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 realise that people like the OP who live in social housing and also work, also pay taxes?

Which means many social housing tenants who are employed, are paying taxes towards their own housing.

Yes I do realise that. I wasn't saying g people in social housing don't pay taxes. I was saying, in my opinion, housing should go to the people who need it most. And I was refuting the claim that taxes don't pay for social housing. They do.
And I was respectfully leaving the conversation because I'm tired. Not because I don't have more to say or because i am running away from a difficult issue. Im just tired. In future, you could try showing the same respect to people who have different opinions to you too. It's OK to disagree respectfully.

She's not 'denying' anyone anything. She's living in a home that she's perfectly entitled to be in and she needs it as her primary and only residence. The whole point of social housing is that it gives a safe base to be uplifted and go out into the world and be productive. Millions and millions of people in the UK are working, earning well, and living in social housing.

Some are even wealthy! Including, controversially, Frank Dobson MP. In her autobiography Vivienne Westwood states she lived in a council house all her life. I assume she means her home in West London? There are many more social housing tenants made good who work in all sectors of society including the really highly paid areas of the arts. Percentage wise they're a tiny minority.

Saying the OP is 'denying' someone a home when she's living in her home is like saying you're 'denying' an immigrant a job when you're doing your job.

The real point is, we all care deeply about people needing safe and secure and preferably long term stable housing. So - let's get kicking the arse of the REAL issues and not the OP who is literally doing nothing wrong. Social housing landlords and councils are very glad of professional tenants earning good money. Most of my neighbours are couples in professional employment and they're on the same rent as me. It creates an uplifting and healthy environment to have a good mixture instead of 100% struggling down on their arse people.

There's a solid reason there's capacity to uplift - otherwise it becomes mandatory NOT TO or you'd lose your home. Well that would be silly woudn't it? Deterring people from being entrepreneurial or getting better qualified or pushing themselves forwards so they can stay in their home. Crazy stuff.

The deflecting can go on and on, but OP's first post is clearly about the morality of her situation.

Totally agree.
I live on a new build estate that has a mix of housing (owned, part buy-part rent and HA.) The house 2 doors down is privately rented for £1100pcm. The house opposite is HA and the rent is £400pcm (neighbor mentioned this to me previously. ) The rent is kept artificially low to make the property affordable to tenants. Taxpayers' money goes into maintaining, building and administrating social housing.
Really housing should be means tested and, if the tenant doesn't want to move, then they pay full market rent. The additional income can contribute to building new housing, covering emerging housing costs etc.

Social housing pays for itself, it lawfully has to be structured that way.

Sometimes surplus from social housing and worse, sell offs goes into local authority coffers and is not at all redirected back into social housing even though it's ideally meant to.

Your taxes are NOT paying for social housing. Your taxes contribute to the social welfare system so they are contributing to Housing Benefit but HB does not = social housing.

In fact further, if you wish to direct your concerns about your taxes in another good direction, you could wonder about the scandal that is the HB 'rip' off by private landlords letting rooms and squalid tiny dingy flats at way above market rental in order to gain a very solid supply of HB, or private landlords rigging the system renting to friends and family that can't be a proven connection, and also the huge payment cash agreements that they come to with local authorities in order to take vulnerable and or disabled families also at above higher than average rent because 'discretionary'. There's a whole scam going on there.

Where was I disrespectful exactly?

I asked a question.

HAs are fully self sufficient and your taxes DO NOT pay for HA properties to operate.

Rents are not 'artificially low' they cover all expenses, including repairs, maintenance, and staff costs - otherwise an HA would be unlawfully operating and legally filed financially bankrupt.

Other rents are total rip offs by profiteering greedy people in an escalating spiral of insanity.

I would be to ashamed to be in a HA property if I could afford to buy,
it’s about a sense achievement, being able to buy own your home

The OP doesn't NEED to live in her HA house. She WANTS to live in her HA house. There is a huge difference. HA houses were built to provide housing for those who, unlike her, can't afford to buy their own home or to pay market rent on private housing. Just because Frank Dobson and Vivienne Westwood played the system doesn't make it a moral thing to do. H A should be means tested and those who can afford to pay market rates should do so.

I am autistic. I do not even recognise what "triggers ny autism issue means".

I do agree with some of your points. There should be no selling if social housing. There should not be swathes if houses unoccupied. There should not be houses under occupied. There should be no houses rented out for less than market value, except to those who cannot afford to pay.

@Snugglemonkey I agree with everything you have said.

Bollocks. Ha are publicly owned. They literally belong to the tax payer. Unless market value is being charged, the tax payer is subsidising the housing by failing to claim the appropriate value. There is no recognition of tax payer input into the rents. Yes, they cover repairs but that us just bit good enough. Rent should cover the actual value of the property, to enable money to be raised to build more.

Other rents are what is actually necessary to cover the value of the property, plus repairs, plus a small profit. Exactly as HA should be for everyone other than those really needing the taxpayer to fund their housing.

Therein lies the rub.

Social housing is not means tested. The end.

You're delusional.

Housing Associations are state owned??? Just NO.

It's no wonder this thread doesn't improve - the level of misunderstanding and ill conceived ideas is astounding. Literally nothing in the UK is 'state owned' anymore in case you haven't noticed, the very least of all HAs which are private companies.

Council houses ARE state owned, having been purchased or built by councils many decades ago, and are the actual property of the local authorities. They long since paid themselves off and their rents cover all maintenance, rents are set every year - this is not funded by taxpayers.

