to think people are being deliberately perverse about Council/HA..

[fideline]

....housing?

1. Social (council or HA) rents are not subsidized.

2)Social (council or HA) tenancies are not a form of welfare benefit.

It's not that hard to grasp is it?

OK. I don't think you'd find an economist who would view below-market rates as anything as a subsidy. And that is the very last thing I will say about that.

Shouldn't people be annoyed by the very high private rents?

I'm worried by very high rents. I think it's inherently worrying that young people can't aspire to a decent place to live.

I think all social housing should be used as a temporary measure for those most in need. I do not agree with this council house for life policy.

They always have been homes for life that's the point

Truffle where i live it's awful. The locals children have no chance of buying around here.
At the time i applied for my HA home only locals could apply, i was the only one on the list for my area so i got it straight away.

No way could i afford £700-1200 rent per month for a house around here. It's an absolute disgrace and it's about time something was done about it.

A home is to nest, not to invest.

AST - no idea they only came in in 1988 - DH and I only rented for 10 years after 1995. We know nothing but these rental contracts high rents, low security.

We felt we had to buy a house - which was massive struggle and still is- to provide stability for our DC. We both have GP who had decent incomes and spent entire lives in council houses - now only most venerable stand a chance at HA or council housing.

I think we must be people they are selling idea to that HA and council housing should only be for set terms when people are vulnerable rather than dealing with the current private rental markets and high house markets we are trapped in- see everyone under 40 and in normal wealth range is screwed.

No you wouldn't agree vivienne as evidently you have NEVER been in need of one.

I am bloody grateful to have a "home for life". DO is disabled and this is his home for as long as he needs it.

I am a single parent, I don't earn enough for a mortgage or to privately rent.

I could privately rent but I would cost the tax payer far more if I did.

Hobbet, ASTs came in 1988, but they were made the default in February 1997. That was what really opened the floodgates for the BTL locusts.

Vivienne

That is so not what socialized housing is about. Your post at 14:16.

They are supposed to be for life!

Just because they now don't build enough, or private rents are too high -is just beside the point.

Councils and HA homes shouldn't change just because the housing situation in this country is so diabolical.

Does it matter whether you call it a subsidy or not? Those properties are state owned and should be used in a fair way (ie the rental should reflect what people can afford to pay). Why should a minority of people who happened to be in the right place in the right circumstances at the right time pay far less for rental than everyone else for their whole lives regardless of how high their earnings are? The state has very limited resources, and these should not be used to increase the personal wealth of the well off.

You bunch of Ragged Trousered Philanthropists!

In the book of the same name, some poor, exploited workmen, who have no days off, greatly resent the workmen employed by the council. Why? The council workmen were slightly better paid, and had more days off. The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists thought council workers' wages and days off should be reduced. The idea that they should all enjoy the same or better conditions was a pipedream.

They are used in a fair way... what you're suggesting makes no sense and would cost a bomb to implement.

Yet another one who peers into his neighbours bowl to check he doesn't have more than he does.

That makes no sense Dino

That is not what it is all about...it defeats the entire ethics of socialised housing.

The fact is that councils don't have enough money. Therefore some of us think that cheap rents for well off people should go, in favour of such things as providing essential care for old people who can't look after themselves, for the disabled, etc etc. By all means campaign for better rights for private tenants, but that doesn't mean that councils should be using their scarce resources on the rich. It is especially frustrating when there are not enough council houses for the poor in a locality, while (currently) rich people occupy them for life.

I don't peer into my neighbour's bowl, and I agree that the private rental market (which I am in) is horrendously expensive and insecure. But council housing shouldn't be like winning the lottery - it should be based on need. Our local council has just announced that it is shutting down most of its old people's homes, FGS. Many people are in very serious trouble.

Where should the 'rich' people go?

What constitutes rich anyway?

You don't have to throw people out of their houses, but I do think that people should pay rent based on what they can afford, the upper limit being average market rents for that size of property. I don't get why it's so right that a couple with one child on a household income of £50K should be paying something like £50 a week rent, whereas others in the same circumstances are paying £200.

But the point is they are state owned and there are not enough to go round. So they shouldn't be for life only as long as a person is in absolute need and cannot buy or rent privately. And if that is all their life then fine.

My husband is on minimum wage and I have a low and sporadic income as I had to give up my career years ago to be a carer for a disabled child.

Why do people fantasise they are subsidising us for living in a council house? We are entitled to NO housing benefit and that last week of the month when I pay the rent I can't buy food for 7-10 days. (We live from stuff accumulated in the tin cupboard and freezer at the front end of the month). It is now getting to the point I am not sure I will be able to pay the rent at all by the end of the month.

How is anyone subsidising me?

My new neighbours on the other hand, are dole-ites and just got a council house they are already underoccupying as they have wangled a 3 bed house with 2 kids under 3 so are paying (and can afford to pay) bedroom tax. You're subsidising them. They should find low paid work or have a limit on how long they can claim Housing Benefit. So that house can go to someone productive to society on minimum wage, or a low wage.

But you know who else you're subsidising? People like my ex partner who bought a London flat in 1989, gave up work a month after getting his mortgage, and has never worked since. As tax payers we have paid his mortgage since 1989. He probably 'owns' that flat now. Now I think we should say people should be forced to sell up and move out if they buy a house and claim housing ben for say more than 6 months. Or we will pay your mortgage but the house (or the % the public paid for) goes into public ownership unless you pay it back.

The people we are subsidising are not council tenants like myself - but people who have had mortgage payments paid month in, month out by Housing Benefit.

You are being subsidised, but no-one is complaining about that. A civilised country should ensure that all its inhabitants have somewhere decent to live. As you say, the issue is with subsidising people who don't need the subsidy.

That was my point Dinosaurs. Though you put it much better.

So just because people who haven't got social housing have to pay high rents, it means council houses should charge the same?
And that will make you all feel better?
I'm in HA housing, they were built in this tiny Highland village because of need. There are no private year round rentals, they're all second homes and holiday homes.
Without social housing here local people would have had to move, even those that have work here. All my neighbours work apart from one pensioner and me as I'm on long term ESA.

50 quid a week? Where the hell do you live

Council housing is not subsidised and money is not all in one pot to be directed here and there neither.

You personally do not pay anything towards people paying full rent on their homes. What you are suggesting makes no sense and would cost a lot of money to do.

Yanno money that could go to help old people n that

That is a fact Dino and if you struggle to grasp that then you don't have a decent argument.

The better solution would be to totally burst the bubble of house prices. Let the houses values drop through the floor. So private rents would drop. And as I say, those houses that housing ben has paid the mortgage for sustained periods of time to be taken into public ownership - then rented for fair rents. Maybe what is also needed is legislation to compel private landlords to charge rents at 'social housing' prices. But of course, the people who make the law have a vested interest in keeping house prices high.

Is a house that cost a few hundred to build years ago in materials and labour really worth hundreds of thousands of pounds? No. It's worth the cost of the bricks and the labour today.

I agree with allowing the house price bubble to burst. But they won't. Keeping interest rates low, helping people with deposits and housing benefit not capped. But it is being capped now thank goodness.

absoluteidiot, I'm confused about your ex. I thought mortgage interest was only paid for a set amount of time? I had to sell my house when DD developed health problems and I had to stop work.