BBC show on council housing now - 21:00 4th May

PasturesNew

silvercar wrote: »

Only because it would be a waste of time and you would never get housed by the council while you have somewhere else to live.

That's why it's pointless me ever ever going on the list.

silvercar

PasturesNew wrote: »

That's why it's pointless me ever ever going on the list.

If you live with your parents its easier to say they want you out and you will be homeless. If you get a private rent then the council are more likely to say you have sorted your own housing needs. Though if you can afford a rental deposit you are more likely to get a list of private landlords and shown the door.

It seems the only way to get a council home is to be absolutely homeless, so accept living in B&B for a while to prove you have nowhere else to live.

Loughton_Monkey

I seem to recall that in the Thatcher sell-em-all-off days that it was calculated that Council houses cost far more than private rentals. In other words, forget benefits, but an 'ordinary' couple might be paying £100 a month rent at the time. The calculated subsidy (cost to council) would have been, say, £150 a month. An equivalent private rental might have been available for £200 so in principle, it would be cheaper to match the tenant's contribution and bung them in a private place.

Even though I was brought up in a council house, I really dislike the current rag-bag miscellany to do with so-called 'social housing'. It just seems a complete mess and an expensively managed turmoil.

The way I would do it would be to have housing associations - a sort of 'private' enterprise, but I would make two very strict conditions. 1. They must not make a profit, and 2. They must no make a loss. In other words, every house should be rented at true market value. End of story.

That way, the actual cost of benefits [let's keep unemotive and assume that 'benefits' still apply] would become far more fair and more transparent. If you qualify for £600 housing benefit, then that's what you get. Now go and find somewhere to live. Currently, the council will send family A to a private rental of £800 and pay the full cost as benefit. So the taxpayer is paying £600 true 'value' plus £200 profit for the landlord. They will send family B into a council house at £500 rent, and pay it all as benefit. But what if (as is probably likely) the tax payer [rate payer] is subsidising that house to the tune of £400 a month anyway?

On paper, family B receives £500 benefits, family A receives £800. It's a mess.

SingleSue

Loughton monkey - That is exactly how our HA works.

We don't have council houses here anymore, all the stock was transferred/purchased by the housing association and since, more houses, flats and bungalows have been built...in fact, loads have been, I think at one point they managed to almost completely clear the waiting list.

Our rents, although initially a lot lower than private rental, are now only slightly less but of course, we do not have to worry about 6 month contracts. We are also responsible for more of the upkeep of the property than old council tenants and have no right to buy (the ones who had originally been council still have right to buy)

The_White_Horse

they should do away with council housing. work and pay for your house or live on the street unless you are severely disabled/ill.

Orpheo

michaels wrote: »

Are we really this stupid.

Fact: In 1971 Sheffield built 2,000 council houses, in 2010, 83.
BBC Explanation: Right-to-buy

Now I am not saying that RTB has not reduced the number of social housing properties but I can't see how it has resulted in fewer council houses being built?

I'm no defender of the BBC, but you are misrepresenting what was reported. The BBC said that the millions of council houses sold under right to buy have not been replaced with sufficient new social housing. RTB was not blamed for council houses not being built.

Generali

Really2 wrote: »

Only problem is if they don't work it is the tax payer paying a larger tab for the increased rent.

The money is just being moved from one pocket to another though. If the Government pays local Government more in rent via housing benefits then it can simply cut other parts of the grant.

tillycat123

I watched 5 minutes of this programme and had to turn off, these people just make my blood boil!

The bit I saw was the 10 people living in one house moaning that the 2 lads cant get a place of their own. It's the mentality of these breeders. Getting a job to get a house does not seem to even cross their minds they want everything given to them.

Until they stop these breeders things won't change. Cap the child element of benefits to 2 kids only maximum and stop paying these idiots without a single brain cell between them to have kids. Then they won't need to be scrounging for bigger houses that we all end up paying for.

Really2

Generali wrote: »

The money is just being moved from one pocket to another though. If the Government pays local Government more in rent via housing benefits then it can simply cut other parts of the grant.

I can see what you are saying in principle, but would that happen in practice?
Also what happens to old peoples bungalows etc where they have to pay the rent out of state pensions?

It is easy to get it to work for people who get HB but a lot harder for those that have to pay and are very low earners.

tartanterra

Celia_Gabriel wrote: »

The basics for any society is good housing, health and education. The selfish money grabbers have colluded to destroy this.

I would think that the "basics for any society" is that everyone actually contributes to that society.

This contribution should then pay for (limited) social housing, health and education.

I would class the "selfish money grabbers" as those who make no contribution to society yet are happy to take the handouts.

There should always be a system whereby the disabled and long term ill can gain access to help from society, but it belies belief that young able bodied people should be living permanently on the taxes of others (and churning out babies to be paid for as well).
As for the "there is no jobs" line; there is actually plenty of work - ask all the economic migrants in this country. Alright, it may not be the type of work that people ideally prefer, but it is available.

I'm currently an electrician and it's tough out there at the moment. Previously, I have been an aircraft mechanic, a labourer, cleared drains, picked fruit, been a painter and decorator and even peeled spuds in a chip shop.
But I have always payed my way and payed my taxes.

Entitlement should never be an automatic right.
Rather, it should be something that is available to those who have made a positive contribution to the society we live in.