Getting shot of council houses is the main aim of many boroughs - that's why local authorities are so very keen to demolish them, sell them off, refuse to maintain them, let them fall down, leave them unoccupied or in horrific disrepair, wracked with damp and caving roofs, and then come up with strange and new fangled ideas about railway lines and shopping centres and gentrification schemes that urgently need to obliterate what negligible little is left of 'state owned homes'. If you care about housing then pay heed to these issues.

Sell off of council owned property and land to private development companies is literally daylight robbery from tax payers.

I wonder how many people saying that SH, should only be for "the needy" would be objecting if there were proposals to build such houses near them. Just remember that every time anyone objects to any form of SH because it would be impacting their house value, their peaceful area, view...they too, are denying someone worse off than them a home.

Also I should point out on new build estates the HA charge estate charges to the owned properties. This is for maintenance/electricity in communal areas (that those residents do not have access to.) Generating thousands a year. Which subsidized the rental properties maintenance costs.

It's the same as a factors fee for new builds , you're not paying just for your street, it's to cover the whole estate, your not subsidising anyone

Rent should cover the actual value of the property, to enable money to be raised to build more.

Other rents are what is actually necessary to cover the value of the property, plus repairs, plus a small profit.

My 1 bed HA flat is worth around £70k.

I’ve been living in it (and paying taxes) for nearly 27 years. I also pay a service charge on top of my rent. So I have paid a total rent to date, that is far far in excess of its value.

The HA I live was built many many years ago. The value of the property has already been recovered through rental charges at least twice. My rent is not subsided by tax payers.

I realise that I’ve been slow to grasp that many of the objections aren’t actually about that, it seems some are really opposed to a system that leaves social housing tenants with more disposable income than homeowners. Who in thinking this way make it seem normal that people stress about increased mortgage rates, or being evicted by landlords, winning the ultimate prize when own outright.

Some people appear to be invested in propping up narratives and tropes that position people who qualify for social housing as needy, and somehow ‘less than’. As though home ownership is a social barometer for economic and professional status, and that’s why they’d be embarrassed to combine high income with social housing.

The faux concern for people on waiting lists is thinly veiled, and explains comments about people in social housing daring to have expensive cars and material things. The messaging is that people in social housing should know their place, and that place should always, always be having less than, earning less than, and living in less comfort than homeowners.

Yet, conversations on this will never progress forward and nothing will ever change while people still think like this.

And I should point out that I too pay a service charge on my Housing Association property (on top of rent), that covers maintenance etc of the communal areas. And my flat isn’t on a new build estate. It was built in the 70’s. So nobody is subsidising that for me either.

@SocialHousedNHappy
This thread has reinforced the sheer ignorance and arrogance of many
MN posters, SH is for the needy, it's subsidised, state owned etc
These are the same ppl who would protest if SH was built near their precious 'owned' homes.
They don't care about those on a waiting list or in need, they're small minded bitter ignorant snobs.

Ideally everyone who wants it should be able to have a SH home, but there just aren’t enough. So in that case we need to reserve it for those who can’t afford other alternatives.
It’s not about being jealous, or bitter or even ignorant. If you have several other housing options you should be encouraged to explore those and those with absolutely no other options should get a SH property. Yes it would be great if the councils would build more housing, or ensure that new build estates have a decent amount of social housing but that’s not happening so we can’t use what the government should do as an excuse to have a lot of SH properties taken up by people on high incomes while others are homeless.

I also don’t think it’s fair to give someone a property that maybe needs new carpet and decorating throughout etc, have them spends thousands on doing this, then just take it away from them. I think the best solution would be to do as a poster suggested previously and have a scaling of rent charged, so if you earn more you pay more rent and that extra money actually goes to building more SH properties.

''@HerMammy

@SocialHousedNHappy
This thread has reinforced the sheer ignorance and arrogance of many
MN posters, SH is for the needy, it's subsidised, state owned etc
These are the same ppl who would protest if SH was built near their precious 'owned' homes.
They don't care about those on a waiting list or in need, they're small minded bitter ignorant snobs.''

This is way too simplistic.

I work a homelessness charity. My previous flat was a housing association shared ownership flat and my neighbours were a mixture of private owners, social tenants and shared-owners.

And I think that is completely unacceptable that someone like the OP who has enough income to have either her own home or rent privately is taking much needed social housing from someone who can't afford a roof over their head.

Social housing should mean tested and tenants circumstances should be reviewed to root out people who like the OP abuse the current system.

We simply don't have enough council/social housing and it needs to go to people in real need.

That is not a 'snobbish' thing to say, it is just basic common sense.

I've been in SH for 35 years. There was 1year where I got HB but have paid my own rent the rest of the time. A loose calculation tells me this is approx 250,000 to date. If I work till retirement (highly likely) you can add another 100k to that.

Now I definitely haven't had repairs/maintenance to anywhere near that value. Probably the most expensive thing was a new boiler which I've had once. I moved a few times so have never had a new kitchen/bathroom. Timing wasn't right. I also declined it in my current home as they said what i already had was better than what theyd replace it with! Other than that, any repairs have been minor.

When I die the HA will get my house back to give to someone else. Now multiply me, one person, by all the other SH tenants in my scenario and that's a lot of money.

If you buy your own home you are not contributing 300k + to SH like we are. We are "subsidising" each other. That's how it works.

People on benefits in SH, no they're not contributing. But your argument is that they're the ones that need it. Kick all the working people out and how is it going to work? Millions in rent every year would be lost. How would you propose to make it up? Who would pay for it?