Council house debate

davsidipp

but i understand how fabbman feels they cannot afford to buy at the mo and council housing is a no go but what annoys people is the type of person getting housing who do sod all for it that is a bad thing and needs to change.

Wee_Willy_Harris

davsidipp wrote: »

but i understand how fabbman feels they cannot afford to buy at the mo and council housing is a no go but what annoys people is the type of person getting housing who do sod all for it that is a bad thing and needs to change.

No. It's fabbman who needs to change. He needs to understand that there are rewards to being a productive person, to working for a living, to aspiring to better things and stop feeling jealous of people who, by and large, he wouldn't swap lives with even if he had the chance..... because he did. But most of all, he needs to stop feeling envy towards others just because he sees their housing circumstances as an opportunity for him to get on the housing ladder.

warehouse

My Brother lives in a council house, him and his girlfriend are both full time employed and can afford new cars each and 3 overseas holidays a year. How are people like him able to live like that when there are genuinely needy people at the wrong end of a loooong waiting list?

From what I hear there are many more in the same situation, it's wrong.

Wee_Willy_Harris

warehouse wrote: »

My Brother lives in a council house, him and his girlfriend are both full time employed and can afford new cars each and 3 overseas holidays a year. How are people like him able to live like that when there are genuinely needy people at the wrong end of a loooong waiting list?

From what I hear there are many more in the same situation, it's wrong.

Absolutely. They should build enough social housing to satisfy demand.

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Absolutely. They should build enough social housing to satisfy demand.

Never have done and never will. It's just not viable unless rents are increased to closer to market rates.

dkmax_2

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Absolutely. They should build enough social housing to satisfy demand.

Or remove it from everyone.

It is amazing that many are totally blind to the inverted inequity between those who are given places to live by the state and those who have to work harder and longer to pay to house themselves and the state housed.

This is compounded by absurd arguments suggesting that the poor should have a greater choice of where to live than those who rent privately.

This is not to mention the rich who also avail of council homes - Westminster has 200 tenants who earn more than £100k each, no doubt helped along by the state subsidy.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

Never have done and never will. It's just not viable unless rents are increased to closer to market rates.

No need. Social housing providers are already running at a surplus. All it needs is the political will.

Wee_Willy_Harris

dkmax wrote: »

Or remove it from everyone.

It is amazing that many are totally blind to the inverted inequity between those who are given places to live by the state and those who have to work harder and longer to pay to house themselves and the state housed.

This is compounded by absurd arguments suggesting that the poor should have a greater choice of where to live than those who rent privately.

This is not to mention the rich who also avail of council homes - Westminster has 200 tenants who earn more than £100k each, no doubt helped along by the state subsidy.

If we're talking inequality, then perhaps we should include owner/occs in any housing solutions. They are, after all, part of the housing market and should play their part. Let's start by encouraging under-occupiers to downsize by taxing empty bedrooms.

dorset_nurse

Some good ideas coming out on this thread...

mutter

ILW wrote: »

Never have done and never will. It's just not viable unless rents are increased to closer to market rates.

'Market rents' are only where they are because there isn't anything like enough social housing to meet demand.