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.

I think there are a number of ideological clashes here and some of these are contradictory.

Ie social housing should be for all so op should stay. But also big shortage so selfish to stay.
Houses are homes so you should be guaranteed for life no matter that other people who own houses paid for them. Vs do what you like with your own home but no right to have spare bedrooms in a house that isn't actually yours especially if you don't pay for it.
Anyone in social housing is vulnerable and or antisocial feckless underclass so op should either want to move or stay to stop the area becoming too rough.
Etc.

So despite multiple explanations that social housing isn’t subsidised by tax-payers, lots of posters choosing to ignore. Why is that?

Why is it that it’s social housing tenants should be expected to make way for others in need? Unless we’re street homeless, practically every single one of us are in housing that others need more.

Why are those who own multiple homes not berated and told to sell the houses they don’t live in. That way house prices would come down significantly so that FTB and others who want to (in social housing, private lets, or ownership) can buy them at an affordable price?

Why is it the default to criticise SH tenants. If I stayed in my original job, and my partner not moved in, there’d seemingly be no issue with my housing. Yet, I’d then be living close to hand-to-mouth, having my rent paid, but in worse overall circumstances.

To the comment “if social housing was widely available, that [my situation] would be different…” Well, it WAS once widely available, and instead of challenging why it’s no longer the case, I’m berated for being a hog, parasite, leach [sic], in not wanted to give up my secure social housing.

I think there's plenty of psychological research into why people behave in these ways.

Scapegoating is an obvious one; attribution bias also (when people pretend they have "worked hard" for their good fortune and that those less lucky deserve misfortune); sociopolitical thinking often being based on tribal identity might be another. There's evidence that many people block out the evidence even when it's placed in front of them, because it doesn't fit or even seems to threaten their defensive self-concept.

I don't think they'd stop pretending social housing is subsidised even if shown how much revenue the public purse gains from social housing rents.

Because it was never ever intended for everyone to the richest who it would only represent 10% of income. Only the low paid and public sector workers.

and instead of challenging why it’s no longer the case, I’m berated for being a hog, parasite, leach [sic], in not wanted to give up my secure social housing.

It has been challenged. You’re acting like if we just whizz off an email to our local MP rather than responding to you then the whole thing would be solved. The government are not going to build copious amounts of social housing full stop. And you started the thread asking so why are you so surprised at the responses?

Personally I think your outrage on other people’s behalf is a little manufactured and designed to assuage your conscience but hey ho. It’s a matter for you. You clearly have enough money to buy your own house and free up your current one for small children desperately in need but you won’t. It’s not for us to make you feel better about it.

@Ugghh

We (tax payers) are paying for your rent.

You are stopping people get the lift up they need.

What a total disgrace.

I'm basically in the same position as OP.
Had a two children (one with disabilities) ex husband left and I was private renting. Was given notice to leave (through no fault of my own) and put on council waiting list.

After waiting, was offered 3 bedroom house with driveway and garden and pay £400 a month. Average rent for similar would be about £1700 as in south east.

I went to uni, now in a high paying job, met DH who has moved in. Rent is much less then 10% of our income and we have decorated the house, new kitchen/bathroom and renovated it through.

May eventually buy it at some point but at the minute I'm enjoying the extra income I can save.

I don't feel guilty. Anyone in my position would not give up a lifetime tenancy. Vast majority of the houses in our area are bought and it is a nice area to live.

It’s fraud @CarrotCake01

There are thousands of people in need for the lift up, and OP who no longer needs the lift up is abusing the system which helped her.

Also, tax payers do not subsidise my rent. The council work on a not for profit basis. So the rent covers repairs etc, no subsidy from the tax payer required (no matter how much people would like to do believe otherwise)

The other important factor here is that marriages/relationships can and do end. When I exchanged into my current home, I did have a partner. We were both on 35k so yes 70k joint. To which some people on this thread would be shouting that I shouldn't have this house. But we'd only been together a couple of years pre move and broke up a year after the move. I've not had a live in partner since and, as I'm public sector, my wages have not hugely increased. Thank god I wasn't forced into trying to buy a house with him or stuck in a private rental that I then couldn't have afforded on my own! We don't need to try and push more women into having to stay in bad relationships because they can't afford to leave or make the partner leave.

You do know that many people in social housing also pay taxes as well as their own rent.....I know, wild isn't it?

Please correct me if I’m wrong as I’m not 100% familiar with how social housing works. My understanding is that the properties are owned by the councils/housing associations and then rent is charged at below market rent?

If so then that is 100% being subsidised. The properties could either be rented out at market rent or sold and the proceeds sent to the public purse to fund other things. The amount that is not collected by charging below market rent or not selling is the amount of the subsidy.

I am not ok with that amount being taken from public funds to support the living expenses of someone capable of funding themselves rather than, for example, being put towards the NHS or housing those who actually need the help.

