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!!!!

i have to buy a £50 train pass for dd per month

i know in greater manchester there is a scheme where college students get to go on unlimited public transport of anykind for a fiver.

bus fares round here stupid as well. If should need to go to A&E for a non-ambulance with the DS's in tow would cost me £20 on the bus.

Used to cost me £5 just to get to town and back, and that's not even as far as one end of Oxford Street (London) to the other

Ninks - don't worry I took it in the spirit intended, in fact I took the whole exchange in the spirit I'm sure you intended, was just that one comment that just hurt a little last night - but don't worry about it .

"
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"

But it's not about you. Or others in your situation. It's about everyone. Taxation is a zero sum game. Any improvement in your situation will require someone else to be disadvantaged.

Splodge - does this accurately describe your position:- "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" ,"society" and "better position"

Please show your working.

Ninks,

you say you have to share a room with a small DC. Well so do I, this is what the thread is about. The perception that at best I and others have a little less than others who have managed to stay in council property.

It was never about criticising people who have difficult lives with ill children. No one is arguing that those with real need shouldnt be helped.

Assuming no disabilites etc (which is most people)

Should the council pay for you to have a extra room when the only people in private land who can afford them are millionaires.

Children under 10 are counted as 1/2 well that means children over 10 are counted as 1 right? and presumably that means they get a room each.

If you're in private accomodation you cant get another room just because your children are 10. You have to move out. Why should the council rent expensive flats from private landlords when everyone else just has to leave

incidentally, home ownership is not the end-all, and does not guarantee greater wealth. Just look at all the people in the US who couldn't afford mortgages, but took them anyway, and ended up worse off then before when they couldn't keep up payments and the value of their houses had plumetted.

there should probably be more, not less, social housing, but the system should be fairer for everyone on how much the tenant contributes based on their income.

no splodge - go to the LHA website.

A family of six wit 2 boys and 2 girls all aged between 10-15yrs would be allocated a 3 bedroom house.

You interested in my offer of my life seen as though it's so wonderful - is still up for grabs if you want it.

custardo what i meant was we are not paying £800 on mortgage and then if something goes wrong on top of that iykwim? pg brain!

Goodnightmoon

I think you touch on something really fundamental

are we really better off owning are own homes?? or do we just think we are

In many other european countries home ownership is less common. What difference does it really make, having this asset? It's completely illiquid, sure you can remortgage to get a cheap loan (though then are clamping down on that sort of thing)

It is just a waste of time owning your own home, is it something weve got into our silly English heads that is essential, like a garden or milky tea???

well in general renting in Europe is much better than renting here for many reasons. Most of which Ican't remember off hand after not much sleep, but it's infinitely "better" to rent in Europe than it is here.

She's not saying she wants your life she's saying that hers isn't any better.

In theory, the working poor should be better off than the non-working poor. This is not actually the case. Yes, she owns her own house but that's no guarantee of equity and it only makes the situation even more ridiculous.

On paper, working and owning your own home should mean you live above a certain standard. There is no point saying, 'come have my life or my disability.' Splodge isn't taking about those in most need.

I think there are two points here which merit discussion;
1)Should those in council homes give them up if they find themselves in thankfully better circumstances?
2)There shouldn't be a set of circumstances which lead to a working person being worse off than her able-bodied neighbour who choses not to work.

"Can I just also add, in all seriousness, it is huge numbers of people like Splodge who traditionally vote for extremists. Not because they are racist or fascist themselves but because they feel marginalised by mainstream politics/policies in favour of those they feel are being given an unfair advantage without working for it. It happened in Europe in the 1930s. We are seeing it now with the increase in the BNP support."

Buckrogers, this is a really good point.

However, unlike the OP, I do not see the solution being to take from the poorest in society. This is what I have an issue with.

I know what it is to 'fall between the cracks' and neither qualify for assistance nor have enough disposable income- but I am flabberghasted that the target for her ire is those in receipt of assistance, the poorest, rather than those (especially in central London) who are, for want of a better phrase, absolutely minted.

Redistribution of wealth does not necessarily mean snatching a tiny amount from the poorest in our society in order to make yourself feel better about having very little.

It makes me sad that we ignore the tiny amount of people in this country who own most of the wealth. No-one seems to begrudge them anything; much easier to attack the council house tenant with a flatscreen TV.

It really is baffling.

Although also very convenient for parties like the BNP to have the poorest in society scrapping over a few economic 'crumbs'.

Riven

See above

higher real estate values dont help me one bit. I still need somewhere to live, private rent is more expensive than a mortagage and as house prices go up it makes it more difficult to move to a bigger house

eg. my flat =100k
3 bed =150k

difference =50K

house prices go up by 20%

my flat =120k
3 bed =180

difference =60k

Its true that people feel richer when house prices go up, but unless you're about to downsize at best it makes no difference at worst it makes moving to a bigger flat more expensive

x-post with about a thousand people

yes - actually better for prices to go down if you are looking to move somewhere bigger.

people love to believe their houses can eternally keep rising in price, but oops, that didn't turn out to be true.

Well I certainly don't feel we should target the poorest in society either. IMO, a society is only civilised if it supports, without arrogance, those most in need.

We do need an overhaul of the benefits system. It's degrading and therefore immoral to put those clearly in need through ridiculous assessments and finally agree to pay them a pittance.
At the same time, it's also shocking that the system is so easily abused.
In my very simplistic head, I envisage taking benefits away from a huge chunk of people and actually paying more to those you really do need help. But of course it's far more complicated than that.

The why not campaign for more (and better quality) social housing, splodge?

There is a huge need for it, even for 'middle earners' in London who are priced out of the housing market completely.

it's hard to ignore the amount of money spent on the social safety net and then look around you and wonder how well it's really being spent.

there need to be better incentives to work and save, and not rely on the governmen to sort us out. this is particularly true in old age - where in some cases you are worse off for having saved for your retirement.

yes buckrogers

You're right those are the key points

In an ideal world we'd all have swimming pools 150inch TVs, Chauffer driven eco friendly limousines etc

but we live in a capitalist economy and as someone on here said correctly Tax is a zero sum game

I completely understand why my stance seems heartless but at the moment, I never have any money left over for necessary clothes

DC's teacher asked the other day why DC had massive holes in his trousers (and no, i can't sew, got an D-in home economics)

If we build even more homes and give more subsidies, which will cost more, what else will I have to give up

Ive already been through everything i dont absolutely need and sold it on Ebay

Shall I put my Liver on there too?

actually she said somewhere mid thread that she'd rather like to move to a council house down the road and therefore be able to afford all these "things" that people have and private education

Now if you'll excuse me I need to get myself sorted - my HV has just rung me to say that one of the Drs at my GP surgery has asked her to come and see me....curious now as to know why (she's lovely though so I'm not at all concerned) is it a result of the SS thing, is it a result of the events of the last 48hrs, in if so was it my BF (again - she rang her last year bless her), was it my carer support worker (although I'm not "officially" a carer, and wouldn't qualify for CA DH's team have provided her for me), is it DH's team...........ooooo I want to know (and get sorted)