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 tells me that as usual you think that those defending social housing must live in one. Such an old clichè that’s been done to death. You can be privileged and still have a social conscience you know.

Maybe stick to gaming… @gamerchick

If you’ve nothing useful to add to the discussion and are devoid of any critical thought or argument, please move along to another thread as your hyperbole and personal attacks aren’t welcome here.

We are tax payers so it’s everything to do with us. Also, did you read the stat I posted this morning about thousands of kids in temporary housing? Again, that’s something to do with us all and is part of the issue OP posted about.

Learn about the cost of capital and opportunity cost. It isn't cost neutral to own Social Housing, especially if you count maintenance costs even if you've repaid any money required to build the house in the first place.

For example, there are over a hundred council houses worth a million pounds. If they were sold and the money put into a bank account then this would raise £50k per annum. No risk, no maintenance costs etc. Scale this down for other properties and you get the idea.

Dude the only one dishing out personal attacks is you.

Bless your heart man.

Was I necessarily aiming that comment to you? Interesting that you felt it necessary to reply.
I do have a social conscience, but you seem to have jumped to the conclusion that I’m somehow punching down at people - which is not what I’m doing.

Are you alright?

Canny thankyou.

Not necessarily at me no, but at those of us who are pointing out the way the system works.

And I am critical of a system that is benefitting some while exploiting others.

whilst also leaving many people homeless who truly need it.

People who are spitting out children are living in temporary accommodation for several years 10+ years in many cases.

No its not the 50s but at least that poster was at least saying something that could help everyone. You want everyone in shit street because you are in shit street.

If you was in social housing would you be making this thread ?

But you don’t REALLY care do you. You’re no doubt all right Jack. Social housing and the lifetime tenancies are just a stick to beat the peasants with

I disagree with these lifetime tenancies. Absolutely unfair and ridiculous.

I do not want everyone in shit street. I would like to live in a fairer and more equal society.

Perhaps I could say that you shouldn’t have children if you’re not in a position to (aimed at those in temp accommodation or SH) but then the same vitriol has been spouted towards me by a very nasty pp who thinks I overstretched on my mortgage and didn’t bag myself a rich husband. Absolute double standards.

@RowsOfFlowers My point was it should be like it was in then 1950's, and could be again if we all supported this, a fairer way. New build estates are popping up all over the place in the same way, imagine if they were all social housing with lifetime tenancies, not means tested, available to everyone, for their lifespan and their children, so solid communities can be built.

Much like the tax system. One year my husband paid more tax than Google. Work that one out

Not in anyway comparable in my opinion.
Also, I’d assume your husband is on a very high wage if such is the case. Feel we might be conflating two separate issues here, so don’t wish to muddy the waters.

Pipe dream. The NIMBYs would go into meltdown. They don’t really want more social housing so all the kiddies can have a home. They just want a section of society to pick on

I have no issues with tenancy for life but it should not be inherited unless the person inheriting meets eligibility and there should be no right to buy. There should be no cap on social rents so those on higher incomes in social housing should pay private market rent

No. You misunderstand. Google doesn’t pay very much tax. Their lawyers know all the loopholes and dodges

A person earning 100k is going to pay a considerable amount of tax so they are paying into the system. Without a lifetime tenancy the tenants are forever trapped, as if they are to get a better job they lose their tenancy. So need to stay under the threshold.
so ultimately costing the government more as they pay less tax and potentially claim more in benefit.

Not all, but a fair proportion on social housing is in a poor state of repair in scrappy area.

It is highly unlikely that there are many people earning £100k, outside of London, who are choosing to live in social housing. It might be cheap rent but it's still dead money that could be better spent on a mortgage

This is a non issue just designed to get people frothing

Social housing should be for anyone who wants it, for as long as they want it, providing they get to the top of the list in the first place

However I don't believe it should be subject to right to buy

Oh right, that was the point you were making.

That poster wasn't helping anyone by referencing the 1950s. A completely different time with a totally different demographic, population size, cost of building and a booming economy. It is completely irrelevant and acts as a red herring. In an either-or debate they were choosing 'both'. We will never have both so it isn't kind pretending that we can somehow achieve this. It stands in the way of having adult conversations rooted in reality. Who should we allocate a scarce resource to? If we allocate it to some people for life then other people (potentially poorer) will lose out. You aren't ethically or morally superior for supporting lifetime tenancies or burying your head in the sand and pretending that a time machine will come and bring about the conditions needed to build millions of social houses at a time when our economy is at best stagnant and building costs and constraints are far higher.

You’ll be glad of those children who you think people shouldn’t have when they start working and paying National Insurance to fund your state pension