To think that there is a misunderstanding about social housing.

I'm just trying to digest all these posts, and see it from all angles. At some point I will either die or downsize. Hopefully by then my children will have enough money to buy a home of their own. If not they will be homeless.

The anger and bitterness about this is always directed at social tenants. It’s not my fault their rent is double what I pay so why be angry at me?

3 beds where I live are 3500-4000 a month...Zoopla/Rightmove

It's quite complicated and will differ for different developments but ultimately it is usually funded by the state either directly or indirectly through providing cheap public land to build on or striking a deal with developers to make a certain % social housing or affordable. Housing Associations can also access private funding due to the 'profit' they make but this profit only really exists due to state subsidy at the building stage. Basically all current funding models aren't really massively scaleable so social housing will always be a finite resource.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that people decide of their own back to give up their council home because like you said, why would they.
I think most people are suggesting that the rules around staying are changed.. Do you really think it’s okay that my husband’s parents live alone in a four bedroom house that was given to them fourty years ago? They don’t want to privately rent or downsize.. There tenancy means they get to make that choice. It shouldn’t be down to what they want or feel entitled to though, the system that allows it needs to change. But until that happens you’re correct, it is just tough shit.

How are the resources funded by the tax payer though..? Someone pointed out about that council housing is not paid for by council tax etc

I agree completely but this is exactly why the rules need to be tougher. Turkeys don't vote for a Christmas. People will actively deprived others of a scarce resource that they don't actually need just because they won't want to be 'worse off'. It's human nature but when it involves resources funded by the tax payer then we need strict rules in place to make sure that the housing goes to the most in need.

My husbands grew up in social housing from 70s to 90s.
When he left home his mum purchased from the council for circa £40k and sold it 3 years later for circa £170k. Therefore no one else could benefit from it - this is the only issue I have with it.
Needs to be much more social housing, not less.

The argument that "other people need it more" really doesn't hold water. There are people using food banks every day. Do the high earners among you make massive donations to them because hey other people need it more right? Sure you might pass over a few cans now and then so you can feel you're doing something but would you actually sacrifice your own lifestyle to feed the hungry? Because that's what you're suggesting current SH tenants do.

You're saying that they should be put in a worse position because there's people who are even worse off. Well unless you donate every penny over and above what you need to survive, you can shut up quite frankly! Because you're not practising what you preach.

There are ALWAYS people worse off in this world. But 99% of people put their own families first. They might donate a little surplus if they have it but they make sure their own are taken care of. That's all SH tenants are doing. It's irrelevant who owns the house on paper. When a tenancy agreement is signed it is legally binding. We aren't breaking any rules. You can argue its not "fair". Well I think lots of things aren't fair, that's life!

I've been homeless twice when I was younger. The thought of being turfed out of my home terrifies me.

I know of some smaller charities who have been working to take existing buildings into the social sector.

ultimately on the whole building new houses will always be a cheaper option than buying existing houses, so there’s not a lot can be done about existing housing, but there’s is only so much land that can be built on before we can’t produce food.

My HA was built in the 90's. One side of the road is Ha and other side of the road is Council.

What about all the not new builds...the majority of the housing in question? And as said, the best solution is to keep building/buying new stock, not pitting people against each other

Given that all new build social housing are mixed in with all other houses - sites near me have homes for sale up to £950,000 and 40% social/affordable housing on the site, how am I supporting ghettoisation?

Otherwise, great let people stay in the social housing and let the people made homeless suck it up - is that really the best solution we can come up with?

Keep building more. Don't sell them off.

You're advocating for temporary housing and ghettoisation. The only people who get a permanent home are those that stay in poverty, and bring up their children that way. Anytime anyone does well, they're evicted. Children grow up without any aspirational role modelling and all they learn is that working hard and bettering yourself gets you punished and thrown out.
Well done on cementing the underclass and making sure there will always be another generation.

If you can now afford private rental or a mortgage well yes, obviously not just kicked out. I know people desperate for housing who are waiting 4 months to even get a first appointment with the council - years before they get a flat - how is that far if people on good incomes are in houses they no longer “need” the help for?

I’m not talking single mothers on minimum wage - I’m talking people whose careers have taken off and are hitting higher tax brackets.

How else are we meant to keep enough housing stock for those that desperately need it?

If you read my posts that’s exactly what I’m saying. The system is wrong.

It absolutely not the fault of people in social housing - right to buy was a stupid scheme, ex council houses 3 bed semi’s now sell for over half a million around here. There just has to be a better system that once people are “back on their feet” that it’s evened out again.

For clarity I do t begrudge anyone who’s needs the help - I’m glad it’s there - but it needs to be there for the next person who needs it. Not to mention the people who are getting seriously rich out of social housing.

Do you want them to swap places with you?

Don't fight each other, it's the system thats the issue.

There is a disparity, but it's not the fault of people who are living in social housing, it's the system. Right to buy has decimated the social housing stock, it has generated lots of private wealth that unfortunately hasn't filtered down. I'm the last social tenant on my road the other houses were bought years ago and are now in the ownership of private landlords some of them have been converted into HMO's and the private rent is the same per room as my home thats comes in at nearly 400% above what I pay. I haven't bought my home it will at some point be passed on to a family who need it hopefully like I did and still do. Until then it's my home and I do feel very fortunate.

So what do you want us to do? Move out ?

And those of us on less than £40k in private rent can just suck it up right? You don’t see the disparity when our taxes are subsidising people who are better off than us?

Yes, if you private rent and claim the housing element, then "the taxpayer" (and I put it in "" as some people seem to think they have the moral high ground for being one) is paying the mortgage of that landlord...and if not, then it is even more profit.

My parents have been in their council house for over 35 years. They would have paid it off ages ago of they were owning it. They will be paying rent until they die. But what has been important to them is the secure tenancy.
When they die, I will have 2 weeks to make good the house... strip everything including the lovely decking in their garden. I live nowhere near them and am disabled.

I live in social housing, work full time I've paid full rent for over 30 years. I'm very lucky I realise this, I couldn't afford private rent rates in my area. My young adult children still live at home saving like mad to try and buy a home. I work with people who earn the same as me who are in private rental property UC covers the difference but they have short term tenancy. UC are subsidising private landlords and lining their pockets.

Same with people in private rental who are also claiming the housing element of UC. Except if their rent is above the LHA, they have to pay for the shortfall themselves.
What point are you trying to make?