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!!!!

"Where does this idea come from that council housing is some sort of luxurious alternative to buying a house?"

chegirls nails it. It's bollocks. You get what you are offered, mildew, overcrowding, peados in the attic, syringes and glass on the floor even though your DD has a bleeding disorder.

That's what forces you to accept what they give you for at least three years before you will be considered to be moved. DD had a lovely bunk-bed / sofa in the sitting room. I was so proud when her future Headteacher came to visit

You people wondering about benefits and thinking that you might be better off on them. Give it a try, please, with the housing issues too. You might learn something.

I;m sure my mate in a 1 bed council flat in a tower block would agree with you that her life is fab and she has it WAY BETTER THAN YOU

"Of course anyone working pays tax but doesnt it get an itsy witsy bit silly when youre paying through the nose for other people to have things you can't afford"

well - I guess if you're also rently privately then you may have a point. But as the majority of home owners are the ones that are also working I think you may find that a little bit of the old green eyed monster comes in occasionaly from those that could never ever afford to own their own home.

Splodge, I live in social housing after awful times last year made me and my daughter homeless. I have to stay in this area for my daughters sake (personal family issues) and it's expensive to live here renting privately. I am doing a degree and work part time, so pay my own rent, but it's a third of the cost of privately renting.

We have a flat screen, laptop, internet, mobile, wii, ds's, playstation, we have at least 1 holiday a year and eat nice food/wear nice clothes. I do not claim benefits and i have always worked since leaving school, paid my own way and paid tax.

I really hope you do not have something unfortunate happen to you resulting in you having to get help via social housing or benefits.

By the way most social housing is barely fit to house dogs in. Round here they tear off all wallpaper and rip up all carpets before they move you in. Their houses are the cheapest ones available and in the worst areas. Social housing is not a great alternative to buying for most people!

Does anyone have any figures for exactly how much government/tax money does go into social housing?

Enough said really.

what a horrible thread

I'm not on any 'side' here but to be fair, Splodge isn't actually talking about those in need. She is putting a theory out there that those in council housing who then manage to pull themselves up and have a better income should give up their subsidised home and enter the capitalist market like her.

when we were on benefits and housing mostly paid for there was no way of doing anything extra! everyday was a extremely hard we are finally out of the dark and picking up our lives again and now we have done that all help has stopped

i never never want to be back where we were the year just gone ever

i agree and disagree about the whole benefits equal council house.My DH and i both work, im on Mat Leave as have 7 week old. We are on a very very very low income but only get child tax credits and child benefit.The government wont give us benefits and the local council have got a long waiting list.we have a tiny 1 bed private rented flat which we struggle to pay the rent on. Now a friend of mine had her little boy 5 years ago and last worked 5 years ago and says she "Cant work" as she is "too scared" as the last time she worked was before her son was born. She gets soooooo much benefits and a brand new 2 bed council flat and is trying to get pregnant again so as she says she wont have to work!

This discussion is pretty pointless though unless we know how much is actually subsidised by the government/council/tax or whatever, and how much council housing is self-sufficient from rents. I assume the costs of building flats is met my tax payers (at least initially), but then is all maintainance etc funded by rents?

I mean, if some housing associations are making surpluses, then I guess they're not receiving much tax money?

IS anyone listening Ninks????

I too have mildew, stinking crumbling kitchen, broken toilet, broken furniture etc etc

Council flats may not be luxurious, but nor is mine.

if i paid less tax maybe i could have a car too?

tethersend - you really need to brush up on the tax system, and the role of the government and the electorate in determining it.

not difficult to find the biggest sources of government spending: image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2008/09/12/13.09.08.Public.spending.pdf

oh yea - you should see my brothers lovely 2 bed flat in Edinburgh, Moredunvale (if anyone knows it) - fucking awful high rise blocks of flats that quite frankly as a lone woman going in and out earlier last year shared the shit out of me (and I@m no stranger to "rough" areas) - I couldn't even begin to have imagined living their with my DS's - yet there were masses of single mothers with children living in them.

And you do know that not all of us benefit claimants live in nice "cushy" social housing anyway? God some of us don't even have the luxury of a half decent landlord that fixes stuff within a reasonable frame of time and lets us stay their a decent length of time as well. Some of us were in the extremely fortunate position years ago of being able to buy a house, which we still live in.

No-one's going to come and fix my bathroom wall, or put carpet down in our bedroom, or sort out the bay window that was leaking last year (the cause of the leak was fixed by a friend - but the damage inside is still there), they're not going to come and fix my kitchen window so I that I can open it for the first time in 4 months.

Oh - no I'm not in a minority - especially not at the moment with all the job losses that have occured in the last year or two. There are many people living in their own homes who have found themselves living on benefits.

I've done the private renting thing as well in the last year, with a landlady, although very nice, also very slow to get things sorted.

You know what though - I'd chose to have my own home any day of the week than live in social housing (or private rented).

When I was growing up we lived in a council house, my Dad was in and out of work, not because he had lack of work far from it, he had a trade, what he used to do was sign on for a few months then when questions started to get asked he would sign back off again for a few months. Of course, in between this he was working 7 days a week most of it cash in hand. We should have been loaded but because he and my Mother were so rubbish with money we were poor.

