To think that the welfare state is too generous if people in council flats have way more stuff than those on middle income can afford (no really lets have a discussion)

[splodge2001]

Maybe it's where I live (central london) maybe it's me (hmm, I don't think so) and It's definitely something that's been ruminating around my head for a while. An argument I've tried to unpick but I always come to the same conclusion.

I'm sure I'm going to be lynched but I'm keen to get other people's perspective on this....Here we go...

Where I live private housing is expensive and intermingled with social housing. It's hard to tell the difference between the social housing and the private dwellings. Certainly on the open market they fetch very similar prices. I'm feeling grumpy because we (DH and I) pay a lot of tax which goes to the people down the road in social housing, of course we should pay tax to support those on low earnings BUT, it does start to grate when though people in subsidised housing seem to have much bigger disposable incomes. eg. everyone I know who lives in the council flats near us can afford a car, we cannot. They can afford several holidays per year, we cannot

Isn't the welfare state just a bit too generous to enable those on low incomes to afford more than those on higher incomes? Surely the point of welfare isn't to subsidise cars or 42inch TVs.

I'm sure I'll be told to move out of London if I want more but this doesn't address the issue that I'm raising. Why should I subsidise people living in central london when I cant afford to live here myself.

Analogy moment....

I have 5k and would like to buy a car, instead I'm forced to give up my 5k to the government, who instead gives it to someone else so that they can buy a car. Boo hoo!!!

Go on let the stoning begin!!!!

I always assumed those who 'have a lot' are not getting it from the state, but are supplementing their income with 'cash in hand' jobs, ebay deals, etc.

how do you know all this stuff about what other people do or don't have?

I know people in council flats who have ponies, they should probably be taken out and shot - right?

It's not possible to pay for a car and several holidays from benefits/ low income.

Council rents are low, but there isn't much housing stock left. Benefits are subsistence level. I don't know anybody on benefits who can put enough away for one holiday, let alone several, so I don't know who you are talking about, sorry.

well, I do often think it is a question of priorities too..

perhaps some people regularly pay for quality food, expensive clothes, spend it on their home (not necessarily 42" TVs), have care commitments elsewhere, pay for private tuition for their kids/music lessons/orienteering or whatever

membership of gyms, expensive coffee habit , holiday home

I dunno

the list is endless

but I know my choices in what I spend my disposable income on are quite different to others (or so it seems)

no, MitchInge they shouldn't that is really very far from what I'm saying. I'm talking about the unfairness of a giving so much that you have less than those you give to.

the trouble is that as soon as you open your mouth about this stuff you're branded as having right wing views. It's not really like that at all

OFFS! This again

Council housing doesnt mean people are on benefits. My neighbour lives in a council house but works 60 hour weeks, my Mum also lives in a council house and has two jobs.

yes ANYFUCKER - lol

you'd imagine it was to do with priorities but I can assure you we buy food and that's basically it. our toilet is broken, we cant afford a plumer, yet someone i know in social housing is having their bathroom done soon by a housing association and they've asked for a bidet.

Im not saying i shouldnt support those on low incomes just wondering why they seem to have more stuff. maybe the council flat for life thing is partly to blame. How come doctors I know are allowed to stay in council flats paying hardly any rent and then buying them at a grossly reduced price

benefits will not pay for a new car and several holidays a year. You'd be lucky if it stretched to one cheap (caravan on camping) holiday a year.

You are of course also fogetting that many who claim benefits are not in social housing at all, some are "owner occupiers" (with the bank still actually owning the house) or in private rented with HB paying for most of the rent and them topping up out of their benefits.

sorry plumber

What are you saying OP, that people who live in social sector housing should have a cap put on their earnings, should never do well in their jobs/careers, in case they offend people who don't live in social sector housing?

and tbh your thread title/op don't make sense as you're now talking about social housing but your title is on about benefits. They're not mutualy exclusive.

Out of interest, how do you know that specific people are on benefits and yet have cars and go on holdiays?

I've never met one.

I don't think it's the welfare state being too generous, I think it's more likely that these goods are from dodgy deals.

But I do understand the frustration. There's a woman down the road who doesn't work, nor does her partner. He has kids from another woman, she has kids from a previous relationship and between them they have 2 more.

They live in a housing association house and want for nothing. They have two cars and the teenage lad (who terrorises local elderly people) has a motorbike.

They often go on holiday and have a house full of equipment. Whilst dh and I struggle on £14k pa. Our TV is second-hand, as are our cars. We don't have sky or playstation or anything like that, no fancy hi-fi in our house and we have a family holiday once a year.

Yet we really do struggle to pay the bills. So yes, it IS frustrating.

But I'll agree with those who say that not everyone in a council house is like this. I grew up in a council house. Some people DO work hard and are honest, good people.

do you read the dm?

I think you must be confusing people in council houses who work, and have disposible income, but only your usual tax credits/child benefit that everybody can get, and people who are on benefits like Income Support etc etc.

The first group may have more disposable income than you, but that's just tough titties- you own your home, they don't; they are taking money off you either, and are paying tax same as you.

People on benefits because of a low income and/or disabilities and are being assisted by the taxes of a civilised society just aren't richer than you, sorry.

Perhaps you should get more cross about greedy tax-dodgers with million pound companies and fat cat bank bosses? They are the sort of people who are fleecing tax-payers mostly. They seem to slip under the radar though.

Another observation, if I may...

Be aware that what you class as "council housing" might actually be mixed. I live in a block of 25 flats where 16 are council and 9 are privately owned, and anyone can choose to buy a flat off the open market. So don't lump everyone in the block as council tenants because they aren't necessarily.

wot bof said.

A lot of people living this lifestyle maybe doing so on (unsustainable) credit.

We do not generally conspicuously consume, but save tens of thousands a year instead. This does not make us poorer than someone in a council house with a 52" TV and a brand-new Fiesta.

Of course the credit may never be paid back, but that's another story: my guess is that lending to the council house types of which you speak is still profitable, otherwise the banks (as private enterprises, at least until recently) wouldn't do it - the higher interest rates they are paying covers the cost of the defaults.

nor does benefits equal council house

I do know people like the ones she describes though. I suspect they fiddle their benefits, I can't see how they can afford their lifestyle otherwise.