Do you support social housing?

Hooloovoo

StevieJ wrote: »

Strange view, many positive contributors to life on this planet were born into poverty.

I'm sure you're right. I'm also sure many many more children didn't get the chance to become positive contributors because their parents couldn't provide for them properly but selfishly chose to have children anyway, to satisfy their own selfish desire to procreate.

Don't let selection bias skew your view of history.

StevieJ

Hooloovoo wrote: »

I'm sure you're right. I'm also sure many many more children didn't get the chance to become positive contributors because their parents couldn't provide for them properly but selfishly chose to have children anyway, to satisfy their own selfish desire to procreate.

Don't let selection bias skew your view of history.

I deleted my comment because I realised that it was an unfair. I do wonder however, how people can be confident of having enough resources in the future to ensure that the kids never fall into poverty.

Ainat

I can see both sides of this debate.

As a general comment - I agree with the idea of social housing. What I don't agree with so much is the way it is being used at the moment.

My mum lives in a block owned by a HA. She works full time, but she is on just above minimum wage, (but quite a bit below the living wage), in London. Even at HA prices it is still tough for her to make ends meet. She is working. Rents are crazy high. She needs the support.

Short answer would be - I agree with supporting those in similar situations to my mum. Working, but on low incomes so need that little bit of help. I also agree with helping those that are genuinely unable to work - though I do think a large portion of people on disability are able to work. We have such a wide variety of jobs, people on disability should be supported to find a job that they are able to do with their personal circumstances (part time if necessary) - they do what they can, and the government should do what they can to support this - including supporting employers and topping up any wages to ensure they have housing suitable for their needs. (Apologies for using 'their' in a generic umbrella sense - every case is different, this is a generic statement to be making).

It becomes a bit more tricky when you start thinking about the 'stereotypical benefit scroungers' - I use this term very loosely -I refer to the stereotypical view that the media portrays. Although the majority of people on benefits are not scroungers, there ARE people like that out there. It is people like that I grudge paying my taxes to support. Why should I support those that are able to work but are simply not trying to find work? But then, where is their incentive if they can get what equates to be more on benefits (including their housing) than what they could working?

There needs to be a way that we can support those that need it, but we need to have stricter rules in place.

purch

Ainat wrote: »

I can see both sides of this debate.

Wrong forum :eek:

BigAunty

Road_Hog wrote: »

If you mean, should the government fund the building of council houses for people that can't afford to buy, then yes, I do believe that we should provide properties for those that aren't in a financial position to buy.

Actually, that's a good point. I'd love to see mass social housing built but want the Right to Buy scrapped as it just led to the best properties being sold off, thus helping to turn less desirable estates into ghettoes. Apparently, a third of all RTB properties in Westminster eventually end up in the hands of landlords. I believe Scotland has, or will, scrap the RTB.

BigAunty

BillJones wrote: »

The problem is, of course, that if you allocate it long-term, then what you end up wiith is a fixed community of needy people, with social or health problems, who'll still beaver away degrading their environment then demanding that someone else fixes it.

It's a thorny problem.

Good point. The reason why there are domestic abuse victims in hostels is that there is a bottleneck created by giving secure life time tenancies to the tenants before them that presented themselves as DA victims. You'd hope that a person's experience of DA, once they are away from their abuser, means that they can turn their life around and be trauma free so that their emotional/housing needs are temporary. However, they get a secure tenancy and it just means the next battered partner ends up in a hostel or B&B.

BillJones

JencParker wrote: »

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

There are millions of working class who can afford to bring up a family perfectly well. It makes no sense at all to assume that working class are poor.

And yes, if you cannot afford to bring up children, then you ought ont to have them. I don't think that many would view this as that contentious a viewpoint.

BillJones

StevieJ wrote: »

I deleted my comment because I realised that it was an unfair. I do wonder however, how people can be confident of having enough resources in the future to ensure that the kids never fall into poverty.

Well, the normal way to do it would be to spend your twenties working as hard as you can to become well qualified, well skilled, and respected in your career, and to save very hard. If you find a partner during those years, you then make sure that you are compatible, get married, and set up a home, and start your pension planning.

Once you are there, and have a deent savings pot, that's the time to think about having a family. See how the finances work out with the first child, and if you still have plenty spare, then consider a second.

Of course, you can still never have utter certainty that you will always be fine, but you've done as much as can reasonably be expected.

It's a million miles from having a child at 25 years old, with a partner who you've only known a few years, when you are in a low paid job, and you have no savings, and are going to need benefits to get by.

MrsE_2

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

They would need some one-and-two bedroom flats as well though, for couples and singletons. Otherwise the only people eligible would be pensioners and those with multiple children.

And some people prefer flats. My son does. He doesn't want the hassle of outside maintenance and a garden that he is responsible for. He'd much rather have the communal gardens which are looked after by a gardener.

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;)

StevieJ

BillJones wrote: »

It's a million miles from having a child at 25 years old, with a partner who you've only known a few years, when you are in a low paid job, and you have no savings, and are going to need benefits to get by.

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