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!!!!

MrsMorgan - the strings lessons are the cheapest as there's outside funding from sommwehre or other in the county. It's group lessons (2 of them for 20 minutes a week) - guitar lessons (individual) are about £60odd quid.

Of course I forget to factor in need rosin, and a music book etc etc at teh start of term when he started the lessons and that nearly double the initial starting cost. (and being a musician I have NO excuse for not thinking about the cost of music/bits and pieces that make music lessons soon cost a lot more than the "lesson" )

Though to be fair, tethersend, splodge has a right to debate what the government spend it on.
There is a finite amount and a little less here means a little more there etc. So that part of her argument is sound.
I don't necessarily agree but she is within her rights to ask the questions.

Sploge you keep going on about the repairs needed to your house. People on benefits who are home owners have to pay for their own repairs the same as you do.

Those who rent from the council, HA or private landlords DO NOT, regardless of income.

So I still do not understand where you think the inequality comes in.

If you were renting your property you wouldnt have to pay for your repairs.
You have to pay for them because you own your property.

What do you think should happen? Do you think your home, your biggest asset should be maintained by the tax payers? Why?

I had to laugh a bit at the idea that people in London get moved easily for overcrowding HAHAHHA!

On the rent book of my 2 bed it stated that 9 people were permitted to live their before it was classed as overcrowded. As the council do not count a child under 1 as a person and a child under 5 was only classed as half a person that mean that 2 adults, 5 children over 5 plus another 4 under 5 plus twins under 1 could live there!

The kitchen, hallway and single reception room were classed as potential sleeping areas.

But then everyone knows some teenage girl who had 10 kids just so she could get a house and a car and a state provided nanny so she could get her acrylics done - so it must be true.

Those of us who have or are actually living in social housing are dismissed but media driven sterotypes are greedily lapped up as proof of the chav classes taking over the world

Means testing social housing would be a disaster - there is no incentive for anyone to improve their lot, just an incentive for people to not work, or hide their level of income thereby also avoid paying tax.

LMFAO at the trustafarian working in Africa patronising poor people

Let's all adopt the 'African' model, shall we? Civil war and starvation, anyone? Or was it not Somalia you were 'working' in?

alwayslookingforanswers - no need to be rude I was just interested in the perspective from the people I spoke to. It was Ghana I was in if you really want to know.

on!

And tethersend - no trustafarian here just hardworking and respecting other hardworking people.

Er, yes ...

"On" is the word.

"Though to be fair, tethersend, splodge has a right to debate what the government spend it on."

I agree, Buckrogers, everyone has the right to debate public spending, and to vote accordingly- my issue is the fact that the OP constantly refers to 'her' tax money, as if she were donating it altruistically. It is not hers. It never was.

bloody hell tethersend - i don't know what part of tax system and government you are not understanding, but they don't get to keep it if they want. (at least not officially)
the main function of tax in this country is to produce revenue to fund public services.

Maybe you should let all the people in this country who are irked about bailing out RBS and Lloyds that it isn't THEIR money. The war in Afghanistan is also not being funded with THEIR money - do let the Guardian know.

"just hardworking and respecting other hardworking people."

-apart from those who live in council houses?

actually I lie - his cousin (that is now living in the UK - one of only a handful over here) is rather about us being on benefits right now.

But no-one I knew when I lived over there thought the benefits system here was "wrong".

But I guess that just depends on how it's explained to them...........

There is always a lot of worrying about what other people might have and how they may have got one over on you whilst getting it.

More time needs to be spent on wondering what you actually have and how you got there and where you want to go next and how you are going to get there - or even if you are happy with your lot and want to stay in equalibrum

the later brings a far happy life

tethersend

still dont get you

the tax i pay is a direct function of what I earn. It gets paid by my employer to the gov. if i didnt work it wouldnt get paid

the gov takes it because i earn it

because we live in a democracy i have a right to question where this money goes

no taxation without representation

a fine slogan, good night.

no tether - I think it's anyone who claims benefits not just the hard working ones who happen not to live in council houses

I have never known a lawyer Dr or other 5 figured professional who lives in social housing.

