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!!!!

"It gets paid by my employer to the gov. if i didnt work it wouldnt get paid"

Exactly, splodge- it was never yours. The government did not break into your bank account and take it.

If you did not work, it would get paid- somebody else would get your job. The employer would still pay the tax.

I'm sorry to have to tell you that the world does not revolve around you.

By all means, question public spending, but to labour under the illusion of it being your money just makes you look ill-informed.

Just out of interest, do you also not give to beggars in case they spend it on booze?

Tethersend - I think you've hit the central point (on the taxation issue)

"It's not about you"

No one making policy does or SHOULD care about the effects on an individual - public policy is not that granular. It is only the overall effect that is important. That effects far more individuals.

We are all special cases to ourselves.

ooojimaflip, I think I love you.

Poiparcel, surely that's a huge generalisation? Isn't it more that different people=different priorities?

e.g, DH and I are both professionally qualified though he earns vastly more than me. We put off having children for years because I just couldn't see how we could possibly afford them. To the point where I would have accepted never being a mother had DH's salary not shot up.
What I'm saying is that other people in exactly the same circumstances would have made different choices.

blushes

For the record

I dont read the DM, I find it vile.

I believe that may people on incapacity benefit genuinely need it and to be forced off it would be cruel. there are some people in society who simply will never be able to work and its up to the rest of us to look after them.

I am pro-immigration - I think it generally improves our city, makes it more cosmopolitan and helps economically.

I'm anti capital punishment

So whilst many of you are keen for me to not tar people on benefits with the same brush please dont view with your blinkers on either

ooo ninks you've lost me now on the music lessons thing. I was intiially talking about the OP saying that if she moved to council housing she could afford private education. I laughed at her saying that I scrimped and saved to let DS1 do violin at school (for the princly sum of £25 a term, which isn't actually too bad as I can save up during each term to pay for the next terms lessons) so what I meant was that if I could barely afford that a term for DS's lessons then her thinking she could send her DC private was funny.

OP - YABU Its actually not your business what your neighbours spend their money on or how much rent they pay.
I live in a council house, I got it because I am a single parent (not by choice). Initially I was on benefits for a while and I just about managed to feed and clothe us all.
In this area house prices are so high that there is no way on earth I could afford to buy a house on my salary and private renting is usually as much if not more than the cost of a mortgage.
In the future when I can take on more hours and earn more money I will be able to afford a car, a holiday, new TV, furniture etc. All of which I will work to pay for, the same as you do.
But I have less choice, I can't sell up and move somewhere bigger, I can't remortgage or take equity from the house when I retire (if I ever can afford to retire that is), I won't be able to leave any property to my dc when I die.
I really hate this attitude that if you live in a council house you must be a lazy scrounger.
NORMAL WELL EDUCATED HARD WORKING PEOPLE LIVE IN THEM TOO!

ooojimaflip

of course taxation isnt there to benefit me personally

but it does prejudice me and others disproportionately

and im standing up for those who traditionally put up and shut up

and hey ho it seems im not the only one out there

PMSL @ "those who traditionally put up and shut up"

ermm - that would be me on a normal basis, apart from threads like these on MN I generally put up and shut up about my situation as well

alwayslookingforanswers

its you thats funny

im glad your dc can afford violin lessons

we were offered some, dc was keen. i had to say no as we couldnt afford it

if we lived in a council flat, we could afford lessons and MAYBE private education

Splodge - your position seems to be that as you pay tax, and so consider yourself to be a net contributor to society, that no-one who is a net recipient of benefits from society should be in a better position as a result of those benefits.

This is on the face of it a not entirely unreasonable position.

Now, lets work on the definitions of "net contributor", "net recipient" and "society".

Please show your working.

It's the people's warrior! (Who aspires to private education)

It's a shame you couldn't have afforded those violin lessons, splodge- your DC could accompany your posts, which would be very apt...

well it's actually £25 for 11 weeks s £2.72 a week. I would have scraped that money together even if we'd gone back a couple of years when we were both working and money was seriously tight (£30-40 a week to feed the 4 (then) of us) I would have found that money from somewhere.

'no taxation without representation'

yes, because comparing access to council housing to people willing to go to war and get killed as they were paying British taxes, compelled to abide by all British laws (including those compelling a private business or home to quarter British troops entirely at their expense for as long as the British government wanted to use the place) yet patently denied parliamentary representation is a totally reasonable juxtaposition.

having a bounty on your head and being convicted as a traitor, an offense then punishable by hanging, because you questioned such a government is really comparable to bitching about how you can't afford a car or private education in one of the most expensive cities in the world and others can.

better on benefits? give me a laugh - the fucking benefits agency have just landed me with nearly £1000 debt I have to pay back for THEIR mistake that should NEVER have happened

Oh, and there's no comeback - I have to pay or I'll be evicted...

want a council house and loads of money? I'll swap with you... you'll get a damp, flaking house with a garden you can't use due to the overgrowth and the council lying about dealing with it and £100 to live off a week (due to money being taken to pay back this money I shouldn't owe)

When shall we swap? I can't wait to be out of this hell hole...

Oh, we need to define "Better position" too.

Hang on, alwayslookingforanswers- is that £25 of splodge's money?

tsk.

The cheek of it.

oh, you are also free to have my £20 off the LIMIT on my overdraft to feed myself and my son til NEXT Tuesday, if you want.... cos, ya know - it's better on benefits....

"I'll swap with you... you'll get a damp, flaking house with a garden you can't use due to the overgrowth and the council lying about dealing with it"

oh Lewis - you should read the whole thread. The OP is pissed off because HER house has it's own set of problems that no-one is going to come and sort out for her (boohoo)

Splodge, the more you post, the weaker your argument.
How many people living in social housing on benefits have DC in Private School, d'ya think?
You very obviously have a personal axe to grind.

FWIW I can get annoyed at my neighbour who "owns" companies yet pays no tax and has a huge 4x4 and a Mercedes on the drive of his £400k house(not to mention the cleaner 10 hrs per week, gardener and man who comes to valet the cars) DH earns good money (in NW), but to be honest, life is far too short and fgs live your own life. This sort of resentment does noone any good.

... and only the equity to soften the blow...

and she can't afford a car (in London, where it's very necessary for survival) or private education for the children.

(breaks out the violins . . . )

diddums... the council won't sort mine either

they want to drill a flaming great big hole in the damp area to "let it breathe" when the problem is stemming from an old, rotten wooden front door and a house with UPVC double glazing .... all they need to do is update the door!