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

paulineb_2

KnightSmile wrote: »

I agree somewhat with the principle of council houses. I do, however, find it currently an unfair concept in the modern age due to a lack of housing.

A small minority of people refuse to move from council houses even if they can afford to rent privately because they don't see why they should have to. At the end of the day getting cheaper/subsidised housing should be seen as helping hand not a permanent perk. There has to be a 'cost' to not owning your own property and that cost means that you should have no choice but to downsize when you no longer NEED a certain amount of bedrooms for example.

I am also uncomfortable regarding the concept of housing benefit. I personally think that assisting people with housing should be based purely on affordability and if it were to be based on that criteria alone the government should slowly taper off housing benefits and increase the minimum wage so people get proportionate help. (eg. low earners currently illegible for housing benefit get real help too)

My sister and her partner both work long hours and rent a new build flat - they have a newborn and struggle. There are people who receive housing benefit and pay little or nothing to rent the same flats. The standard of living for my sister is worse or harder than people who don't work or actually earn less. It doesn't make sense and makes people reliant and trapped in the system. Surely in a fair society if you earn more, you should have a higher standard of living right?

I don't blame people who NEED help, they should get it- nobody should be homeless.

Also the "bedroom tax" is absolutely not a tax, its a lower amount of HANDOUTs being provided by the state. A very different concept to a tax.

Well perhaps the Govt should also tax the super rich just to even things up.

AlexLK

con1888 wrote: »

Errr yes there is a reason why they can't get a mortgage or rent..many in work cannot afford private rent and its inflated prices or a mortgage. Aside from that, most people I know who are in receipt of 'free' council housing have no desire to get 'back on their feet'. Maybe that's just my experience.... those who work and live in council houses are at least contributing.

I would much rather live in a council area where the majority of tenants work than one where they don't as without being prejudiced ( speaking from experience sadly) the areas where the majority don't work tend to be over run with crime and dereliction.

OH's mum is a housing officer and the area she deals with is pretty disgusting.. the stories make me shudder.

It is about time the government stopped allowing the type of people you are describing to be able to fund their "way of life" on taxpayers money.

My wife and I live on a low joint income (circa £2700 p/m) with one child. We have a mortgage, pay proper council tax and bills. Frankly, I'd rather not be subsidising housing for those who have no desire to get back on their feet and are committing crime and shooting up "smack", the money we pay in taxes would be better off in our pocket each month. However, I would do anything I could to help somebody who had merely fallen on bad times and had a genuine desire to "get back on their feet".

Assessment criteria needs to become more strict / less centred around those whom expect the government to spend money funding their drug habits.

paulineb_2

Mojisola wrote: »

People who rent privately don't have any security of tenure. Even if they don't have to move because the LL gives them notice, they often move as the family grows or reduces in size or their financial situation changes.

Why should someone in a council property have a lifetime tenure? Fear of losing the right to stay in a council house can reduce people's opportunity because they won't move to where jobs are available.

Ive always travelled to work, Ive rarely worked in the area I live in. Its not fear of losing my council home thats kept me in my local area, its because I havent been able to buy

And yes, private housing doesnt have the same security, but that doesnt mean that people who live in council homes should have less security, people who live in private housing should have more.

Some people also live and work in their local area, in the same job for life. But still cant afford to take on a mortgage

There are no easy solutions to the housing crisis, but I really dont think the answer is to push people in council homes to rent privately or to take on a mortgage to free up a space for other people to move into

The answer is to build more social housing, its quite simple.
But that wont happen, because its not on the Govts list of priorities, theyd rather spend huge sums elsewhere.

And not just this Govt, Im sure Labour or anyone else would do exactly the same

If I hadnt taken this house in this area, speaking as someone who wasnt priority for housing, Id either have waited 15 years plus for a house or Id still be living at home, thats the reality

Investment in housing is the answer, no more and no less. But then, council housing is always a hot potato topic, along with benefits, housing benefit cuts

Some people wouldnt live in a council or social house if you paid them, because you're seen as some sort of underclass anyway.

