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!!!!

Yes I keep saying we're not low earners

yet there is no money left over

people keep saying market rent is inflated. But that is the real value. The housing associations set a value which bares no resemblance to what could be acheived on the open market.

Something's value is clearly what others are prepared to pay.

Also, having worked in the council dept. for social housing and been here for a while I have got to know lots of scenarios which get people housed quickest.

Currently, where I live, moving here from European countries, with children and no job or housing will get you housed within 2 months. I can understand people seeking asylum being prioitised for obvious reasons, but "choosing" to move into a country with no job or place to live and that country having a severe lack of social housing already then housing you in priority over British born taxpayers is a bit of a joke.

Well said, MissAnneElk.

I hate the assumption that because for whatever reason you are not working/on benefits everyone has a right to tell you what to spend the money you do have on.Like people on income support or whatever should forego every pleasure!Big tvs etc are v expensive and I do agree that how they afford it is mind boggling but tbh its no one elses business and if they are up to no good its up to the relevant authorities to 'catch' them and deal with it.

Splodge, do you absolutely have to be in London? Most people are able to work in their chosen sector elsewhere in the country.

"The housing associations set a value which bares(sic) no resemblance to what could be acheived on the open market."

This is simply not true. Most HAs have their properties valued, and calculate the rents accordingly. Typically, they are one third below market rent.

I pay £700pcm for a two bed flat in London.

Splodge, can you not see that the market rent would drop if more social housing was built.

Always, if a family needs to claim housing benefit surely it is better spent on social housing rent than given to a 'private' landlord.

Anyway splodge if I were you I'd be moving away from the keyboard and going to Asda/Tesco/charity shop for a new pair of trousers for your DS.

ill tell you why Noddy

because working people pay for those benefits

i'll stop paying and i wont care a jot

and Buck

as i keep saying the system is unfair if i have to go when if i paid less tax so that people in council houses didnt have things that i dont have I could stay

In my area parents with one child in a one bedroom flat are told to use the living room as an additional sleeping area. This is apparently quite legal. Honestly splodge - would love to take you round to see how some council tenants have to live. I am fortunate in comparison.

... and I agree that people on a good income do not need social housing - and what is more they wouldn't get it in this area either.

However, what is a good income? In London I am guessing it needs to be an awful lot of money. I think you should be entitled to social housing there.

"because working people pay for those benefits"

and LOTS OF WORKING PEOPLE ALSO STILL CLAIM THOSE BENEFITS

Yes but many are entitled to the benefits they recieve.You also pay for education and the nhs your argument is too simple.You either believe in the welfare state or you don't.I agree it needs reform but what people buy is no ones business

Splodge - did your mother never tell you that life isn't fair?

It seems that the reality of your situation is that you find it difficult to live where you do. You have a choice - move or accept the limitations of living where you do.

Housing in London is expensive. This is because there is not enought of it. If we want to change this we need to either increase the supply (build more homes), or reduce the demand. Rising housing costs SHOULD reduce the demand as people move out as they are priced out.

This has nothing to do with taxation. If the 'burden' of taxation on you was reduced, so would everyone elses, meaning more money available for the housing market, meaning prices would then go up accordingly.

Like many of these argumets, the issue is less that other people have stuff, but that you do not have enough to live how you would like to.

splodge as has been said many times.

you get to give your children a legacy - a house to start them off in life when you die.

council tenants don't.

also has been said a few times.

if its that fucking great - why don't you do it?

Well, no...because you would still pay the same amount of tax, it would just be distributed better.

I too, would like to see it sorted out but by that I mean going where it's needed. I most certainly do not advocate paying less tax.

Also, your situation is your situation. If the person down the road received less you would still be struggling. Unless you're looking very narrowly and seeing the pound in your pocket roll along the road into theirs. You shouldn't stay just because you feel you have a right to be there. You must what is best for you and your kids and if you cannot even afford £2 for a pair of school trousers then IMO you're mad to stay where you are.

