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

BobQ

leveller2911 wrote: »

Show some evidence of your claim.If it was the case then those in Private housing have been shortchanged and should never have bought the properties in the first place.

All the 3 bedroom Council houses I have ever been in had a "boxroom" bedroom no bigger than 8x6 , enough for a single bed and wardrobe so you can't get any smaller than that.

About the same size as the third bedroom on a Wimpey Estate

wotsthat

leveller2911 wrote: »

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

Market Rent minus Fair Rent = taxpayer supported subsidy.

All that's happened is that the government have chosen not to employ capital efficiently which is effectively a tax.

In a country with a shortgage of social housing it should be allocated purely on need and once that subsidy isn't required the occupants should be required to vacate.

A new entitled ingrate could then be moved in but at least we'd be subsiding someone who needed it.

undetterred

leveller2911 wrote: »

Now you mention Social Housing should be of a "lower standard than private" the old lady opposite me went without any form of heating for the whole of last Winter because the HA "forgot" her, even after endless phone calls from us neighbours.

Is that low enough for you? You sound just like a spoilt little brat in the playground

link to your statement ?

Whats this gotta do with bigger rooms?

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

MacMickster wrote: »

I take it that he is not so keen to see privately let properties where the taxpayer pays a hefty whack in housing benefit towards the "market" rent branded in quite the same way.

I personally would like to see jobs that exist purely because the low wages are topped up by tax credits advertised as "taxpayer subsidised jobs".

I'd like to see the offspring of parents in receipt of child benefits/tax credits to have to wear labels saying "taxpayer subsidised kid". I wont hold my breath.

ILW

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

I'd like to see the offspring of parents in receipt of child benefits/tax credits to have to wear labels saying "taxpayer subsidised kid". I wont hold my breath.

They do - says Nike.

pogofish

"Social" housing in the UK has returned a surplus to the Treasury for many years now, so there is no way it can be considered any kind of supported.

Maybe it should be renamed "Taxpayer Supporting Housing" instead?

The_White_Horse

social housing/council housing - whatever it is called these days should be renamed: Housing for Scum. The people who live in it should be rebranded as Scum (or grasping filth).

There should be NO social housing at all. Either earn money and buy or rent a home, or live in the gutter (unless serverly disabled - but then, even stephan hawking has a job and has written books)

GET A JOB and stop STEALING from the tax payer. SCCCCCUUUUMMMM

ILW

pogofish wrote: »

"Social" housing in the UK has returned a surplus to the Treasury for many years now, so there is no way it can be considered any kind of supported.

Maybe it should be renamed "Taxpayer Supporting Housing" instead?

If supplied at below market value, the taxpayer who is not offered it being ripped off.

leveller2911

The_White_Horse wrote: »

social housing/council housing - whatever it is called these days should be renamed: Housing for Scum. The people who live in it should be rebranded as Scum (or grasping filth).



Its a shame you post such drivel on a regular basis, most of your posts don't even get read any more , just scroll on down.

What do you base your asumption on that ALL those in Social Housing/Council housing don't work?.We both work full time, pay tax and receive no tax credits at all.Being full of vitriol and spite will make you a very lonely old man.

Gracchus_Babeuf

ILW wrote: »

Why are anti social types all given social housing?

Are you referring to prison? That's a form of housing where anti-social types live.