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!!!!

'£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.'
Oh Boo-Hoo them. I'm sure at some point they will sell up and buy a nice house somewhere outside London. I expect I'll see them on Location Location Location, smugly saying how they can now afford a farm in Mid Wales where there kids can run free, and they can grow their own veg! Excuse me if I refuse to feel sorry for people earning that much money.

'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??? ' Do you not think it makes sense for there to be a mix of people in an area, or would you rather the 'poor' and 'rich' didn't mingle. Unbelievable!

Tethersend

Maybe this explains a little

Those of us who are tied to central london for work are priced out of living reasonably close to where we work.

Forced outside of London to commute, we loose the valuable luxury of time spent together.

Whilst I understand that it doesnt necessarily make sense to chuck social housing out of central london the net effect is that those in social housing get to live on prime land close to work wheras as those who seem to be better off are not

Isnt there something wrong when an income of 150k cant get you at least 2 bedrooms for 3 kids when an income of 24k can (in the same area)

The whole 'why are those in need housed on the most expensive real estate' thing is bonkers!

WHO made it desirable prime real estate?
When I was born in Crouch End it was a scruffy part of north london. Should all the commoners be kicked out just because the chattering classes decide they will move in their because they cant afford Hamstead anymore?

The council flat I had in Holloway wasnt built on the most expensive real estate in London. It was built on in a historically poor area where working class people needed access to decent housing. How is it my fault that all those people who couldnt afford to live in Highgate decided it was 'almost' Tufnell Park and wanted to live there?

So what the OP is saying is that us plebs should feck off the moment a part of London becomes the latest property hot spot?

Bollocks.

3x income is a modest multiple in this day and age - and no deposit, given they've been on the ladder in this boom? Seriously?

According to Rightmove, their hovel in Clapham would do me.

If they were willing to live in somewhere further away from an outstanding primary school (and if their kids go privately, that's possible) they could indeed live very, very comfortably indeed. Point is they are still doing massively better than most people in this country - 90% earn under 60k pa - so expecting that 90 to feel for their hardship is pretty nauseating. A purely disposable income of over 70k pa - after tax, NI and mortgage are paid - is not exactly woeful, now is it?

i agree there is something wrong when £150k, putting a family in the top tiny fraction of earners, doesn't get them adequate space.

perfectstorm - £550k is a stretch on that income (after taxes - let's not even get into the coming 50% tax rate), and we're still talking about flats. It's a world gone mad.

Chegirl - Angel, Islington - Fulham - and Shoreditch - such posh, prime real estate in the 1970s.

Yes but that's houseprices gone mad, goodnightmoon. It isn't the fault of council stock. I agree that the cost of housing in this country is appalling - we had to sell our house in Cambridge and relocate to the West country to afford kids at all - but how is zeroing in on those on very low incomes, living in state provided housing, helping? It won't make those on high incomes richer to further impoverish the poorer, now will it?

The only way to really address it is a fixed x3 top multiple with compensation paid to anyone in neg. equity as a result, but the cost of that would be prohibitive, and I suspect a lot of people would absolutely implode at that level of state regulation in the market. Bluntly if people can't afford to live in a certain area they must cut their cloth etc - and actually they could afford to rent. A purchase is also an investment which a council house tenancy is not. Mortgages are paid off, but rents are for ever.

Does Kensington and Chelsea say to the family of 5 who are in council accomodation 'I'm sorry guys, you may like your school but Kensington is too bloody expensive so I'm afraid you'll have to move out' - no it has a duty to house them.

its all those in private accomodation who are forced away. Dont you guys see the peculiarity of this?

Splodge - I think it is worth commenting that what you are talking about in London, happens on a smaller (cheaper) scale all across the UK. Whether it be in villages (e.g. in Cornwall where huge amounts of the local housing has been bought by 2nd homeowners who have pushed prices up), most cities (where historically poverty sticken areas have become 'up and coming'), suburbs/outlying areas that the 'up and coming' areas have pushed out to (such as mine, where the influx of new housing and 'city-folk' has led to the local school being oversubscribed). Most of us are feeling the effects. BUT this is not the fault of the council house residents in ANY of these areas. In fact ironically they are probably the one section of society who aren't at fault.

"Forced outside of London to commute, we loose the valuable luxury of time spent together. "

well you can join a very large club, not just around London but around the country where people are forced to lose time together but at least can afford to buy more than one pair of shoes every 3 years.

9 minutes on the train to London Bridge from Peckham Rye - beats the Northern Line, and you can get trainers for a fiver down Rye Lane.

splodge what bollocks you talk. I live in a 2 bed council flat in Stepney, my DH works full time ( earns around 26k) I'm going back to work in jan. We can't afford a mortgage though and don't want to move out of London because our family and jobs are here.
sorry to disappoint.

Where I live is 1hr commute to central London. Hundreds and thousands of families do this commute, so they can afford better and bigger accomodation for their children.

You have a choice. You can lose an hour a day in a commute, and buy somewhere bigger and better for your family.

Ebbsfleet station now runs from Kent to St Pancras in just 16minutes - and a 3-4 bedroomed house on the newish build estate is around £275-£300k I think?

You have a choice about what you want now you have children. You can sell up and rent, you can stay where you are. You can move a bit further out. You have options, and to sit and moan about the state of your flat when you are earning that amount just makes you very set in your ways. You arent moaning because you were brought up in that area etc, you're moaning because you dont want to increase your commute as far as I can tell?

