To think that there is a misunderstanding about social housing.

[Bitchesbelike]

On social media, lots of people assume that people in social / council housing are getting a free house and don’t work.

i grew up in social housing: my dad worked from age 15 to 65.

my brothers have worked since they were 16 and both live in social housing.

its not “free housing”: it’s rented, affordable accommodation.

Thanks for this post Its come in handy for elsewhere.

I don't necessarily think they need to be grateful. Is everyone who uses the nhs, state schools, universal childcare grateful, probably not.
But definitely need to be respectful, and realistic

Also evident on here is lack of insight in who is actually a net contributor. Some people saying 'I work and pay tax and therefore I am subsidising myself', without recognising that they are only subsidising themself if they are a net contributor, which is unlikely unless they are a high earner, without children or significant health needs. DH and I have a combined annual salary of 80k, only benefit we get is the universal child benefit of around £20 per child per week, for 2 children. Both in state primary. I worked out that with schools cost, nhs use and the universal child benefit we are either neutral or slightly net takers. If we with our decent income are net takers, then most people are also. We rely on a relatively small number of very high earners (who probably use private schools and healthcare) to subsidise a lot of our public services.

So what would happen if all the care workers quit tomorrow so they could become high earning net contributors.

@Bushmillsbabe I believe that anyone that uses state services should be grateful. These things aren't in place in other counties and it's very dangerous to not acknowledge that these are good things to have and someone somewhere is funding them.

Without this kind of recognition then we get mad policies like the non dom policies that drive the rich out of the country when we already have scarcity of net contributors. We also have people abusing the system and taking all they can get because they perceive it to be 'free' when it most certainly isn't.

Like some did with furlough

But if they could,wouldn't they have done so already?
I get there is some level of social conscience in employment choices - for example, my full time nhs salary is about 55k (I'm not full time due to a disability), I could earn more with less abuse in private practice, but I believe in the value of my job and the greater positive impact in the nhs),

I have huge respect for them and valuable job they do, but I doubt many would struggle on NMW if they could tomorrow just decide to earn 200k

Yes, some definitely took to mick, but for many it was only way they could pay their mortgage. The alternative was they would lose their house, and then put even more pressure on already stretched social housing. This was a one time only event, with hindsight definitely things could have been dine differently, hindsight us always 20:20

Would you genuinely rather there not be social housing, and more of your precious taxpayers' money goes on paying the inflated rents of private landlords, subsidising their personal mortgages?

You would actually prefer to pay more tax as long as the ungrateful peasants get the kicking they deserve?

Nice.

Where did I write any of this? I think you're projecting what you want me to believe to make me the villain of your piece.

As it goes, I want social housing utilised to best advantage and efficiently. I don't think people should be able to hog under occupied accommodation or stay in subsidised social housing when they can clearly afford to house themselves. Social housing will always be a limited resource so allocating it to one person will directly mean that another person goes without.

Private rentals absolutely do have their place. They can sometimes be a cheaper option for the state when you factor in the true cost of building, maintenance and the opportunity cost of tying so much money in housing that is delivering a poor ROI each year. Often landlords have interest only mortgages so the idea that the state is paying all of these landlord's mortgages off is plain wrong. You only need to look at the exodus of landlords from the private market to see that it's hardly the lucrative investment it once was and many are now actively losing money.

They are in place in other countries, obviously.

I meant they are not in place in all other countries. Particularly not the comprehensive systems we have in the UK.

There are plenty of countries with far better systems.

Thinking about all this maybe look at other countries. Take Singapore for example. It's a modern well off country yet the majority of its residents ( nearly 80%) live in social housing.
Yet is doesn't seem to suffer a huge amount of anti social behaviour which according to some are all social housing tenants causing it

Singapore is not comparable to the UK. Its GDP per capita is almost double the UK. Put simply, there is a lot more money to go around. Also Singapore uses a hell of a lot more immigrant labour compared to the UK and these people will not be eligible for social housing unless they gain permanent residence which isn't easy for unskilled workers.

Agree on all of that.

I don't think people should be able to hog under occupied accommodation or stay in subsidised social housing when they can clearly afford to house themselves.

