Council house entitlement!!!

johnwayne

SingleSue wrote: »

What a vile person thevogan is.

Am I disabled?
Nope but 2 of my children are and yes one gets DLA and do you know, every single penny of what is received from DLA goes to dealing with the disability, from specialist food, extra cleaning of bedding,clothes,carpets etc due to one of the problems being a bowel disorder (yes it is so nice to be faced with that at 7am in the morning) and therapies.

SingleSue I totally agree with you. My son has special needs and I totally understand! It takes a hell of a lot of hard work especially with you being a single mother.

You are so right about no-body wanting to take care of them except for you. It gets to the stage where you think please someone give me a job & find someone to look after my kids...it would be so much easier having a job and only having to deal with the special needs for a small part of the day instead of 24-7!

Well done for being a stay at home single mum:T x

SingleSue

It certainly does johnwayne....sometimes I sit here and think "Is this what I studied so hard for?"

Thanks for your post...although I would love to be a full time employed single mum and actually have my identity back!

I must pick up a point from another poster - just because you claim DLA does not mean you automatically get free parking, free cars etc, you only get those if you get high rate mobility allowance which for that you would need to be significantly mobility disabled (of course there are exceptions with some disabilities) . If you get high rate care (DLA is split into 2 components, mobility and care) but low rate mobility, then you do not automatically get access to a car, free parking or car tax.

You can be disabled without requiring a wheel chair or walking sticks (visible disability) and sometimes those seeing others using a blue badge can get a little shirty as the person seems to be ok when the truth is nearly always completely different.

tiamai_d

:T Johnwayne and Singlesue!

You said what I was wanting to say but could only think of a lot of cuss words!

terryw

johnwayne wrote: »

] <snip>
The tax payer does not subsidise council houses they just make no profits as opposed to private landlords!

<snip>

You are mistaken. Council house rents should cover the repair and admin costs of the dwelling without any profit. But this takes no account of the interest charged on the money borrowed by the council to buy or build the dwelling. If this figure is taken into account, then council houses are subsidized.

The old charitable trust dwellings were genuinely run without any subsidy or profit but the big difference was that the original capital sum was donated by a philanthropic benefactor so no interest was involved.

the poster formerly known as
terryw

Pssst

funguy wrote: »

Yep agree with the above posts!

I hate hearing about council dwellers wanting bigger houses just cos they need to share rooms. Us other folk have to work our butts off to be able to afford bigger houses and i think everyone should have to do the same!

Just started reading this very long thread.

I can understand your point of view and yes,there are plenty of people who want to live quite happily off the backs of others but equally,it is incorrect to caste Council house dwellers in the same mould.

I rented a council house for years,have never been out of work and gross in excess of 35k pa which isnt too bad.

I am sure there are plenty others who have/do the same.

There are also parasitic spongers who like to rent nice semi's on housing benefit,the homes being thoughtfully provided by by to let landlords who dont mind inflicting chavs on hard working people/degrading nicer areas as long as they make a quick buck out of it.

wheretheresawill

thevogan- what a vile little man (probably very little in all ways if he needs to inflate his self esteem by being so judgemental).

I too was judgemental, puffed up with pride at my 2 degrees, snotty about council houses, then I got ill and rather than sleep in a box I swallowed my pride and got myself a lovely little housing association flat. I have now retrained, due to qualify soon - this flat enabled me to get back on my feet.

I firmly believe what goes around comes around, people like thevogan (who prob wrote what he did to get a reaction - silly little man) should be very careful and appreciate what they have because ANYONE can get ill and lose the lot

squinty

terryw wrote: »

You are mistaken. Council house rents should cover the repair and admin costs of the dwelling without any profit. But this takes no account of the interest charged on the money borrowed by the council to buy or build the dwelling. If this figure is taken into account, then council houses are subsidized.

Sorry Terry, but this is just not true. As I said in an earlier post, this year local authorities through the Housing Subsidy system pay the government almost £200million more than they recieve - this can be more if you account for debt payment, keeping Right to Buy sales etc. What this means is that tenants of council houses are subsisiding other housing options.

In many areas a third or more of tenants rent is paid to government. For example see

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/story.aspx?storycode=6500385

If councils were allowed to keept this money, and even get grants from government in the same way as housing associations - they would be able to build new houses, and redevelop areas. Council housing should be good quality and an alternative to all. But the policies of successive governments (especially with the right to Buy) has made people think that council housing is only a last resort.

bambam101

Shame we don't have more social housing in the UK, so more people can get council housing easier and fairer, and also stop the perverse way we have viewed houses in the UK for the past decade, such as a way to "top up your pension" or "as an imvestment portfolio". I'm a former buy to let landlord and got out of the market at just the right time in 2006, I feel desperatley sorry for anyone in negative equity at the moment or who can't meet their mortgage payments, if there was more social housing available people wouldn't have had to over streach themselves to trade-up!

We know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

terryw

squinty wrote: »

Sorry Terry, but this is just not true. As I said in an earlier post, this year local authorities through the Housing Subsidy system pay the government almost £200million more than they recieve - this can be more if you account for debt payment, keeping Right to Buy sales etc. What this means is that tenants of council houses are subsisiding other housing options.

In many areas a third or more of tenants rent is paid to government. For example see

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/story.aspx?storycode=6500385

If councils were allowed to keept this money, and even get grants from government in the same way as housing associations - they would be able to build new houses, and redevelop areas. Council housing should be good quality and an alternative to all. But the policies of successive governments (especially with the right to Buy) has made people think that council housing is only a last resort.

Thanks, Squinty, for the post but the link does not touch on the capital cost incurred by councils in building dwellings. This is the crux of the problem that council homes can never be other than subsidized. Councils do not have and have never had the ready cash to build or buy dwellings so the money was borrowed usually using council bonds. The interest payments on said bonds would always be higher than the rent received apart from the other costs of letting.

the poster formerly known as
terryw

Spark

I believe that the rents in the private sector should be capped down to the level of the council housing sector. It's not the council rents that are too low, but the private rents that are extortionate. That would give the lower earners another alternative to going for council accomodation because they can't afford renting in the private sector, so free more council houses for the ones who needs it most.
Or :
For a Belgian council property, you pay following your income, I think it's a percentage of it, so if you were to implement it in this country, a household earning 15k would pay half the rent than a household who is earning 30k. Once you earn more you would have the choice of going and rent privately maybe in a nicer property or a nicer area or stay where you are. If you can get better for the same rent, that would free more council properties for the needy and lower earners. That would allow people to have a choice without penalising anyone.
How easy it would be to implement, I don't know.