Do you support social housing?

BillJones

StevieJ wrote: »

If the masses had that attitude in the 'Industrial Revolution' our population would have shrunk to nil.

Well yes, but why on earth would that be relevant to today, when our life expectancy and child mortality statistics are so very different?

Was that genuinely supposed to be an argument against what I've posted? Did you actually think that I was giving advice based on conditions as they were in 1780, before the germ theory of disease was formulated, when you could expect 30% of live births to die before their fifth birthday?

springdreams

MrsE wrote: »

Weve got loads of flats. Build loads of little bungalows & offer them to OAPS, will free up flats. Same with houses to people with children.
Re flats & gardens. Its better for the council to build houses & make the Tenants responsible for their gardens (aka surrounding land) than have to maintain council land;)

And were is the land to build these houses and bungalows? Are we to have no green spaces at all?

OAPs can just as easily live in ground floor flats.

Jason74

CLAPTON wrote: »

What is so shocking about real people living in a property? Where would they live if this property wasn't available?
Is it because they are non British or in some way inferior?

Of course there is nothing wrong with "real people living in a property". The alternative would be for the property to be left empty, which would of course be monumentally dumb given the shortage of properties which is creating the conditions for this debate in the first place.

What I object to, is the idea of an asset built for the benefit of society being sold off at a hefty discount, and for society (through the officers of its elected local representatives) to then have to rent that property back at top dollar (lining the pockets of a private individual in the process) in order to enable the property to meet its original function.

Loughton_Monkey

JencParker wrote: »

While I agree that people should think of the financial implications before having children, at today's rates, the low paid would never have children.

Are you proposing that the only people that should have children are the middle class and wealthy?

Did you go to the Devon School of Economics and Sophistry? You clearly show the hallmarks of not reading [or understanding] a post. When someone highlights a post about simeone choosing to have a child and "cannot afford" decent housing to their taste, by pointing out that maybe they should have thought of that, your only response is to bleat about only middle class people should have babies!

JencParker wrote: »

So you think only the middle class and wealthy should have children!

Whoops! There you go again.

Have you got a fixation about "class"? Class has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it. Some of us who came from pure unashamed working class made better choices and thrive qulte well in spite of our upbringing.

People are talking about basic human common sense about making life choices... cutting ones cloth etc.... Do you not think today's benefits are high enough?

Whoops! Clearly not.....

JencParker wrote: »

No it is not a right - I agree, but with today's low wages and high cost of living that excludes those on low wages without some help whether that be through low cost housing or child benefits.

Clearly you have no understanding of how generous benefits are today. Have you ever worked out how "low" you wages need to be not to qualify for some form of HB or Child Tax Credits? Then go and ask some ordinary couple on £35K who are 'managing' how much they enjoy their £9K tax to be paid to a similar couple who chose to have kids before they worked out whether or not they could afford them.

CLAPTON

Jason74 wrote: »

Of course there is nothing wrong with "real people living in a property". The alternative would be for the property to be left empty, which would of course be monumentally dumb given the shortage of properties which is creating the conditions for this debate in the first place.

What I object to, is the idea of an asset built for the benefit of society being sold off at a hefty discount, and for society (through the officers of its elected local representatives) to then have to rent that property back at top dollar (lining the pockets of a private individual in the process) in order to enable the property to meet its original function.

Council housing was largely built in the 1960 & 70s.

Times changes: people want to own their own properties and not rent all their lives.
Elected representatives implemented these changes.

I don't support the selling off property at a discount just as I don't support renting out property at a discount.

If people, due to their specific circumstances, need financial support to fund a place to live, then I think the state should provide that support.
I see no reason why a specific property, irrespective of the circumstances of the resident, should be subsidised by the tax a payer who themselves may well be paying more themselves.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

Council housing was largely built in the 1960 & 70s.

Times changes: people want to own their own properties and not rent all their lives.
Elected representatives implemented these changes.

I don't support the selling off property at a discount just as I don't support renting out property at a discount.

If people, due to their specific circumstances, need financial support to fund a place to live, then I think the state should provide that support.
I see no reason why a specific property, irrespective of the circumstances of the resident, should be subsidised by the tax a payer who themselves may well be paying more themselves.

Times do change and as less people can afford to buy they are now needing to rent more often. The population continues to grow and our borders are open.

Elected representatives liquidated state assets to keep the country a float. The fact they dressed it up as the chance to buy your own home and attempt to buy votes was a benefit.

Specific properties are being financed by the tax payer just that we never own them. The fact that the tax payer subsidises others even though they themselves are struggling is the wonderful part of the society we live in.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Times do change and as less people can afford to buy they are now needing to rent more often. The population continues to grow and our borders are open.

Elected representatives liquidated state assets to keep the country a float. The fact they dressed it up as the chance to buy your own home and attempt to buy votes was a benefit.

Specific properties are being financed by the tax payer just that we never own them. The fact that the tax payer subsidises others even though they themselves are struggling is the wonderful part of the society we live in.

you make a very strong case for building more properties

less so for preferring the country to sink to save the odd asset and even less so for your distain for democracy.

people genuinely wanted to buy their own homes just like you

BigAunty

CLAPTON wrote: »

Council housing was largely built in the 1960 & 70s.

Times changes: people want to own their own properties and not rent all their lives.

It started in Victorian times and was originally restricted to 'decent' tenants (i.e. working, non-drunk tenants) though some may say it was based on snobbery but it certainly wasn't allocated on need.

Wasn't the biggest building projects after the war - homes fit for heroes (though perhaps it was the protests and squatting by homeless ex servicemen that embarrassed or frightened the government).

Yes, there is a home owning culture that originated from Thatcher's desire to promote homeownership (or destroy social housing depending on your politics) but many european countries, including prosperous ones, have a culture of renting but they have stronger tenants rights, longer contracts, usually much cheaper rent.

I think here our appetite for homeownership is that social housing is very hard to get and private rented accommodation is expensive and subject to many amateur landlords. This makes ownership necessary to avoid poor housing. This is what drives home ownership, plus the bubble of wealth that gets tied up in house price inflation due to the shortages when pensions are so poor and wages are so depressed that makes ownership attractive.

CLAPTON

BigAunty wrote: »

It started in Victorian times and was originally restricted to 'decent' tenants (i.e. working, non-drunk tenants) though some may say it was based on snobbery but it certainly wasn't allocated on need.

Wasn't the biggest building projects after the war - homes fit for heroes (though perhaps it was the protests and squatting by homeless ex servicemen that embarrassed or frightened the government).

Yes, there is a home owning culture that originated from Thatcher's desire to promote homeownership (or destroy social housing depending on your politics) but many european countries, including prosperous ones, have a culture of renting but they have stronger tenants rights, longer contracts, usually much cheaper rent.

I think here our appetite for homeownership is that social housing is very hard to get and private rented accommodation is expensive and subject to many amateur landlords. This makes ownership necessary to avoid poor housing. This is what drives home ownership, plus the bubble of wealth that gets tied up in house price inflation due to the shortages when pensions are so poor and wages are so depressed that makes ownership attractive.

I'm afraid I don't really understand your juxtaposition of these ideas and I find cause and effect somewhat confusing.

UK has a lower level of home ownership that the European average.

MrsE_2

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't really understand your juxtaposition of these ideas and I find cause and effect somewhat confusing.

UK has a lower level of home ownership that the European average.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate

Not if you compare it to similar eu countries, like Germany, France, the Scandinavian countries for instance.