basis we shoudl all just get subsidised housing.

Firstly, it is not subsidised. But yes, in an ideal word there would be enough social housing for everyone who wanted it.

chewmylegoff

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Are you suggesting that homeowners, when they reach a certain level of "wealth", should be forced to buy a more expensive house? An interesting idea. I mean, it WOULD free up a lot of property for FTBs.

no, because that wouldn't be a taxpayer funded asset...

Wee_Willy_Harris

chewmylegoff wrote: »

well on that basis we shoudl all just get subsidised housing.

As almost all social housing waiting lists are open there is no barrier to you applying in the same way as those tenants you now deride did.

chewmylegoff

geri1965 wrote: »

Firstly, it is not subsidised. But yes, in an ideal word there would be enough social housing for everyone who wanted it.

the rent paid on social housing is far below private rental for an equivalent property.

as it's not an ideal world, and there isn't enough social housing for everyone who wants it, only those in need should have it.

Wee_Willy_Harris

chewmylegoff wrote: »

no, because that wouldn't be a taxpayer funded asset...

But neither is social housing, in essence. It's funded by rents.

geri1965_2

chewmylegoff wrote: »

the rent paid on social housing is far below private rental for an equivalent property.

That doesn't mean it's subsidised though, it just means they chose not to make excessive profits from their housing stock. I would like to see the private sector forced to lower their rents.

chewmylegoff

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

As almost all social housing waiting lists are open there is no barrier to you applying in the same way as those tenants you now deride did.

didn't make any derrogatory comments towards anyone - presumably you feel the need to try to paint me as a bigot to make your argument work.

the state should provide social housing to those who need it, noone with half a brain would suggest otherwise. but why should levy taxpayers in order to supply social housing to those who don't need it?