Lifetime Social Housing Tenancies

[RowsOfFlowers]

Am I wrong or being unreasonable to think that this new policy that Labour are bringing in is very unfair?

I come from a poor-ish background (as in no one in my wider family has any money). However, my mum and Dad did fairly okay and managed to move up the property ladder (through sheer hard work and sacrifice). My dad died a few years ago and so now it’s just my mom. We never received any benefits - and now my DH and I live in a house and pay a high interest rate (thanks Truss) and I don’t know if we will ever pay off our house (if I am to have children and go part time), so we will need to downsize. We don’t qualify for any benefits either but we are in the squashed middle, so we really feel it when anything rises in cost and don’t get any help.

I feel really cross that someone can benefit from social housing for a lifetime, no matter how much they go on to earn, and then if they pass away, they can pass it down as an asset.

I have a friend who’s parents came to this country, got given social housing, their children paid it off (40% discount) and now they all get to keep a £650k house in London. It doesn’t seem fair to me at all. I feel really disillusioned living in the UK.

No. No they aren't.

When I got my Social Housing (which came with a lifetime tenancy), I was a single mother working 2 jobs with only 4 days off a MONTH (the weekends DD wasn't with her dad). How dare you imply that we are all just doing the bare minimum when it comes to work.

It's social housing. Provided by the state. If you won't want people to have an opinion buy your own house. We can all have an opinion on how public assets should be used.

Excellent, hope you run your medical appointments by all the tax payers so we can see if our money should be spent on your health. Make sure it's really worth it.

If social housing tenants circumstances are everyone's business because 'tax payers'(?) then let's apply that to everything, shall we.

How is that what she's saying?
My mother's council rent is less than half what it would be on the open market. If your rent is doubled you have to work twice as hard to pay it. That's not saying my mother doesn't work hard but technically she doesn't HAVE to work as hard as I do.

We are allowed to comment on how we think the NHS should in the same we can can comment on social housing works. If I was to write a post about how it is difficult to get a medical appointment no one would say it is none of my business and the doctor can just do what they like. Although the people on this thread would presumably just think I was envy for those who had appointments.

Yup and pile on single people in large four bed homes because they don’t want to move. Because it’s ’their’ house even though technically it isn’t. The whole thing is broken.

Does that include private renters who get help with rent? Does it also include people who are in temporary accommodation that also work. Does it include people on a low wage so get in work benefits via uc.

At this rate everything is going to be the business of the tax payer.😅

The post you quoted was about the personal circumstances of SH tenants.

So presumably your personal medical problems are up for debate too. I mean, did you even need to call the doctor, should your reasons be anyone else's business?

Might stick my kids school reports on here too, make sure the tax payers agrees that their education is money well spent.

The point is about personal circumstances affecting lifetime tenancies, and there being millions of people who are deserving of social housing than some who aren't.

Quite, the current system is works in the same way as saying that because I might need a referral to a food bank today, I instantly get a ticket to go and pick up food for life from regardless of what happens to me. Which is at the cost of someone else who might need the help in the future.

Who is undeserving of secure, affordable housing?

This thread is about lifetime tenancies, didn't you know this?

Those who are wealthy enough to support themself?

Which brings me back to the question I asked earlier...what incentive would there be for anyone in SH to get a better job/ work more hours, if there is a chance that they may lose the house they live in...would you take that risk?

I do know this.

That's why I said secure housing.

Why is paying their own rent not considered supporting themselves?

But that would depend on the hypothetical income threshold. It’s the middle and high earners who should be kicked out, although that would depend on other factors such as if they have dependents.

Loads of people move house when they get pay increases. It is pretty common for people to move house. Some people just live in a different world of being nannied by the state their whole lives.

What a ridiculous attitude to have. The HA house across from me have no means to pay for their own home. They have a HA house. Does it bother me? Not remotely. Id have stayed in mine if I hadn't got the money for my own home. And it would be no one else business as to why I was there.

The personal circumstances of those housed in HA are fuck all to do with anyone else. They need a home they have a home. That's all that anyone needs to know.

So do you want working people living in SH or just those on benefits? It's difficult to tell.

No one I'm feeling.

Everyone should just cut some branches off their magic money trees and buy their own

😂