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?

What we really need is rent capping in the private rental market. Landlords make an inordinate amount of money out of the tax payer in benefit payments. Individuals and private business interests should not be enabled to profit from the basic human need for shelter. It should be prohibitively expensive to own more than the property you yourself permanently reside in and pay council tax for, unless it was let at capped rates.

You spelt Union big wigs wrong

In my experience it’s generally those who have overstretched themselves with a crippling mortgage who are most likely to be punching down to make themselves feel better.

Some of the views on here are breathtakingly short-sighted. Social housing is a safety net, not a family heirloom to be passed down because someone rented it first or has stayed put for 40 years. It exists to protect the most vulnerable. Yet here you are, sitting in an echo chamber reassuring each other while ignoring the c.170,000 children with a far greater need for a low rent home. The government will take time to catch up with demand, which is exactly why those in greatest need should come first. And the Grenfell references really are something else. Furious at the tragedy, but suddenly resistant to any reform that might actually stop vulnerable families being left in unsafe or unsuitable housing. I would put money on many of you cheering the lifting of the two child cap, as if that is remotely meaningful while those same children are expected to stay in cramped and inappropriate accommodation.

I think that is absolutely fair enough. I thoroughly believe in helping those that have fallen on difficult times or on lower incomes or concerning social housing even middle incomes ( as private rents are so high) A fair system where people pay rent according to their income ( but don’t have to move if they earn more) . And I most definitely think more affordable decent housing should be built urgently.

There would be a lot more social housing available if Thatcher hadn't introduced right to buy in attempt to gerrymander. Another Tory policy to keep the poor in their place. How I hate that woman, even now when she dead.

Paupers is highly offensive and egregious. Nobody should be made to feel less than for needing social housing.

The OP was making a point about how the current stock should be maximised to support a the neediest in our society. That the purpose of social housing has evolved and new policies should be explored to ensure that we are supporting people as best we can. Those people are not paupers!! They are simply people that need support, potentially more than others.

You can receive UC and pay tax.

I agree with that. If could be means tested so that after a threshold for slide from the charity rent to the market rate. Yield would increase enabling stock to be increased.

I certainly wouldn't get rid of social housing for those in need.

In my experience, those enjoying social housing benefits, or with family who do, are often perfectly content for more vulnerable people to be left struggling. They direct scorn upwards at anyone with more, while standing firmly on the necks of those below, convinced they are entitled to whatever they have simply because they already have it.

I am assuming you are on about me and my parents being in their house for 40 years. For starters, I wont "inherit" it. It can be passed down once, and that will be from DM to DF or the other way around. Even if I had just the one parent, I would have to have my name on the tenancy and actually live there for several years prior to their death too.
No one is getting a knock on their own door and being given a council house from a deceased relative.

My parents are in council housing. I am myself a vulnerable person on UC. So your logic doses not work

My comment was not just for you.

Define ‘more’

Rubbish

You being vulnerable is not a 'gotcha'. Some people in SH are vulnerable, some are not. Your need does not alter the need of other vulnerable people.

@NorthXNorthWest That is not my experience. Rather the reverse as seen throughout this thread.

Let's make that law.

Everyone should have to give up their house if their wages go up. Or when a child moved out. Private rent, bought houses and social housing.

Let's really even things out.

And yet post after post on MN says otherwise.

And the Grenfell references really are something else. Furious at the tragedy, but suddenly resistant to any reform that might actually stop vulnerable families being left in unsafe or unsuitable housing.

some of the unsafe and unsuitable housing IS social housing as Grenfell proved and yes i know some had bought their places.

Social housing is not and should not be just for the vulnerable

No, I am addressing this...

In my experience, those enjoying social housing benefits, or with family who do, are often perfectly content for more vulnerable people to be left struggling

My parents are in council housing, and I am vulnerable. How am I content for vulnerable people to be left struggling? You make no sense.

I am not in SH myself. I have no control over what my parents do.

I assume by your first three words here that you work in housing

I think the population in council property should ideally be mixed incomes but not paying the same level of rent ( paying according to income) To reflect society in general . More property needs to be built though so that both low and middle income families can benefit.

Probably most of them.