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?

Who said ‘attacking’? Why is means testing a state benefit meant for those in need ‘attacking’ people?

Am not sure many jobs will ensure income remains permanent anymore ( or if job is secure). There is also the chance that health changes dramatically and many other variables.

🙄🙄🙄

People would game it to stay in social housing, by reducing their hours or income. It wouldn’t work.

The only way to solve the problem is building more housing of all tenures.

Your first 3 words show exactly what’s behind this and every other benefit bashing or disability bashing thread ever made.

It’s just sour grapes behind this attitude.

It's not a benefit and its not meant for those in need.

I remember when I was about ten they were looking at exchanges. People would post on newsagents windows or in local papers - 3 bed house in Bristol to swap for same in London, type thing. Definitely no bids, whatever they are. We didn’t swap in the end. Neither are here to tell me how they qualified but they were two young, able bodied, working class people. I always got the impression they got a property once married and before kids.

Well we can, if we want to end up a wildlife-less, insect-less hellscape with only the odd astroturfed park and horrendous flooding.

This island cannot cope with any more building. We are heavily overpopulated and it’s having a horrific effect already.

Yes, it would be like people on UC who only work so many hours so their benefits are not affected.

There is more love for prisoners than there is for SH tenants on here A quick search will tell you that.

It’s subsidised by the taxpayer and the triage is those in need so… yes.

There was probably far more availability.

I agree it should be reassessed, perhaps not yearly but if you meet a certain threshold, like becoming a higher rate tax payer or wealth in excess of £100k. I know a handful of people who rent from council and could easily afford to privately rent or buy but choose not to as they have it so cheap. They’re taking that housing away from much needier people. It really doesn’t sit right with me.

Why would we want people to have insecure housing? It’s best if people can put roots down and move when they want to. I would end right to buy and discounts though so the stock is available for people who need it let through fair social letting.

Its for those who need housing.

Many, many households cannot afford private rents or tobuy a house, despite working hard.

So its a necessity.

How is it subsidised by the tax payer ?
My house was built in the 60,s so has been paid for over and over again by tenants paying rent ,the repairs come out of rent money .

As a point of fact, it's incorrect that social housing is triaged by need.

For example, lots of areas have properties for older people only. There isn't provision to prioritise someone younger for one of these homes over candidates who meet the age requirement, even if their need is greater.

Well you know that sum of money you pay to the mortgage company it will cover the loan you took out to buy your home and the interest, different products mean you pay it off in different ways

it takes a long time to pay it all off, the but when you do the property is yours

i didn’t think I would be explaining in simple terms how mortgages work

Great point!

thats not what social housing is. It’s a great thing. If you don’t want to live in a highly developed socialist market economy don’t, but don’t try and change it.

social housing is rooted in secure safe housing for the long term. You’re talking about upending everything it’s built on.

So you’re suggesting that as soon as people earn enough money they should leave their home? And go where? Somewhere that’s more expensive for them?

why is it always the poorest who are targeted? Let’s extrapolate for a moment. What about people who inherited properties for example. Private home owners who have bought properties cheaply- should there ever be some readjustment of wealth? Should they have to give their house to someone else if they don’t need all the space?

someone in social housing should have some security too. Who wants to be put through the stress and hardship of moving out of their home that might mean a lot to them? It’s the fact that we treat this underclass of society, as being unimportant and undeserving.

the poorest people who manage to get social housing should be able to live there without fear of being put out if they manage to earn more money. If they can earn enough to buy a property and have some true security then wonderful for them, but if not why should they be forced to pay a private rent to a wealthy landlord just so that they don’t get too comfortable.

Ever lived in social housing op?

In what way do you think it’s subsidised by the tax payer?

I think it’s a shame when you have single people or a couple in a family size home with gardens and then small children living in flats.

It is means tested in the first instance. My dd can't get in list unless I chuck her out as she is safe in a good home with a good income.

But I'm not willing to do that to her.