To want social housing for most

[Jillybons]

I find it strange that in the U.K. we are so protective and proud of public healthcare and see it as a universal right regardless of household income (which I fully support).

But when it comes to public housing we vilify it and criticise people who have public houses as ‘less’ than those who rent privately or own houses.

Shouldn’t public housing be the standard for 90% of the population and private housing be the ‘option’ just like private healthcare?

What do you think?

I think everyone should have the option to SH, but not standard for 90% of population.

Yeah, I just mentioned 90% public housing as that’s akin to the 90% public healthcare numbers with only circa 10% of people opting/paying to be treated privately 👍

How would that work? What would one do to get a house?

Imagine it would work somewhat like the Scandinavian system. Obvs this would be HUGE undertaking but Sweden for instance has 50% public housing with 50% private owned

Just trying to understand the difference in mentalities around public healthcare and public housing

Sounds like state control

Not familiar with those countries but don't they pay very high tax?

I think social housing, or at least housing that is as regulated as social housing should be available to all.
Meaning -
Everyone should have access to fair rent.
Property being maintained and kept in good condition.
Security of lifetime tenancy.
I don’t agree that social housing should be for the most deprived members of society, they need to be prioritised, but anyone that applies should be given fair access.

I don’t really understand how social housing works as I haven’t used it yet.

So you would rent properties off the government? Why would that be better than buying them?

They're vastly different, and besides, I don't want the government to own my house, it's mine and I shall keep it. The problem with social housing is that you rent (or it's paid for you if you're on a low enough income) so you throw away the money.

God how would that work? The waiting list where I am is already 10 years wait..

I agree OP. I think all housing should be social housing. You get a house for life and when you die someone who needs it gets it. Obviously there would be opportunities for upsizing and downsizing as family requirements change but imagine how much more equal it would be if everyone had a home if they needed it and it wasn’t dependent on how rich your parents are or
How much you earn whether you had appropriate housing.

I hate that despite having a decent income and no mortgage we’re priced out of the market where we live by people wanting the postcode and school catchment so we are seriously under housed for our needs. We moved here when the school was crap and prices were low.

I don’t think people who can comfortably afford a mortgage should be eligible for a council house, as it will be taking an opportunity away from someone less privileged. I think that’s the way it is anyway.

I think that’s why some people are so wrongly bitter about those in council properties. Especially when there are houses on a new build site and someone has the same house as them but through the council and all the security that brings. People get very bitter and hard done by about it.

@Wondermule

I don’t really understand how social housing works as I haven’t used it yet.

So you would rent properties off the government? Why would that be better than buying them?

Almost a hidden tax to the government yes, social housing should be kept for those who cannot afford to buy only.

Maybe because owning houses is a social wealth indicator.

A bit like affording private healthcare, private education etc.

I agree with you @Nocar you’ve said it more succinctly than I could’ve

I don't think any other country with free at point of access healthcare has a huge percentage of the population in social housing. The cost would make it largely impossible without huge taxes too and as it stands we can't/won't even adequately fund our current healthcare system and social housing. Private housing also has a place however I think there such be greater deterrents to owning multiple houses (particularly buy to let's, inheritance is difficult) as I understand it's currently helping to drive up house and rental prices. It's a nice idea but in practice I don't think it could work with absolutely massive and fundamental changes to the way we fund social services like benefits and housing in the UK.

Maybe people should also have realistic and lower expectations for their homes?

For example, my friends DD is 22, and is saving up for a 2 bed semi. She doesn't want a 1 bed flat that she could afford right now.

Then you have parents propping up their children's deposits, pushing and keeping prices up...

It's not black and white

But we already have a home ownership rate of about 65%
And I would guess that many more aspire to it.

So for your system to work, you would have to force 15% of people out of their owned homes into rental. Why?

Social housing rent has to be paid monthly for the entirety of the lease
Why on earth would you want more people paying rent until they say they die, instead of having a mortgage paid off before retirement, freeing up monthly money.
And state housing is usually pretty basic. I think the vast majority of people aspire to something that is more than a functional roof above their heads

I can’t follow your logic about social housing being the same as state healthcare, I’m afraid.

Totally agree OP. Social housing should be available to anyone who wants it. As @Nocar said it shouldn’t just be for people on a very low income, there shouldn’t be shame attached to it. I don’t believe this was the intention when social housing was first developed.

imagine how much more equal it would be if everyone had a home if they needed it and it wasn’t dependent on how rich your parents are or
How much you earn whether you had appropriate housing.

But people with more kids would get the bigger houses/garden, even if they didn’t work.

@alpenguin

I agree OP. I think all housing should be social housing. You get a house for life and when you die someone who needs it gets it. Obviously there would be opportunities for upsizing and downsizing as family requirements change but imagine how much more equal it would be if everyone had a home if they needed it and it wasn’t dependent on how rich your parents are or How much you earn whether you had appropriate housing.

I hate that despite having a decent income and no mortgage we’re priced out of the market where we live by people wanting the postcode and school catchment so we are seriously under housed for our needs. We moved here when the school was crap and prices were low.

So how would it work if someone really wanted a big house in the country with fields and space for a pool?

The government just gives it to them for life?

@GappyValley I assume there is (though i don’t know so won’t pretend to) a ‘standard level’ provided by the govt in Sweden and then if you want the big house in the country with a pool, then you can ‘go private’

Basically acceptable social housing for all that want it, if you want something else then go private. Much like some choose to pay for private healthcare as they want the private room in hospital/fast tracked service etc.

It sounds good in theory. And, in theory, I agree that social housing should be available for all who need it.

And then I listen to my friend who is from Belarus talking about her teenage years in a grim, Soviet government owned apartment. State control of housing, which forces most people to live in it, isn't always idyllic.

You shouldn’t have to be rich to choose where you live and what type of accommodation you want to live in. I imagine if it was social housing the choice would be limited, they would be badly maintained and many people would end up having to live away from family/friends due to demand.