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?

That has nothing to do with this thread. Start a new one discussing what PIP should be spent on if you want... it has been a few hours since we had a benefits/disabled bashing thread.

The Government’s rhetoric against tax payers is really going to cause division, we’re only seeing the beginning of it,. It’s entirely reasonable that SH is means tested every two years at a time when the people paying for it are being absolutely hammered through taxation.

When you reach a certain salary you pay more tax and/or lose benefits/support (child benefit, childcare etc). Why should housing be different? Yes some people will keep their salary below eg £100k to get childcare, but many will push on. We need to incentivise people to move on and buy their own properties so they can support themselves in retirement. The state pension alone is not sufficient to cover life and rent.

In principle I agree.

There of course need to be protections in place for pensioners, and people with school aged children etc.

Also a month would be far to short, I would have year to move out or they face increases to match private rental prices.

But yes I know a lot of people in council housing with a lot of disposable income who could easily afford to be a home owner, the payments on their cars could easily make up a mortgage payment each month. yet there are 11k on our LA housing list waiting.

I was not aware that a large number of people earning £100k+ lived in SH. If that's the case, why are they always on here whining about their massive mortgages?

If those who do pay for SH want to stop paying for it, I would suggest renting privately instead. Although, that seems a bit daft to me, but if they don't want the security of a permanent home, I guess that's up to them.

You’re missing an important detail, the people living in SH aren’t the ones paying for it.

Yes. They are.

RTFT.

That has been explained over and over and over with evidence provided.

Social Housing is funded by tenants' rent.

If you don't want to pay for it, no one is going to force you to live in one.

If you can find actual evidence that taxpayers fund it, then please, feel free to link it.

Hmm, I will tell my parents that then. I am sure they would welcome not having to pay their rent.

PIP and DLA csn be used for anything that benefits the disabled person including housing costs.

I think people need to get over all this with social housing.

`Assured tenancies are what they are, and no government will change that. The older tenancies are legally binding.

I improve where I live and cause no aggro to anyone. 🤷‍♀️

Yes, we need more social housing to cut down on so much money being spent, on benefits, to private landlords.

I pay my £900 per month in rent by myself - no benefits, top ups or reductions for me.

That's the answer - not just shuffling people from social housing to private and back again. 🙄

Yep.

and the only reason why some people live in SH is because they have a disabled child or are disabled themselves.

@XenoBitch It is worth pointing it out to them, there is an amazing amount of ignorance around who is actually paying for net tax takers lifestyles. It may be also worth mentioning who pays for the schools, police, NHS, bin collection, child benefit etc

That £900 will be around 60% of the cost, the other £600 a month is paid for by me.

I’m cringing for you. Read the thread- or have a google. Tax payers do not pay for social housing.

when you have so little knowledge, you really shouldn’t be so aggressive. It’s all the more embarrassing

My mum works and pays tax. They pay full rent.

Really 🙄

Haha, what a joke, eh?

is this some sort of new scheme where a MNetter can pay towards the rent of another?

I would like to thank all the tax payers including myself 😆

No. No they’re not. Obviously. It is absolutely absurd to pretend otherwise.

You will use some socialist gymnastics that it pays for itself as otherwise the tax payer would be paying private rents on their behalf.

It’s what happens when you pay more tax into the system than you take out. How did you think it worked?

No, they are not. Why won’t you don’t research to check? You have no knowledge or experience so why are you so convinced you’re right?

You just don't understand how SH works and is funded. It has been explained multiple times on this thread.

Please explain how you have come to this conclusion.

How much tax, precisely, is spent on SH each year?

I am. No-one else 🙄

Nope, they pay less tax than they take out and the rent is a token that will barely cover the maintenance let alone recover the build cost or opportunity cost.