When I moved in this house I didnt know how long I would stay, could have been 5 years, could have been 25, but what I do know is, if I had taken on a mortgage and then lost my job which I did 4 years ago, Id have had that home repossessed and been homeless

So if some people do rely on the fact that in this uncertain economic climate that if they lose a job, they'll still have a roof, I wouldnt blame them

Just ask the thousands of people every week who are getting their homes repossessed

No one can predict the future and I wouldnt want to try to.

Mojisola

paulineb wrote: »

The answer is to build more social housing, its quite simple.
But that wont happen, because its not on the Govts list of priorities, theyd rather spend huge sums elsewhere.

And so another answer has to be found to use a scarce resource in the best way.

It's quite bizarre that someone can be given a council house as, say, a young couple with a baby when their housing need was desperate and yet, years later, that same family can be still in a council house even though there may be three or four adult wages coming into the house. Meanwhile the new generation of struggling new families can't get help.

If lifetime tenure is to continue, then rents should be reassessed regularly and, if the tenants can afford to pay the same as local private rents, they should do so.

KnightSmile

You talk about the fact that buying or renting is a risk because if you lose your job you could then be made homeless. sorry to break it to you but that's the hard reality facing the vast majority who have a mortgage or rent privately at the moment. . I do agree with you that this shouldn't be some sort of race to the bottom, however, the system is far from fair for a lot of people.

KnightSmile

Mojisola wrote: »

And so another answer has to be found to use a scarce resource in the best way.

It's quite bizarre that someone can be given a council house as, say, a young couple with a baby when their housing need was desperate and yet, years later, that same family can be still in a council house even though there may be three or four adult wages coming into the house. Meanwhile the new generation of struggling new families can't get help.

If lifetime tenure is to continue, then rents should be reassessed regularly and, if the tenants can afford to pay the same as local private rents, they should do so.

completely agree. there needs to be a more intelligent design of the system such as your comments above.

time2deal

paulineb wrote: »

Well perhaps the Govt should also tax the super rich just to even things up.

That's just a lazy populist argument. The top 1% of earners pay 22% of the total tax take. The top 10% pay almost 50% of total tax.

And that is the group that uses the least public services. How much more should they pay? And remember that increasing the tax rate REDUCES the total amount of tax paid as people just don't bother trying to earn more, or they leave or retire. If you have to work hard to pay 50% of your money away, then I know people who just retired instead. Therefore the vast majority of the tax they paid before is gone. Even people who earn a lot of money should be allowed to keep some of it.

kafkathecat

It is so sad that people now think that if things are hard for them it should be hard for others. Why not turn it around and say that things should be better for you. Council houses were meant for everyone and lifelong tenure ensures strong communities where people know each other. Council houses were making a profit before they were sold now many are in the hands of private landlords making a profit which could have gone to the council to improve people's lives. Ask yourselves why the Scandinavians, who pay high taxes and have strong social security systems, are consistently found to be amongst the happiest in the world? It is better for everyone. We have spent the last 40 years believing that greed and individualism was the way to run a society and look where we are. We have closed all our industry, spent all the oil and no one has a plan.

Imp

AlexLK wrote: »

My wife and I live on a low joint income (circa £2700 p/m) with one child. We have a mortgage, pay proper council tax and bills.

Is £2,700 really a low joint income? I bring in less than that, pay 40% tax, never received any welfare payments except child benefit. My wife doesn't work as it costs more in child care than she can earn. I always thought the high rate tax was for people on a good income (although I have pointed out to my wife that we would be better off if I didn't work and lived off benefits, due to the high cost of travelling into work each day).

Mojisola wrote: »

People who rent privately don't have any security of tenure. Even if they don't have to move because the LL gives them notice, they often move as the family grows or reduces in size or their financial situation changes.

Just because one housing sector is morally bankrupt (and I believe having no security of tenure for a large part of the population is a moral travesty) it doesn't mean that every other housing sector should also fall to that level.

aliasojo

I'm really sick to the back teeth of these social housing threads. Yes I know...don't read them then.

That's not the issue though, it goes deeper than whether I read a thread or not.

The Government have done a real good job in encouraging divisive attitudes in this country, we're a lot easier to govern if we're at each other's throats or even just mindful of what everybody else does or has.

People seem to only focus on the surface stuff....'why does he or she have whatever and I've not'. Social housing was designed for a wide section of society, but people have decided themselves it's only for the very poor despite that never being the remit.

/grumble