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.

That’s not what I am doing here - I’m not advocating for worse for others. I’m allowed to be critical of a system that does not work for me.

Also you don’t really have any right to criticise myself or my husband, we are doing the best that we can. Stop being cruel to me for no reason, I feel attacked by you and it’s not helpful to this discussion frankly. I am talking about the right to buy system, not attacking people in social housing!

Of course the system should change. The **it is going to hit the fan in a few years when those who have worked , don’t get benefits but rent because they can’t quite afford to buy are going to be up the creak without a paddle whilst those who have received benefits and lifetime housing subsidy will be laughing. Those poor workers will be stuck as they won’t be able to afford private rent on a pension because they used all their pension money to pay private rent. If those same people on benefits and in social housing haven’t saved anything to a pension they may also get pension credit and all the benefits that come along with that.

We seemed to have reached a point where working isn’t paying, no wonder so many young people don’t want to do it.

Quite.

But if you can’t work and need benefits, you get money towards rent. If OP doesn’t work, they lose the house. It takes years to pay off equity rather than just interest.

And these days, in my East Midlands not exactly fashionable and expensive area, it takes two people working full time to afford the cheapest house. It’s not about choosing one you can’t afford.

You’ve got that the wrong way round.

It’s immoral for private rent to be so much more expensive than social housing.

Exactly this. Thank you for the useful perspective!! It’s not a fair system, it’s simply not paying off….

Exactly. I live in the SE and myself and my partner work ourselves into the ground most weeks. Everything is just too expensive.

This 100%!!!

Sadly, I think you’re right.

Ironically, of course, most renters can afford to buy, mortgage payments are usually much less than private rentals. It’s the deposit they struggle with.

But you could - potentially - be eligible for housing benefit to help you pay your rent if, say, you lost your job. If OP lost some of her household income and struggled or couldn’t pay her mortgage, she wouldn’t have any support from the government, as far as I know.

At current property prices, you can’t set the rent lower if you have a mortgage. The mortgage company has a say in the rent. You need insurance. You need to maintain the building. You need to pay the mortgage even if the tenant isn’t paying rent, and if the tenant isn’t paying rent it takes six months and thousands of pounds to sort it out.

There’s no way I’d be a private landlord- I can’t afford the time or money.

As someone with a mortgage in a street of council houses, I agree that's it's very unfair. The council renters are so obviously better off than we are. It really grinds you down.

Exactly

It does :(

I am glad there’s a bit more balance in terms of opinions on this thread!

In response to your boring first paragraph yes, people should have the right to all the things you list. If the wealthy didn’t do all they could to avoid paying tax then maybe things would look very different and when I say wealthy I’m not talking about those that consider themselves high earners. I’m talking about the 1% that have 80% of the wealth. Just to add, I’ve found that most of those that pick over the rights and wrongs of social housing have usually overstretched themselves with a big mortgage that they’re now enslaved to. Most of it’s pure jealousy

That was your choice

What subsidy?

I think you've misunderstood - many do.

Housing may be subsidised by housing benefit. If someone is in receipt of housing benefit its possible they're actually costing the taxpayer less if they are in council housing rather than private rental.

But council tenants do not receive cheaper rent because its subsidised by the tax payer. They receive cheaper rent because the aim of social housing is to house people, not to make a profit.

They pay what its costs. A little more actually. Now, if the councils were allowed to spend the money made when someone buys their property, on building additional properties for social rent, then we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.

Some people are so out of touch.

Social housing rent shouldn’t be at the level of private rent. The private rental market needs to be regulated.

Landlords can charge £1000 for a property that would be £500. Because they can.

Yes some landlords their mortgage has gone up but what about the big landlords that own the properties outright? Market rent is what they can get away with.

Yep

Sorry but your original comment was batshittery, implying everything was ops fault/bad life choices as if she could easily of just chosen to live a council house when in most areas that would involve 5+ years of living in assorted bed and breakfasts or hostels.
Or as if she should and could of easily snagged a wealthy man, rich men can tell when a woman just sees them as a walking ATM machine.

Op is not unreasonable to fall in love with her man who works a regular job and to want to have children together in a regular house without breaking the bank.

Idk why it was deleted because it wasn't offensive more just crazy

It's all just nonsense and red herrings. The top 1% won't stay in a country that has a punitive tax regime. Not when the rest of the world is crying out for wealthy people to move to their country and will incentivise them to do so. Look at the mass exodus from the UK and Europe already of the wealthy. You are in real danger of shooting the golden goose. You can argue about the ethical rights and wrongs of wealth distribution all you like, but policy has to be rooted in reality. We cannot realistically tax the super wealthy enough to fund everything that the masses feel they are entitled to.

So again the question is asked, if social housing will continue to be a scarce resource then who should be entitled to it? Those who happen to have acquired a lifetime tenancy at some point in their lives but are now totally capable of supporting themselves in the private rental market or even purchasing a property OR the poorest in society? It really is an either-or question. You can't answer both and then pretend we can magic up enough social housing through taxing some mythical immobile billionaires.

Just to add, of course people that have have overstretched themselves to buy a house will be bitter when they see people earning more than them enjoying subsidised housing that they and other tax payers are contributing towards. It is intrinsically and inherently unfair. That's why lifetime tenancies need to be banned. Creating a two tier housing system where it is actually financially beneficial to manufacture a situation where you are poor for a few years to get a lifetime tenancy and then begin to build a career in the full knowledge that you can enjoy subsidised housing for the rest of your life is bonkers.

Thank you @Frateletheboss

It is crazy when you consider the complete double standards on this thread.

complete support for those in receipt of benefits and free housing, but absolutely none if you don’t qualify. Oh no, everything is my fault because I have made bad choices, apparently. No, we are both hard-working and decent people who contribute to society and pay a lot in taxes. I am not going to apologise for my feelings when they are completely justified in what is fast becoming a very unjust society.

And considering reproducing with someone simply for money is vile 🥴 even worded like that makes me cringe…

YANBU. I think if you need social housing, that's fine, but I don't believe in anyone having a lifetime tenancy on any property, I think tenants should move to more suitably sized homes as their families grow and then shrink again and when the tenant dies the property should revert to the council to house more people that need it. If social housing was built with many different property sizes/types in each development then people wouldn't have to move away from family, friends, jobs, schools, etc, if they needed to up or downsize.

You can stamp your feet all you like but the tenancies are for life. That’s the rule. If you want to see it changed stand for your local council and try to get elected to parliament then you can implement change.