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!!!!

Always, I am delicately aware and not at all dismissive of such theory, e.g Maslows hierarchy of needs, Althusser etc. I know its not black and white, just think a line has to be drawn somewhere and that somewhere should be in circumstances where they provide an excuse and coverage from not contributing to society. I'm just not a fan of living on a one way street.

Thanks for the direction towards 'Estates', I will def look this up. I'm interested in German theory.

Nowt worse than a dodgy dongle expat. Nice to see you back.

< hijack >

hi expat,glad to see ya, I was asking after you only yesterday....

It is a serious discussion that the country needs to have, though. The problem is that so few people can be dispassionate and removed from the subject as to look at it objectively. And even if they could, perhaps being completely removed from the subject is not the best place to judge it from.

Has anyone said this?

You dont have to be on benefit to be in a council flat.
You may have been housed when you were out of work or otherwise disadvantaged but having a secure home allowed you to get yourself together and earn some money.
There is no law to say you have to move out of council accomadation when you begin to earn money (nor is there one to kick OAPS out because their family have left home).
People are free to spend their money on 'stuff' if they choose. They may not go on holiday or have a pension. That is up to them.
Not all people who live in council are benefit scrounging scummers.
You may live in the same area as a lot of council flats. The difference is that you choose where you live and you get
to choose your own flat. Its not allocated to you. You are free to do what you want to it, maintain it and sell it when you want. Council tenents do not own their property so it is not an asset.

I have lived in council. I now own my own modest property. I can tell you which is better. If I was forced to go back into council I would be devastated.

Why are there so many threads expressing discontentment for what seem to be perfectly decent lives?

Council houses/accomodation are a bloody fantastic idea the amount the council's pay out in housing benefit is absolutely obscene and needs to stop.
People should have a choice between property ownership and secure tennancy argeements, it's just not an option at the moment.
The solution is to build more council - not housing association - property.
Who will be the government that has the balls to do that, they will get my vote.

There has been a a major shift in attitude over the past 20yrs though. I grew up on a large council estate. My father was mortified when he was made redundant. There were a few non-workers which consisted of those unable to work (that was acceptable) and those who chose not to (that was very much frowned upon).

My father was out day and night looking for a job and until he found one we felt shame a s a family. I remember my mother apologising to people because of it.

I'm not saying the shame was a good thing but 20yrs ago, even to the poorest, being on benefits was a last resort, short term thing.

Of course, it still is for most people today though we have to be honest and say far more people are willing to accept that as their lot. Poverty of aspiration is a sad state to live in.

Actually, I'm almost 40yrs old so that should be 30yrs ago.

Haven't read the whole thread but assume it's the usual plasma TV, council house always equals benefits stuff.

As it happens I agree that people in council houses can be in a position to have more disposable income than someone who owns. We live in a HA house and DH works. If his business took off and if I went back to work with my parents looking after DS we'd be loaded it's true.

Our rent and council tax, (which we do pay despite the low-income we have right now) is about £400 per month. For a 2-bed house in the S.E. So we'd be laughing compared to people maintaining their property at their own expense, insuring it and so forth on top of a massive mortgage.

But if and when we are in that position we'll be looking to buy. We are in desperate need of a bedroom for sleepless DC2 and would secretly like a DC3 but if we were content to make do with things as they stand then yes we would have plenty of money to spend on God knows what bollocks that people buy.

In fact we could even scrimp and scrape on most things and pay for private education and / or medicine and that is allowed, you know

Why would I give that up to buy? I don't know. Security above all. Looking to the future. Enough room for our children and hopefully a last baby, a foster child or adoptee maybe. All investments in what I consider to be real terms.

These things are completely out of our reach as things stand and I can't find it in me to look down on people who buy pre-cut fruit or whatever at the expense of that.

To the OP if you don't like where you live - sell your house and move, if you don't like your children school then move.

Stop worrying about what joe bloggs down the street is doing, living on and change your own life.

It not what people are earning getting benefits and whether they should have social housing it the fact there are not enough social housing for those people who can afford to buy or private rent.

"I'm not saying the shame was a good thing but 20yrs ago, even to the poorest, being on benefits was a last resort, short term thing."

