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?

OP will be volunteering to do the 'selections' when it comes to weeding out the useless eaters.

I thought council houses were given to people who genuinely need somewhere to live....i dont remember anywhere in our rental agreement saying we had to be poor to live there (were council tennants for many years)

Not that we had much back then anyway but thats besides the point.

how do you know how much it all costs? did you go and add it all up? did you actually spend your precious time finding out exactly how much people you don't really know have spent on their holiday so you can wind yourself up about it? You know how much the flights are, cost of a villa, spending money? how about insurance? did you factor that in?!

Maybe they have saved it for a long time. Maybe a relative died and they inherited some money and after living in poverty have decided to splash out and buy new cars and go on holiday. Maybe. maybe it is none of your business!

And if they are luckily enough to live in social housing, that is secure, and clean, and that they obviously like living in, compared to some of the places people can find themselves in with social housing, good for them.

"A key function of social housing is to provide accommodation that is affordable to people on low incomes. Rents in the social housing sector are kept low through state subsidy. The social housing sector is currently governed by a strictly defined system of rent control to ensure that rents are kept affordable."

The impression there being that social housing is indeed subsidied.

maybe kims point was that it is subsidised council rents in london are much lower than private rents, private rents went up why because so much council property was sold off

kim in what way do private renters pay rent in proportion to their income? If you lose your job does the landlord say don't worry, just pay me when you can? wtf?

OP, was it you with the other First Class flight thread? If so, you are weirdly obsessed with what class people fly.

kim - initial build is funded by taxes, upkeep, staffing etc is funded by rent with a big surplus.

It was you. Why the interest in everyone's flying class?

I am going to sit on the fence on this one. In principle I agree with OP's sentiment. Idea of council housing was originally to provide affordable decent housing for those who couldn't otherwise get a home. Supply of council houses is low relative to demand, through combination of sell offs, tenancy for life (in some cases passing to rest of family) and more family breakups \ single parent families \ etc. This means there are huge waiting lists and some people (possibly including OP's friends, but we don't know enough to judge) could afford to move to private rented or to buy own house and hence those in desperate need (eg families living in "temporary" B&B accommodation) could get a council house.

So it's reasonable to think the system is wrong, but not reasonable to blame those lucky enough to be able to afford luxuries but living in council house. Hopefully situation will improve when they get rid of tenancy for life for new council tenants, provided criteria for ending tenancies are fair.

5inabed people in council houses are allowed goats? THAT is not fair. I want a goat.

Sweet baby cheeses! I'm going to be moved into b&b with my two kids within the next couple of weeks die to a severe lack of council houses in my area.

But even I think YABU.

I'd love a council house, it's the only chance I have of a secure home for me and my DS.

I'm really envious of those that have them. I also get very pissed of with people that don't appreciate them.

However

It's the government's fault that there aren't enough to go around. Not the tenants'. What we need is more social housing not to kick out those who are in it!

The waiting list here is at least 5 years. If I ever got to the top of that list and managed to secure a permanent home for my child it would take a lottery win for me to give it up.

I like it.

The 'big plasma tv' was getting really boring tbh.

Now we are talking first class flights. Much better

what do you think councils just payout to build a property and then get money back through rent they take out loans, loans like a mortgage have interest that takes years to pay back on top of all the other costs of just building without labour and then fitting buildings out costs will not be paid back in rent for years and years

The likely hood is that council tenants also pay council tax and tax on their salaries.

A goat au pair you say? Are those NHS standard issue now?

kim not everywhere has tenancy for life. Maybe it is related to LA But certainly where I live there are a) no council houses anymore, they have been sold/franchised to housing associations and b) none of them are tenancy for life so that old stick does not actually hit well any more.