High joint income and in social housing with no plans to buy. Celebrate or selfish?

[SocialHousedNHappy]

I’ve been wondering about for some time and completely understand the dire and desperate situation that many people and families find themselves in. But… I hate the way that social housing is seen as only for the most desperate, when it was introduced as a housing option for all.

My household brings in a healthy income and we pay less than 10% to our monthly rent. This means we get enjoy a modest lifestyle and put some money aside for adult DC for when they’re older - they can then choose to buy whatever they fancy, car, house deposit, uni, whatever as will be their choice.

I hate that people seem to think that I should give up my secure tenancy and move into private rent. Looking on rightmove, a comparable house would be around 3x what I’m currently paying in rent, and to be honest, I wouldn’t move to private rented ever again. But why do people react as thought I’m doing something wrong, in the same way as they think of benefit cheats? I think the govt should be put under pressure to build more social housing - proper social housing, rather than the current situation where people are pit against each other and blaming each other for what is clearly a government failing.

I don’t want to sound like I’m gloating, because I’m not, but I don’t see why I should feel bad and not celebrate the life and comfort that my social housing has allowed me to enjoy.

I’m genuinely interested to hear if anyone agrees and feels the same.

You can claim jobseekers allowance for as long as you can prove that you are looking for work, going to any interviews offered, and not getting a job as a result.

When I claimed jobseekers allowance (I’ve done it twice for a paltry £64 per week) it took me probably twenty or more hours a week to fulfil the requirements of looking for work (I think I had to apply to over twenty jobs a week and provide proof) so it wasn’t exactly fun.

So who are the people that are allegedly claiming £265.5bn? Well, pensioners get just over half, but even so, billions?

And the spending on healthcare is less! And I'm sure that many pensioners can't afford to live on their pensions.

The U.K seems to be drowning and that's a shame tbh!

I have zero respect for you, although I’m sure you don’t give a shit about respect from an online stranger, because let’s face it, you’re a parasite and using the word ‘celebrate’ in this context is bloody tone deaf.

Social housing is such a tricky subject, I'm no conspiracy theorist but I find it funny how the debate has shifted over the years from blaming the government's right to buy practices to blaming those who are in social housing, a bit like how there was a huge boom of 'on benefits' TV programmes with claimants showing off their 'flat screen TVs'.

Social housing saved my life 10 years ago. When I think of people who are in similar situations who would now (in my area) be placed in B&Bs or temp accommodation miles away for years before being offered a property I feel incredibly sorry for them.

But on the other hand, I hope to increase my earnings and buy a house one day, and I'm studying for a degree alongside working full time to hopefully facilitate this. If I became a higher earner (relative to my area) I wouldn't give up my flat until I had the deposit to buy a house I don't think, I certainly wouldn't be looking to go and pay 4x my rent now to live in an insecure property, so that would make me part of the problem too I think.

Why tell people then OP?

People only know your housing financial situation if you tell them.

Basically it sounds like you enjoy the "why shouldn't I pay less forever I'm worth it"

I could explain our housing situation to you, it is advantageous to yours. But what's the point in that?

Have you run out of people in real life OP to be jealous of you? You now want a bunch of non representative strangers on the internet to argue and be jealous as well? That is how this comes across. There have been numerous posts like this you could have just searched and read one if those quietly, but that wouldn't work would it because it wouldn't be about you, amazing all be jealous of you you.

You don't sound very nice, you sound like a bragging diva who needs others to feel jealous to feel better about yourself. Then try to play the sympathy card to get more attention.

Basically you have a cheap home. You're not the only one. Well done you. Does that make you feel better?

IMO what the government should do is means test the rent on social housing to say a cap of 25-30% of household income.

Moving people out because of change in circumstances is one that I can see both sides of the argument for, but rent shouldn’t be subsidised for those who can afford it.

The increased income to the authorities should then go towards maintaining/increasing their housing stock.

People could then make their own choice as to whether consistency/security is worth the increased rent or they want to move.

@Ottersmith OP asked a question, I’m giving her an answer!

Most people’s houses aren’t being subsidised by tax payer money. OP’s house is owned by the local authority. The whole idea is that it’s for those in need. The direct cost of OP continuing to hog the house is the mammoth hotel bills the UK are currently paying.

I’m not a communist and expecting everyone to give up their house!

The conversations came about in discussions about how much mortgage payments have increased. When asked, I explained that I don’t own my home. This was at work, and someone else commented how hard it is to secure a private rental that takes pets, and evolved from there.

I have also had similar conversations with friends, who have known me for many many years, and who assumed that I’d want to buy. Some think that house-buyers shouldn’t have to struggle financially and face increasing mortgage payments, but social housing tenants are largely unaffected. The implication was that it’s unfair that social housing tenants can sometimes be in a position to afford more than home owners. I see home ownership has become a financial asset first, and a home second. Obviously not so for social housing.

To clear up what I meant by ‘celebrate’, it was the word my friend used. Her thinking is that because I can still afford to go on holiday and she can’t (due to higher mortgage), I’m celebrating my housing/financial circumstances.

I am sorry for anyone I’ve offended with the choice of words or how this post comes across. I definitely didn’t intend to, and do appreciate that I’m in a fortunate situation.

I do think this has been an interesting conversation with a wide range of opinions.