And I'm sorry, but there is no way your finances can be that bad that you cant spend £2 on a pair of school trousers for your son. If they are, you seriously need to reevaluate your living for his sake.

There is no need for those earning £150k to live somewhere "infested with rats" , in their case this is clearly a lifestyle choice.

"Dont you guys see the peculiarity of this?"

No, I don't. The poor are fucked over on pretty well any quality of life measure you care to name - why should they be forced out of their home area into a poorer one at the behest of the rich, too? Can't you see how peculiar YOU sound to many of us, in trying to argue that they should? Particularly as selling off council stock into private ownership doesn't reduce house prices: I grew up in Clapham between the commons when it was a rough area, and there was a lot of council housing, which was sold off in the 80s under RTB and is now chichi starter homes for the comfortably off. No new council housing replaced it, either. Most affordable housing schemes in the area now are HomeBuy, and require a minimum income of 50k pa. That's not a replacement for council housing, and most poorer people now are totally priced out of areas they grew up. And prices get ever more stratospheric in the area so it isn't in any way bringing prices down for the rich, that council housing has moved into private hands. Yet you think poor people in the little state housing still available should be forced to move somewhere shitty, so the rich can feel less poor, despite no tangible benefit resulting even to those rich?

The rich often talk about the politics of envy, and how the poor are just jealous. As forcing the poor out doesn't make it easier for the rich to get in, and therefore you want poorer people's lives to be made even harder so you don't feel resentful of their daring to live in areas you can't afford, how can you argue that anyone who disagrees is peculiar? Yur argument sounds - well, let's leave it at "peculiar". It's as good a polite euphemism as I can think of at this time of night.

But those on low incomes have to commute as well. What about all those living in council housing outside zone 1&2? (still prime real estate) They have to get on a train and get to work in central london thus missing out on valuable family time.

But of course doh! Council house scum dont work do they? Silly ol me.

So where should all these ner do wells be shipped off to?

Where would they not impinge on decent people's lifestyles?

Home counties? - wouldnt they make the place look untidy and bung up the schools?
West Country? - there isnt anywhere to live for local scum now all the property has been bought up by 2nd homers and downsizers
Highlands of Scotland? - might interfer with the wildlife. They eat swans dont they?

Mumsnet is looking for a new campaign. Why dont we submit our ideas about where we wouldnt want to live and we can draw up a list of suitable areas.

I think tents would be adequate. We dont want to waste tax money on building them proper houses. We could even build a big fence round these refugee resettlement camps projects.

Splodge, I am sorry but I have watched this thread all day and you are coming across as whiney and pathetic.
When I first moved up North, we couldn't afford the "nice" areas of Manchester to buy so I put up with an hour commute to live in a nice area. Then we had DS1 and I gave up work and we wanted a garden so DH and I moved farther out and now he has a bigger commute. Thats life, deal with it.
I am certainly bloody glad that I am not in an inner city Manchester tower block a walk away from DH's Office. Have you any idea?
Stop blaming other people and find solutions for your family, stop being such a bloody martyr.

"Isnt there something wrong when an income of 150k cant get you at least 2 bedrooms for 3 kids when an income of 24k can (in the same area)?"

No, splodge. This is indicative of what we like to call 'A Welfare State'.

The first part of your question I agree with- there is something wrong (It's an artificially inflated housing market combined with a lack of affordable housing by the way). But I am repeatedly baffled by you venting your spleen at those in social housing on £24k. As if they're taking what's rightfully yours

"Those of us who are tied to central london for work are priced out of living reasonably close to where we work."

Well, that's me too - thanks to social housing, I was able to rent a flat close to central London, where I work. Instead of wanting more of it, you want to kick me out so you can have my flat? Really?

Who cant afford £2.00 school trousers? . What the feck are you spending your money on?

Even when I was dirt poor my kids were dressed. You couldnt buy £2.00 school trousers then.

smokinaces - it's an hours commute from my town to St Pancras (know several people who do it) and you'd get deatched 5 bedroom house for that round here (with huge garden and nice big rooms all round)

the rail ticket wouldn't be cheap though. Several thousand pounds a year, I imagine.

always, I'm guessing its different peoples priorities right? I've always grown up round here, so the hours commute is quite normal to working life anyway. But my priority is to my children. I owned once, but it was completely unsafe (town house, spiral stairs) and unfriendly (big crime area, no garden etc) for children (not least that the rendering was falling down, the joists had rotted to nothing and the whole place was about to fall down). We couldnt afford to buy better so sold up and rented in a better area - but further away from train station (we did live 2 minutes walk, then moved a 30 minute walk) so added to commute for ex-H.

I just dont understand why anyone would want a flea pit so they only have to get out of bed 10 minutes before the office hours start, when they could just get up an hour earlier and have a wonderful home. I especially struggle to understand that someone would prefer this way of living than putting their child in new clothes.

but goodnight, a good house an hour commute could cost less than the current property - even when you include the cost of a rail ticket.

For instance, £450k for 1 bed rat infested flat, no commute price

Or, £250k for 3 bed house with garden and maybe £3k a year travel?

Ok they might not be a lot better off disposible income wise, but surely be happier without the broken toilet and rats??