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?

@RadialEffergy

I said the burden is on the payers not the non payers. The outrageously selfish demands is in reference to …well the outrageously selfish demands and utter refusal to admit they’re already taking far far too much from decent working families. It’s time to stop just thinking of yourself

Just admit you’re subsidised, obviously selfishness and lack of understanding about the burden you’re putting on families has played its part and that it’s unsustainable for such a small group of people to pay for everything. People need to reign it in, get realistic and start pulling their weight or the whole country is going to suffer

Where has anyone who is a net recipient expressed selfishness or outrageous demands? You are the one saying they are, and getting in a tizzy about it.

AGAIN, what do you think should happen about social housing?

No it is not. It is 11bn raised by the housing revenue account. Can’t you read?

Who said that? I said it’s not unreasonable to mean test every two years. You just decided to have a really weird argument with me that SH isn’t subsidised

Annually? No

I can read yes, you’ve called Government spending something in capital letters. Well done. Have a little think logically for a couple of minutes.

You’re claiming I said net tax recipients are a burden and then quoted me saying the burden is on net tax payers, what am I missing here?

Are you joking about the selfish outrageous demands for freebies? Have you missed the last two budgets?

AGAIN, allocation of SH means tested every 2 years.

Where I live, people applying are means tested anyway. If you are a single person on £30k, you can't get on the list. If you are a couple on £40k, you can't get on the list. If you have £16k in savings, you can't get on the list.

What would the threshold be if you test every 2 years? Someone on NMW would be turning down a promotion or avoid getting a better job, and who could blame them if they lost their secure housing for doing so.

Means testing it would stop people wanting to better themselves.

How do you work that out. Remember the rent is to cover costs not profiteering

According to them, the rent does not even cover maintenance of the property.
That might be the case if you lived in Buckingham Palace, but not your average home.

We don’t seem to have a problem with taxing someone earning over £100k at 62% and removing any right to childcare vouchers, well I do but you won’t. We don’t seem to have a problem with taxing children’s education or double taxing pensions. Same logic applies, it can be means tested at the same as for a new applicant every two years with a 5 year max stay. Its still very generous of the net tax payers, no more free rides for life I’m afraid.

It’s the average subsidy amount.

I have not mentioned people on £100k being taxed, or anything about childcare vouchers etc so don't put words in my mouth.

So under your system, someone who still earns under the threshold would be evicted after 5 years?

The irony is that they would then be homeless and eligible for SH housing again.

No I mentioned it, I just assumed you’re a Labour supporter and like the idea of a 60% marginal rate.

Yes, they can reapply at the back of the queue in that case, whilst someone else gets a shot. Once past retirement age, then the 5 years max no longer applies.

No, I don't even know what a marginal rate means. I am not into politics, and I did not vote for Labour. Again with the assumptions.

Really, so you would make a family homeless, that has done nothing wrong, to make way for another family? That is just plain illogical. People are not chess pieces to be shunted around.

It means they pay 60% income tax on a portion of their income above £100k, but lots of people like to word it as if they are paying 60% tax on their total income. The reality is they actually pay closer to 43% on their income as a whole and still take home approximately £5.5k per month.

How about those who are disabled or have disabled children?

The 30 year cost of Gilt borrowing to build a 200k build would be around 9k per year which is £750 a month, with added costs of say £100 for maintenance, insurance, admin you’d need to charge £850 a rent. You would not have paid any of principal off at all. Now I know it can be argued that this is magic money, but it doesn’t wash. These are conservative estimates. No the rent doesn’t cover the maintenance and costs.

Tricky one, depending on circumstances they can be treated as high priority when reapplying. I have a friend with a disabled child who now pays tax on her education, same logic applies.

High priority when applying? How generous of you.

What if they are in social housing because they need adaptions to their home? You can't make adaptions to private rentals, or a box in the street.

Which is?

People keep on about build costs but most council housing is around 50 years old so paid off long ago. So only maintenance. This is much less than actual rent charged

It’s easier to be generous when your family aren’t the ones paying for it, that’s basically my point. I am just as happy for you to fund housing for people as you are for me to, it’s just that I actually do.

40%.

Fucking hell, they are disabled. That could be you or anyone in your family one day.
Just as well your little dystopia is not a real thing.

I get it, you want other people to pay for it. I do too. We’re agreeing.

I have insurance to cover my family for these events, well until the premiums are taxed anyway. I am a responsible person.

Good for you. Not everyone can afford insurance, or even get it to begin with.