AIBU to question Reform's plan to prioritise married couples for social housing?

[QueenSophia]

Reform have proposed to prioritise social housing for various groups : 'Rules would be changed to reserve at least half of all social homes in England for British-born workers aged under 35, with prioritisation also given to married couples, veterans, victims of domestic violence and care leavers.'

I agree with DV victims, those with children, care leavers : veterans are also at high risk of homelessness. But why prioritise married couples over single people? I'm not convinced that's fair. I assume it's to encourage marriage which is a good aim but I'm not convinced if this is the right decision.

I didnt say non council homes didnt get hot Stop gaslighting

A man with no job is given a home and pays less than a 100 a week for it out of his UC. Gets everything fixed for him. It’s obviously subsidised somewhere along the line despite council tenants insisting it’s not. Can’t really be bothered to argue this particular point tbh

Also you cannot have tiered citizenship. That's a feature of the worst regimes out there. Either you're a citizen and enjoy equal rights or you're not.

Well of course, why wouldn’t they be? Who would look after the children of their parents were sent to war? The childfree?

Then what was the point in this comment from you:

“A social housing flat in the south east Well if his flat gets up to the temps that mine does he will have paid for it in pure sweat this summer as well as the £100“

Ive been sweating all summer too while paying a lot more money for the pleasure

Tagged the wrong person meant for @JenniferBooth

Because social housing is providing your mother with a safe secure home! Don’t you value that? Don’t you want your mum safe and secure?!

The government literally announced £16bn of new social housing subsidy this morning. They taxpayer is now subsidising it much more directly because S106 has stopped working so well, and because they want to see an acceleration of social housebuilding and direct subsidy is the only way to do that.

There are experts on this thread explaining why it isn’t subsidised, just read those posts

Here is a link to today’s announcement of £16bn of new subsidy, as part of a £39bn subsidy programme.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-social-and-affordable-homes-programme-and-the-reinvigoration-of-council-housebuilding/the-social-and-affordable-homes-programme-and-the-reinvigoration-of-council-housebuilding

Yes but the national housing bank is new. That hasn’t subsidised anything yet. That doesn’t factor into the “social housing is subsidised” argummet

They are not remotely market rate though.

Of course you can't be bothered. Firstly your anecdote is clearly imaginary. Secondly you're on shaky ground. We know this because you're not arguing your point, you're unleashing a string of assumptions and insults in an attempt to get me to disclose my personal situation, therefore distracting attention from the fact that you're talking nonsense.

TL:DR? People who don't have a cogent argument are disproportionately likely to claim that they "can't be bothered" to prove their point.

Market rate is just a number. Why is market rent the “right” number?

Many people would argue that social rent is the “right” number and private landlords should be charging it (and many effectively do, in parts of the country where social rent = market rent, and sometimes market rent is lower than social rent)

I don’t have to base my worldview around my mother she’s almost retirement age and lived in social homes (swapped a few times) her whole adult life. If things were how I think they should be she’d probably just of brought a house all them years ago.

True, but social rents aren't subsidised. Market rents are inflated.

I can’t be bothered to argue whether it’s subsidised or not when it obviously is. Just like arguing whether the man I knows house was given to him for “free” or not. It’s literally just semantics. Of course an unemployed man who’s 100 a week rent in the south east is paid by UC is living there for free

I haven’t insulted you. Only assumption I made was that you don’t privately rent or have a mortgage. And I think I’m right or you’d know what a bargain less than 100 a week rent is in the south east.

It would be better if the state just took charge of most rented housing. Seems unfair that some groups cannot escape the punitive private housing market just through circumstance. I would never qualify for social housing in a million years but private rents are obscene!

Also I am not sure that private rents are massively inflated when mortgage and maintenance costs are factored in.

"It obviously is" isn't an argument, it's an uninformed opinion. Nor is somebody pointing out that you don't have any evidence for your claims "literally just semantics".
Your original point wasn't that your imaginary man lived "for free". You claimed social housing is free. It isn't.

Why are you so desperate for this personal information? Why do you think it's any of your business? You're clearly happy to give out an awful lot of personal detail online but you have no right to demand others do the same.

I agree that rental accommodation should be owned and run by the state. In my utopia there would be no private rentals! In reality I don't see why their role should be anything other than minimal.

I suppose in some cases market rents can reflect mortgage and rental costs but then again, should the user of a service be responsible for ensuring that service turns a profit? It's another argument for a massively increased social sector that would benefit us all (not least because the housing related benefits bill would shrink and what was still paid would go back into the public purse rather than private pockets!).

Would you prefer “ridiculously cheap and living life on easy mode” instead of “free” it’s more accurate I suppose. You clearly have no idea how much private renters and mortgagees pay and I’m not even just talking about the pure monthly cost but deposits and stuff plus every time you move another deposit or a whole tax for home owners. Council tenants trade homes on facebook like Pokémon cards

I’m not asking you to give out any information I already know you don’t private rent or have a mortgage

You know nothing because I don't give out personal information online. You're making lazy assumptions because you think that they somehow prove a point that nobody even cares you're trying to make.

If you don’t care why are you responding?