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.

Why should they.? ….they have a lifetime tenancy….so they can stay there as long as they pay the rent…..it’s not just a house it’s OPs home

Now as well as child free (and usually female colllegues) being told they owe a random child more than their own absent father does when their single parent work collegue begs them to swap the Christmas shift for the umpteenth year, now social housing tenants are told they owe more to a random child they dont know more than their OWN ABSENT FATHER DOES.

If you are a social housing tenant AND female it will be a double whammy. Not only will you be expected to work the Christmas shift in perpetuity but you are also expected to give up your social home if you have one.

Parents arent covering themselves in glory here.

There's lots of social housing in my area too. I was on the waiting list for 2 weeks and was already safely housed at the time but I wanted a secure tenancy.

The lack of social housing is mostly a SE (with the exception of the big northern cities) issue not a nationwide issue. Incidentally, these are the areas with the highest level of foriegn owned homes but no-one is demanding those people give up their properties to house people in need. There are upwards of a quater of million empty, foriegn owned homes in England and Wales.

But yeah, blame the people in social housing.

Because the OP has started this thread.
Unless she is trying deliberately to be goady

This

Exactly - I remember this scandal - over 4,000 people lost their homes for this gentrification scam.

Why do so many posters believe that social housing is subsidised by the taxpayer?

You have 90% of your income left over and are helping to save for your children once they are adults? What about children and families that need help now and are scraping to get by?

If your rent would be 3x the amount privately, you’d still have 70% of your income left after rent, which is a huge proportion!

I responded to a similar post yesterday.
Who does pay for social housing then?
Don't the government put large amounts of money into SH?

So what are YOU doing to help children that you dont know

@LittleMissSunshiner Yep.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/telly_addicts/3647056-George-Clarkes-Council-House-Scandal

DH is disabled. We live in a one bedroom flat but really need a bungalow But im not sat here wringing my hands accusing tenants in bungalows of bungalow blocking. Because im not an arsehole

100% right. I was stuck in a cockroach infested hotel with a 1 day old baby and it's sickening to me the way the system is. I'm in HA property now but if I was to become fortunate financially in the same way as op I would definitely be looking to buy my own

I suppose the question would be:

If I spent £10 million on building houses, what rent would I have to charge to ensure that I get the money back, and cover the cost of upkeep etc. And over what period?

Not necessarily to make a profit but not to make a loss. And what period would that have to be?

Private landlords have to look at the return.

Council stock can last a long time.

@LittleMissSunshiner Thank god someone else understands! I've read through this thread and post after post of people going on about tax payers money and blaming the government for all the issues with social housing. Im not saying the government haven't played a part in the housing crisis, but the majority of social housing is no longer owned or managed by the local authorities, housing associations own the stock, set their own rents and decide who qualifies for their waiting lists and priority they meet. Most housing associations will have an agreement in place with their local authority and will give a percentage of their available stock for the local authority to rehouse homeless individuals and families.

In response to OP they are doing nothing wrong, they would have applied, qualified and would have waited or placed bids on suitable sized properties for their family makeup, they would have been interviewed and signed up to a lifetime tenancy with no obligation to leave if their circumstances changed.

@CharlotteBog my HA charge normal market rents. You have to be employed and be able to prove you can afford to live in them

Does crack me up that HAs would rather their tenants have jobs but then want to book a three day "appointment" to assess a door

Like others, I think you're being horrendously selfish but I think I would do the same thing. The guilt would probably look over me though, but I'd do it for my kids. The system is just downright wrong to allow you to stay there.

Is there not a cap so that high earners are not eligible for social housing? I understand that the OP doesn't want to own a house but surely they should privately rent if they can afford to do so? I thought that the idea of social housing was to help people who couldn't afford a home in the private market.

I think this thread highlights something I have seen a lot on MN (and in the real world). A person's ethics seem to be determined on what is either legal, what they can get away with or what is best for them (or as they perceive it to be) for their family. I remember watching a Kilroy years ago about animal testing and something someone said really stuck with me. An animal rights activist was challenged that they would kill an animal if that would save their child. They said if killing their next door neighbour would save their child they would do it. But that it wouldn't make it the right thing to do.

The OP knows that her being in that house is denying the opportunity for someone else in harder circumstances than her to be housed. It is legal, it helps her family and so she will do it. But it doesn't make it the right thing to do.

I can't imagine you'd ever get to the top of the list. And as to why more people don't do this, I assume it's because they want a say in where they live and the type of property they live in.

Social housing was a way to settle a working community into decent housing. A place to raise families and to make sure those doing essential jobs didnt have to keep moving around in poor quality rental accomodation. A stable community meant areas were looked after rather than people not caring because they were only going to be there a short while. The rents were set at a level the average lower income family could pay in a self sustaining system of non-profit but could be maintained.

This system has been undermined by the decisions of the governments over the years but the crux of it is the houses are allocated initially to a family who lives and works locally who is in need of housing. The tenancies have always been life long so families can be stable. Over time some families will become wealthier than others but wealth is a good thing for areas as those that have more money are likely to spend more locally and improve the areas income - of course it doesn't work so well now we have Internet shopping etc.

Ultimately, the system is failing now due to the houses that sold off, not because people improve themselves over time. It is the original intention of them. Families that improve themselves enough may then be able to buy properties in the following generations.

If people are paying below the market rate in social housing, they are paying out less than ever who is not. Therefore, they are being subsidised by the state. In a dream world where magic money trees grow, everyone could live in such housing.

But in the real world there are a very limited number of houses available at such cheap rates. They are needed by people who cannot afford market rates. People should never be living in b and bs at the expense of the tax payer when we collectively own so much real estate. There should be no homeless children. Yet there are. They should be in those houses and people who can afford to rent privately should.

We have lifetime tenancies, which is fucking ridiculous when it allows single people yo block family homes. We have relatively wealthy people paying peppercorn rent. We have children in hostels. It makes no sense.

No, people in social housing are paying the real rent, as in, the amount it costs to build and maintain the housing plus a small profit.

The fact that some people choose to charge extortionate prices to people to rent their homes is a very serious issue, but not one that you can blame tenants of more morally sound housing for.

And (obviously) there is only a limited amount of fair rent housing because a lot was sold off and because the government doesn't claim back the million empty homes, put limits on second etc. properties or limits on private rents. This is not something to punish the remaining tenants for.

I don't understand. Surely what you mean is that all the second home owners and private landlords should be providing affordable rents for people who need them?