Anyway that's not the point, where we lived I would think about 75% of families were on benefits, there was no shame to it, there was now worry about getting caught as "they make you pay it back at £1 a week" there was actually pride in defrauding the system, the whole thing was it was better to claim benefits that to actually work as you were better off. Ironically a few of the families did finally get jobs and were able to buy their council houses for a few thousand pounds, council houses that they had got rent free for year btw, they then either rented them out or sold them for a hefty profit.

The thing is it was totally accepted, the people who employed my Dad were more than happy to pay for cheap labour not through the books so to speak.

I think this is one of things, that for a number of people defrauding the system is seem as something to be proud of not something to be ashamed of.

I used to live in central London as well, DP and I both worked FT to afford a shoebox flat in a new development, within a 2 year we were probably the only flat in a block of 7 that was owner occupied, the rest were privately rented out and their tenants were not working (they spent their days drinking and fixing cars out the front) so I can understand how demoralising it is to be coming home late from work past all your neighbours who are living there courtesy of the taxpayer.

having just read the whole thread (phew...)

isn't the real problem one of (the lack of) decent afforable housing for all, not who is on benefits or not & who is in social housing or not?

I can see there is potentially an issue of "fairness", lets take 3 identical families, all living on the average wage of £24k

One lives in a council house (which may or may not be in a good state of repair, be in a good school catchment area, etc) and pays say £500/month rent

One lives in private rented (same issues) and pays £800/month rent.

One lives in own house, mortgage of £700 a month (possibly same school catchment area issues etc) They own because it's cheaper than private renting and they get an asset at the end, but forgot to think about factoring in repairs and maintenance into that equation and the repairs are piling up...

All else being equal the one in social housing will have more disposable income. Is this fair?

However you still have the issue of those in an essential service job (teachers, nurses, fireman etc)who NEED to live in the area, how do you solve that without some form of subsidised housing?

I do think the suggestion made futher up for a sliding scale of rent for social housing based on income was a good one. I don't think anyone could argue that someone earning £80k as a lawyer (I think that was the example) should be getting their rent subsidised!

I don't think anyone living solely on benefits (in whatever housing stock) is living the high life (far from it).
They may however have "luxuries" because a) they bought them when they were working, b)they were a gift or c)they are on credit. Yes there are a small minority that are fiddling on benefits, in the same way that there are a small minority of self employed people fiddling their tax and a small minority of employed people doing jobs "on the side cash in hand", and a large number of highly paid MPs taking the mick with their expenses , but don't tar everyone with the same brush.

I have no problem with my tax going towards supporting people in need, but the system does need to be fair for all and sometimes it is those just about whatever threshold who feel the squeeze the most.

Thanks goodnight moon

God knows what tethersend is going on about i think she thinks we're living under a dictatorship or communist China

"You know what though - I'd chose to have my own home any day of the week than live in social housing (or private rented)."

THat says it all. Would anyone who pays taxes really swap with those who have to use social housing or rely on benefits? I wouldn't.

Splodge you are being simplistic on a number of fronts.

It's a mistake to talk only about disposable income. It's the whole picture. In general terms (yes of course there will be exceptions) - if you own a property your total net worth is likely to be much higher than someone in social housing, and even if you are in negative equity now, in the long run you will be better off. Likewise, if you are in paid employment your longer term prospects are more rosy than if you are long term unemployed. Also people have different priorities, if you own your house I'd imagine you probably have life assurance and all sorts of insurance and maybe investments that people in social housing do not have.

Re: 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 am not familiar with council house criteria but I'd guess that on this income you wouldn't get a house in the first place. So if someone is in a council house on that income, they have done very well for themselves. Perhaps they have a family and a community and are happy living there. To turn the question on its head, do you think it's right that someone whose circumstances have improved - perhaps due to their own hard work - should be forced out of a property? If so, what possible incentive is there for any tenant to improve their lot?

At the end of the day splodge, would you choose to swap places with your socially housed neighbours?

i tend to think living in council housing should be regularly means-tested. Why get below-market rent in a home that could house someone much more in need if you are earning above a certain level?

christ splodge i'd give you my fucking car to shut you up if i didnt need it myself!

if social housing is meant to house those who most need it, certainly those who improve their lot should make way for those worse off.

Millymaismuumy

You touch on another corker

You get bigger flats the more children you have. The council classes you as overcrowed and you're move to bigger accomodation.

if your children are in local schools the council has a duty to house you locally

Helloooooo

people in private housing dont get to keep their children in local london schools, they have to move out where housing is cheaper,

you end up with crazy Kensington council paying thousands of pounds to private landlords so that council tenants with 5 kids can stay in local schools

why is this ok when private renters/owners have no choice but to cap the number of offspring or get the f**k out

and private landlords riding the system for all its worth by charging the council insane rents, well above the going rate

yes and perhaps you'd better look at little closer at that link on Government spending.

Biggest spending from the DWP is on

State pensions £57 billion - well....[bicuit]

Housing £15.6bn - which can be claimed by those working on low incomes as well as those on benefits

Disbility benefit 15.2bn - very hard to get, I presume this includes carers allowance which is estimated to SAVE tax payers £57billion a year (funnily enough the same as the biggest "spendings" on benefits)

Then income support 7.7bn

and then the rest of them.

Interestingl they pay out more for "operational costs" (for Afghanistan and Iraq than they spend on JSA).

And child benefit and Tax Credits account for £30 billion which is more than Housing Benefits, Income Support and JSA all put together.