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?

My LA offers financial incentives for under oocupiers to move to smaller homes. They can’t be forced to to move unfortunately.

Everyone knows what? That we have real protection for renters, unlike the UK? Or that we have rent controls? Or that we're building more social housing all the time?

There is a lack of housing and there are serious difficulties, but it's better than the UK.

I’m sorry are you stupid?

Why should people give up their homes that they’ve made their home just because they earn money. Private renters rip people off and don’t do repairs quickly enough for tenants and rise the rent at all costs. I agree with the downsizing incentive and that’s your lot. Cause these people in their big 3 bed houses when only need a 1 bed/2 bed makes sense but that being said that’s their family home. You clearly aren’t a social housing tenant and that’s where this nonsense comes from because you wouldn’t be saying this sat in a secure home like social housing. I mean I’m a private renters also and would love nothing more than a social house for more stability and security. So your answer is no I wouldn’t want to destabilise anyone.

I won't be downsizing when the kids leave, partly because, as I said, I've spent a lot of money on this house, but mostly because the thought of having to start all over again with another empty shell as an older person? No, just no.

I managed to save a lot because I was able to do the work myself, but will I still be fit enough to do that in 10/15 years? Or is it going to cost thousands more to get tradesmen in?

My answer to moving again into another unfinished hovel is absofuckinglutely not.

If I am offered a nicely decorated, ready-to-move-into house, maybe, but as far as I know, only new builds are like this, and new builds are mostly family homes, not one-bedroom flats or bungalows.

Why should people give up their homes that they’ve made their home just because they earn money

To give those who are starting out and in need of the help a chance.

Once you are earning and have the ability to purchase a place then it seems selfish to remain

People say that those who are elderly and are living in their own homes. Homes they own outright should move and down size to make way for young families so why not people who earn more and can afford to not take what is in effect a benefit.

Would we be destabilising anyone if they know when they move in there is an end date

My idea of signing up for a very reduced rent for example for 5 years and then focussing on getting a deposit together to buy and then moving out after 5 years would give more people a chance.

This idea of a community is very nice but we don’t have the money or the space to never have the movement of people and families handing down this benefit to their own children or family members

Some people just don't ever earn enough to put together a deposit.
And it's not possible to hand down a tenancy, it just doesn't work that way.

I don't object to increased rents as income increases in theory but not to making SH tenants as insecure as private renters.

Many ppl on this thread are insisting that its not a SH tenants home as they dont own it. Funny how that principle doesnt apply to council tax which is based on the value of a home the tenant doesnt own.

What’s your point?

Maybe they should pay more as they not only benefit from the safe services that private home owners do, but any of their house repairs are also covered by tax payers money

Many ppl on here keep insisting that tenants dont own their own home so i mistakenly thought that as CT is based on the value of YOUR home i thought ppl might put their money where their mouths are.

All in this together was the bullshit spouted during Covid. I didnt fall for it cos i knew we would be back to this default setting soon enough,

Where would private renters come into this?

No, they are covered by the rents the SH tenants pay. This level of misinformation is bizarre when you're literally holding an internet-connected device in your hands right now.

Bollox.

Welcomes deletion....

I was a supply teacher so in and out of employment.

My parents live on the outskirts of London. What they bought with a very modest one-person wage is now far out of the reach of two people on the same sort of wage. They rattle around in a four bedroom house as do all their friends in the same road. I’d guess about half their road is older couples in houses with at least one-two bedrooms more than they need. If all these people downsized, and housing hadn’t been commodified, there wouldn’t be any need for social housing for the majority of the people who need it.

The housing ‘crisis’ (which is international BTW so none of the ‘we’re a small island’ nonsense, please) is largely the result of housing turning from a utility into a commodity. Deliberately. Because capitalism needed to monetise desperation.

It goes like this: The market corrects things to the price people will bear. Laissez faire economics is FINE because if something is too expensive, people won’t buy it at that price and the price will fall. Super. And we all merrily let those free markets wankers in the door. Then they look around and people are not wanting to buy expensive things. CRAP that doesn’t work because they can’t squeeze any more money out of people for their yachts and helicopters and mars rockets. So they make housing the commodity. Suddenly people HAVE to kill themselves to afford housing or be homeless. Rich people park money in apartments in London (and other desirable places) which never see a single person living in them. Prices soar, sell off the social housing, BTL, REITs and money laundering. Housing becomes a commodity. Housing isn’t seen as a human right. Homelessness is seen as a personal failing.

And they convince OK-off people to punch at poor people. And poor people to blame poorer people. How the hell did they manage that?

Im hearing a lot of blah blah blah and its all resulting in fuck all solutions from you.

Are you saying you think it’s bollocks that someone’s repairs maintenance and property management is covered by the SH rent they pay?

because as above, it’ll take 2 seconds to verify that on your phone.

Can we:

Build hundreds of thousands of social housing homes / flats right now, put them in every town and city in significant numbers.

Available to anyone who wants one. But you can’t buy them - rent only.

Rent is means tested and then subsidised for those on low incomes.

Good quality construction, renewable energy built in, well insulated & efficient, and close to shops & public transport.

A national landlord effectively, bringing stability, removing stigma, delivering mixed communities of people from all backgrounds.

Build it, Labour - if you’re reading this. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of units. National housing scheme, for everyone.

This is a good idea

thing is the whole system needs to be fairer for everyone.

What a lot of SH tenants don’t understand is not all of us who privately rent or pay a mortgage are well off. Some of us are just scraping by and probs have even less disposable income than some people on benefits. There’s also a misconception that those in their own home are secure when they might not be as they’ve just bought it and could easily lose it.

There’s plenty of information as you say. Housing Revenue Accounts are ring fenced accounts held by local authorities. Rents come in, repairs and maintenance, staff costs etc., go out.

Exactly - people experiencing rent precarity / insufficient social housing capacity don’t see how private homeowners also struggle to meet mortgage payments.

Conversely, private owners often stigmatise social housing, perceiving it to be some kind of charity thing for “them” (making a face).

It should be for all of us. No stigma. No exploitation. Help for those who need help on rent (but they don’t get a shit version of the dwellings - we said no stigma and we meant it !)

There simply needs to be more social and affordable homes. At the moment housing benefit is covering extortionate private rents for people and families and it’s unsustainable.

You don't seem to understand that plenty of people in SH have privately rented and some may have previously had a mortgage too.

I'm 35 and have only been in SH for a year in January. Before that it was private rentals, several private rentals. I know exactly what it's like to be in a private rental.

I'd much rather struggle to pay a mortgage than I would a private rental because the only reason you'd lose your mortgaged house is if you stopped paying for it. Of course circumstances happen which can cause that but the security that as long as you pay, you won't be turfed out is a huge advantage and not to mention having an asset at the end of it and not having to pay rent during retirement etc.

Otherwise why do people bother buying if there are no advantages to it?