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.

But we were talking about the "subsidizing"

Whats the incentive for people to earn more if it means they lose the security of a social tenancy and pay more for not being able to decorate your home and landlord puts you on 6 months let's so insecure private rentals

Then where is the incentive for anyone in SH to earn more? Who's going to think " yeah I'll apply for a promotion/better job", if they know that promotion/better job might mean losing their home or their rent getting increased which would wipe out any increase in £ that promotion/better job may bring.
So many people complain about "sink estates" but woe- betide anyone in SH actually trying to get on in life.

as I understand from this thread, it’s the security that SH provides that’s so wonderful.

doesnt that make it more unfair to those who have a mortgage? Who are paying shitloads more, but have less security than someone in SH?

im a life long leftie but something is very wrong with SH model now. It seems that some people are protected from the horrors of life through having a SH place, when they have no extra need to be thus protected. And others, in exactly the same situation re work, income, have no such protection. Is it that which feels so unjust?

I was talking about movement from bigger to smaller social housing based on needs not on income. All social housing is subsidised by being cheaper than private sector rental. Not talking about income at all, just size of property to free up homes for families currently occupied by single people or a couple.

Getting a council house is like winning the lottery today, vs having to live in private rented accommodation.

I’d say for young adults today the likelihood of getting g a council house as a couple while in full time employment are incredibly low - zero, in many areas.

But as I pointed out the tenants in social housing are paying above the costs to the council so not subsidized.

And smaller SH properties are not necessarily cheaper either ( my OH worked in high up position in a SH company)

Clue's in the name there really, isn't it? HAs are getting funding to build new houses, not to subsidise rent.

I feel the opposite, good quality, secure, affordable housing should be the standard for all. I own so no skin in the renting game but I grew up in a council flat and when I was 18 I rented a council flat. Not through any need just applied and they let me view one.

I gave it up a year or so later and moved to a private rental as wanted to be in the city centre. It’s really populations increases / right to buy so less social housing stock. I think we need to invest in social housing. More social housing means less competition for private rentals and will bring down prices.

It’s not free but it is subsidized. We give billions to fund affordable housing each year not including the fact that generally local councils housing departments don’t cover their costs. Also obviously social housing providers don’t pay tax as private landlords have to. Not to say any of that is wrong but we should be honest that we are subsidizing social housing

Come on though, cheap or not, they aren't nice places to live. I did 5 years as a volunteer police officer, and every single shift we were at the council estates for something or other. It was absolute carnage. Most people didn't work, never cleaned their homes, often drunk by noon, shouting, fighting, honestly it was horrendous. I felt very sorry for the few (and it was only a few), decent people who were there having to live amongst that shit show.

Even if that were true, the fact the taxpayer is funding the building of the housing is a subsidy.

I grew up in a council estate and mine wasn’t like that at all and still isn’t

They are subsidised as in paying much cheaper rents than in the private sector. A massive advantage. Tenancies are also much more secure. A win really for people who get them.

They’re not paying above cost.

And the fact that low income people didn't cause the property boom in London, largely didn't profit from it and yet are the ones who are suffering most from its effects doesn't offend your "strong sense of justice"?

It depends on people's frame of reference. Many will operate within a very narrow circle of friends and acquaintances and will read and believe the tabloids.

If people are well rounded then they will know how the world turns.

The issue is that private rents are too high

It does need reviewing, the best outcome would be affordable housing for everyone. I do feel though that life long tenancy agreements are wrong for social housing. My parent in laws have been offered a one bedroom but have refused to move.. They see there council house as there house when it’s not, they we’re given it 40 years ago because they had a young family. The rule should probably change to, yours until your children leave education and people would either have to downsize to whatever they are offered or private rent. It’s disgusting when you think of the amount of homeless families and children living in hotels or damp temporary accommodation on a housing list for years, yet you’ve got a four bedroom house being wasted on two 75 year olds who should have had to move out years ago.

That's not what "subsidised" means, as already pointed out upthread. The only thing being subsidised is the mortgages of private landlords whose tenants have to claim housing costs from the state.

It's not that social rented housing is cheap, it's that private rented housing is expensive, and I think it's really important to normalise this perspective.

Depends on the area . The old builds in my area are 550 ish a month that's for a 3 bed. In private for this area its at least 2000. Mine is called affordable rent and is 1000 a month but its a large new build.

It is true, I can assure you. And social housing owned by the state or not-for-profit entities is a common good, and represents far better value to the taxpayer than subsidising buy to let landlords.

Built in large enough quantities, it represents the best way we have for stabilising property values, short of a highly damaging crash.

Ok so they are paying £. 150 a week rent on a house that the building costs have been paid off decades ago. What costs are not being covered. Bear in mine very few repairs are done?

I have a mortgage free flat. If someone paid me £150 a week to live there ( they paying the bills and council tax also) what " costs" of mine are they not covering

That’s great you have been able to do that.

But unless your situation had stayed the same, and you decided to find a way to increase your salary.
Then your situation was only temporary, because you now have a partner, so your circumstances have been able to change.
For some of us that will probably never happen. I will have to rely on UC probably even if I moved miles away.

My DSis is in social housing, specifically disabled social housing (her child is disabled). She's had new windows paid for, a new kitchen, an extension put in, and all manner of other smaller bits and bobs, all paid. She now wants to buy it.
Partner works full time in a decent job but 'keeps all his own money', whatever the fuck that means.

What the state pays for and towards needs massive reform.

70/80%ish of social housing tenants receive housing benefits. So for a significant portion, it will be essentially free housing.