Should 'Social Housing' be re-branded 'Taxpayer-supported Housing?

leveller2911

ILW wrote: »

And if you had paid a market rent (when you could afford it), they could have built more.

Take it up with your MP, we pay a "Fair rent" calculated by the Government.

As I have mentioned before "market " rents are set to include the owners overheads such a mortgage,buildings insurance,Gas Safe Cert and also Profit. Social Housing does make profit but it has no link to HPI.

If more homeowners viewed their houses as homes rather than an investment the whole country would benefit but sadly greed takes over.

I assume you also disagree with Mortgage SMI , Grants paid to homeowners to renovate their properties and also Housing benefit paid to private landlords?

BobQ

Rinoa wrote: »

Grant Shapps believes it should.

Mr Shapps certainly likes to stir up debate.

Mr Shapps should realise that what matters is what function someone or something performs not what it is called.

We could rename Mr Shapps MP as Mr Shapps TFJm standing for Taxpayer Funded Job. But he would still be an idiot. What next, should we call Railways Taxpayer Subsidised Private Transport; or the House of Commons a Taxpayer Funded Social Club.

When will the Government focus on the real problems?

Graham_Devon

leveller2911 wrote: »

I assume you also disagree with Mortgage SMI , Grants paid to homeowners to renovate their properties and also Housing benefit paid to private landlords?

I know this isn't aimed at me, but I kinda share the point ILW was making. I disagree with SMI.

I don't disagree with grants paid to homeowners, as these are usually for adapted living through disability. I don't disagree with housing benefit, though it could have been done better, the time has now passed.

I don't disagree with social housing and subsidised rents either, but I do wish they didn't have lifelong tenancies, and I do wish that just like any other taxpayer type social benefit, you lost it when you had the funds to do your own thing.....mostly so that the social benefit or goods can be used by others in need. I find it saddening that only 1 family has benefitted from that taxpayer based investment if I'm honest.

That's not the tennants fault...why on earth would someone move to larger costs? It's the systems fault, and I wish it was changed and these contracts simply torn apart.

thegirlintheattic

I don't care what it is called but I personally think it should be controlled more strictly and not be essentially a home for life which can be brought or passed onto family or under occupied.

I hate seeing local council properties full of people who have never worked a day in their life because they are bone idle, whilst people who work hard have to pay high market rents whilst struggling to save for their own home. I should probably point out there are those who are deserving and in need of a council home - I have no qualms with them.

leveller2911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I know this isn't aimed at me, but I kinda share the point ILW was making. I disagree with SMI.

I don't disagree with grants paid to homeowners, as these are usually for adapted living through disability. I don't disagree with housing benefit, though it could have been done better, the time has now passed.

I don't disagree with social housing and subsidised rents either, but I do wish they didn't have lifelong tenancies, and I do wish that just like any other taxpayer type social benefit, you lost it when you had the funds to do your own thing.....mostly so that the social benefit or goods can be used by others in need.

Back in the 90,s I sub contracted for a company that carried out a lot of Council grant work and I can say from experience none of it was for people with disabilities, I think the grants you are referring to were run by Social Services.

The grants I'm talking about were for homeowners, some who were genuinely in financial hardship but many were just a scam.
For instance say my wife inherited a property.If she could show she was on a low income ,few savings a did not own another property she would have been entitled to a grant to renovate that property and if needed a complete new roof,new floors,kitchen,bathroom and fully decorated.

I worked on one house which was inherited by a woman whos husband had a successful heating business, he owned their home but she qualified for a Council Grant to renovate her inherited property.

Your last point is fair except for how do you decide the point at which someone has the funds,earnings to do their own thing?.

Own_My_Own

A friend of mine is always complaining that her family get no help with their rent (council house). I rent privately and have tried on many an occasion to explain that even with HB I pay as much as she does . But she wont have it.
She still thinks that I get more benefits than her.

leveller2911

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

I don't care what it is called but I personally think it should be controlled more strictly and not be essentially a home for life which can be brought or passed onto family or under occupied.







Housing Association tenants whos houses were constructed between 1989-97 don't have the "Right to buy" because of Government policy at the time.After 1997 some had the "right to aquire" at full market value and also most Tenancy agreements don't allow passing the tenancy on to family members.

As with all Social Housing threads on here its full of generalisation so don't mix the old style Council tenancies with the vast majority of Housing Association tenancies.

Don't blame us for the sins of our fathers.......

homelessskilledworker

Rinoa wrote: »

Grant Shapps believes it should.

Mr Shapps certainly likes to stir up debate.

He makes a few good points, we as taxpayers pay a fortune to build these bloody homes, we then in many cases pay HB for people who sometimes have little regard or respect for the free use of such an expensive privilage. But then he goes on to heavily promote the buying up of these expensive homes to people who put little into them.

I have grilled him a few times about this on twitter, and got a few replies to which I did not like his stance but respected him at least getting back to me(wotstit calls it trolling)

homelessskilledworker

Oh my God!!

I feel unclean, I am thanking people who I normally have no time for on this board

chucknorris

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

I don't care what it is called but I personally think it should be controlled more strictly and not be essentially a home for life which can be brought or passed onto family or under occupied.

I hate seeing local council properties full of people who have never worked a day in their life because they are bone idle, whilst people who work hard have to pay high market rents whilst struggling to save for their own home. I should probably point out there are those who are deserving and in need of a council home - I have no qualms with them.

I'm not sure about denying people who are unemployed, but I know where you are coming from and can understand, but I would not want to judge these people in case I made a mistake, afterall it is supposed to be a 'safety net' for those that need it.

But I would have no problem at all denying the likes of Bob Crow, with a salary of approx 145k he should pay for his own housing without any subsidy:

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/859870-bob-crow-gets-taxpayers-help-with-rent-despite-earning-145k-a-year