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!!!!

(not sure that happens often on here that I agree wholeheartedly with you ).

I grew up in the NE of Englang in the 1980's, my Dad (yorkshire man born and bred) moved us all "down south" just to give my DB and I chance at any job once we were older.

OP has it ever occurred to you that it might work the other way?

More compassionate, intelligent, capable, reasonable people might be looking at you with your job and wondering how the hell is that fair, that a person with so much animosity and begrudgery can have a good job and I can't?

Just wondering........

I am regularly appalled by the begrudgery and animosity of supposedly middle-income people. I suppose it shows that middle income is very, very, very different from middle class.

'I'm on benefits, we have a 50inch TV, PS3, Wii, leather couches

people would think we wre doing really well if they came in.

Thing is, all this was bought BEFORE we hit the shit times, bought from the money when DH could work.
'

That's us also.

The boys have DS'sas well (well will do) but they were bought fropm their DLA for Christmas gifts, to enable us to attend things like meetings without trouble; however I bet people who see us think potherwise...

Actually we'renot in social housing (yet) but we do claim some benefits as top up to avery lowlevel income (@£11k a year for six of us through PT work / student income- Dh was made redundant in May)

I did however grow up in council housing and really, did not know many if any of these famillies. I do know priorities were different- big TV outweighed educational trips (for some not all) or whatever;but that's just cash spent differently, if you reduce it you penalise those who do spend it on decent food / saving / school trips etc.

We get a bit more than average becuase of the disability but already it is hard; daren't imagine what life would be like without those top ups- certainly we'd lose the rented house, and the boys would have to change schools as this rea is expensive....d amaging them in the process (ASD, genuinely it would).....

Wouldn't mind a decent TV though, mine'sadecadeold and has a dent in the top

(OK Dh wouldn't mind,can't see point myself if it works)

Splodge - did you know that you wouldn't have enough money to even buy more than one pair of shoes every 3 years, when you first got your mortgage? You must have been very badly advised or a bit daft if not. Or maybe you have fallen on hard times (like MANY of the posters on this thread). I couldn't afford to buy a house in the city in which I worked, so I bought one within commuting distance rather than go completely above my means. Of course I would have preferred to have lived in the city at the time, but I sacrified that - which was my CHOICE. You have made your own choices. I hope for your sake that you never hit hard times (and I mean PROPER hard times), but if you do, maybe you will appreciate how lucky you actually are now. This thread has certainly put things into perspective for me.

BTW Cassell (many pages ago) asked why people seeking disability allowance shouldn't be 'questioned'. Very about this! I wish people would experience things before talking out of their arses! My mother can't walk more than a few metres, and can't lift her one leg due to incredibly bad spinal problems (which affect her in many ways). She is very brave IMHO and managed to bring up 2 kids whilst being disabled with my Dad away a lot. She NEVER claimed for this for 20 years even though she was unable to work. When she did finally really need to claim she was grilled like you wouldn't believe, and treated like a liar and a scrounger by the assessor - even though her GP (of 20 years) and hospital consultants backed her to the hilt. She was in tears for weeks after whenever she spoke about it, and still feels upset about it now 10 years later!

love MaggiePie's post

Crikey Splodge you've got jealousy issues! No-one on a normal income can afford to buy somewhere to live in central London and have a car etc, we never have and we live in zone 2. I may be wrong but I thought that most people in council accommodation don't actually own their flats, and therefore have no property to raise money against. They are therefore forced to buy stuff from catalogues/on finance and pay alot of interest on them. Most people could afford to buy a massive telly if they spent 4 years paying for it. They may have a nice flat in central London, they may have a job, so therefore they have more disposable income. I am assuming you have a mortgage on a house that will be yours one day.
People on council lists have very little choice on where they live, and as someone else said some estates can be pretty bad. Every London borough has to provide social housing, it's one of those things that makes our country great IMO, we look after people who need it (unless you are living on the streets but that is another matter). If people take the piss, that's the unfortunately the price we pay.

It sounds like you are going through a tough financial time, can you not apply for working tax credits? They are brilliant and have saved us a lot of worry over the last year.

Well I'm just eating burnt jacket potato and I'm not on benefits. Typical! Chuck us a chip AlwaysLooking, seeing as I paid for them out of my taxes!

Haven't read the whole thread but I think the OP must be rather a "small minded" person to say nothing of her confusion about council house rents and state benefits. The debate was started on a false premise, wasn't it i.e. that council tenants all live on state benefits.

I think if the OP is so concerned about her neighbours who are council house tenants having cars when she hasn't, she could always sell her house, rent privately and then w-a-i-t and wait to be allocated council property. Whether she will then be able to afford a car will depend on her disposable income just as it does for everyone else, regardless of the type of housing they occupy.

Mind it's so good to know that there are so many MNs who object to people like the OP and her values. Have noticed brill posts from BITofFun and HUllygully and most of those on this page - restores my faith in humna nature.

and really there's no excuse for having burnt jacket potato - you shouldn't have spend so longer MNing and then you'd have remember to take them out

Very true - now have grated cheese all over my keyboard !

"Very angry about this! I wish people would experience things before talking out of their arses! My mother can't walk more than a few metres, and can't lift her one leg due to incredibly bad spinal problems (which affect her in many ways). She is very brave IMHO and managed to bring up 2 kids whilst being disabled with my Dad away a lot. She NEVER claimed for this for 20 years even though she was unable to work. When she did finally really need to claim she was grilled like you wouldn't believe, and treated like a liar and a scrounger by the assessor - even though her GP (of 20 years) and hospital consultants backed her to the hilt. She was in tears for weeks after whenever she spoke about it, and still feels upset about it now 10 years later!"

