Is this right?

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I was answering your post, which stated the obvious.

Social Housing stock will never get low enough for the change in legislation you seem to want.

Yes i want it changed, i would be quite happy to see all the parasites in my area having to live in a box because they chose not to get a job and rely on handouts their whole lives.

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

what's your point. you started out with:

(i) if she is entitled to a council house, and it gets demolished, should she get a similar replacement, or should she have her needs reassessed.

now you are onto

(ii) it's not fair because she has a job like mine and therefore should not have the option of renting a council house because you don't have the option.

what's this thread supposed to be about. is it about whether or not it's fair for her to have her housing situation changed when someone else knocks it down, or is it about whether or not it's fair that you don't get what she gets?

Well I'm not gonna argue it. It really is absolutely pointless arguing with people if they cannot see how utterly wrong such a situation is.

It's not about me. It's about everyone who pays in to a system.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Not yet, they aren't. The nature of secure tenancies remains unchanged. Isn't it security that YOU want?

Isnt that for existing tenants only, and new tenants will now have to downsize to a studio flat once the kids have left home.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Isnt that for existing tenants only, and new tenants will now have to downsize to a studio flat once the kids have left home.

Nope. The nature of secure tenancies remains unchanged.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Nope. The nature of secure tenancies remains unchanged.

So people will still be getting a council house for life, or is it going to be changed in the future.

sjaypink

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well I'm not gonna argue it. It really is absolutely pointless arguing with people if they cannot see how utterly wrong such a situation is.

It's not about me. It's about everyone who pays in to a system.

Ohh !!!!!! DEV!

Its not about whether its, at this moment in time, wrong or right or fair. I think on most levels most people think its unfair.

But, this is the system that your colleague signed up for. A (yes, 3 bedroom) house, the property not of her particular choosing, in a location not of her particular choosing, and a house in which she will pay (low) rents for maybe 30, 40, 50 years - much longer than a mortgage term - and at the end have nothing to show for it.

With hindsight now, from say, 10+ years ago, with the way both house purchase prices and private rental prices have behaved, we can say that most likely she made an OK call, but I bet it wasn't always looked at that way.

Jimmy_31

sjaypink wrote: »

Ohh !!!!!! DEV!

Its not about whether its, at this moment in time, wrong or right or fair. I think on most levels most people think its unfair.

But, this is the system that your colleague signed up for. A (yes, 3 bedroom) house, the property not of her particular choosing, in a location not of her particular choosing, and a house in which she will pay (low) rents for maybe 30, 40, 50 years - much longer than a mortgage term - and at the end have nothing to show for it.

With hindsight now, from say, 10+ years ago, with the way both house purchase prices and private rental prices have behaved, we can say that most likely she made an OK call, but I bet it wasn't always looked at that way.

How will she pay the rent if she retires with no savings and only recieves a small pension.

Graham_Devon

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

How will she pay the rent if she retires with no savings and only recieves a small pension.

Well she could always sell her other property

sjaypink

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

How will she pay the rent if she retires with no savings and only recieves a small pension.

What makes you say she has no savings and no decent pension?!

Thats neither here nor there. I see plenty of people everyday, including a fair amount of pensioners, who are getting their mortgages paid by the government - 'us'. If we're talking about poor pensioners then I'd much rather be paying housing benefit for them to live in social housing which can, sooner rather than later, be returned to the community than pay mortgage payments on a property destined to be the lottery win for said pensioners kids.

chucky

yet another typical Daily Mail readers rant of a thread...