why are some people entitled to a council house but others are not?

nottslass_2

Soleil_lune wrote: »

I think you're probably right. It's a sad and sorry state of affairs isn't it: the wages in this country are so poor, that people are not better off working full time (unless they are a professional.....)

Working full time for NMW will not give people any more money than they would get on benefits in many cases. But it is sad when people refuse more money/higher pay/better jobs for fear of losing tax credits and the risk of having to pay full rent.

Tax credits are calculated on the previous years income,so an extra shift or 2 wouldn't make any difference.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

FatVonD wrote: »

My son has just started a weekend job and they have asked him to do an extra day in the week (he's at college) because the bloke doing the same shift Monday to Friday 'wants one day off' (any day.) The cynic in me thinks the bloke reaches the number of hours needed for him to claim working tax credit in 4 days and doesn't want to work the extra day as he'll be no better off :mad:

So, he couldn't possibly be needing the day off to look after his children whilst their mum works, he couldn't be going to college to improve his prospects or do anything else, other than sit on his behind and enjoy benefits?

moomoomama27

So if what I'm reading so far is correct...... Those who get social housing, better themselves, should have their homes ( tenancies) removed, when they go up in the world. But those who don't pay their way, get social housing and make a career of benefit claiming should be the ones that are offered security!!??

What a great message that sends, do well,work hard = home removed! Sit on your backside, play the system = secure housing!


No wonder this country is on its arris!

FatVonD

Jojo_the_Tightfisted wrote: »

So, he couldn't possibly be needing the day off to look after his children whilst their mum works, he couldn't be going to college to improve his prospects or do anything else, other than sit on his behind and enjoy benefits?

I doubt it. He doesn't have a specific day in mind, he'll take any, he just doesn't want to work 5 days (part time at that.)

FatVonD

pukkamum wrote: »

You have to take into consideration that it's not just a case of losing a bit of money.
If he loses his wtc he may well lose housing benefit too, which if he is in a high costing private rental, could be the difference between having a home and not.

It would be the difference between £120 per week or £150 per week. I'm not familiar with benefits so I have no idea where the cutoff point is.

pukkamum wrote: »

In that situation what would you do?

Find a second job so I could pay my way.
Live in a shared house or a bedsit if that was all I could afford.

pukkamum wrote: »

Don't blame the people trapped in the system, blame the system that traps them.

I agree with you there, welcome to broken Britain, the land that pays you more on benefits that you can earn if you work!

kafkathecat

The real problem is not that benefits are too high it is that wages for many are too low. That is why so many of the working poor need to use food banks.

lori64

Soleil_lune wrote: »

Because people want security of tenure?! Why should social housing - also known as permanent tenancies - be available only to people on benefits? Why should people who work have to rent off greedy parasites - also known as landlords - at extortionate rents? And why should they buy? Why should they not be allowed to have cheaply rented affordable homes? People should not feel bullied into buying a property. Being a 'homeowner' really ain't all that!

How very true!! What is so great about "owning" a house?? You don't own it anyway, its on loan till you pay the bank the full whack!

I'm a council house tenant and have been for 24yrs. I don't want a mortgage..why the hell would I?? Stuck in a !!!! job for life to pay for it? No thanks!! I'm happy to pay my £260 a month cheers. Granted, I'm in Scotland, rent is cheaper. Many will say rent money is dead money, but it isn't enough to make me want a mortgage!
I'm not about to sell my soul for a magnolia painted lego land box!!!

lori64

krlyr wrote: »

Have a watch of How To Get A Council House on 4OD, we watched a few episodes while it was airing and it was quite an interesting insight on both sides of things
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/how-to-get-a-council-house/4od

It was quite frustrating to see some people turn down offered houses for silly reasons - I think one woman refused a really nice looking modern flat because it didn't have allocated parking...but she didn't even own a car! And heartwarming to see some people accept houses or flats in the grottiest of states, getting told there's no grants to help with the renovations (because in some it was certainly more work than a lick of paint), but still being so grateful to be offered it.

These programmes are made for one purpose only....to make the Daily Fail readers feel better about themselves, and to provide entertainment for the masses who need the unemployed to be their scapegoats!!!

sulphate

AlexLK wrote: »

Surely social housing (and it's subsidised cost) should be for the needy and vulnerable to get back on their feet? Once back on their feet, there should be no reason why they can't either rent a house privately or get a mortgage. Of course, if there was a council house surplus then it's a bit of a different matter but as far as I am aware there is not (a surplus).

This is obviously an unpopular opinion but I agree.

Perhaps I'll get shot down here but I don't see why councils don't assess income before letting someone have a council house. Seems absurd to me. Someone I work with recently moved into a council flat with his girlfriend (no kids) after being on the waiting list for several years. It was a new council flat, on a new estate. I don't know how much they earn but almost certainly more than my husband and I do (and we have a mortgage) - because they both work full time and he earns more than I do, and my husband is a student. He said it was awesome because the rent was so cheap it meant they could now save for a deposit. Shouldn't this flat be given to someone more in need than them, if the waiting list is so long?

Soleil_lune

lori64 wrote: »

How very true!! What is so great about "owning" a house?? You don't own it anyway, its on loan till you pay the bank the full whack!

I'm a council house tenant and have been for 24yrs. I don't want a mortgage..why the hell would I?? Stuck in a !!!! job for life to pay for it? No thanks!! I'm happy to pay my £260 a month cheers. Granted, I'm in Scotland, rent is cheaper. Many will say rent money is dead money, but it isn't enough to make me want a mortgage!
I'm not about to sell my soul for a magnolia painted lego land box!!!

Good post! Although people who are in social housing are lucky I think if people could get long term tenancies with £300 a month rent, (like they do in Europe,) many people would rent rather than buy. As you said, the house isn't yours until you have spent half your life paying for it. And then you have all the repairs and maintenance and insurance etc, and you are in the poo if you become unemployed long term, as you don't get the mortgage paid for long term.. but you do get housing benefit.

As I said on another thread earlier, it was the done thing pre 2000s, but I see no benefit to buying a home now. Private let is a bit of a pain though, as there is no security and the rents are high, but if everyone could rent long term for £300 a month, (if they wanted to,) that would be great.