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 have every right to social housing in this country. You pay your taxes like everyone else. Don't feel guilty.

By that weird logic, all taxpayers would be entitled to social housing but there’s not enough housing for all of us, is there?

Oh goody! Where is my social house? I pay taxes, so does my husband, do we get one each?

Yes, this again. It used to be the case that around a third of people lived in council houses, with the rest split between privately owned and privately rented accommodation. Clearly not everyone wants to live in a HA home, but they should be available for all to apply for by right - not restricted to those with 'problems'. That way you get a good mix of people on estates, rather than only those who are unable to live in other types of housing, people are able to plan their lives based on the knowledge that they aren't going to be asked to leave their homes at the whim of a landlord, and when there is good availability of rented accommodation people aren't able to profit from homelessness and housing vulnerability. People paying sensible rents can afford to save for a deposit and buy if they want to, but nobody should be punished for working hard and increasing their standard of living by losing their home and their security.

Having a right to apply is not the same as being given it. You have the right to buy a yacht, but that doesn't mean that you're going to get one.

You again? You’re obsessed with this particular subject. Why are you even on a parents’ forum?

Not what Nipsmum said though was it? Read the quote.

I did read what she said.

Oh goody! Where is my social house? I pay taxes, so does my husband, do we get one each?

Nobody is saying that all taxpayers should be given a house (or two if you are part of a couple). The point of paying taxes is that in theory they pay towards the basics of a decent life - health, education, housing, pension etc when you need them. You are able to apply for social housing whether you pay tax or not, but because so many were sold and not replaced there are not enough to go round, so restrictions are applied and waiting lists are long. Nipsmum can apply, as I said. If she has a house and a husband she probably won't get one for ages, but if she does she won't have to give it up if and when her circumstances improve. Which is as it should be.

"You have every right to social housing in this country. You pay your taxes like everyone else"

Was what was said, suggesting that because she's a tax payer, THAT'S why she's entitled to a council home.
YOU said "You have as much right to APPLY for social housing" which is a totally different thing because the OP WOULDN'T be entitled to a council home as it stands as she's over the income threshold. Besides which, being legally right is NOT the same as morally so and until council properties are means tested every few years, this issue will stand, (and people like the OP will be blocking homes they don't need whilst children are rammed into single rooms in hotels) If you had to pass the application every few years that would mean those like OP could then be either A) charged full MARKET VALUE rent to allow more money to be brought in to build new stock B) moved into smaller accommodation to free up the bedrooms they're no longer using or C) be made to enter the open rental/housing market freeing the house up to be occupied by someone that actually NEEDS it. The same goes for the elderly living in big houses and living in one room, they'd be better off in a a lovely purpose built bungalow or flat and the house used for a family. Lifetime tenancy and being allowed to pass the tenancy down should be scrapped, as should right to buy. If you can afford to buy, then you should have to buy a house in the open market.

The fault lies with the governments for not building the housing stock. Not us for living in the housing they provided us with.

Absolutely this. And us tearing each other apart over who is worthy enough to benefit from the scarce stock of social housing rather than holding them to account for the situation they have created is EXACTLY what they want us to be doing.

@Tessabelle74 Isn't the point of the thread to ask about the morality of the situation? IMO it is perfectly moral to stay in a home you've made your own, rather than have every £ you make over an arbitrary threshold taken away to pay someone else's mortgage. Council houses are not supposed to be sink areas - they were built as family homes for people to have secure housing after the wars, with flats for singles/couples and bungalows for older people. The fact that times have changed and they are rare as Tory's hearts these days is not the point - it will not help anyone if social tenants join private tenants in having insecure housing. Imposing an ongoing income threshold will impoverish estates, make them more transient with fewer long-term residents and deter tenants from working overtime, gaining qualifications or applying for promotions in case doing so makes them homeless - are you in favour of keeping people 'in their place' in that way?

If "in their" place means in a secure home that means others have that opportunity then yes! If you can afford to buy then damn straight you shouldn't be clogging up social housing!

To be honest this post has really irritated me. We are not eligible for social housing and have only an average joint income. One of our children is severely disabled yet we are still not eligible. Money is a constant struggle and yet here you are gloating on mumsnet about how comfortable you are as you got lucky basically. Poor taste.

Absolute nonsense !
you do realise that private landlords are leaving the market in droves
BTL just doesnt make sense as an investment anymore = which equals even LESS and LESS homes to rent

OR

This just goes to show how overpriced the private rental market is. Housing associations/councils aren't charging rent to provide someone else an income and pension pot

My heart bleeds for those poor landlords. There'll be more houses to buy though.

Not necessarily.

Council houses around here are quite old. I guess the cost of building them has been paid off a while ago. So rent now is just used to pay for the costs of collecting the rent and any maintainance of the property. The "mortgage" has been paid off a while ago.

So if you are a BTL Landlord with a mortgage, what rent should you charge? Bearing in mind that at some point, the mortgage will be paid off.

yes but people who cannot afford to buy, cannot afford to buy.
Just because there are more houses for sale and less to rent does nothing to alleviate the rental crisis that is currently happening.

Most BTL mortgages are interest only which means the debt NEVER reduces. Its a misconception shared by many renters who do not understand the BTL business model.

Housing association properties still have to be maintained. A decent housing association has a proper maintenance rollout program. In 12 years I've had new windows, new boiler, new electric fire, new roof, all as proactive maintenance rather than reactive repairs. Apparently I have to wait another 10 years for a new kitchen though 🤣

On top of which my housing association does have a building program (although not that big), and also runs a help to buy scheme (eg. buy half, rent half).

All while charging somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the going rate for private rentals.

That's why I mentioned maintenance.

Housing associations seem to have a LOT of debt so they can build homes.

Savills UK | Spotlight: Housing Association Finance

By 2020, long-term debt held by housing associations had reached £83bn, up a quarter in five years. S&P has predicted that debt will reach £107bn by 2023, and we think it could reach £132bn by 2026.
This additional debt could fund the delivery of 190,000 additional general needs homes and 60,000 shared ownership over five years. This assumes delivery of the 2021–26 grant-funded affordable homes programme and a share of Section 106 delivery.
Gearing has remained at a similar level over the last five years, with debt staying at around 46% of the total balance sheet asset value. This is unlikely to change much over the next five years as long as housing associations take on additional debt to fund the delivery of new homes.

So they have a lot of debt and I guess that this is "allowed" because of the total balance sheet of their homes?

There are different bands for social housing, those in greater need are higher. So it is a fair system for all. It would be unfair for some people to be excluded for social housing. Lower bands will just take longer to be housed. Lots of people on here not really understanding what social housing is. It's not just for people on benefits! Due to the ridiculous rise in private renting costs, I imagine social housing is in even more demand.
Also, not all social housing is through the council, it is housing associations too.
Enjoy your forever home op.

Forgive me if I'm repeating what others have already said, but I haven't had time to read the whole thread this evening....
However...
Who pays for your social housing, OP? The tax payer.
Who is a tax payer? Me.
Who do I want my taxes to support? People who REALLY need social housing (given that there isn't enough social housing - and never will be - for everyone). You don't sound as if you need social housing as much as many people, OP, so I would prefer my taxes to be spent on social housing for people who are more needy than you.

@Snippysocks If you'd read the thread you would have noticed it has been explained eleventy million times that OP pays her own rent. The cost to the "taxpayer" for OP's housing is precisely fuckall.

You are right, @Frequency . She does pay her own rent. But surely after she hit a certain threshold, she should be given the choice of buying the house or renting it at market rates? The money generated should then be pumped into building new social housing. At the moment, she could afford to rent privately so those who can't could have her house.