"The housing associations set a value which bares(sic) no resemblance to what could be acheived on the open market."

social housing

not make money housing.

although sploge as has been said a couple of times.

councils will make the rent on those houses over and over again for reinvestment.

-----

also not sure what point you are trying to make. if the HA set rates higher - you would pay more tax as HB would be paying for the rent of those on benefits - so whats the moan about?

Splodge - this evidently bothers you a lot. Give up work and stop paying into the system that annoys you so much. You might lose your home but the council will eventually house you (upwards of six months for the families repossessed here).
I cannot guarentee you'll get anything very salubrious but if it's damp and moldy the council will eventually sort it out to a degree (it won't ever go properly).

If you are homeless and only have one child you might only get a one bed flat but with all the extra cash you'll have free you can buy a good quality sofabed for the lving room. Except you won't have much extra cash if you've given up work - still there's always Bright House.......

If you are lucky enough you'll get a two bed place.

If you get even luckier it'll be a house with a garden.

Hardly anyone gets that lucky AND achieves a nice area too.

You'll be able to buy the council property (if you are somewhere decent you might want to).

Just remember though that the grass is not always greener.

Am off now - life isn't fair - deal with it and move on - or give up and move out. Life will still be unfair whatever you do.

"God, if you like it so much, why don't you go live there?"

'fraid ladies. im gonna sculk off now and do some work B4 i get fired - then where would I be?

I've thoroughly enjoyed the discussion, i hope no one was offended. I'm certainly not and I've had a few insults thrown at me

i really think that this is a London issue because only the very poor and the very rich can afford to be here

I don't think that is good for anyone

Probably already been pointed out, but people who are able to buy their own property are much better off.

They get a choice in where they live, and unltimately where their children are schooled.

If the house gets too small, or they change jobs they can sell up and move else where, without taking the risk of having to wait months/years or being moved to an area even worse.

We are more than likely entitled to social housing, fortunately due to an inheitance we were in the position to buy a property, which means that dd1 is now in one of the top schools in town, as opposed to one of the worst and she is not dodging needles etc on her way to school as my friends children are, who are in social housing.

We probably would be better off financially paying rent on social housing, I don't know. DH has a good credit rating and already had a 30% stake in the house we bought, so our morgate is cheap. But even if were £100 per week better off, I wouldn't move into the social sector.

People on benefits don't have it easy. My washer broke down not long ago. Due to being employed we were able to get a brand new on interest free credit. Had we been on benefits we would have to save for a second hand one, with no guarantee should it break down. Or go to BrightHouse and end up paying twice what it worth.

I have a 42inch flat screen, again on interest free credit I wouldn't ahve that TV if I was on benefots as we wouldn't get the credit and would ahve to save for it.

There is always food in the fridge and freezer and we can afford luxeries like ice cream/cakes/biscuits without it having to be an either/or choice.

We are not rich, by any stretch of the imagination,. but we have a good life as DH is good at budgeting and we both work. It would be very different if were on benefits, it's harder to budget next to nothing.

If you can afford your house, move somewhere cheaper. Swap with my friend if you like, she only pays £20 p/w for her house, as only her partner works, so HB pay the rest.

i'm amazed that its cheaper to buy than rent anywhere! Where i live, in SE London, the same houses offered for rent or sale have a 30% premium to buy. We are saving our pennies and will hopefully pay CASH when we do buy.

That said, we have gradually migrated further and further from central London as it became less affordable.

incidentally, two of the flats we've rented were ex-LA, owned by well-off people who bought them on the cheap.

shinyandnew - you actually have MUCH more flexibility in where you live if you are a private renter. I can move next door to the best schools on one month's notice, no worrying about chains, etc.

Tax credits are odd, aren't they.

Lots of people on here saying "I don't get benefits and I pay tax". Do they get tax credits?

What are tax credits - they are money the government gives you. They are a new thing. Are they benefits dressed up in another name?

"you actually have MUCH more flexibility in where you live if you are a private renter. "

yes I suppose you do if you have a huge disposable income to throw at your housing costs. You can virtually forget finding a place near a very good school if you're on benefits as most won't even consider you.