Rents, debts and the cost of living...

N1AK

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

As it says 'Location: North Yorkshire', maybe Jim assumed the OP lives in North Yorkshire? Just a guess though.

I'd like to assume Jim has a larger intellectual capacity than you are currently demonstrating and knows that there is plenty variation in rent rates in North Yorkshire just like there is in just about any other county. But you may be right, and he may be making the embarrasingly naive assumption that as it's up North it's cheap init like you are

dori2o

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

Pay of your debts, save a deposit, buy a place, don't blame single mums and migrants.

There, sorted.

People with £1650 take home pay shouldn't be on council house waiting lists anyway.

Sorry to take the thread slightly off topic, but, Why?

Social housing is not reserved only for the unemployed/sick and disabled or the low paid.

It is Social housing and anyone who wishes should be able to apply and live in those houses, whether their annual income is £1 or £100,000+.

Mr._Pricklepants

N1AK wrote: »

I'd like to assume Jim has a larger intellectual capacity than you are currently demonstrating and knows that there is plenty variation in rent rates in North Yorkshire just like there is in just about any other county. But you may be right, and he may be making the embarrasingly naive assumption that as it's up North it's cheap init like you are

No idea about Jim's intellectual capacity, but I imagine he was responding to the OP stating he was paying 550 PCM for a room, in 'a nicer part of town' in North Yorkshire.
Jim suggested to move somewhere significantly cheaper. Sounds logical to me.
Move along now, I'm done with you.

bodmil

dori2o wrote: »

Sorry to take the thread slightly off topic, but, Why?

Social housing is not reserved only for the unemployed/sick and disabled.

It is Social housing and anyone who wishes should be able to apply and live in those houses, whether their annual income is £1 or £100,000+.

Why on earth is that the case? Surely social housing SHOULD be reserved for the most needy? Or is it a bit of technicality in that someone with a high income will never get to the top of the list? I certainly don't think they should have lifetime tennancies anymore regardless.

CLAPTON

dori2o wrote: »

Sorry to take the thread slightly off topic, but, Why?

Social housing is not reserved only for the unemployed/sick and disabled or the low paid.

It is Social housing and anyone who wishes should be able to apply and live in those houses, whether their annual income is £1 or £100,000+.

why should some-one on 100,000 be subsidised by people earning a lot less?

Monkeyballs

Hi all!

Wow I seem to have sparked a bit of lively debate :-)

Ok, I live in York and have done all my life.

I have worked since I left school at 16 and my debts are from some terrible decisions - all my own work and I am paying them off!

I have no issues with migrants as my gf is Polish - apologies for my generalisation but you have to see how many people are having bbq's in front of the flats... This is my home town, Im proud thats all!

Re. My earnings, eight months ago I was on a lot less and was in cheaper accomodation. Im 37 now so why shouldn't I have a little comfort? My room is my only space as only the kitchen and bathroom are shared.

bodmil

To be fair it seems like you have spent most of your life in debt, why should that equate to comfort now you're older?

wotsthat

Monkeyballs wrote: »

I have no issues with migrants as my gf is Polish - apologies for my generalisation but you have to see how many people are having bbq's in front of the flats... This is my home town, Im proud thats all!

We have a chap on this board that shared his debts with his girlfriend and it's worked out really well.

What's the deal with immigrants having excessive BBQ's BTW? Are they Australians?

dori2o

CLAPTON wrote: »

why should some-one on 100,000 be subsidised by people earning a lot less?

I personally don't see the problem.

IF I didn't have my own home I would much rather be paying into the coffers of the local economy than paying off someones mortgage.

The situation with the value of rents in social housing is another matter. They are not so much subsidised, they are merely set at a value in which the rent provides for all the needs. Unlike in a private let there is no interest/mortgage for the council to pay on their properties.

Surely however much the tennant earns is irrelevant so long as they look after the property, pay the rent on time and don't cause trouble.

Is it not better for the council to be claiming a rent rather than having a property where the tennant is not paying the rent (housing benefit)?

The ternnant has no right to the property, they can't take it with them, it has no value to them, once they leave/die etc the council takes the property back.

Is it the fault of people with good incomes that private rents have ballooned to obscene amounts? Should they, or others regardless of their financial circumstances, be punished for the increase in the cost of rents in the private sector?

What about someone who is allocated a house when unemployed etc, then gets a job and starts to earn good money? Should they be told to leave when their income reaches £20k/£40k/£60k/£100k?

People have forgotten what social housing was built for.

antrobus

dori2o wrote: »

Sorry to take the thread slightly off topic, but, Why?

Social housing is not reserved only for the unemployed/sick and disabled or the low paid.

It is Social housing and anyone who wishes should be able to apply and live in those houses, whether their annual income is £1 or £100,000+.

I believe that was one of Mr Blair's little reforms - anyone can indeed put their name down.

bodmil wrote: »

Why on earth is that the case? Surely social housing SHOULD be reserved for the most needy? Or is it a bit of technicality in that someone with a high income will never get to the top of the list? I certainly don't think they should have lifetime tennancies anymore regardless.

Depends on your conception of social housing. When the Conservatives first invented council housing back in the 19thC the intention was to accomodate the working classes. In fact up until WWII you needed to have a job in order to be abel to afford a council house (rents were typically higher than in the private sector due to higher standards mainly). It's only since then that the doctrine of residualism has increasingly become common place.