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?

@AcornAutumn 85% of Singaporeans live in government built housing - ranging from basic to fancy with swimming pools, jacuzzis and karaoke lounge. The top tax rate is 20% and most people pay no tax.

Its because government owns most of the land and can decide to do what it likes with it, which includes providing singaporeans with a decent roof over their heads and ensuring singapore home ownership rate is over 90%. People still need to save a deposit and get a mortgage but as the government isn't doing it for profit, its much cheaper than getting it privately. without hdb, we would be like HK. Most of my cousins paid half of what I paid for my london flat and the cousins who paid the same got a swimming pool in the bargain too.

@MadMadMadamMim look up singapore housing. 85% of population livein government built housing and there is 90% home ownership. with the exception of london, most places in the uk are poorer than singaproe.

The whole renting market needs to be looked at. Is it fair that those who want to rent to bring up their families in a home that they are at the mercy of a LL on a BTL who decides to sell. Should there be a fair rent restricting what you can charge? Should there be a buy back scheme for LL? Could there be a reduction in tax on income earned from rental income?

Every scheme you look at will have it's drawbacks but if you had a fair rent scheme and any housing benefit was paid direct to the LL that would help. I live in Cornwall and people working here for the summer are looking for accommodation as well as those living locally. Someone paid £300 a month more on a property than the advertised rent.

@Jillybons I do agree with you as I come from a country where 85% of the population lives in government built housing, Singapore. However, the trick to its success is you can't frame it as social housing. People want to feel like they are 'successful' with an asset. You have to frame it as affordable housing that is built by the government who isn't selling it for profit and keep some units for the poor who can't afford to buy.

So I am talking about basic 3 bedroom houses and 3 bedroom flats with smallish gardens- for people below £100k income in London/£50k in the north. There would be a wide demographic of buyers and so no one would look down on such estates. However the caveat with getting a discount is that they can only sell to people who fit the requirements. Since we are also out of the EU, we can also reserve such properties for British citizens only.

And for the people already invested in the property market (such as myself), your 'private home' would be viewed as the premium option. In Singapore, private homes are far more expensive than even london as the people who opt for them are the people ineligible for the government housing and are mostly millionaires. while most of the private homes are very nice, thats not always the case.

I think there should be a cap on how much rent landlords can charge according to the size of the property and it’s location. I think if rents were affordable and landlords had tighter restrictions on maintaining property, we wouldn’t need social housing. It is now illegal for landlords to discriminate against people claiming housing benefit, so that’s a start.

Sounds like it would be a strong step towards communism

I think there should be a cap on how much rent landlords can charge according to the size of the property and it’s location
As the government has opted to tax LLs more and more each year whilst putting more costly requirements in place and bigger risks for the LL, adding a cap to it will see yet more LL opting to sell.

In my area, houses for rental are one handful at most. Demands far far exceed supply. It's becoming a real problem as many people want to rent for various reasons, including home owners between properties. It is only going to get worse as there is little to gain being a LL nowadays if you are working FT. You might as well invest in various shares, it's no more risky any longer.

Think I'm being diddled by my HA! Didn't realise I was supposed to get it free, wonder who I've been paying £450 a month to for the last 5 years then?
I pay that out of my wages, that I earn in a job that provides an essential service in return for a low wage. That a lot of people feel is an appropriate wage for what I do, and that they shouldn't have to pay for in the first place. I work ft btw.
Apparently it's unfair that people pay for care, but fair that I can be paid too little to buy a home, or privately rent one.
Apparently it's ok to pay me less than is required to provide a decent home, but also insinuate that the reason I don't earn enough is because I don't work hard enough. No, it's because the work I do is not of any value to people, that's why, no one wants to judge me on the contribution I'm making to society by taking care of vulnerable, frail and elderly relatives for a low price (which enables many more people to go out and earn enough to buy their own home), they'd rather just judge me on my inability to afford a home of my own and assume it's because I don't work hard enough.
I see being in social housing as a way of making up for that low wage and zero job benefits, because by and large, it benefits society.
Don't want that? You need to pay more for services so that people working in them can afford to house themselves. But people don't want that either. So here's someone like me, who does work hard, in a job that benefits society in no small way, being ostracised by that very society.
How very closed minded.
My HA is non profit, I pay everything myself, to move into a private rent would mean I'd need financial support, why is that - the tax payer paying an (or more than one as it's not secure) LLs profit seen as more morally acceptable than living in a low rent home, that I can pay for independently, where the profits are used to keep housing stock in order and rents as low as possible?

