Social housing after the budget

mattcanary

bloolagoon wrote: »

That's the issue

A) next door could be private rented so one person is already paying more
social housing is a form of benefits. This government recognise that those in social housing receive a form of state funded subsidy - which private renters do not. They are now saying that the income is too high to recieve that benefit - just as they do with many other benefits.

You can argue that housing isn't a benefit but the govt state the tax payers subsidy towards the housing should be means tested.

Social housing is only seen as a form of benefit because house prices and therefore private sector rents have increase by such a huge amount in the last fifteen to twenty years.


Why the emphasis on making housing more unaffordable? Everyone says that all other costs should come down - eg: gas, electricity, food, etc. Why shouldn't t be the same for rents (in the private sector)?

beecher2

mattcanary wrote: »

Not true.
The aim of social housing was never to help toward pay toward deposit for a deposit to be placed on buying a home until perhaps Maggie Thatcher came into power in 1979.

I agree. We didn't have the same focus on house ownership when social housing began and it was seen as an alternative to the conditions of the private rental sector. Incidentally, private renting accommodation was often inherited by members of the family - I've seen evidence of generations of families living in the same rented accommodation before the advent of mass council housing.

taxi97w

Social Housing in New South Wales, Australia

-you have a lease

-your rent is 25% of your income. So if you are on unemployment benefit and live in a 3 bedroom house where all the kids have left home, partner is non-resident or non-existent and it's only you in the property you'll only be paying a quarter of your benefit towards your housing. Another bloke down the road has a bedsit and is paying exactly what you are for your 3 bed because he is getting the same amount of benefits as you.

-if you start paid work you have to declare it after the first 3 months. Then you start getting charged full market rate on the social housing property no matter how much you earn. So if you have a small casual job earning $50 a week, then $12.50 (a 1/4) goes to the Housing Dept. If your wages take you over the thresh-hold (30,000 in the case of the UK) you then have 1 year to get out of the property because you are then deemed ineligible for social housing.
The tax office and all government departments in fact are connected so if you don't tell them, you will be found out and will have to pay the difference that you 'defrauded'.

They are trying to destroy the middle classes so that only the very rich or the very poor remain. It's all by design, and it's global.

TheGardener

mattcanary wrote: »

I don't agree with it as you should pay the same for the home you live in as the next person would, regardless of your income (ignoring state help if you are on a very low income or benefits).


And I speak as a low earner.

I'm sure plenty of people in private sector housing would agree - however this policy is pointless. Take the 'spare room subsidy' - in our area, more people needed to move into 1 beds than were available in either the private or social sector - the private sector using basic supply and demand principles put up the rents of the 1 bed flats so someone paying £65 a week for a 2 bed SH flat ended up paying £85 in private sector for a 1 bed - then the difference being made up by benefits so the 'saving' simply didn't happen (except of course in the un-real world in London) This policy also left high rise 2 and 3 bed flats standing empty (so loss of revenue) because lettings policies rarely allow families with young children to be allocated properties higher than 1st or 2nd floor...
the other issue is that the private rental sector in the UK, unlike most European countries, steadfastly refuses to give any security of tenure so private renters are rarely more then 3 months from eviction. How can any family who cant afford a mortgage be expected to settle and make a strong economic contribution with no security?
Its astronomical private rents and 6mth short hold tenancies that need tackling - not social housing rents.

burlington6

mejaa wrote: »

I agree Maisie, we don't mind paying our way but would like to see increment levels and other factors eg number of dependants taken into consideration.
How could they compare mr & Mrs x with no kids earning £40k between them and paying full market rate to Mr and Mrs y earning £35k but with 3 kids.
I really hope more clarification comes to light in the next few days. I feel sick thinking about it

You really need to get this dependents issue out of your head.

People should not be punished because they decide not to have children. The fact you don't have enough money because of the amount of dependents you have is not the fault of the couple across the road.

If you both earn the same, you should not be entitled to cheaper housing because you have kids and the fact they have more disposable income is none of your business.

mejaa

burlington6 wrote: »

You really need to get this dependents issue out of your head.

People should not be punished because they decide not to have children. The fact you don't have enough money because of the amount of dependents you have is not the fault of the couple across the road.

If you both earn the same, you should not be entitled to cheaper housing because you have kids and the fact they have more disposable income is none of your business.

I get what your saying, and when we did have the children my husband had a much better paid job, unfortunately it was for a small company which then had to make redundancies.

Just annoying when other families who can't be arsed to work at all get everything given to them on a plate.

TheGardener

burlington6 wrote: »

You really need to get this dependents issue out of your head.

Thankfully people do have children - lets remember that the couple with no kids who enjoy the financial freedom that brings will rely on their neighbours kids to pay for the NHS etc in the future...its not about punishment but balance. The logical conclusion of your argument is that the couple without kids should not have access to state funded pensions, healthcare/local services etc once they stop paying into the system?

tomtontom

TheGardener wrote: »

Thankfully people do have children - lets remember that the couple with no kids who enjoy the financial freedom that brings will rely on their neighbours kids to pay for the NHS etc in the future...its not about punishment but balance. The logical conclusion of your argument is that the couple without kids should not have access to state funded pensions, healthcare/local services etc once they stop paying into the system?

Perhaps the child free neighbour has made their own provision for retirement? That seems far more likely than the parents who can't even afford to pay for their children, let alone plan for their retirement. It is also far more likely that the children will become dependent on benefits - these things tend to continue through generations.

GirlFromMars_2

mejaa wrote: »

I get what your saying, and when we did have the children my husband had a much better paid job, unfortunately it was for a small company which then had to make redundancies.

Just annoying when other families who can't be arsed to work at all get everything given to them on a plate.

That is exactly the attitude that got the conservatives their majority.

I'm sure always being "arsed to work" will see you nicely through life. Of course it may not help much if you find yourself unemployed with nobody willing to give you a job, or you find you are unable to work due to ill health or the care needs of a relative.

I genuinely hope Pay to Stay never makes it into law, not because I think you and your children deserve to pay less than your neighbour who doesn't have kids. But because I think Social Housing should be for everyone, should cost the same for everyone, and there should be a lot more of it.

mejaa

GirlFromMars wrote: »

That is exactly the attitude that got the conservatives their majority.

I'm sure always being "arsed to work" will see you nicely through life. Of course it may not help much if you find yourself unemployed with nobody willing to give you a job, or you find you are unable to work due to ill health or the care needs of a relative.

I genuinely hope Pay to Stay never makes it into law, not because I think you and your children deserve to pay less than your neighbour who doesn't have kids. But because I think Social Housing should be for everyone, should cost the same for everyone, and there should be a lot more of it.

benefits are there for when people need them, but not everyone is genuine and they really cba to work.
I have quite a few family members who are like that, unfortunately out of 16 cousins, only 3 of us work, which is disgusting, they are happy to tell you they claim and there is no incentive for them to work, which is :mad::mad::mad:
I was brought up in a benefits family myself and there's no way I want that for my kids hence my strong opinions on the matter. I have always worked and will continue to do so untill I physically can.