To think social housing should be means-tested annually like benefits?

[EqualLedgerJay]

Situations change, why should lifetime tenancies exist if income rises? AIBU to think fairness cuts both ways?

It can only follow the market, despite all the scare stories we read.

How are they being subsidised? They are paying the rent. Full rent. The rent covers the cost of maintaining, running the property and overheads of the company that owns it.

market rent is a completely different beast. It doesn’t reflect the cost of renting a property: it reflects what the market dictates it’s worth.

social renters aren’t subsidised. They pay the rent. Exactly as private renters do.

If this ever happened, I would quit my job and take a NMW one instead, so not only would the "taxpayer" not get my house, they'd also lose out on the extra tax I pay by earning more than NMW.

Aside from the issue of the private letting market being insecure, I have spent literally thousands on this house.

You get that when people move into social houses, they are shells, right? And tenants have to decorate at their own cost, including floor and wall coverings. Who would bother doing that if they knew they'd be evicted for being promoted?

If you want things to be fairer, you do that by looking at the private rental market, not by making it unfair to everyone. We don't have to race to the bottom; we can lift the bottom up instead.

why do we have different levels of income tax? Why do some people get benefits and not others? Why do some people get childcare support? Why do you pay a higher rate of car tax when you’ve a more expensive car. Most government schemes have tiers based on income - including gaining access to social housing. Why then would the rent be different and not take income into account?

I’ve gone from NMW to >£100k and we still live in the same house we bought when we were both on NMW, in what is classed as a ‘deprived area’ with a high proportion of social housing and poverty. We love the areas have no need for a big fancy house in a fancy area and would much rather continue living near our friends and family in a community we’re happy and feel comfortable in. My ambition is to save a whole heaping load of money so my daughter can benefit when she needs a house deposit, or uni education, so she has a pension that will let her retire in comfort, so we have pensions that let us retire in comfort.

I can completely understand why someone would not want to leave their home, but I do think that the rent costs should be means tested, and the increased income from that should be used to fund the creation of more social housing.

Social housing is not a benefit. It isn’t comparable.

Where did I say that? I said all working people who pay tax should have a say. Think you may have jumped in without thinking there!

A lot of people who work and get benefits pay tax! A lot of people private rent who can’t afford it whilst others have a council house and could afford to private rent.

They are subsidised because, in the case of council housing, if the council are maximising the return they could get on their asset, they are changing the rest of us higher council tax to make up for it.

Tell yourself what you like to make it feel better, but anyone using council resources they don't need to is a piss taker.

Of course not, but with help from her daughter she was managing apparently.

Of course it is a benefit. It may not be a financial benefit but it is entirely comparable. Something just think it is the states job for the rest of us to give them a house. Piss takers.

No, this isn’t how it works at all.

firstly, councils rarely build social housing. They currently build a few hundred a year country wide. Even when they do, it is not from council tax.

social housing is primarily built by housing associations, who are private companies. They use their profits and loans to fund their builds.

First reponse nails it as always happens on here.

It's ludicrous for anyone to have to give up their social housing the second their income goes over say, £30K per year (for the whole household.) As you say, all it will result in is people being forced into private let for 3X more rent, (because very few people will be able to buy on such an income!) and being pushed into struggling financially again... And then they will have to go on the housing list to wait for another social housing property... Then when (if) they get one, they will be 'earning too much' (as the rent will be £800-1000 a month cheaper than private let!) and will have to leave again!!!

Counterproductive and ludicrous idea. And as you say, it will stop people from bettering themselves, because they won't want to lose their social housing home.

I HATE these threads, they come up every couple of months, and they're always started by someone who is bitter and angry and jealous that THEY haven't got a social housing property. And people supporting them are also bitter and jealous. Don't deny it, the bashing and berating of social housing tenants makes it obvious.

It's not a good look to resent people who have affordable, lifetime tenancies, and who don't have to worry about the repairs and maintenance, and the rent is paid if they can't work/don't work/can't afford it. People are safe and secure, and have a home for life where they can put down roots and be part of the community, yet some people resent this and want them to have it taken away.

What a miserable, bitter, sour attitude some people have...

What is needed is MORE SOCIAL HOUSING, not making people leave if they do well for themselves, and start to earn more money. And let's face it, VERY few people who have ever qualified for social housing are ever going to be high earners. Leave them alone FGS.

Oh and yes, they are not FREE, and they are not all 'provided at the taxpayers expense.' So many ignorant comments on here. 🙄

And not everyone in social housing is 'unemployed' either as some people think/make out. Around 60% of tenants have a job! And out of the other 40%, around 12% are pensioners.
.

.

That is a fair point. The houses are shells. No carpets, white goods etc. No light bulbs even. Who would want to start again from that point every year? Or face the prospect. Moving house is one of the top 5 most stressful events.

The PHILOSOPHY of social housing is housing outside the capitalist market. It is profitable like this, and the profits are reinvested in building more social housing.

going against the entirely philosophy of social housing which has been in place for close to 100 years, to compare it to income tax, is not only misguided, it completely misunderstands the aim and value of social housing and its place in our society.

no way would SS have force her into a home if this was objectively the case.

Yep, there was probably something do to with mental capacity at play here. You can be forced into a home if you lack it.

Written perfectly.

Thanks, you’ve saved me the effort of answering. You are right, in my opinion it’s a no brainer.

And the HAs are not for profit. The rents are put back into the properties for maintenance etc. Nothing is “free”. Honestly, the outdated, prejudiced ideas on social housing astound me. It is not subsidised. Unless you are in receipt of UC you pay rent. Most of the benefits bill goes into private rentals because of the inflated rates. If you built more social housing you could trim the bill massively. The working poor (40-odd hours a week) have their wages topped up to meet private rental prices. I know I’m wasting my breath because if you believe what you believe about SH I won’t be able to change that.

Yes. Market rate.

Social housing rent rates ARE what everyone should pay but that sadly has no bearing on reality. As it stands we should prioritise tax payer subsidies for those most in need. If there are people housed in council accommodation that are able to afford market rate then they should pay it.

Ultimately this could potentially incentivise those individuals to move, freeing up the accommodation for those most in need.

BTW, I grew up in council accommodation, my mum lived in one until she died. She was very much in need of it. I’m not against the use of council housing, just those that take advantage of it.

I would change the philosophy, and make social housing focus on those in need.

It disgusts me that there are people who are in desperate need of housing but it is full of people who are comfortable but can't be arsed to move somewhere where they can support themselves. How people justify this to themselves amazes me.

Yes i dont think peoole understand that it's basically just the house when you move in the flooring ,decorating etc is down to the tenant
People go on about new kitchens in social housing but its literally just the cupboards sink and work tops provided
All the white goods are the tenants own.

OK, but there's no plan to do that, which is why people are annoyed that they are working more just to end up with more insecure and unstable living situations

I don’t think the philosophy of social housing was to be renting it to people on 100k with grown up children for a 150 a week though 🤣

My parents have been in their council house for over 40 years. If they owned it, it would have been paid off a very long time ago. They do not claim housing benefit. Rent comes from my mum's wages.
How are they subsidised?

When they both die, I will have 2 weeks to clear the house of all their stuff.