Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think that this is a prime example of the entitlement from some people in this country?

303 replies

MealDeal1 · 18/03/2024 13:31

Someone on a large FB group that I am on posted yesterday to say that they want to move abroad and gave examples of a couple of countries that they want to go to.

They then said that they live in council housing here so would need to be 'housed' over there and how do they go about getting housed?

Basically they wanted to move abroad and get given that country's equivalent of a council house/social housing on arrival.

AIBU to think this is the absolute height of entitlement?

OP posts:
tessellated2 · 19/03/2024 00:47

marmaduke12 · 18/03/2024 23:30

Oh dear ( haven't RTFT) but tell them not to come to Australia. We have a queue for public housing years long. Also it's run by the states not by the council. If you rocked up to any local council and said you were homeless, they would say " that's unfortunate" and maybe give you an address of a shelter. Completely different system. Councils here are "Roads , rubbish and rates" with the odd programme of something or other thrown in.
And you need to be a citizen or permanent resident to join the public housing queue.

This. We're having a housing crisis in Australia.

Loubelle70 · 19/03/2024 07:49

This post should be called 'the divide and conquer tory wet dream'

Anxiulyyy · 19/03/2024 09:27

tessellated2 · 19/03/2024 00:47

This. We're having a housing crisis in Australia.

With all that land!
I think I read somewhere that a lot of thenworlds population could fit in Australia it's so big.

BIossomtoes · 19/03/2024 09:58

Anxiulyyy · 19/03/2024 09:27

With all that land!
I think I read somewhere that a lot of thenworlds population could fit in Australia it's so big.

Most of its not habitable.

Locutus2000 · 19/03/2024 10:14

Papyrophile · 18/03/2024 20:47

Not convinced that it's privilege that a person doesn't need financial support from the state. Whatever happened to the idea that you get up early and go to work? Or that you organise your home set up before you have your family? I DO know that people are bereaved, in accidents and by illness.

I am 67, and mortgage free and I set up our pension in our 30s, so we have paid off our mortgage, and put money into our pension for the best part of 40 years, and worked (in fact still working but PT). And because we did all of those things, we shall continue to be tax payers for the foreseeable. And while we continue in decent health, we shan't even be a huge burden on the NHS.

My mortgage free home and comfortable pension do not arise from tax funded benefits, because those are all clawed back by the tax code. We end up with the bits we paid for personally. Of course we value the benefits of living in a civilised society, and I wouldn't have it any other way. But I do get a bit cross when it's privilege NOT to need public money to support your own family. Can we all suck from the public teat?

Can we all suck from the public teat?

What a disgusting way to talk about people, you have no idea how privileged you are to have been able to 'do everything right'.

Maverickess · 19/03/2024 10:14

ThisOldThang · 18/03/2024 22:01

Looking on a council house swapping website, you can get a 3 bedroom flat in Putney for £180 per week.

The cheapest private rental is £415 per week / £1800 per month.

I'm not sure i believe claims that council houses outside London are the same rental price as private accommodation.

Rents for similar properties to mine in this area (North East) 3 bed and garden are around £10-£20 a week more expensive than mine according to right move and are higher spec from the photos on Rightmove than mine and included fixtures and fittings like curtain rails, cooker, carpets/flooring and freshly decorated - you don't get that in social housing, it's a bare shell (which I'm not moaning about before anyone starts!) with whatever decoration happens to be there and no flooring, no deep clean between tenants etc. They also have parking and are in a bit better position & area than mine (I'm right next to a fast food place, on a busyish road, parking is 'interesting' most of the time!). So just on what is offered, you'd expect to pay more for the private ones than you would mine anyway.

The main attraction at least around here for social housing is the stability, rather than significantly cheaper rent. I private rented for around 14 years, and moved on average every 18 months to 2 years, only one of those moves was my choice - to move closer to childcare so I could work full time, funnily enough. The rest were because the LL wanted to sell or the place was literally falling down and the LL wasn't repairing, despite the council being involved, and a couple of times meant changing jobs and schools.

I also had some help when I first moved in with nothing - I got a grant from a charity that I now donate back to that bought me some flooring, a cooker and a bed - you know how I qualified for that grant? By working for a certain number of years in an industry.

But paying less because you get less and qualifying for help because you work, or in fact working at all when you live in social housing and always have doesn't fit the 'everything free at tax payers expense' that people assume about social housing now does it?

I worked in social care for many years, for a piss poor wage that meant I couldn't afford to buy my own home - how about people benefitting from those services by having their elderly, vulnerable and ill relatives, their children looked after so they don't have to worry about it, start 'paying their way' instead of relying on someone else's work to benefit them for bargain prices and then slagging off the people working in those industries for not being good enough to buy their own home?

