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!!!!

And like has been said many times, chances are the government isn't paying for those perks. Most likely it's the result of undeclared cash in hand work, or more illegal activities (eg. drug dealing)

I haven't read all of this but OP is BU but the fundamental problems is lack of affordable housing (both private and social) that drives the market up.

I actually don't believe that social housing should be offered on a permanent tenancy but reviewed in line with changes in circumstances periodically. That was rents could be adjusted up to private rented values in line with income and people under occupying social housing could be encouraged to move (or pay extra rent for unused bedrooms) to property more suited to their needs and free up larger properties for people who need the space.

"that our enormous tax bill pay for"

splodge.

It's tax.

It's.

not.

your.

money.

Anyone would think you were single-handedly supporting the entire welfare state.

Would it make you feel better if 'your' tax went on the NHS, or perhaps defence; and 'my' tax can go on council housing? Because I wouldn't mind that at all. So, why not just tell yourself that, because it makes about as much sense as your argument.

It isn't that social housing is "subsidised" anyway - private housing is overpriced to ensure profits. If you don't like that then your problem is with capitalism, not the benefit system.

tethersend

No, I'm afraid it's you that doesnt make sense!

We would all pay less tax if the government stopped subsidising housing for those people who can clearly afford to pay private rent, why do they get to stay in prime central london at everyone elses expense?

the councils could sell off all the property in prime central london at market value. Imagine how many extra NHS wards that could pay for

"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 have always had socialist beliefs. That people should work together for the common good.
Sponging from workers is shit and is no way acceptable IMO

Can I just throw something else into your 'London' argument?

Why oh why does the govenment insist on having all departments in the capital in prime real estate? There is actually no real need to have the radio communications agency (or whatever they are called) in offices in canary wharf. With communication what it is these days, there is no need to have all those thousands of civil servants working in central London.

Is there anyone here who thinks that households that take home more than 45K, or 40K, or 35K even should get to keep a council house??

I haven't read all the thread, but i do agree with the poster that said social housing shouldn't be a permanant solution. There are more and more families that are homeless or living in seriously cramped condition for one reason or another. At the same time there are plenty of families who have had a bad situation in the past, had benefits and council housing to help them through but have now got back on their feet and are benefiting from hugely subsidised rents whilst earning high money. They should have to now move and rent privately, so those now needing the social housing can make use of it as they did.

The point of that was to say, surely that is an enormous waste of tax payers money? The same square footage in Birmingham, Leeds or Newcastle would be significantly cheaper.

Well if we didnt all have to work here it would be better, the UK is super centralised, we were looking for jobs for DH the other day. There were 2 in Birmingham, 1 in Manchester and 267 in London.

Everyone expects the middle classes to move out of London for schools and space whilst commuting every day for work.

The result is that the people who live in central london in council/housing trust housing don't work there whilst the people who do work in central London have to live miles away.

It is generally accepted by sociologists that society functions better where people live and work and are educated in close proximity, it help promote a sense of community.

Well...I don't disagree in theory. Problem is where do you set the cut off? If it's 30k then those earning 29.5k would be significantly better off with their council house than those on 30.5K who are having to pay market rate. That's the problem.

As an aside there is also the moral issue of forcing people to move away from a community that they have perhaps settled in and come to rely upon. Not to mention a child maybe then needing to change schools.

All sorts of issues.

you get people earning megabucks in central london, taking it all back to the home counties where they see their children too little because of commuting,

and all the schools in central london are crap because there are only the poorest people there. Isn't that mad?

people work and live in central Paris, Madrid, Barcelona, Berlin, Munich etc etc

We lived in Surrey and DH commuted into London every day. I spent most of my waking day at home on my own with 3 small children whist he was out of the house either at work or commuting.

He took a relocation to Manchester and we now live in Cheshire. Our quality of life has changed dramatically (although sadly my house was no cheaper).

isnt it crazy?

many people need to work in london esp, service sector/financial jobs

but the people in the central london flats either dont work or work in unskilled jobs that arent based in their locale.

there is such a big expectation that at some point u just have to move out and start commuting. why does it have to be this way?

Taking aside your quote:

"We would all pay less tax if the government stopped subsidising housing for those people who can clearly afford to pay private rent, why do they get to stay in prime central london at everyone elses expense?

the councils could sell off all the property in prime central london at market value. Imagine how many extra NHS wards that could pay for"

-Which I'm actually ROLFing at-

Your last post I actually agree with- it is now only the very rich and the very poor who can afford to live and work in most of London, not just central.

I just cannot understand how your solution to this is not to cap private rental levels (as was once the case), but to take away benefits? Your argument points towards a massive need to redistribute wealth...

Actually, not so sure about the financial thing. DH is a lawyer who works for a large bank. He says it is just as easy to find work in other cities esp Manchester and Edinburgh but most of his former colleagues would recoil in horror at the thought!

I'm from Surrey myself so I know that attitude very well.

i can never understand how my mil who is on benefits can afford to do a weekly shop in sainsburys and i can't!

I do get pissed off with the minority of people 'taking the piss' with benefits- cash in hand, benefit cheats, criminals etc.

I also get really annoyed about having to pay loads of tax for a system which doesn't seem to benefit me- but its a different issue.

However, a lot of people who are in reciepiant of benefits or social housing are not doing it because of choice and are GENUINE. If something happened to you or your DH which made you have to move to a council house would you want to have to move miles away from home, uproot your children from school and be away from your friends etc?

Also if you moved all the council houses / affordable living away from london - where would people live who couldn't afford to live there? You would have a massive shortfall of workers.

well I understand your point tethersend

and of course we could redistribute wealth but I guess my perspective is that if you can run a car whilst living in a council house then you've probably got too much. IMO a car is a luxury

But Pippa, it does benefit you because it's your safety net should you ever be unfortunate enough to find yourself in the same position.

pippa251

but the point is that many of the workers in London cannot afford to live there.

believe me, most of the people in the council flats near us are not working in central london.

It seems mad that the gov keeps them there whilst those who work nearby commute in

YANBU i totally agree, the benefits should be calculated on absolute not relative poverty.

Splode, do you really know the circumstances of all these people living in London near you in council flats? Often social housing helps vulnerable people, very yong mothers, those with mental health problem, people who have been made homeless etc. If their family, friends and perhaps entire support network live in London then they really need to stay there. For their own sake or for thier kids sake.

I know how high rental prices are, I'm on the nice side of Kent, a 3 bed medium sized house is about £1200 a month privately or £400 a month through the council or housing association.

i also live in central london in a private block and we own - we are the first private block on the edge of a big estate, and the charmers piss on our main front door and call us rich bastards. we have had to have cctv put in. I fucking hate them. We work hard. They fuck about with their scary looking dogs all day. I wish they would all get shipped off. Go on flame me. They even throw fire works at old ladies. Dont see why they cant get jobs.... and we live in one of the most 'desireable' areas. arf