The problem is not caused by people like the OP, it's because there is a massive shortage of social housing - both family homes and smaller properties (that potentially people could move to, to free up family homes)
It does seem unfair that once your foot is in the door you don't need to meet the same criteria that you need to even get on a list in the first place...but then the OP is only taking advantage of what is on offer to her.
As an aside, if lifetime tenancies are no longer a thing, how does the current system work?

The problem is not caused by people like the OP, it's because there is a massive shortage of social housing - both family homes and smaller properties (that potentially people could move to, to free up family homes)
It does seem unfair that once your foot is in the door you don't need to meet the same criteria that you need to even get on a list in the first place...but then the OP is only taking advantage of what is on offer to her.
As an aside, if lifetime tenancies are no longer a thing, how does the current system work?

I think social housing should be means tested now. There's not enough properties 😔 We were high income and gave up our HA flat in London and moved to Staffordshire as housing was too expensive in London.

Yep. We received our HA flat when we were put into temporary accommodation after our landlord was subletting to us almost 30 years ago. Money was tight then. Now we earn good money,we gave it up and bought. All that time our finances were never checked.

There seems to be an odd view on here that communism or socialism involves simply giving everyone what they want with no expectation of a return to society because ‘why should they’. The very essence of it is that you do receive but only what you actually require and in conjunction you give back to society what you do not require, to propagate the equal society you benefited from initially. Under these systems OP would have to hand back the house the moment it became too big for her requirements ie when children have reached adulthood and no longer live there. Lifetime tenancies are actually a very individualistic system. So I don’t believe all this nonsense about OP’s situation being an example of a socialist or communist values and how she simply wants that for everyone.

I really think you should stop telling people or think about your situation OP. It really is benefit scrounging you’re celebrating. It stinks. The system allows you to do it but it doesn’t make it right.

I think social housing should be means tested. There is just not enough of it and we cannot afford to build lots more.

By benefits I mean that social housing has allowed to you have:

• financial opportunity to retrain due to lower housing cost
• a secure tenancy meaning less risk in retraining and being able to take that risk
• continued lower housing costs allowing better standard of living than others in the same salary bracket

By staying, you’re leaching. Others on the thread and real life will think it’s ok as long as you’re secure but they are essentially touting a conservative view of individualism over the good of the many.

Why does 'having ambition' imply owning property?!!! How about having the ambition to work in the NHS or in early years provision or another public sector area but not being able to afford a mortgage in a safe area because 'society' does not value these jobs or the skill involved. For some, ambition might be living in social housing, having security for their family, having freedom. For others it might offer the opportunity to start a business which goes onto to be of real benefit to society. For the dwindling few who still want to work in public sector social housing should be a given.

It’s not even about ambition. It’s about supporting the system that supported her when she needed it. Not taking all the assets and keeping them when she no longer needs it, denying others the same chance that social housing afforded her.

It is subsidised. Rent is not being charged at full market value. In this case, it absolutely should be.

This @minipie 100%

Op can afford to pay private rent. Just doesn't want to

Where as other people aren't so fortunate

In fact to add to my previous post let’s just say the government does declare tomorrow that they’ve found a few trillion pounds under the carpet and social housing will be built for anyone who wants it.

What happens then? Do we build a series of flats and housing of various sizes? Or do we build uniform 2 bed houses to keep things fair and truly equal among those who request a house? Would the latter make sense given some would be single people and some families with 4 children? Probably not you would say. In which case we revert to scenario 1 which is the housing is built according to need. If this happens then lifetime tenancies would become impossible as they would strangle the flow of people in social housing and render half of the service users confined to unsuitable housing waiting for the deaths of other owners. Which is essentially what’s happened, only the people with houses surplus to requirements are telling everyone to ‘blame the government for not building enough social housing’. When, as I’ve shown, even when there is enough for everyone, blockers will still strange the system.

So the only way in which ‘social housing for all’ CAN work is if houses are allocated according to need and lifetime tenancies are fully scrapped, which I believe is now slowly happening thank goodness.

Why are you in social housing in the first place is you have a good income?

There is unfortunately a shortage of council housing and it should go to people who don't have any other options.

Frankly rather than getting a tenancy for life this should be reviewed regularly based on people's income.

I think you are taking the piss and the system is allowing to do this...

If you can afford to buy or rent privately and have no disability (or children with disabilities), mental health issues, are elderly and so on you should not need the support of social housing.

Two fit and well people with decent income do not need housing support from the state.

You know this is not free either? taxpayers are subsiding you for no good reason...

If social housing was widely available that would be different but there are probably many desperate, poor families in bed and breakfast accommodation right now who desperately need a secure home...

Social housing isn't subsidised, full market rent which ppl here bleat about is grossly inflated by demand and greedy LLs. If the Tories put an end to right to buy in England and actually built some social housing it would reduce the waiting lists.
Other countries have huge amounts of social housing, for all, not just those in need.
It's incredibly ignorant of ppl to assume SH is only for those on benefits, unable to work etc, not everyone has a huge salary or the ability to buy.

@1975wasthebest
a parasite how ridiculous, show me anyone who rightly was allocated a SH home and gave it up to move to over priced insecure private let?
OP pays her rent, she's not costing anyone money.

We moved away from family in London to be able to afford a property in Staffs. No way would we afford a property to buy in SW London. Stupid to give up a secure tenancy for an over subscribed rental that you could be booted out of any day. I do think if you're a high earner,you should use the surplus money to buy a property. We did.