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.

Will it work out cheaper in the long run than buying? Eg if you compare paying rent from age 60-85 compared to if you'd paid off a mortgage at that point?

Oh retrospective rent. Well there's an idea. I fear the OP just fainted! 😁

No, the debt is not enormous at all. Interest rates are enormous, so even the small amount of debt is currently very expensive. Really weird comment which suggests you don't understand home ownership or the current mortgage crisis at all.

This is proof why people who pay a lot more in taxes are being taken for a ride. Unbelievable, some would have not savings for their retirement or children’s future to benefit some families that are in a position to pay market prices. This op is not the only one there are many in this position. The answer of some if that we need to pay even more taxes for more housing and if being critical is hate speech. Gaslighting more like it.

For the ones mentioning second home owners. Some in social housing have bought properties abroad. They save and buy back home while enjoying social housing in the U.K. While I agree that most genuinely need the help there are many who are being unfair and entitled. This needs changing but I doubt it would happened.

I get why you would stay , who wouldn't when they are getting such cheap housing within the rules. So I don't blame you for that.

Time for the rules to change though maybe. Perhaps so that after a certain period needs are reassessed on an income/means test and social need basis at say 5 yearly intervals.

Firstly urgent housing needs can cover a whole lot of reasons - some might be due to poor choices, many might be through no fault of the person or family themselves. Often children are involved and they have no agency to change their own situation or living conditions.

Secondly even if you think this way, it must once have applied to OP for them to qualify for social housing! So why was it acceptable then but should be denied to current families?

Also I asked a genuine question but haven't seen an answer. If lifetime tenancies are no longer a given with social housing, what is the current arrangement?

Oh look tory bashing and the repulsive depths they plumbed...
Tell me what did labour do to address this in 13 years of power?

They didn't ban right to buy, they didn't build more social housing , instead house prices sky rocketed, buy to let boomed and the benefits bill went crazy paying HB to private landlords who got their mortgages paid by the state benefits their tenants claimed.

Repulsive of labour

I get very frustrated with people in your position, doesn’t mean most people wouldn’t do it but I’m trying to buy, I’ll be paying over 40% on mortgage. I guess we live in an unequal society and times have changed and I think social housing should be a temporary tenancy and a max income cap. Sure many won’t agree but it’s meant to be to help those in need, and we don’t have enough of it.

@Ottersmith you can’t just tell me what I would do.

I have morals, I support homeless and food bank charities. So no sorry to burst your bubble. I would never take up a social house I didn’t need, yes even for cheap rent. I live in London and I see poverty and people sleeping on the streets every day. I know food banks are overwhelmed.

I earn a good salary and I can afford to privately rent so that’s what I do. I would never dream of taking up ‘cheap rent’ if that meant someone else who desperately needed it missed out.

Of course it would be different if there was an abundance of government housing but I know that isn’t the case.

I also can acknowledge our government is in complete crisis so I wouldn’t want to be part of any cause.

I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall!

My HA owns their own homes. My house is Victorian. So it wasn't built by the council! The HA bought it at some stage. My HA also build their own housing estates. At no point does the council, or the taxpayer, come into it.

My HA is the equivalent (on a larger scale) of Joe Bloggs who bought a load of houses and now rents them privately. Would you suggest that Mr Bloggs private renters be means tested or forced to move if their kids move out? No you wouldn't as it's none of your business!

In the case of estates that they build, they are like any other developer.

HA's "assist" the council by offering some of their homes to people on waiting lists. Not all. Some are market rent, some are part buy/part rent. But yes some go to people on council waiting lists. Councils themselves own very few homes now as they sold them all to HA's. A private landlord.

Most of you are very out of touch with the current situation. You are harking back to a time when most SH was council owned. That hasn't been the case for many years.

Many PP's have suggested that SH should be means tested and that would "free up" more houses....except it won't. If rents are going to be means tested then many, many existing tenants would never take a better paid job, do any overtime or anything else that might risk them losing their home. If people are to be made to leave as they are deemed to be earning too much and there are no private rentals available, where they could remain at their jobs then where do they go? Back on the waiting list for SH? Do they, then, become one of those who "deserve" a SH property....like the one they were forced out of in the first place?

So they can just go to the private rental sector, don’t they? Because they can afford to. People including the OP and others like her. You’re making excuses for her and her ilk.

Of course you're absolutely right because private rentals are 10 a penny no shortage of them whatsoever is there........oh wait.

https://news.cbre.co.uk/uks-private-rented-sector-records-loss-of-400000-rental-homes-since-2016/

@LaurieStrode ”Most of those people with "urgent housing needs" have only themselves to blame for their abysmal choices.