It’s a good thing they don’t then, because social housing isn’t subsidised.

It is subsidised. Directly or indirectly or even through opportunity cost.

Could a non for profit company without any interaction with the state afford to build accommodation for SH tenants and charge the same rent that is currently being charged to SH tenants? They absolutely couldn't.

But they do. They borrow the money and the rents incorporate an element for repayment. Not that it’s even relevant because so little social housing has been built in the recent past.

This is astonishingly rare. Social housing usually is built with extremely cheap capital, land or through doing a deal with developers for a percent of homes to be SH.

The reason so little SH has been built is because none of this is really scaleable.

There is social housing being built, around 20,000 per year on average - which is the size of small to medium town being built every year! The issue is that roughly the sane number are being lost to Right to buy, so not within current housing stock. Saying that, there are still people living in those, so we are housing an extra 20 thousand families year on year.
Part of the challenge is the breakdown in families - so where a mum and a dad and 2 children were living in 1 property, they are now living across 2 properties, meaning demand has gone up, so rents have gone up. Of course, people shouldn't stay in relationships which aren't working for them, but this change has increased the strain on housing, and on other services.

I'm grateful that I can afford somewhere to live on the pittance I earn because the work I have done and still do is completely unvalued but needed and demanded by society.

Scores of people are effectively subsidising the services we use every day by way of low wages, so the cost is lower to either the tax payer or the customer. Where's the gratitude for that? Non existent that's where, you're told to go and get a better job, while people wring their hands because of recruitment and retention problems in areas like social and childcare.

So maybe this gratitude should extend to the people doing the lowest paid work in society, that we all benefit from, that means they need social housing or benefit top ups in the first place to not be living under a bridge somewhere unable to afford to live without it, because they're also subsidising services people use every day without a thought, by way of being paid less than can be independently lived on.

Be careful what you wish for, because taking away that subsidy won't just affect people like me who need it in the first instance, but the people who need and rely on the services we provide too, that think they pay for everyone else to have the life of Riley while they struggle, when in fact they're also benefitting from being subsidised by paying less to start with, because someone is doing the work for less than they can live on.

Where's the gratitude for that? Non existent that's where, you're told to go and get a better job, while people wring their hands because of recruitment and retention problems in areas like social and childcare

Yep the cognitive dissonance is stark

I don't think anyone suggests taking it away from those who are earning low salaries, especially those carrying out essential roles. As you say, everyone should be paid a living wage and not need to rely on benefits or subsidised housing, but until this changes then this support needs to be provided.

The 2 points of disagreement seem to be

• lifetime tenancies without review of circumstances, that people remain in large social housing properties as a couple or single person, when they may be able to move to a smaller private rent for same cost, or stay in social housing when increase salary and could afford to privately rent or buy
• whether social housing rents cover the costs of building and maintaining them and are subsidised

Of course there are more ways to contribute to a society than paying tax and you are absolutely right to highlight that lots of people earning less than a living wage are fulfilling societally important roles that add value to us all. I wouldn't for one second deny this and I think we all should be grateful for the people that do this. I think most people would agree that housing low paid, essential workers is why SH should exist alongside housing those who genuinely can't work due to disability or illness.

The controversy though is around the entitlement that some people have towards tax payer funded benefits like SH. I mean even the denial that it is subsidised in the first place speaks volumes and the reluctance to accept that it really isn't possible for us all to be housed in subsidised housing. Too many people think that it is their right to have housing (and lots of other things) subsidised by everyone else irrespective of whether they actually need such a large home anymore or if they're actually doing anything societally useful.

It is the genuinely needy that I feel sorry for as ultimately they are the ones that lose out. There aren't homes for families working in shortage, essential, underpaid industries because too many people are sat on lifetime tenancies and don't want to give up the advantage this gives them. They truly believe that they are entitled to essentially block other people from being houses adequately because they don't want to pay more rent or don't want to move to a smaller property or worse area. It is outrageous and shouldn't be allowed.

All those saying we should move out and buy our own place….i actually could get a mortgage here on my SH home through right to buy scheme.

happy with that?