There are people who use the system to their advantage, of course there are, but that runs through every level of society not just the lower end, but it's an issue of morality and laziness for the lower end, if you are on £100k a year and shove a bit more in your pension (which you will benefit from) to keep child benefit or childcare then you're clever and deserving.

A lot of people just don't like people who don't earn as much as they do, despite usually in some form or another using and benefitting from the jobs they do. That attitude is the problem and imo, far more entitled than needing somewhere to live that you can afford.

MalewhoisLaffinalltheway · 19/03/2024 10:35

MealDeal1 · 18/03/2024 13:43

Nope was the US and Australia

More like they're planning a move to Cloud Cuckoo! 😂

Whalesong · 19/03/2024 10:53

Staringatthemoon · 18/03/2024 21:56

@Whalesong that's a bit patronising. My point was that it was allowed ( and no doubt still is within European countries).

I highly doubt you are if you didn't move before 2021...

isitshe · 19/03/2024 12:29

@MealDeal1 what was the general consensus in the FB group? Did they get their arse handed to them? Or is it full of like-minded people?

GoonieGang · 19/03/2024 12:33

Locutus2000 · 19/03/2024 10:14

Can we all suck from the public teat?

What a disgusting way to talk about people, you have no idea how privileged you are to have been able to 'do everything right'.

It is not a privilege to go to work and pay bills for most working people. It’s what should be the norm.
There are too few people who are economically inactive. It’s a shame that we have to rely on immigration to take up lower paid positions.

ThisOldThang · 19/03/2024 14:03

Locutus2000 · 19/03/2024 10:14

Can we all suck from the public teat?

What a disgusting way to talk about people, you have no idea how privileged you are to have been able to 'do everything right'.

Get over yourself.

Working an entire lifetime, paying tax, saving for retirement and ending up with the things you've earned and saved for, is not a privilege.

Sitting on your arse and taking free accommodation, free healthcare, free prescriptions, free opticians, free money, more free money for 'cost of living', free council tax, free child benefit and a free pension when you retire from doing nothing is the epitome of privilege.

kitsuneghost · 19/03/2024 14:15

LostNFoundSV · 18/03/2024 21:38

Council house tenants don’t automatically qualify for HB!
I’ve seen quite a few private renters using HB to fund large homes in expensive locations though (before the HB cap).

No not all council tenants get housing benefit
Not all private renters don't get housing benefit

My point originally (which got a bit lost in the mix) is that some people are subsidised by one or the other (sometimes even both) and these were the people that OP suggested in the initial post may expect the same treatment in other countries

swimsong · 19/03/2024 16:32

ntmdino · 18/03/2024 22:19

That's fair - it would've been more accurate for me to say "council house rents are heavily discounted relative to the rest of the rental market".

In an ideal world, the presence of council housing would have a dampening effect on rental market pricing. Unfortunately, because of its scarcity and the monstrous waiting lists, council houses are barely a rounding error (I have no sources for that, just a finger-in-the-air guess).

It's still the wrong word.

ToWhitToWhoo · 19/03/2024 16:38

ThisOldThang · 19/03/2024 14:03

Get over yourself.

Working an entire lifetime, paying tax, saving for retirement and ending up with the things you've earned and saved for, is not a privilege.

Sitting on your arse and taking free accommodation, free healthcare, free prescriptions, free opticians, free money, more free money for 'cost of living', free council tax, free child benefit and a free pension when you retire from doing nothing is the epitome of privilege.

Edited

A fairly large proportion of people who need some form of benefits are not sitting on their arses at all. They are in low-paid and/ or insecure employment. Either they need to be paid adequately by employers (not something that is likely to happen any time soon) or their pay needs to be topped up by benefits.

Some of these people were regarded as 'essential key workers' during lockdown. How soon we forget.

And even among those not in paid employment, not all are 'sitting on their arses'. Some, for example, are family carers for elderly or disabled people, doing an often very tough job, and saving the state a fair bit on social care.

Beezknees · 19/03/2024 16:46

ThisOldThang · 19/03/2024 14:03

Get over yourself.

Working an entire lifetime, paying tax, saving for retirement and ending up with the things you've earned and saved for, is not a privilege.

Sitting on your arse and taking free accommodation, free healthcare, free prescriptions, free opticians, free money, more free money for 'cost of living', free council tax, free child benefit and a free pension when you retire from doing nothing is the epitome of privilege.

Edited

The people who get those things are people who can't work. You think being unfit for work is a privilege?

ThisOldThang · 19/03/2024 17:03

Beezknees · 19/03/2024 16:46

The people who get those things are people who can't work. You think being unfit for work is a privilege?

Some of the people. Some.

And ultimately, getting those things if you can't work is a privilege.

It's a privilege paid for by those people that do work.