In most cases it still is meant to be short term, and there is shame involved, which is why those of us on benefits are defending ourselves so vehemently on this thread, because feeling like you've failed because you are on benefits is quite bad enough without someone telling you that you should feel ashamed.

I used to be abit about our horrid old neighbours when we lived in central London who were on benefits, lived in a flat paid for by the council but appeared to live a life of Reilly (black cabs everywhere, take aways every night, buying lots and lots of stuff etc). It slowly dawned on me that they were actually drug dealers and therefore not representative at all.

Also OP alot of council properties in Central London are now in private hands - I know a few lawyers that live in ex council property so that might explain the discrepancy.

Kaloki, did you read the next line of my post?

lizziemun and others - I expected to get this answer. But lets look at what you're saying objectively and dispassionately if possible.

I could move to a cheaper area yes - I do have that choice, but why do I have to move out so I can have a car and a washing machine - very normal stuff when the people in the council flats that our enormous tax bill pay for can stay and drive cars and have washing machines.

Couldn't I just pay less tax, stay where I am and then maybe neither of us would have a car. Wouldn't that be fairer?

Aren't people's expectations too high if they expect people on middle incomes to pay for their new bathrooms when they can't afford one themselves.

I agree with several posters that London is a bit different, why oh why people who may earn very good money can be sold flats in primrose hill for 25K is beyond belief. Imagine how much money could be raised if right to buy took into consideration people's income

ps the people im taking about are not private tenants - they are council tenants with good incomes

Also, I'm not at all telling you you should feel ashamed. It's not my place to judge individual people and their circumstances. I'm just passing comment that these days, some people do see it as a lifestyle choice either because they're scamming or they have incredibly low aspirations. Neither of which is pleasant and the latter very sad.

if you pay an enormous tax bill you must have a very high income

When I was a student working behind a bar, a man would come round weekly selling knock off designer gear and his wife would steal to order. Most of the people who used their services were mums buying clothes, toys, household stuff for their dc and homes. It was a real eye-opener to how the other half lives

splodge, I think your last point is a very good one and seems to be the crux of your argument. If you had concentrated your OP on that debate you wouldn't have been half as flamed.

Yeah, sprry BuckRogers, there was more to write then the food timer went off and I got distracted. My comment was less aimed at you, but at some others who seem to feel that all people on benefits have chosen it to be that way.

Also splodge, please stop talking like your tax goes solely into the pockets of people on benefits, and also try and remember that people on benefits may well have worked before and also paid tax, and hopefully will work again and also pay tax. You are not a victim of this in any way!

Sprry? Would you believe I've always done really well at English Lang and Lit. Only till you hand me a keyboard apparently

MoreSpamm, that goes to show how diverse even Kent can be - I am in the NW and my 3 bed council house is £73 a week. I could privately rent and pay the difference in benefits, but the secure tenancy is what I love about my house - that and the fact with council houses you can decorate/make it your own much more than private housing.

I work p/t and get some benefits. I have about £30 a week spare - plus I get £70 a week child maintenance. The child maintenance is what pays for things like our holiday (a caravan for a week for £50) and help out with me being able to afford a car (need one to work/takes boys to daycare)

I dont know anyone on my street doing "the dodge". If anyone has anything like a good tv or sofas they pay for it weekly. Or use provident loans (shudder)

However, I do know some people who are on full benefits in a private rented house and have just booked a £3k holiday for next year etc. God knows how they do it, I really dont know. But when I did know them better I know they didnt pay their gas/electric very often - because they have young children they were told they wouldnt be cut off. Privately renting they also get their benefit paid to them (not direct to the landlord) and I know they dont pay their rent in full or every month.

Come April 10 when the government will let you keep your CM and not take it against IS there will be more disposible income for single parents. But not a vast amount. But I'm sure that will get up a few peoples noses when more TVs/cars are bought

Buckrogers

Thanks for the constructive criticism

I agree, the OP was somewhat hazy in central tenet terms

It's become somewhat more refined as time goes on

and yes 2shoes - we do have a high income, but it counts for nothing when your mortgage is so bloody enormous,

of course the gov could help us too, but where would that money come from?? surely as I said originally the welfare state shouldn't be there to supply people with perks such as cars, when those who are paying for the perks don't have these things themselves.

I'm sorry im repeating myself.