Im sorry but those who genuinly CAN afford to buy their own home generally do.
Yes there are many people who are on the cusp of this and who appear on paper to have the funds but in reality would be worse off if they had a mortgage. why should they be forced to go on the breadline just so that you feel better about having to fix up your own house?

those in social housing have ever increasing stipulations outlined in their tenancy agreements. some even go as far as to dictating how you decorate!
your house is your home, forever and ever, entirely yours and only you decide what you do to it.
those in social housing do not have that luxury, they are never more than 60 days away from possible homelessness. Its not as comfortable a life as some of the middle classes would have you believe

goodnightmoon, I am literally falling about laughing.

Of course the government can do whatever they want with the tax money! They only listen to the electorate if they want to be re-elected; which they invariably do.

"Maybe you should let all the people in this country who are irked about bailing out RBS and Lloyds that it isn't THEIR money. The war in Afghanistan is also not being funded with THEIR money - do let the Guardian know."

Hang on... I thought all your tax money was going on benefit scroungers? Or do we get to choose where our tax goes? Thought not.

It's not THEIR money either. Have you ever read the Guardian?!?

Mamazon - just to qualify my position - I'm not bitter about having to fix up my own house, and I'm currently living off the OP's taxes as well

Ok, I've not read all the posts, but feel pretty confident that I can use standard answer (b) for almost all the posts.

"It's more complicated than that".

Welfare and Social Housing have repurcussions beyond the basic provision of the means to sustain life. They are also part of creating the kind of society you would like to live in. This affects everyone.

If we were to create criteria that required people to move out of social housing, we should beware of unintended consequences. What would happen to a community where everyone who acheived financial success was removed as soon as they did so? What effect would removing the stability that encourages people to invest in their communities have on them? Even if you are not part of these communities, do you think that the resulting disengagement from mainstream society will not effect you?

Similarly, what happens if you reduce welfare to a bare subsistence level? Some people will knuckle down and may even find work. Some will knuckle down and STILL not find work. Some may not try. All of them will find someway to acquire the means to make their lives bearable. But you may not approve of the methods they choose.

There is a very simple, selfish argument for these things. I DON'T WANT SOMEONE TAKING MY SHIT. If people have everything taken away, some will find it necessery to acquire somebody elses.

And then there's the whole moral argument...

IvyKaty, that is a fab post

Sorry, have leapt in half way, got to page ten before the headache set in .

I'm underwhelmed/totally annoyed by everyone who seems to think that to have good things whilst on benefits you have to be doing some sort of fiddle.

Different incomes = different priorities.

I work with people in financial difficulty, and run income and expenditures with about fifty people a day to find out where their problems lie.
Sweeping statement, but normally true.
Those on lower incomes, benefits etc, generally watch their money well - as every penny is important.
Whereas folks on higher incomes, think nothing of budgeting £5 a day to buy a sandwich or a coffee at lunchtime, and "yes that direct debit for the royal horticultural society magazine I have is totally necessary"

I have loads of "necessities" that I pay for that someone on a lower income would think is a ludicrous extravagance. And if their budget watching means that they get to take a holiday every now and then, great for them!

And as for the housing, nargh what piffle. Everyone I know in social housing generally dispairs of the quality - mould in all the rooms and children with asthma anyone?
So what that I have to pay £500 a month for my mortgage, I'm (hopefully) going to get to enjoy a retirement and comfortable elderly care with my stashed equity.

always I'm not sure if you were laughing at me about the music lessons thing, I hope not.

I was just saying that if DH's business takes off and I return to work as a teacher AND we, (unlikely) get free childcare that we would have lots of money to spend compared to what we have now.

Don't think it would stretch to violin lessons without compromising how we eat though