JenniferBooth · 19/03/2024 17:11

Locutus2000 · 19/03/2024 10:14

Can we all suck from the public teat?

What a disgusting way to talk about people, you have no idea how privileged you are to have been able to 'do everything right'.

That poster is an example of what i mentioned upthread. What ive labelled the Grazia effect

Boomer55 · 19/03/2024 17:12

Dorisbonson · 18/03/2024 16:34

Council housing is let out at a discount to market rent so they get subsidised by taxpayers/society.

In some years council housing portfolios were loss making which is why many councils put them in separate arms length bodies so that council tax payers wouldn't have to fund the losses.

That isn't to say people who AREN'T on housing benefits or tax credits/universal benefits don't pay their way, but i suspect most benefit from the kindness of tax payers.

But, HAs, which are private companies, charge a slightly higher rent which covers building g/maintenance costs. Unless someone is receiving housing benefit/allowance, it costs the taxpayer nothing.

Or, at least, no more than the artificially low mortgage rates did.

JenniferBooth · 19/03/2024 17:14

ToWhitToWhoo · 19/03/2024 16:38

A fairly large proportion of people who need some form of benefits are not sitting on their arses at all. They are in low-paid and/ or insecure employment. Either they need to be paid adequately by employers (not something that is likely to happen any time soon) or their pay needs to be topped up by benefits.

Some of these people were regarded as 'essential key workers' during lockdown. How soon we forget.

And even among those not in paid employment, not all are 'sitting on their arses'. Some, for example, are family carers for elderly or disabled people, doing an often very tough job, and saving the state a fair bit on social care.

Exactly. If (God forbid) there is another lockdown i hope they lockdown too next time

The laptop classes despise them either way

Beezknees · 20/03/2024 16:20

ThisOldThang · 19/03/2024 17:03

Some of the people. Some.

And ultimately, getting those things if you can't work is a privilege.

It's a privilege paid for by those people that do work.

Edited

Wow.

As someone who works full time I'm glad I'm not this bitter.

Saschka · 20/03/2024 16:23

MILTOBE · 18/03/2024 13:47

It's quite funny that they want to move to the US and live in social housing. Do they know how difficult it is to move there?

Do they know what the Projects are like over there? Jesus I wouldn’t move into social housing in the US, free or not.

Papyrophile · 20/03/2024 21:15

No, me neither. And I lived in Jersey City. a poor city close to Manhattan (where I worked) in the US. Not projects. Too tough for me. I lived in a 30 apartment 1930s built apartment block with a private landlord who wasn't quick on repairs. But it was light and spacious and had a great view of the Hudson River and the World Trade Center, before 9/11. If my ex was still there, he would have seen the planes crash in. I was in the UK when that happened and I had to stop what I was doing because it would have been the view out of my kitchen window. I can't imagine the awfulness.

Flopsythebunny · 24/03/2024 20:19

LauderSyme · 18/03/2024 16:00

Social housing is definitely subsidised. I worked for Local Authorities for years, including collecting rent payments for some of those years. Councils don't charge full market rent or anything like it. They usually charge about half of the Local Housing Allowance, which is the maximum Housing Benefit that private tenants can get.

For example, three years ago in my local area, a three bedroom council house was approx £110 per week. A similar house rented privately at that time was approx £250 per week.

The rents collected cover the costs that the Council incurs by being a landlord so it's not that Council Tax payers are subsidising tenants. But Councils don't seek to make any profit like private asset holders do.

So not subsidised then?
Market rates are highly inflated by private landlords and not the true rates.

LauderSyme · 24/03/2024 23:13

Flopsythebunny · 24/03/2024 20:19

So not subsidised then?
Market rates are highly inflated by private landlords and not the true rates.

I agree with you. I even wrote a post upthread saying so. I'll post below so you don't have to scroll.

LauderSyme · 24/03/2024 23:14

LauderSyme · 18/03/2024 23:29

I disagree. Your conception of subsidy is limited. Council housing is not purely paid for by Council Tax remittances; there is no simple exchange of local resources.

The subsidisation results from the sacrifice made by holding the capital asset in the public realm rather than the private one. The public sector sacrifices the profit which the private sector would extract.

If councils were privatised overnight and became private landlords, rents would shoot up tomorrow because asset owners in a capitalist system demand a financial return.

If councils received the kind of money from renters that private corporations and individuals do in exchange for their property ownership, they would have much more generous budgets to invest elsewhere in their local communities. But they don't and they can't afford to.

The personal and social rewards reaped by the purchasing power of public money are evidently much more worthwhile than any private stash of cash.

But the payouts are for society's common good so are inevitably spread much more thinly, and don't just come in the form of an ultra high bank balance.

Decent housing is a fundamental human need whose provision is an ethical issue and should not be exclusively profit driven.

^

Swipe left for the next trending thread