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.

Seriously though, if everyone keeps their council or social housing when they no longer need it what do we do about the families living in b and b's?

I do agree the taxpayer should not subsidise op but she has said she is HA not council which means a private business or charity owns the houses and so they are subsidising op not the taxpayer, apart from grants etc they may be eligible for.

Did you get the house whe your circs were less fortunate?

If you could move out to buy somewhere else (which a lot of people did when young and social housing was more readily available and the market was less dire) then I would.

I wouldn't move to private rent when you could be asked to leave after 6 months.

I actually have a copy of this book.

Bullshit. I think I could respect if you wrote 'I know I am being selfish but IDGAF' not this nonsense about everybody should have access to social housing as an option. It's impossible, not realistic, who is going to fund it? and that is not how the system is setup to work.

Please don't make up lies about social housing being "taxpayer funded." It isn't. This is a particularly vicious lie used to attack people and is a form of hate-speech

I'm no economist, but the government funds social housing and taxes fund the government, no?

I wonder how many people are aware that the UK has one of the highest social housing % in Europe?

How is what OP is doing any better than high earners not wanting to pay higher tax and using legal loopholes to do this? They are not breaking the law either. Yet both are morally wrong, aren't they?

Weird humble Brag

Because OP could buy a house.... which will give her an asset. It's like she's bragging....

Theoretically, communism is the shared ownership of the means of production. Brought about by a revolution when the masses become aware of how much wealth the 1% really have and become class conscious, thus overthrowing the elite and redistributing the wealth equally. Presumably this would include housing for everyone.
We would all then work together to meet our needs with no need for capitalism built off the surplus labour power of the workers.

Of course being human every time we tried this so far the leaders did not share things equally, and became a corrupt elite themselves. Plus the world is capitalist globally now.

@SocialHousedNHappy So do I In hard back. I bought it when it first came out

She pays rent, I think she subsidises it herself. You're just confused because "market" rent is so overbloated you think someone paying fair rent on a council owned property (that won't have a mortgage) must be being subsidised.

Who's second?

And what's considered social housing

With poor families in hotels waiting for people like OP to die so they can have a home. It’s sad but if OP won’t go, only death will release that house back to someone who needs it.

the system created this mess.

OP, there’s something about the tone of your post that is really off putting. You seem to be congratulating yourself for continuing to benefit from a helping hand you no longer need. You are actually denying those in greater need an opportunity to have a home when they genuinely can’t afford one. In your case, it’s your private savings plan. You’re an excellent example of why social housing should be continuously means tested. You may just be “taking what you can get”, but don’t fool yourself into thinking that you’re not impacting anyone else by doing so. It’s nothing to be proud of.

Hear hear 👏

In reality, the problem is the hugely inflated cost of private housing (rented or bought) in the UK.

That’s why who gets subsidised housing is so contentious. Fix the housing market and nobody will care where the OP lives.

I am wondering how much tax some think need to be paid to have housing for all, with healthcare, childcare, education, etc paid for by taxes.

70%? 85%? 50%? What is the top tax rate in the UK right now? I just think it's a pipe dream to think taxes should pay for everything, but if someone sees how it could be done, please share.

If the council owns the houses they are already an asset and any rent pays for upkeep and profit so it's not quite correct to think the taxpayer pays the difference.
This is more the case in private rents and the housing element of uc, although I think that was capped.

Councils have given away their stock.

They are now maintained by housing associations.

They have costs.

The rent is low is generally capped, below market rent?

That's my understanding.

Not social housing but we brought a ex-social house. Cheap costs, city centre location. Parking. Downsides are there are still some council tenants who are a nuisance and nothing we can do about them, then being in city centre, the passing people are not always pleasant and fly tipping / treating the communal areas like a bin.
We are between going up to a 'better ' more expensive house because we can afford it, but equally we spend what we want now with no worries, it's a real difficult decision to make!

Agree with this as well 👏

So as I understand it you want other people to pay higher taxes to build more social housing so you can keep the extra money you’ve made through not paying for your own accommodation privately?

If I had the opportunity and the means I would move on and let the more needy have a chance. It's not about original intended purposes, it's about you full well knowing you don't need it, you want it. Meanwhile there's another family in need. It's the mindset of a gentrifier.

@obje

Exactly.

i would hope that at the point I no longer need the support & security of social housing, I'd pass it on to someone else who was in the dire need I once was.

@SocialHousedNHappy you asked... selfish. You're denying a homeless family a home when you could support yourself instead of rubbing your hands together about how much tax payers money your squirrelling away for your children.