Do you support social housing?

Hooloovoo

wotsthat wrote: »

If someone can't afford to house themselves then, perhaps, they can't afford children either and shouldn't expect others to pay for them. It's not so controversial.

Absolutely.

How people justify having children when they can't even look after THEMSELVES independently without help from the state is completely baffling.

wotsthat

JencParker wrote: »

The poster didn't say if they can't afford to house themselves, he said unless they OWN their own home!

Personally I'd be happy if people could afford their rent or mortgage themselves before having children but ...do we agree that people should be able to house themselves before they expect others to house their kids?

Hooloovoo

wotsthat wrote: »

Personally I'd be happy if people could afford their rent or mortgage themselves before having children

I'd agree with that. The only reason I specify "own" is because it's bad enough worrying about losing your house through being unable to pay the mortgage, never mind worrying about paying your rent AND worrying that your landlord might require you to move out at relatively short notice. That's not a secure environment to bring up children.

If it were down to me, any child related benefits would be payable if and only if you're not claiming benefits of any sort at the time you become pregnant. Contraception is given away for free in this country.

JencParker

I certainly think people should consider the cost of raising children as best we can (no one can be certain of the future) and being able to provide a secure home is part of that, however, that was NOT what the poster said, they said that you should not consider having children until you own your own home! Considering the number of young people who will struggle to get on the housing ladder (at least here in London and the SE), that means that a large percentage of the population will not be having children. TBH, it was such a ridiculous comment I probably should have ignored it.

Hooloovoo

JencParker wrote: »

that means that a large percentage of the population will not be having children.

Don't see the problem with that. Having children is not a right. The population is growing too fast anyway.

Greenst

N1AK wrote: »

You charge full market rent and people with insufficient incomes would receive benefits, including housing benefit, as they already do. It doesn't require a separate 'assessment' system.

Why does everyone seem to think those living in social housing are on benefits or a low income or are single parents?
I know someone who lives in a council house, she earns a good wage, drives a 4wd and owns a horse! The husband is also fully employed on a good wage and his hobby is golf, he thinks nothing of spending hundreds on a new golf club let alone
Club membership fees, and their adult son who still lives at home is bringing in a 3rd wage. They could afford to rent in the area or pay a mortgage, should they still be in social housing, should they have been re-assessed, should someone more in need have their property?
Maybe councils should look at incomes and charge the going rate for those who can afford it, then put that money back into providing homes for those really in need. I know this persons rent is very small, compared to their incomes, hence the lifestyles they can lead!

Hooloovoo

Greenst wrote: »

Maybe councils should look at incomes and charge the going rate for those who can afford it, then put that money back into providing homes for those really in need.

... that's exactly what N1AK is suggesting in the very post you quoted.

Greenst

Hooloovoo wrote: »

... that's exactly what N1AK is suggesting in the very post you quoted.

I know that's why I quoted it and an example of what is really happening out there!

wotsthat

Hooloovoo wrote: »

If it were down to me, any child related benefits would be payable if and only if you're not claiming benefits of any sort at the time you become pregnant. Contraception is given away for free in this country.

It's academic really because the taxpayer would never stand by and condemn a child to poverty for what isn't their fault.

The problem is that benefits are very easy to start giving away but somewhat more difficult to reverse. Just need to look at how a reduction in HB is called a 'tax' or the pigs ear that was made of stopping CB for the higher paid.

grizzly1911

Hooloovoo wrote: »

Don't see the problem with that. Having children is not a right. The population is growing too fast anyway.

Probably has something to do with the fact they aren't dying as quickly as they used too amongst other things.

Many people with children that may relay on benefits now may not have started out in that position.

Never mind we have an open door immigration policy so we can simply replace the population.