Houses are affordable!

Balabalabala_and_Volare

ukcarper wrote: »

In an ideal world I would like to see people earn enough to have a reasonable living in good accomadation. But I’ve been around long enough to know that has never been the case and most likely never will be.

Then vote for a party that reduces the welfare state. Then you will see a true reward for your endeavors, rather than see them undermined thanks to the re-distribution of your own taxes into the pockets of those with less endeavor!

ukcarper

Balabalabala_and_Volare wrote: »

Then vote for a party that reduces the welfare state. Then you will see a true reward for your endeavors, rather than see them undermined thanks to the re-distribution of your own taxes into the pockets of those with less endeavor!

Another simplistic solution.

Balabalabala_and_Volare

ukcarper wrote: »

Part but not all.

Having worked in London all my life I can tell you I certainly wouldn’t want to live there now.

I don't blame you. there is a far better standard of living to be gained elsewhere in the country It's just a shame that many are protected from that reality via the benefits/tax credits system.

Balabalabala_and_Volare

ukcarper wrote: »

Another simplistic solution.

Simplistic and true. Unless you have a viable alternative?

Cakeguts

My feeling about social housing is that the tenancies should have an age limit on them depending on the size of the unit. If you say that 66 is the new retirement age then at that age the tenancy should automatically end and a new one in a unit of the appropriate size offered. The situation we have at the moment creates families in temporary housing and single retired people living in family sized social housing. In privately owned houses people downsize when they get older so people in social housing should do the same.

Any adult child still living with the parents when they retire needs to be assessed for their own needs.

Balabalabala_and_Volare

Cakeguts wrote: »

My feeling about social housing is that the tenancies should have an age limit on them depending on the size of the unit. If you say that 66 is the new retirement age then at that age the tenancy should automatically end and a new one in a unit of the appropriate size offered. The situation we have at the moment creates families in temporary housing and single retired people living in family sized social housing. In privately owned houses people downsize when they get older so people in social housing should do the same.

Any adult child still living with the parents when they retire needs to be assessed for their own needs.

Presumably you think the same rules should apply to owners too? ie they should be forced to move to smaller properties?

Cakeguts

Balabalabala_and_Volare wrote: »

Presumably you think the same rules should apply to owners too? ie they should be forced to move to smaller properties?

I am not sure about rules but in private housing a lot of people do downsize when one partner dies. They don't have to if they live in social housing and the councils can't force them to because of the secure tenancies. That is what the "bedroom tax" was supposed to do but there isn't enough single person social housing to meet the ageing population in some areas.

I have never believed that you should be able to get a council house or housing association house and be able to live there for life with the rent paid by housing benefit when the house is much bigger than you need. If you want to live somewhere much too big for you, you must pay for it yourself at a market rent or with a mortgage not with housing benefit or a rent subsidised by other tenants. Private tenants and home owners can't continue to live in a house that is too expensive for them so why should anyone be subsidised by others to do it just because it is social housing.

Balabalabala_and_Volare

Cakeguts wrote: »

I am not sure about rules but in private housing a lot of people do downsize when one partner dies. They don't have to if they live in social housing and the councils can't force them to because of the secure tenancies. That is what the "bedroom tax" was supposed to do but there isn't enough single person social housing to meet the ageing population in some areas.

I have never believed that you should be able to get a council house or housing association house and be able to live there for life with the rent paid by housing benefit when the house is much bigger than you need. If you want to live somewhere much too big for you, you must pay for it yourself at a market rent or with a mortgage not with housing benefit or a rent subsidised by other tenants. Private tenants and home owners can't continue to live in a house that is too expensive for them so why should anyone be subsidised by others to do it just because it is social housing.

Because security of tenure is the entire rationale of social housing.

Most owners will have paid their mortgage when they retire so will have zero housing costs regardless of the size of the property.

Bedroom tax deals with under occupation with working age tenants, much the same as it does in the private sector.

If non working age social housing tenants should be forced to downsize, why not owner occs?

Cakeguts

Balabalabala_and_Volare wrote: »

Because security of tenure is the entire rationale of social housing.

Most owners will have paid their mortgage when they retire so will have zero housing costs regardless of the size of the property.

Bedroom tax deals with under occupation with working age tenants, much the same as it does in the private sector.

If non working age social housing tenants should be forced to downsize, why not owner occs?

Because owner occupiers are not getting their housing subsidised by someone else. Council housing is subsidised by other council tenants. Housing benefit is subsidised by taxpayers.

I am not in favour of people in social housing paying for the choices of other social housing tenants. I am also not in favour of taxpayers paying for choices that have become unsuitable.

A single retired person living in a 3 bed council house or even a couple will have to have the rent paid by housing benefit unless they can afford to pay it out of their pension. Because they are living in a 3 bed house the council has to find somewhere else for a family needing a 3 bed house. That might be another council house or it could be a privately rented house. So a poor family could be losing out just because someone doesn't want to downsize from social housing that is bigger than they need.

I personally think that if someone wants to stay in a council house that is bigger than they need they should pay the market rent for it and not be eligible for housing benefit. Someone who owns a house that is too big for them doesn't get housing benefit and neither would someone living in private rented accommodation. If a retired person lived in private rented accommodation they would be expected to pay the market rent or move. It should be the same for council tenants.

Crashy_Time

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/first-time-buyers-beware-now-worst-time-buy-first-home-since/