Others apparently are ok with that - fine, there will always be political differences/people with different priorities.

Are people really so dim 🙄
If I sell something to person A for £50 and to person B for £100, it doesn't mean that A has been subsidised.
Subsidised means "relating to a cost, etc. that is partly paid for by the government or an organization"

My housing association is "non profit", so they run their homes at a cost which covers the rent/repairs and any building they have planned. When they need more money to pay these costs they raise the rent. When they don't, they lower it (which did actually happen a few years back).

Private rents are high because of various factors. Someone in a private rental on a low wage, having UC top ups to cover their rent (or part of) is more subsidised than me who pays my whole rent. Even homeowners can get the interest paid on their mortgage if they're out of work. That's a subsidy. Help to buy was another one.

If you want to argue that SH could be charging higher rents with the profits put into x/y/z, that's a different argument. But currently it does not "take away" money from anything else.

If it’s a privately run housing association that just provides housing that may be right (depending on who ultimately owns the properties)

If it’s a local council that provides other services then it isn’t - the council has to charge higher taxes to get the amount it would have got if it had charged market rents. That money would have been spent on other services so has been “taken away” to allow people to pay lower rents. To be clear I am 100% fine with councils doing this, housing those that need help is one of the most important things a government should do - but not to support those fully capable of supporting themselves.

Subsidy might be the wrong word but the point is the same.

@Anonymouslyposting Market rent is the problem. It is too high. Do you begrudge paying housing benefit? Should everyone move to areas they can afford. What about people with second homes? What about those who inherit homes?

Are you aware people living in social housing are taxpayers and pay rent?
I am interested in how much you think is subsidised. A mortgage is 25 years but if you have a social rent you will pay it for as long as you live there. If you move in you during your 30s and live into 80s surely you would have paid the mortgage off after 50 years.

My concern with all rented accommodation is that you always need a decent income to cover rent.

If people have savings, decent pension etc then all well and good but otherwise you face having to work your entire life to cover rental payments. I know there's a mentality that the state will look after you in old age if you don't have the means but what does that actually look like in practice.

This is such a bizarre fantasy, I wouldn't know where to begin.😂

It might make some sense were it actually the case that a council had once owned lots of homes it rented at a massive profit and then decided to lower the profits and make up the shortfall elsewhere.

That didn't happen, though. You just made it up.

@OnlyTheBravest I am aware those in social housing pay rent and taxes. That doesn’t change my view. Millionaires pay rent and taxes, that doesn’t mean I think they should get social housing.

Market rent is indeed too high - but OP says she currently pays 10% of her income on housing and to pay market rent would be three times the amount ie. 30% - unless there are circumstances OP hasn’t mentioned she can afford it, the same as other high earners that don’t have access to social housing.

Personally I don’t love people being given homes through inheritance either - but that one is harder to see a solution for! The OPs situation is easy to fix = means testing social housing. If, in future, we can build more social housing and raise the level at which people lose entitlement to social housing higher and higher then I’m all for it. At the moment we have families in hotel rooms and a housing shortage so the OPs situation is immoral.

Housing benefit. If you're in social housing it's likely it would cover the entire rent.

I didn’t say it happened - I’m saying that the reality of the situation is that the councils own properties with which they could do that (unless I’ve misunderstood in which case I apologise!). I don’t think that they should do that because there are enough people that genuinely need assistance with housing. However, I’d rather they did that than allowing the OP, who by her own post can afford it, to benefit from lower rents.

Why should the solution be to means test social housing? Instead, why not cap home ownership to one property?

Well said.

As I see it, a social house should be awarded to those that need it in order to support them into a better life. Same as benefits, with the idea that the money or home is given during a time of need and that when that crisis is over and life has improved the benefits stop and the house is returned to the state. Otherwise the system doesn’t work and those in need struggle to get support because being who no longer need support get comfortable (or lazy quite honestly). I think it’s immoral to block a social house, and I say this as someone who had parents who were given one in 2005 when everything went to pot for them and they lost everything of financial value; and they gave the social property up in 2011 when life was back on track. That is how it feel it should work.

Putting aside the fact that your point is pure whataboutism (the morality of second home ownership is connected to, but not the same as, the point about whether you should hold on to a publicly funded asset which others need more for which you do not pay market rent)…

Primarily because even if restricting home ownership to one home would enable everyone to pay lower rents then I don’t see why people with higher incomes should be given protected lower rents, a cap would still be desirable even if it was at a higher level.

To be frank, your posts smack of having made a morally dubious decision to stay put in order to benefit yourself and your family. Many people would do that, moral or not, but now you are coming up with lots of points about how the system could be better (some of which I agree with) to make it not your fault. We live in the system we live in - campaign to make it better, vote to make it better but the fact that it isn’t doesn’t make your decision to use it to your advantage moral.

Or, better still, cap house prices.