I hope she's getting more help now, it really is awful the way people get treated, as if struggling with a disablity wasn't enough.

Also, grr, at the idiots who do fake disabilities, making it harder for people who genuinely do need help

Splodge I'm confused. You say council tax pays for the council houses - but what about the rents? My house is almost 100 years old and I pay £73 a week to live in it. I have virtually no maintenance costs to the council (house is luckily in good repair and they have only had to come out to turn a nut on a pipe in the kitchen) - so surely my £300ish a month pays for my house? There's no way they owe any money on it (its too old)

and my council tax breakdown in the SE doesnt include housing. It includes poilce, firebrigade and small amount for the local council (i.e. bins) and a larger amount for the county council (i.e. highways) but nothing for housing stock?

But Kaloki, it all comes down to the age-old issue we have in this country of presuming guilt rather than innocence (as I said back when the thread was still in single figure page numbers!).

I for one refuse to believe the worst of every member of society, which seems to be the common mentality these days. Everyone thinks they have it worse than everyone else, and presume that everyone else is pulling a fast one.

What a depressing way to view the world.

"I for one refuse to believe the worst of every member of society, which seems to be the common mentality these days."

Sad isn't it? Must be miserable viewing the world from their perspective, how do they even leave the house?

The thing is council house tenancies can be passed on via inheritance to immediate family, and also circumstances can change - a single mother without income with a very unwell small child, perhaps (understandably) depressed, may see that child through healthcare so they're well, get a job when they start school, meet someone and marry - and suddenly you have a 2 income family with perfectly good jobs. They're still entitled to live in the council property.

The problem is not enough state housing for the people who need it, plus stratospheric house prices eating up most disposable income for those in the private sector. It isn't that benefits are overly generous - I believe less than £60 a week for everything except rent/council tax for a single person. Could you live on that? Because I couldn't.

It;s interesting that you think I'm judgemental when when I put the subject up for debate. If I was only interested in nurturing my own dogma I wouldn't have put the posting up would I?

We've got to the stage now where I'm being criticised for things that people imagine I'm saying or thinking. It's fascinating to watch.

It may amuse you all to know that I have friends on a hefty combined income, 150k - (this is way, way more than mine).

They work in Central London, obviously are entitled to no benefits because of their huge income. The live in a rat infested 2 bed flat with 3 boys who are all settled in a fairly good school.

Now local councils are duty bound to provide housing for those in need. But why are those in need housed on the most expensive real estate land in the country where more normal people can't afford to live???

I'm assuming the councils pay market rate for land? wouldn't it make sense to build social housing on cheaper land, it would cost less and you'd get more property.

Instead of councils being in charge decisions could be based on where might be more economically viable. Housing estates in central London could be sold off raising huge revenues for better planned projects outside of London

Oh i'm so sorry. Yes, let's bring back a feudal system of allowance. Let those who 'have' live with lordly privilege in the manor house at the end of the road and those who 'have not' live in the hovel cottages.

By the way, I live in council accommodation - one bedroom with 2 children, (one nearly a teenager - one sleeps on the sofa). Can barely afford the rent. Car? That's a laugh. Have never been on a holiday except to cornwall once. Cannot get a bigger place to live, since guess what - everyone is buying the 2 bed houses - but then I guess I don't deserve somewhere decent to live since I don't earn 40k plus a year

Try to understand the reality before you go ranting about something you know nothing about.

i'm just catching up.

re: housing associations - the vast majority receive government "grants," also known as funding, also known as tax receipts. So they are subsidised by the state to help create and manage more housing stock.

have also just had a breakthrough on splodge's car problem - streetcar! don't know why i didn't think of it sooner. Streetcar is so much better than having your own car if you live in central London. It works out much cheaper, unless you use your car almost every single day.

So say those people on benefits wanted to get a job in London, why should they have to comute when you've already decided that you'd hate to do so yourself?

Also, as has already been said, you have to have been living in an area in order to get council housing there. They don't exactly get a choice.

"But why are those in need housed on the most expensive real estate land in the country where more normal people can't afford to live???"

Google Blackbird Leys. It might educate you. the council have to house people IN THE AREA THAT COUNCIL CONTROLS. If the council is Westminster, then that means in Westminster. Peckham and Doncaster do have council housing too, you know! It isn't at all the case that people in receipt of state support are always housed in the most expensive real estate blah blah blah (Windsors excepted, obviously).

And while not wishing to be unkind, if your friends are on £150,000 a year and can only afford a rat infested 2 bed flat, they are either dreadful with money or choosing to live somewhere awful. They could afford a very nice flat between the commons in Clapham with that salary plus deposit. They could of course also contact Rentakill.

£150,000 x 3x income = £450,000 = tiny flat in central London, or a modest 3-bed house in outer London. Not bad but not the lap of luxury either.

But why are those in need housed on the most expensive real estate land in the country where more normal people can't afford to live???

I know round here that every new build estate has to have something like 10% affordable housing and 10% social housing. Therefore, people are housed on the newest, bestest estates in the area. (the woman and her kids who had my house before me was moved to a brand new build in the newest estate in a 4 bed house worth more than anyone I know could ever dream of earning. But that was the next available house of that size for her, it just happened to be a newbuild)

"Instead of councils being in charge decisions could be based on where might be more economically viable. Housing estates in central London could be sold off raising huge revenues for better planned projects outside of London"

But splodge, leaving aside the issue of homeowners on these estates, you don't see why you have to move out of the city centre- why should council tenants? Can you really see no solution whereby you could both live in central London?

Or does your utopia involve nobody on benefits/in council housing living within the capital city at all? Because that seems a little extreme...

If that's the case, we better start paying cleaners and binmen at least £60k pa, otherwise this place will be filthy.