Lifetime Social Housing Tenancies

But you have been arguing that some people earn too much to be in social housing and now you’re talking about generations on benefits! Make your mind up!

So no child brought up in social housing goes on to get qualifications and a well paid job? None? You’re just stereotyping I’m afraid. Plus poverty? The argument is that better off people are living in social housing and it’s not fair. You can’t have it both ways 🤷‍♀️

Agree with PP, attacking the wrong people and jealous of the wrong people. Why is rent/mortgage so expensive for people like you, it’s a much bigger issue if you dig deeper as well as the benefits issue.

Except it doesn't work like that. A high proportion of children raised in poverty, will go on to be dependant on benefits, and then have children in poverty themselves. There are obviously exception but on the whole raising children in poverty leads to a long term drain on society.

Again, you're simply not understanding the housing market and the impacts it has.

Young people have no option but to relocate if there is no secure future for them. Communities just fall apart if everyone is in insecure housing.

What we need is more social housing, not to keep re-allocating an ever-dwindling number of properties.

I agree that the comments about baking yourself a ruch husband is not on.

But then your also making comments towards people with children in temporary accommodation. Life can happen evictions by landlords. People such children who also have a mortgage that they can no longer afford due to life changes.

I am gobsmacked by the absolute ignorance that belies posts like this. You are describing Eutopia. There isn't a country in the world with an economy comparable to ours that has got close to achieving this.

Let me guess you would fund all of this with a wealth tax?

Exactly. 10+ years in a bed and breakfast with the children. That's what you need to do to get a council home these days.
As I tried explaining to a pp who said ops situation was her own fault and she should of just "chose" to get herself a council house, as if it's that easy.

That comment is deleted now but it also included the recommendation of only getting with a man rich enough to support the whole household as if men like that are super common and don't have built in gold digger detectors 😂

You’ll be glad of those children who you think people shouldn’t have when they start working and paying National Insurance to fund your state pension

That poster wasn't helping anyone by referencing the 1950s. A completely different time with a totally different demographic, population size, cost of building and a booming economy. It is completely irrelevant and acts as a red herring. In an either-or debate they were choosing 'both'. We will never have both so it isn't kind pretending that we can somehow achieve this. It stands in the way of having adult conversations rooted in reality. Who should we allocate a scarce resource to? If we allocate it to some people for life then other people (potentially poorer) will lose out. You aren't ethically or morally superior for supporting lifetime tenancies or burying your head in the sand and pretending that a time machine will come and bring about the conditions needed to build millions of social houses at a time when our economy is at best stagnant and building costs and constraints are far higher.

Not all, but a fair proportion on social housing is in a poor state of repair in scrappy area.

It is highly unlikely that there are many people earning £100k, outside of London, who are choosing to live in social housing. It might be cheap rent but it's still dead money that could be better spent on a mortgage

This is a non issue just designed to get people frothing

Social housing should be for anyone who wants it, for as long as they want it, providing they get to the top of the list in the first place

However I don't believe it should be subject to right to buy

A person earning 100k is going to pay a considerable amount of tax so they are paying into the system. Without a lifetime tenancy the tenants are forever trapped, as if they are to get a better job they lose their tenancy. So need to stay under the threshold.
so ultimately costing the government more as they pay less tax and potentially claim more in benefit.

No. You misunderstand. Google doesn’t pay very much tax. Their lawyers know all the loopholes and dodges

I have no issues with tenancy for life but it should not be inherited unless the person inheriting meets eligibility and there should be no right to buy. There should be no cap on social rents so those on higher incomes in social housing should pay private market rent

Pipe dream. The NIMBYs would go into meltdown. They don’t really want more social housing so all the kiddies can have a home. They just want a section of society to pick on

Much like the tax system. One year my husband paid more tax than Google. Work that one out

@RowsOfFlowers My point was it should be like it was in then 1950's, and could be again if we all supported this, a fairer way. New build estates are popping up all over the place in the same way, imagine if they were all social housing with lifetime tenancies, not means tested, available to everyone, for their lifespan and their children, so solid communities can be built.