To think: if you can fly first class, you shouldn't have a council house?

[Mexxo]

Facebook friends of mine (friends of RL friends really) making lots of comments this week about their impending holiday to Mauritius on which they'll be flying first class and staying in a 5 star hotel.

This couple have lived in a council house for many years (no kids yet), though this year so far she has got a new (not brand new, a year or two old but still v nice) BMW and he has a new Ducati.

One of their friends has commented on FB "Wow, did you win the lottery?!" and the wife replied "no we just saved a long time for our dream holiday".

First class flights to Mauritius are £4k each. A week in a 5 star hotel must be at least £2k and probably more. That's £10k for a week's holiday. AIBU to think that if people can squirrel away that much money for a holiday, they shouldn't be living in a bloody council house subsidised by taxes from the rest of us?

Your not ch tennants pay taxes too ffs

Thats 2 posts here now that have used the word "lavish" mmm

I live in a council house as Ive said but get his - Im a Nurse working for the NHS, would love a really lavish lifestyle but sadly no...and guess what - I pay tax to!

Thanks, Goldship, she has lost most of her mobilty because of her worstening vascular problems.

She is 85 this year, so it was expected.

Ilovecoffee.etc
Council houses are NOT subsidised by the state. What people choose to do with their money is nothing to do with anybody else.

Redbindy Market rented council housing isn't necessarily subsidised by the state. I'm sufficiently out of touch to no longer know what the rents vs private are.

Looking at Manchester Council Properties I see a 3 Bedroom House situated in residential area close to local supermarket and longsight district centre. Has good transport links to Stockport , Manchester & surrounding areas.Sole use of Garden, Children allowed, Private parking place, Gas central heating with radiators

which is up for £79 a week which is about £340 a month. Looks a tad subsidised...

They are subsidised that is the whole point so people on low income could afford housing now we have a a situation of high unemployment where rent is paid by hb. How can a borough such as Hammersmith afford to keep council rents low (under £100 a week) if it is not subsidised

It isn't subsidised because it is cheaper than private rent - that's like saying Aldi is subsidised because it's cheaper than Waitrose.

AboutLastNight
No council housing isn't for 'those in need' it is for everyone if they want it. David Cameron could go on the list if he wanted to.

See my post above about Westminster. Its unlikely that David Cameron would even be allowed on the list in Westminster. Non priority applicants don't even get on the list. Given that he is not homeless, owns another property and has a high income he will not get on the priority list and no non priority applicants get on the list.

I am a private landlord and certainly don't make a huge profit from our houses - in fact the 2 we have only just about wash their faces. There have been periods where both have been empty and dh had to cover 3 mortgages on just his salary as I was on mat leave. Not easy.

I was under the impression that council houses were for those most in need, to my mind it is very selfish to occupy a property when you have the means to rent privately and there are other families holed up in b&bs etc. Madness to think otherwise.

If our circumstances changed I would have to suck it up, sell our houses (bought in 2006/7 at the top of the market) and rent whatever size house, in whatever area we could afford.

The entitled attitude that I see on here is shocking IMO. If you can afford to move on from a council property please do and give someone else who really needs it a chance.

Not sure if this has been mentioned.....but..... The biggest 'bed blocking problem' councils have are OAP's in 3 bed homes in their own as family have long since moved on, spouse may have died, but they have brought up their family in that home. They don't want to leave

So what should happen? Hb pays the full rent ( for now)

Then why are rents kept lower far lower in many parts of the country ? How are councils managing to keep rents low if that is not the case

Oh yes, I'm sure private landlords would much rather people with the means to rented privately to cover their mortgages than had fairly priced, secure housing. Talk about entitled attitude!

Freudian - do you mean how are rents set? They need to cover maintenance to the building, staffing costs for housing officers etc. They aren't covering big mortgages or making anyone a profit, that is why they are lower than private rents.

Rubirosa
But nobody is building social housing on a meaningful scale and that certainly isn't the fault of private landlords. You could argue that private landlords have stepped in to fill a gap where the state has stepped back.

In a council house you are paying less than the market rent so there is a subsidy. There is a proposal of removing the subsidy for families earning more than £60k so the issue the OP has talked maybe solved.

Strikes me that only people in council houses get told off for their entitled attitude. I hear far more moans from people who can't afford the next move up and yet are in accommodation that already meets their needs. And how about those elderly folk who own their own houses? Perhaps they should be forced to sell too? I can just imagine suggesting that to my dad. I get that people might have to move out of council houses to vacate for those who need them. What I don't understand is why they are viewed as being entitled if they don't especially love the idea. I guess an entitled attitude is just another thing that only the rich can afford. But I do know that that isn't everyone-not all people in fortunate positions feel entitled, not at all.

Ilovecoffee.etc Charging below market rent is not a subsidy, it just not using tenants as a profitable revenue stream. One could argue that homeowners are actually subsidised as any profits they make are free of tax. Buy to let landlords are certainly subsidised as interest on their mortgages can be offset against tax. I suggest that all those who think that people living in social housing put there names on the list to join this particular gravy train.
For a discussion on housing subsidy see link.
www.guardian.co.uk/housing-network/2012/jan/27/government-subsidised-social-housing-rent

Rubirosa both our houses are student properties so would make no difference to us if council tenants who could afford to rent chose to or not. Are you also suggesting it's unfair of us to ask for enough money to cover our mortgages? Believe me there's little left for anything else and we do worry how we would afford it if anything went wrong in either of the properties.

We bought our houses as neither of the companies we worked for offered pensions, simply planning for our retirement.

How is that more entitled, and indeed morally reprehensible, than someone staying put in a council house at the expense of someone in greater need?

I still don't understand how still, some posters are saying the same as the OP ie these ch tenants should be ashamed of themselves for spending their money on things other than children (that they don't have). Because that's the problem here isn't it?
Fact is, holidays and cars come much cheaper than children. Yet, because this couple have chose to spend THEIR money the way they have, some people think they are justified in slagging them off and insisting that 'these sort of people' should give up their home?

Wherever there is a new build building site, a proportion of it ( by law) will be social housing

We have whole new communities being built here..... I got my HA home quickly. Lots of one bed apartments are being built for single people as well as family homes, shops etc for employment,new schools and surgeries etc. We are commutable to London here as well. Just.

It's just not happening in central London, where everyone seems to want to live!

Molehill how is not entitled to think that you have a right to stay in a property 'just because' when there are people with greater need on a waiting list somewhere?

And I really don't see many people moaning that they can't afford the next step up. We could definitely use more downstairs space as were not planning to have a family at the time of buying our house (dd was a surprise) and we now stuck here as my job is under threat and lenders don't look upon us favourably as a result of the outstanding loans on our other properties. We are even delaying having another child given our situation.

Blackberry I think you'll find that planning laws have changed (literally in the last few days) and that social housing is no longer a requirement on building developments.

Really? Has it? Well those already in place are still providing lots of homes

I bet the developers are pleased then

Hope they have a great time!!!