To be pissed off at housing tenants

This I’m afraid OP. They have to live somewhere. I take your point, but this happens a lot and it isn’t fair. Then we don’t live in a fair society. 🤷‍♀️

Any reason why you can’t buy a property OP?

Any reason why you continue to rent instead of getting on the housing ladder? Maybe plough your energies into getting approved for a mortgage instead of raging about a family you don't actually know. Your post is rage bait, as I am sure you know, and absolute catnip to a certain section of posters on here.

And if anyone thinks that I post on MN during the day because I, too, am a 'scummer' can I just remind you all that not everyone works Monday to Friday 9 - 5? Thank you.

You keep saying “live in a house for free” but they do not live there for free. Council houses still have a rent to be paid. If it’s social housing then it sounds like you wouldn’t be eligible for it anyway based on what you’ve said, so they’re hardly taking it away from you when you would never have had it anyway!

You must be on a pretty decent salary if your taxed at 40%. Your partner also works full time, yes.
I would say it is YOU who is taking the piss for wanting a social housing tenancy, thus, depriving poorer people the opportunity

I agree with you OP. It’s a sad state of affairs.

What is the fecking point in working anymore.

You are absolutely not being unreasonable.

Why don’t you buy? Then you can look even further on that high horse of yours.

What country do you think will be queueing up to take a large family of emigrants who were effectively homeless in their own nation and want access to housing in a society they’ve never contributed to?

It’s not just mumsnet. It’s everywhere, and your reply is disingenuous. The dismissal of worried people with real concerns as bigots, idiots, or whatever other disparaging term is chosen, is a huge part of the problem. If the traditional parties treat them like that they’ll go elsewhere and there are only so many places to go.

where should they be housed? the streets?

how do you know they're living in it for free?

Well, I retired at 70 after working since I was 17 without a career break of any sort. And I own my house and have never lived in social housing or been on any benefits apart from statutory sick pay.

Nice bit of stereotyping though.

OP are you a net contributor?

If you are a net contributor do you know how much by?

If you are a large net contributor, would you prefer to live in a society that does not provide social support to those less well off?

Being in the 40% tax bracket is not the same as being a net contributor. I think you would need a salary over 85k if you have 2 kids in state education to even pay £1 net contributions.

Completly understand its difficult when you cant provide what you want for children, and you see others getting what you want.

Perhaps if people understood, depending on your salary of course, that just because tax is paid, doesnt necessarily mean you are subsiding others, or perhaps only very slightly subsiding and this might give people a different perspective.

Personally, I am a net contributor, contributing circa 40- 50k per year into the system over what I consume. I would rather live in a society that has protections for all. Even looking at it from a completly personal selfish level, without the protections there would be significantly more social issues. That is not a society I would wish to live in...car jacking, bars on windows, paying for private security, large numbers of completely uneducated people, families living on the sides of roads. This isnt hyperbolic the reality in some countries.

Are there problems that need to be adressed, of course.These problems IMO are systemic, and will take at least one generation to fix. We should be looking at how to change the fundamental issues, rather than focusing on the somewhat unavoidable outcomes and resorting to infighting and punching down.

There are a lot of benefit apologists on here but I agree with you @Pssedoffathis

Why can't we call this out for what it is? Adults not working and kids causing trouble being given a nice big house in a good area that they will no doubt not look after.
Yes that is a massive assumption but is based on previous experience.

A previous neighbour of mine has 5 children with their partner both of whom have never worked. They have been moved several times due to anti social behaviour and have now been housed by the council in a 6 bedroom barn conversion with 5 acres of land and 2 lakes.
I'm lucky to own a lovely place myself but couldn't afford that and I don't think it's fair that unemployed claimants get priority over those in employment.

OP it must be very frustrating.

Has anyone suggested that all social housing tenants are 'scummers'? I didn't read it that way. I certainly wouldn't suggest that.

But there are anti-social people and anti-social families. I taught at a school which drew from the local council estate (which looked nice - all well-kept houses and gardens and regular, law-abiding people around) and soon found that there were actually a few families who'd been re-housed from elsewhere in the county for being anti-social nightmares. They had a disproportionate effect on the school - so much so that Ofsted remarked on it in their report.

My daughter's neighbour is vile. I think things are being re-assessed and that they will finally evict him, and thank God for that. What should happen to him? I don't care. What I care about is that my daughter, the other residents of the block and law-abiding people in general should be able to live their lives in peace. This horrible man has had a chance and he's wrecked it. I think even the council there will baulk at having to replace every window in his flat several times a year.

Such people are a massive drain on society. I accept that I have to pay for them with my taxes, but I don't want them anywhere near me. And I don't mean regular social-housing tenants.

You are conflating two different issues. Your own inability to afford a nice home, which is the result of policies that have not seen SH provision keep up with demand, plus the extortionate and exploitative rents in the private sector; with the problem of some people being anti social.
The second is a matter to be dealt with through the law. Where the perpetrators are housed is irrelevant to that.

It's got nothing to do with you.

Yes, if you can't beat them, join them!

Then you can come back and tell us how wonderfully luxurious and relaxing it is to live at the taxpayer's expense, OP.

Ah, come on! I can't believe that everyone thinks it's fair that someone should get something for free that someone who works hard can't afford. It's simply unfair. I'm a socialist through and through. No one should go hungry or not have a good roof over their heads but the system is broken when a person is doing what society needs (working, paying taxes and raising kids to be an asset to the state) but ends up worse off. Don't op's kids need a decent place to live too? Where's the incentive for op to continue to be a contributing member of society? Without contributors, we're all in trouble.

@CoffeeCantata i don’t think anyone is denying that horrible anti-social people exist. I was just saying that people in social housing have to live somewhere; and we’re not ALL ‘scummers’ purely because we live in social housing.

I'm getting the feeling a lot of them are on here...

How can anyone defend this kind of anti-social selfishness which spoils other people's lives?

Just live in your home like normal people - don't wreck it, make horrendous noise, crash vehicles, quarrel with everyone and be a complete arsehole.

After spygate,the coaches, managers and CEO ARE scummers !

Not relevant to the post I know

They probably actually do.
Not sure why people flock to defend this type of person/people.
They do exist.

Any thread about social housing or benefit can only end up in tears.

Who do you think are posters who can be on MN all day, during the day for a start? Read the room 😂