Lifetime Social Housing Tenancies

Whereas my counterpart living in social housing has no capital and will be paying rent for the rest of their life.

No, not necessarily. That person, upon retirement, may be eligible for housing benefit, which can cover all or some of that (subsidised) rent.

“No one forced me to buy a house, I could rent.” Private renting is even worse!

Yet, you are happy to force social tenants who work to better themselves into he private renting market?

The “value” of our house has grown by around half a million since we bought it. All unearned, tax free money. Whereas my counterpart living in social housing has no capital and will be paying rent for the rest of their life. Why would I be angry?

Home ownership is a choice. A choice which is not affordable to many.

Sorry, but I have the same amount of sympathy for homeowners having to pay their own mortgage as I would have for someone on benefits whining that they cannot afford the HPI on their brand new Ferrari.

No one forced OP to get a mortgage; if it was that risky, she could have rented privately or applied for social housing. The fact that she didn't surely proves that there are benefits to owning your own home.

Ditto the "expense" of earning a higher income. No one forced OP to get a well-paid job. If she's finding it that hard, she is well within her rights to quit, sell her home, and go and get a job at McDonald's instead.

But she did buy her own home, she did get a well-paying job because she knows full well that there are benefits to this, and now she is stamping her feet and whinging because she thinks someone is getting something she's not. It's childish and entitled.

The ignorance in the post is startling. .

A lifetime tenancy on a SH property with subsidised rent is a unique benefit that has no comparison. Home ownership is far more expensive and risky in comparison.

Look at the previous three years and compare someone that was allocated a SH property with a lifetime tenancy and someone that has bought a property on a comparable property. The home owner will have paid much more money to live in their home, have probably had to remortgage and face even higher payments and probably seen the value of their property plummet and will be in negative equity. They will have paid very little of the principle sum of the property (assuming they don't have an interest only mortgage), paid stamp duty and conveyancing costs and paid an awful lot of interest. They also will be responsible for any maintenance required on the property and if they lose their job (reasonably likely in this current environment) then the government at most will step in and loan them money for the mortgage which would have to be repaid with interest. Meanwhile the SH tenant can pay their subsidised rent without such concerns, often relying on HB to cover some or all of the cost. It's shocking how you can't see why people are angry!

@LikeWhoUsesTypewritersAnyway You didn’t read my post with any comprehension at all. Did you really think I’d asked for a council house?!

Again, mentioned previously that the SMI loan - which you pay interest on - isn’t comparable to housing benefit.

But why do you believe you should be entitled to have the government pay for an asset that you will fully own and could potentially profit from down the line?

You already have exactly what you say you don't have, which is safe and secure housing and a safety net if you need it.

You cannot honestly believe that other taxpayers, including many who could only ever dream of owning their own home, should pay your mortgage for you if you lose your job? not just pay enough so that you don't lose your home (because that support is already there), but to pay towards the cost of you eventually owning it?

I don't understand why people believe there is no support for homeowners who lose their jobs. That's simply not true.

https://www.whatmortgage.co.uk/remortgage/unemployment-how-to-manage-your-mortgage-if-you-lose-your-job/

There is insurance, mortgage holidays, and government support.

If you have a mortgage and have opted not to take insurance, that's your problem, not social tenants'.

Being on Universal Credit won’t pay your mortgage, though. Homeowners aren’t entitled to housing benefit, which was discussed earlier in this thread. So, no, it’s not the same at all.

The state steps in if people can't pay their mortgage because of unemployment to the tune of a quarter of a million pounds.

Also, council tenants can be evicted if they don't pay their rent. They are in exactly the same position as homeowners, in that respect, except they don't get a very valuable asset at the end of it all.

Exactly, it's baffling to me that this thread can have so many posters on the one hand claiming that nobody would want to live in SH with UC/HB paying the bills and then on the other hand lots of posters claiming that anyone that complains about the situation is jealous.

The reality is often somewhere in the middle. People hate to admit it but life can be much easier relying on the state than trying to be totally self sufficient (or as self sufficient as possible). Yes, you may well never get access to the finer things in life but you often have security and 'enough' to manage. Some people will actively choose this and shy away from more stressful but higher paid jobs or taking on more hours at work. We see threads where people basically admit this on a daily basis. In the context, there is a sense of jealousy and to some extent injustice attached to those that took the easier path and have benefitted from it. I think this is especially true for those that feel they have sacrificed a lot to try and make something of themselves but they have ended up no better off financially (and potentially worse off) than those that didn't even try. This is completely normal and easy to understand. We instinctively feel like hard work and sacrifice should be rewarded.

I agree.

It's basically yet another "benefit" for the lucky minority.

ALL benefits need to be means-tested and only provided to those who NEED them, not those who "want" them or those who've been lucky in the past.

I promise you, the more you earn, the easier life is. The people struggling on UC and housing benefits are not better off than homeowners, even homeowners who've overstretched themslves on their mortage and are now looking to shift the blame for the poor financial choices to people less fortunate.

That’s a simplistic and binary picture you’re painting, which isn’t helpful. I can imagine that there is huge comfort knowing that you have secure housing for the rest of your life and that if you can’t pay your rent the state will step in. And you may pass down your council property to someone because of the succession process.

Tell me you've never struggled on NMW as a family without telling me you've never struggled on NMW as a family.

I've tried all sides of the coin, unemployed and on benefits when I first left DH, employed on NMW as a single mother, employed on a decent, professional wage.

I promise you, the more you earn, the easier life is. The people struggling on UC and housing benefits are not better off than homeowners, even homeowners who've overstretched themslves on their mortage and are now looking to shift the blame for the poor financial choices to people less fortunate.