I think anyone that has the means to should be able to buy their own home, and that an overhaul of private renting is needed to ensure that it's more in line with social housing models, fair and reasonable prices and annual inspections to be passed to ensure these places are fit to live in, and rent diverted to the LA if they're not.
I'd also have greater powers to deal with non payment - dealt with similarly to council tax, money deducted at source for payment and more and earlier support for low income families to stop them getting into that situation in the first place.

@secretdelivery Singapore has 85% of its population living in government housing. It is definitely not communist. in fact, it is so capitalist that the tories want to emulate singapore post brexit.

@Wondermule I feel really bummed out that people who don't work all their lives get to use the NHS for free. On the other hand, there are people who pay 40% tax and never see a doctor in 30 years?

I feel really bummed out that people who don't work all their lives get to use the NHS for free. On the other hand, there are people who pay 40% tax and never see a doctor in 30 years?

They pay indirect taxes but thats beside the point...would you rather they just died instead? And I presume using taxpayers money to bury them would bum you out too...perhaps we could just thrown them in incinerators?

@HotCrossBumsticks It was in response to the poster saying that it would 'grate seeing people that don’t work and pop out kids moving into big houses while hard working couples are forced to live in tiny flats'.

I dont see how it applies less to healthcare.In any welfare system, there would be net contributers and net takers.

I don't want the state to dictate what kind of house I qualify for. Council housing historically hindered mobility too. Yes housing for those in need but we should stand on our own two feet

I'm not a Tory or a fan of Thatcher.....however she played a blinder. My parents were so happy to be able to buy their own "council house" for £11000. Fast forward 15 years and they had an asset to sell - so they could pay for their nursing home fees. Their house was worth more as they did it up . A bit of a con really.

That doesn't make it any better as a post

@minniemoocher You can choose to be in the top 10% and buy whatever house you like. I don't think OP means that people with good incomes would need to live in social housing, its only for the bottom 90% or realistically bottom half.

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

No, I would say the exact opposite is true. Government should get out of housing provision altogether and there should be no social housing. Governments can still subsidise people who need if via housing benefit.)

Housing is something the everyone has a similar basic need for, and those needs can be reliably met by a free market. (Assuming people who can't afford market prices are subsidised via benefits housing allowance. It could also regulate rental housing more, there is no need for it to be a provider for standards to be maintained. In fact being a provider means it has a conflict of interest, which is better resolved by it ceasing provision than it dropping out of regulation, as the private sector can't do regulation.

When it comes to healthcare, expenses can vary wildly from person to person, and for each person from year to year. Expenses are so much more variable that they have to be met by some kind of insurance. Experience of the USA seems to show that a purely free-market model has lots of issues. All the best systems in the world have an element of social insurance. While the best systems are probably hybrids, if we had to choose between a 90% public or 90% private healthcare, very few people are going to vote for 90% private.

@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.

You ... you can’t be serious

@HotCrossBumsticks It illustrates how toxic the politics of envy can be. If people just keep looking at what they pay in and what they get out of it -whether for healthcare, housing etc, the inevitable conclusion would be that the state should provide as little as possible and we should save up for everything/get private insurance.

I think if we didn't create the NHS in the post war era, no one would want the NHS now and that is sad. I mean, I have private health insurance but I do use the nhs for some things

we would also be really messed up now as our vaccination programme would probably not be as successful as it is now.

My view is that the state should build housing for anyone with an average income/below and people can buy them provided they sell them to people who meet similar income criteria. And they can only rent it out if they are moving area. Obviously we should have NHS too but sadly given how selfish we are as a nation, I am not sure how long it would last.

It illustrates how toxic the politics of envy can be

By sharing your toxic envy?

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

If you have fewer social and healthcare problems in the long run, I wonder if this balances out? And reduces a number of socioeconomic and health inequities?

@HotCrossBumsticks ummm it was sarcastic?

Governments can still subsidise people who need if via housing benefit

There's no walking it back but the introduction of housing benefit was a massive distortion to the housing market and the BTL market.

We used to have a system of council housing, they were mainly built after WW2 to house returning soldiers and to replace housing stock that was destroyed in the war.

But they had several social benefits, one of which is social stability. They were also held as assets by the local council, and could be used to raise finance.

Surely it isn't social housing v owner occupied property that is the issue, it is social housing v private landlords.

Would it be a better or worse thing if those who don't want to own a house or who can't afford to own a house could access social housing?

Social housing has security of tenure and much better terms for tenants. Easy availability of social housing would take some of the heat out of the housing market as people wouldn't need to buy in order to get security but plenty of people would still want to own.