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

Norman_Castle

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).

Educated by The Daily Mail?

yest have enough for a new car and a holiday each year. yet have enough to smoke and drink.

they are just thieves, stealing from the taxpayer to subsidise their luxury lifestyles.

disgusting.

Again, Daily Mail nonsense. IGGNNORRAAAMMUUUUSS

Matt1977

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).

Cripes, comments like that make the current Tory lot appear like a bunch of liberals!

ILW

prepareathome wrote: »

obvious read all the propaganda and are so jealous it leaps of the page, of course people like you believed what the Nazis said and so turned away when people vanished to the camps........Hilter would be pleased his creed of believe only what you are told is alive and well in UK.

Are you denying that people like Bob Crow who is earning £150.000 pa gets a council house. Do you think that is right?

Loughton_Monkey

Matt1977 wrote: »

Cripes, comments like that make the current Tory lot appear like a bunch of liberals!

It is not a "bunch" of Liberals. Due to their propensity to reside in 'green' fields, and do very little other than evacuate extremely large quantities of doo-doo and hot air, they are known, collectively, as a "herd".

Overheard in the House of Commons Tearooms:

MP1 "That's a huge bunch of Liberals over there."
MP2 "Not bunch. Herd."
MP1 "Heard what?"
MP2 "Herd of Liberals."
MP1 "Of course I've heard of Liberals. They say VInce Cable is one of them."
MP2 "No! Liberal herd"
MP1 "I don't care if he did. I've said nothing to be ashamed of."

luxor4t

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

It is not a "bunch" of Liberals. Due to their propensity to reside in 'green' fields, and do very little other than evacuate extremely large quantities of doo-doo and hot air, they are known, collectively, as a "herd".

Overheard in the House of Commons Tearooms:

MP1 "That's a huge bunch of Liberals over there."
MP2 "Not bunch. Herd."
MP1 "Heard what?"
MP2 "Herd of Liberals."
MP1 "Of course I've heard of Liberals. They say VInce Cable is one of them."
MP2 "No! Liberal herd"
MP1 "I don't care if he did. I've said nothing to be ashamed of."

MP2 "Not herd, heard!"
MP1 "Oh, you mean Hurd! I miss Douglas, Damn nice chap."

Shak1rak

I live in a housing association house. I have 3 children, my partner works full time and I own my own business and work part time (only part time due to my 16month old daughter having type 1 diabetes and needing at least 4 insulin injections a day, she also has her blood monitored every 2-3 hours at present)...
Not everyone who lives in social housing is scum... Some are hard working just as those who own their own homes. Most families are 'taxpayer supported' in one way or another, child tax credits, Woking tax credit, child benefit etc...
Neither myself nor my partner smokes, we drink probably once a year. I do not own my own car, I certainly do not go on holiday each year.i do however work very hard for what I have, just the same as I imagine you do !!

prepareathome

ILW wrote: »

Are you denying that people like Bob Crow who is earning £150.000 pa gets a council house. Do you think that is right?

Of course there is always some who can work the system and get things they shouldn't but that is a rare case and a perfect example of my point, someone gets what they shouldn't and is used as an example to say all who live in social housing are either earning well and should buy their own or scum to lazy to work.

If you can give me say 500,000 examples then I will change my views but one or a hundred out of the many social housing homes being lived in by those on high wages is abuse not the norm

ILW

prepareathome wrote: »

Of course there is always some who can work the system and get things they shouldn't but that is a rare case and a perfect example of my point, someone gets what they shouldn't and is used as an example to say all who live in social housing are either earning well and should buy their own or scum to lazy to work.

If you can give me say 500,000 examples then I will change my views but one or a hundred out of the many social housing homes being lived in by those on high wages is abuse not the norm

So charge market rents to the higher earners. Seems simple to me.

Loughton_Monkey

prepareathome wrote: »

Of course there is always some who can work the system and get things they shouldn't but that is a rare case and a perfect example of my point, someone gets what they shouldn't and is used as an example to say all who live in social housing are either earning well and should buy their own or scum to lazy to work.

As usual, threads like this usually become slanging matches on the subject of 'benefits', because people have different perceptions.

I suspect your own perception is a valid one. In other words, if a girl chooses to sleep with three different men over the years, and ends up as an unmarried mother of three, then (as a benefits calculator tells me) this person is "entitled" to benefits which equal the amount of net salary (plus child benefits) enjoyed by a man (with wife + 3 kids) earning around £35,000. Adjusting for the physical cost of feeding the man and getting him to work, he needs to earn probably £45,000 to be as well off financially as the unmarried girl.

Since there is no fraud whatsoever here (by the unmarried mother) I suspect you think this is "OK". Nothing wrong with it.

Other people, however, come from another direction. One which tells them that this state of affairs is logically 'wrong'. This is an indictment of either (a) our government that sets up and maintains such a system, or (b) the individuals who choose a certain lifestyle because they know that the state will provide sufficient income, and no penalty, for such behaviour.

Then we get statistics about the huge percentage of the population claiming some sort of disability benefit. Enough to say "If these figures are true, the UK has 3 times as many 'invalids' as any other civilised population" - but not proof enough to call any one particular claimant a lier.

It's a difficult and subjective world, isn't it?

prepareathome

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

As usual, threads like this usually become slanging matches on the subject of 'benefits', because people have different perceptions.

I suspect your own perception is a valid one. In other words, if a girl chooses to sleep with three different men over the years, and ends up as an unmarried mother of three, then (as a benefits calculator tells me) this person is "entitled" to benefits which equal the amount of net salary (plus child benefits) enjoyed by a man (with wife + 3 kids) earning around £35,000. Adjusting for the physical cost of feeding the man and getting him to work, he needs to earn probably £45,000 to be as well off financially as the unmarried girl.

Since there is no fraud whatsoever here (by the unmarried mother) I suspect you think this is "OK". Nothing wrong with it.

Other people, however, come from another direction. One which tells them that this state of affairs is logically 'wrong'. This is an indictment of either (a) our government that sets up and maintains such a system, or (b) the individuals who choose a certain lifestyle because they know that the state will provide sufficient income, and no penalty, for such behaviour.

Then we get statistics about the huge percentage of the population claiming some sort of disability benefit. Enough to say "If these figures are true, the UK has 3 times as many 'invalids' as any other civilised population" - but not proof enough to call any one particular claimant a lier.

It's a difficult and subjective world, isn't it?

Can you explain what that has to do with everyone in social housing is scum, its like saying all single mums must have slept around not looking at the true facts that a lot might be widows with young children, some divorced.

All those in social housing are not scum.....the reasons they are there are many and varied.

Are you implying I think someone earning a fortune should have a social housing property if so you have totally misread what I have put. I am not agreeing with it at all

Its very easy to put a limit on under what level an income a family/person can have social housing. It will not be easy and each area would have to have their own level (area being part of town, city, village not the whole place) and be updated as private rents go up.