Do you support social housing?

springdreams

Matt1977 wrote: »

If I were to be offered a council or Housing Association flat then I would be paying for the rent out of my earnings, not with assistance from Housing Benefit.

Yes, but the rent for social housing is substantially lower than the rent for a private rental. Even without relying on Housing Benefit, the lower rental is indirectly subsidised by the tax payer.

Private landlords have mortgages to pay, as well as being responsible for the maintenance of the property.

The cost of building social housing is paid for by the tax payer, as this is where the government gets its money from. There is no mortgage to pay. The rental of social housing can therefore be lower than the rental of private housing.

Would you still be keen on having a social housing property if the rent was the same as for private housing?

FR_262

springdreams wrote: »

Would you still be keen on having a social housing property if the rent was the same as for private housing?

Good question.

JencParker

Would you still be keen on having a social housing property if the rent was the same as for private housing?

I've not rented for over 25 years, however, cost is only one consideration. Security of tenure would be a high priority, and private rentals offer minimal security often at a high cost to the tenant.

mayonnaise

springdreams wrote: »

Yes, but the rent for social housing is substantially lower than the rent for a private rental.

Probably never crossed Matt's mind.

Matt1977 wrote: »

Have £3255.44 in cash ISA and tomorrow (27th Oct) this will go up to £3,400.44. :cool: Want to get into the habit of putting all overtime earnings into the ISA so that I am not too reliant on overtime earnings should this cease.

Currently living in a flat on my own. Rent is £510/month. Circa 42% of my take home pay.

Matt1977 wrote: »

I'm in a low need band - currently rent a place privately.

Matt, if you ever read this post, can you explain why you need taxpayer funded housing when you take home £1,200 p/m and have enough spare cash to stuff it in an ISA??

Matt1977

^ Good Lord, I feel a bit creeped out now. :eek:

Without wanting to sound Old Labour, I have always been of the opinion that Council Housing has always been there for the working classes and those on limited means. I earn below the average wage. OK, I'm a low priority, fair enough - those are the rules.

This is an argument I'm not going to win, isn't it? :laugh:

Matt1977

springdreams wrote: »

Would you still be keen on having a social housing property if the rent was the same as for private housing?

On an equal cost basis I would go private. I would only be entitled to a council or Housing Assoc flat. Under those circumstances I would pay the difference and opt for a private rented house or bungalow instead.

I now know how some politicans feel when they appear on Newsnight.

Loughton_Monkey

Matt1977 wrote: »

^ Good Lord, I feel a bit creeped out now. :eek:

Without wanting to sound Old Labour, I have always been of the opinion that Council Housing has always been there for the working classes and those on limited means. I earn below the average wage. OK, I'm a low priority, fair enough - those are the rules.

This is an argument I'm not going to win, isn't it? :laugh:

No. You won't win the argument.

Imagine, for the moment, you did qualify for a council house. Forgetting any thoughts about why us taxpayers should be subsidising you, why do you not feel that as you get older you won't earn quite a bit more? Or maybe you do and think that we should subsidise you even when you're raking in £50K a year?

Take my advice. Throw as much as you can into that ISA. Keep working on your career and income. The minute you can afford a house. Any house [within reason]. Then buy it! You will never regret it because you will have "pegged" a large investment into something that will not fail to go up in the longer term. Subject to your future income, you can stay there (and live rent free once your mortgage is paid off) or, more likely, trade up when the finances allow to a more 'comfortable' house without breaking the bank.

BillJones

JencParker wrote: »

What a sick individual you are.

Please, there's no need to get so nasty just because someone has a different opinion to yours about personal responsibility.

dktreesea

wotsthat wrote: »

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.

Why are they so difficult to reverse? Look at the benefits for the self employed. Once UC comes in, they will be subject to a minimum income floor (and not before time) which has the potential, for the hundreds of thousands of self employed people who have marginal incomes and use the HB/WTC/CTC/CTB/CB as their main source of income, to cut their benefits from £20k+ per year to around £5k+ per year.

Yes, the bedroom tax is a shambles, but it is caused by not having enough purpose built social housing to be able to enact what the government should really be doing, which is requiring people who no longer need a three bedroom council house, say, because their children are now grown and left, to a one bedroom flat. Where did the idea that the council house you got when you were bringing up 3 or 4 children be yours for life come from? Social housing should be provided strictly on need alone. If all you are entitled to is a one bedroom flat, due to change in circumstances, then you should be moved into one. If you are working, and you want to keep your council house, fine, but get charged market rent.

It's not rocket science. We just have a weak government that is made up of the conservatives, who would probably love to implement a more rigorous and less generous social welfare provision, but can't, because the libdems are so scared of losing their voters they act like they are scared of their own shadow.

People have a lot to say in criticism of the labour party, and maybe they deserve it, but I don't see our overall public debt falling under the condem coalition, do you?

wotsthat

[QUOTE=dktreesea;64446067]Why are they so difficult to reverse? Look at the benefits for the self employed. Once UC comes in, they will be subject to a minimum income floor (and not before time) which has the potential, for the hundreds of thousands of self employed people who have marginal incomes and use the HB/WTC/CTC/CTB/CB as their main source of income, to cut their benefits from £20k+ per year to around £5k+ per year.

Yes, the bedroom tax is a shambles, but it is caused by not having enough purpose built social housing to be able to enact what the government should really be doing, which is requiring people who no longer need a three bedroom council house, say, because their children are now grown and left, to a one bedroom flat. Where did the idea that the council house you got when you were bringing up 3 or 4 children be yours for life come from? Social housing should be provided strictly on need alone. If all you are entitled to is a one bedroom flat, due to change in circumstances, then you should be moved into one. If you are working, and you want to keep your council house, fine, but get charged market rent.

It's not rocket science. We just have a weak government that is made up of the conservatives, who would probably love to implement a more rigorous and less generous social welfare provision, but can't, because the libdems are so scared of losing their voters they act like they are scared of their own shadow.

People have a lot to say in criticism of the labour party, and maybe they deserve it, but I don't see our overall public debt falling under the condem coalition, do you?[/QUOTE]

I agree it's not rocket science.

Fairly simple though - people don't resist when they're given free money but cause an awful fuss when it's stopped.