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?

Because it was relevant to this thread.

Well, yes
I’m of the opinion you should always ask for forgiveness not permission

Annually? Are you insane? Or just incapable of thinking about something for longer than a minute? The cost of your suggestion would be astronomical. God.

There isn’t enough decent affordable housing available ( not just in the UK either) That needs solving first and foremost
Also Interest only mortgages should never have allowed as that pushed prices up at the time and they’ve never really come down significantly .

There absolutely isn’t enough.

We should be building a metric fuckton of social housing for all right now.

Hundreds of thousands of units.

The reality is that the State loves people getting mortgages because it forces them to work for 25 years.

That’s a short expectation of working life! Men of my generation expected to work almost double that, at least those did who left school at 15. Women a bit less, no childcare, much more intensive housework etc., and an earlier retirement age.

Now with equalised state pension ages, and leaving education later, most people will still work for 40+ years, unless they can take early retirement.

i think the reality for a lot of us was that by buying, we had a choice of where we lived. And if we didn’t stay in one place, getting social housing was well nigh impossible.

I worked for 45 years and that’s a few years less than many women my age have. Most started work when they were 15.

I started work at 15, but the job I had at 15 is substantially different to the one I have now. I only really started earning well about 5 years ago!

To be fair, my SH landlords do allow for this, provided the contractors are legal and proper companies.

Ive ripped out my kitchen, bathroom and bedrooms for complete refits.

I, as a SH tenant, worked from 16 until my 60’s. I’ve never claimed any benefits, top ups or otherwise.

Home buyers haven’t got the monopoly of being in work, and claiming no benefits. 🙄

You were still working. 🤷‍♀️

I didn’t say they did but you haven’t had to save up a deposit for your home and you have paid below the market rent your whole life. Your rent has been subsidised by the State.

There's that bloody word again 😡 subsidised

Not if she's paid full rent, only if she's received UC or the former HB. If she's not received benefits and paid the full rent out of her earnings then it's not subsidised.

And yet not a word about the article i posted about the SH tenants subsidising the owners gym while also not being allowed to use it.

SH rents are what rents should be. Private landlords inflate their rent and are profit driven. SH is not.

Also, my parents have been in their council house for nearly 40 years. How is their rent subsidised?

Private rents are based on the market, supply and demand, it is the market level. SH rents are lower because they are subsidised by the State/ taxpayers. If you buy a place with a mortgage you still have to pay to fix the roof, replace the windows, major works etc, with SH the State pays for those things.

Those things are paid for when you rent privately too.

FFS. Does no one understand how to use Google anymore? Or do they just not bother to fact-check what Betty-from-down-the-road tells them before repeating it?

This is easy to check; the government publishes all of its spending each year. @1457bloom Please tell me how much money the "State" spent on social housing repairs last year?

I'm cringing for @1457bloom 😬

Then again, these threads always bring out the posters who know very little about social housing, and always come out with that myth that 'taxpayers' support people in social housing/social housing is freeeeeeeeee lalalalala.'

Don't get mad at these posters who are spouting nonsense. An eyeroll is all the silly comments deserve. They're so wrong it's actually almost funny!

It would appear not @Frequency. Depressing, isn’t it?

Disagree. What should be changed is anti social tenants being allowed to stay

So who actually owns the social housing properties ?