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.

It’s not a new thing it’s been the case for a long time. I agree it’s stupid, my husband’s parents are living in a four bedroom council house that they were given in 1975, it’s just the two of them living there now and they should have had to downsize when there children moved out 30 years ago.

https://www.gov.uk/benefit-cap/benefit-cap-amounts

This explains why it is made up pretty well.

Because it's made up nonsense. Can't really make it any simpler for you I'm afraid.

But you could explain why. Except you can’t.

Because the Telegraph has form for made up nonsense. And it’s taken the page down now, the link no longer works.

The Telegraph is no more reliable than any other newspaper. But the figures are from English Housing Survey, which is a continuous national survey commissioned by the Ministry of Housing.

And the link still works fine. It's a paywalled article, by the way.

From the article:

Kevin Hollinrake, the shadow housing secretary, said: “With over a million households on the social housing waiting list, it’s impossible to justify high earners remaining in taxpayer-subsidised homes.

“Government subsidies should be focused on those in greatest need. Social housing exists as a safety net, and resources should be targeted at the poorest to ensure the system remains fair and effective.”

Too bloody right.

The link doesn’t work - and I’m a subscriber.

If even the shadow housing minister is labouring under the illusion that social housing is subsidised we’re in deep shit.

That’s not conducive to this discussion. I just want to assure you that I’m not trying to argue with you here, I really just want to discuss and understand…

The link is working fine for me?

Exactly this. But the social housing tenant haters will choose to believe this bollocks of course. 😆

Well then you need to UNDERSTAND that social housing is NOT subsidised, most social housing tenants pay tax, and most of them pay rent.

She may have been receiving other benefits that are exempt from the benefit cap though, e.g. PIP, DLA, Carers allowance etc.

It’s getting a bit tiresome now @LikeWhoUsesTypewritersAnyway 🥱
Honestly, maybe don’t continue to engage in this thread if you don’t actually want to discuss it and just want to throw out insults to people?

It’s getting very tiresome trying to convince people who refuse to listen that social housing isn’t subsidised.

We can agree to disagree- see a previous post of mine that explained the cross-subsidising model that HAs use.

If it’s not subsidised - then why isn’t there more social housing being built?

Then just stop? You certainly haven't convinced me.

What are HAs cross subsidising? The reason more isn’t being built is because it’s not subsidised, councils aren’t even allowed to spend the proceeds of right to buy on building more.

What are you talking about?

https://www.housing.org.uk/our-work/building-new-homes/

I’m not convinced I’m afraid. No one has provided any evidence other than throwing out patronising comments and calling contributions nonsense. My mind hasn’t changed. Whether funds have been ringfenced or whatever, it’s still coming out of government money and tenants are paying considerably less than private renters and those who have had to buy their own homes.

It isn’t a level playing field.

Funding from the government:

www.housing.org.uk/news-and-blogs/news/nhf-response-to-300m-ahp-top-up/

It isn’t coming out of government money and rents are lower because there’s no profit.

Yes - two billion pounds just for the 26/27 financial year.

https://www.centreforcities.org/blog/whats-2-billion-the-governments-latest-affordable-housing-announcement-in-context/

Cross-subsidisation and a combination of government funding/grants and private investment:

yieldinvesting.co.uk/how-is-social-housing-funded-in-the-uk/