Why should OP's upstanding, tax paying family get the shaft so that we can accommodate irresponsible, imprudent non contributors???”

That’s absolutely ridiculous. Some people have to have low paid jobs, we can’t all earn a huge salary. Who would do the low paid jobs?

Have you got no concept of circumstances? People that are born into and spend there lives in poverty. People with disabled family members or caring responsibilities. Single parents who won’t earn enough to afford childcare and private rent. Someone suffering from mental health or trauma and not receiving the help the help they need to get themselves back on their feet.

In the UK tens of thousands of people are in vulnerable positions. Cost of living is so high that for many a few bad events (car breaking down, an appliance breaking, losing a job, relationship breakdowns, domestic violence, illness…) can be the cause of homelessness.

The gap between you and those people is clearly immense. However, for you to be so narrow minded and ignorant shows you’ve got no concept of reality for many people.

When OP got the house have you considered that she may not have been contributing? There is a cost to that house and that’s costing all the ‘upstanding’ tax payers money. Better it goes to someone who needs it whatever their circumstance.

''@mpoons · Yesterday 21:37

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

Because it is.

No matter how many posts try to pretend it isn't, the fact is not going to change.

Councils and housing associations receive government funding to build, maintain and manage social housing.

The fact that they also make money from social housing rents does not negate the fact that the tax payer contributes to social housing in general.

@LaurieStrode ”Most of those people with "urgent housing needs" have only themselves to blame for their abysmal choices.

Why should OP's upstanding, tax paying family get the shaft so that we can accommodate irresponsible, imprudent non contributors???”

That’s absolutely ridiculous. Some people have to have low paid jobs, we can’t all earn a huge salary. Who would do the low paid jobs?

Have you got no concept of circumstances? People that are born into and spend there lives in poverty. People with disabled family members or caring responsibilities. Single parents who won’t earn enough to afford childcare and private rent. Someone suffering from mental health or trauma and not receiving the help the help they need to get themselves back on their feet.

In the UK tens of thousands of people are in vulnerable positions. Cost of living is so high that for many a few bad events (car breaking down, an appliance breaking, losing a job, relationship breakdowns, domestic violence, illness…) can be the cause of homelessness.

The gap between you and those people is clearly immense. However, for you to be so narrow minded and ignorant shows you’ve got no concept of reality for many people.

When OP got the house have you considered that she may not have been contributing? There is a cost to that house and that’s costing all the ‘upstanding’ tax payers money. Better it goes to someone who needs it whatever their circumstance.

What a great attitude you have! My sister has just been served a section 21 despite paying her rent on time, every single month for the last 10 years. She's paid her way in taxes running her own business, just never earned quite enough to buy a property of her own. How exactly is any of that HER fault? People like you assuming every person on the council waiting list are "irresponsible, impudent non contributors" is exactly the reason social housing is still stigmatised and council house jokes are still common. Try having a proper look around you and grow up a bit!

To the PP whose uncle is living in a house and was formerly living there with his elderly parents. Im assuming he did the care for his elderly parents (i did ask earlier) and now people think he should be kicked out after saving the state £££££ on care.

Well if that were me and the state was going to kick me out after saving them ££££££ i would down tools and wouldnt the care the first place. If the state wants to shit on me after a sacrifice like that i wouldnt do it. Ive actually SEEN experiences of people being kicked out after doing this. People have got to start saying no instead of letting themselves be used and then evicted.

If caring for elderly parents meant you were owed a council house most of the country deserves one

That cut me off before I could finish. There’s an odd belief system now that the state should, in some form, financially compensate us for everything we do that doesn’t directly benefit ourselves. I care for my children, if I didn’t it would cost the state a fortune through social services but that doesn’t mean I am owed anything in return. I can see how it’s slightly different with elderly parents and that’s why we have carers allowance, but if we start to financially reward people caring for their own families to the degree that they are owed an entire property for life cheap then do you honestly think we can meet that demand? Who would be paying for it?

They could try not to evict them within a fortnight and offer them a smaller property. Thats all i meant. Why should they face homelessness after a sacrifice like that.

Having children is a choice. Its no comparison.

My parents own their own home. If needed that will pay for their care. Which i TOTALLY agree with.
But that also means that i will continue to live in social housing. The haters cant have it both ways

If they’re being offered a smaller property they’re not facing homelessness are they? In any event they’re as entitled to housing benefits as the next person.