|
Post by gawa on Nov 21, 2023 13:02:26 GMT
Why does no governing party suggest doing a review of the current circumstances of those in social housing?
From what I gather once you get a social house you're sorted for life. And then if you become a millionaire you still keep your social housing.
Why do none of the parties ever seem to suggest doing like a review of the financial circumstances of those in social housing with a plan to evict within 12 months those who don't need it?
Surely social housing should be for the most vulnerable and it just seems daft to me that people who get it, get it based on circumstances a long time ago which dont ever seem to get reviewed? Surely thst would help address some of the social housing issues.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Nov 21, 2023 13:14:13 GMT
Why does no governing party suggest doing a review of the current circumstances of those in social housing? From what I gather once you get a social house you're sorted for life. And then if you become a millionaire you still keep your social housing. Why do none of the parties ever seem to suggest doing like a review of the financial circumstances of those in social housing with a plan to evict within 12 months those who don't need it? Surely social housing should be for the most vulnerable and it just seems daft to me that people who get it, get it based on circumstances a long time ago which dont ever seem to get reviewed? Surely thst would help address some of the social housing issues. How many from social housing become millionaires? I lived on a council estate. The vast majority of the people there made barely enough to get by and the lower costs of rent were still struggled to be met in many cases. The social mobility index in the UK is awful. Council housing provides a low rent option that many families need to just get by. Many of the people I know from that estate will never own their own home. My parents eventually did but if we’d have got kicked out of the home before they were eventually able to scrape the minimum down for a deposit, they’d have just fell back there again a year or two later. I get the point you make but surely the answer is to build estates skywards to provide more housing. Better still, the government could try and find ways to reduce the need for council housing in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 21, 2023 13:23:03 GMT
Why does no governing party suggest doing a review of the current circumstances of those in social housing? From what I gather once you get a social house you're sorted for life. And then if you become a millionaire you still keep your social housing. Why do none of the parties ever seem to suggest doing like a review of the financial circumstances of those in social housing with a plan to evict within 12 months those who don't need it? Surely social housing should be for the most vulnerable and it just seems daft to me that people who get it, get it based on circumstances a long time ago which dont ever seem to get reviewed? Surely thst would help address some of the social housing issues. How many from social housing become millionaires? I lived on a council estate. The vast majority of the people there made barely enough to get by and the lower costs of rent were still struggled to be met in many cases. The social mobility index in the UK is awful. Council housing provides a low rent option that many families need to just get by. Many of the people I know from that estate will never own their own home. My parents eventually did but if we’d have got kicked out of the home before they were eventually able to scrape the minimum down for a deposit, they’d have just fell back there again a year or two later. I get the point you make but surely the answer is to build estates skywards to provide more housing. Better still, the government could try and find ways to reduce the need for council housing in the first place. In the early years of Council Housing you could find Doctors living next door to Colliers. Proper mix of people.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 21, 2023 13:30:28 GMT
Why does no governing party suggest doing a review of the current circumstances of those in social housing? From what I gather once you get a social house you're sorted for life. And then if you become a millionaire you still keep your social housing. Why do none of the parties ever seem to suggest doing like a review of the financial circumstances of those in social housing with a plan to evict within 12 months those who don't need it? Surely social housing should be for the most vulnerable and it just seems daft to me that people who get it, get it based on circumstances a long time ago which dont ever seem to get reviewed? Surely thst would help address some of the social housing issues. ask Eddie Dempsey, Mick Lynch and Bob Crowe Just because you move into social housing when you are poor why should you move out when you become wealthy
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 21, 2023 13:34:16 GMT
Mrs Thatchers policy to allow people to buy their homes was massively correct. it allowed people with nothing to own their own homes and I suspect there are people on this very forum who have had or will get an inheritance out of this policy.
However the subsequent decision not to reinvest that money in building more council/social housing is equally as wrong
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Nov 21, 2023 13:50:35 GMT
Why does no governing party suggest doing a review of the current circumstances of those in social housing? From what I gather once you get a social house you're sorted for life. And then if you become a millionaire you still keep your social housing. Why do none of the parties ever seem to suggest doing like a review of the financial circumstances of those in social housing with a plan to evict within 12 months those who don't need it? Surely social housing should be for the most vulnerable and it just seems daft to me that people who get it, get it based on circumstances a long time ago which dont ever seem to get reviewed? Surely thst would help address some of the social housing issues. How many from social housing become millionaires? I lived on a council estate. The vast majority of the people there made barely enough to get by and the lower costs of rent were still struggled to be met in many cases. The social mobility index in the UK is awful. Council housing provides a low rent option that many families need to just get by. Many of the people I know from that estate will never own their own home. My parents eventually did but if we’d have got kicked out of the home before they were eventually able to scrape the minimum down for a deposit, they’d have just fell back there again a year or two later. I get the point you make but surely the answer is to build estates skywards to provide more housing. Better still, the government could try and find ways to reduce the need for council housing in the first place. I and my extended family all grew up on a council estate. I'm not suggesting getting rid of it, I'm saying it should be for the most vulnerable at the present. Not the most vulnerable at the time of application. Plenty of young parents get it at a young age and then 10 years later find themselves in completely different financial positions. While people who maybe had a child later in life and with lower incomes are stuck in a private rental loop with no security. It shouldn't be a first come first get service in my opinion. It should be evaluated in the same way other benefits are so that those who need it most have it. My family also benefited from purchasing a council house which while it's great, it reduces the supply and disadvantages many other families. I think the system needs an overhaul.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Nov 21, 2023 13:52:40 GMT
Why does no governing party suggest doing a review of the current circumstances of those in social housing? From what I gather once you get a social house you're sorted for life. And then if you become a millionaire you still keep your social housing. Why do none of the parties ever seem to suggest doing like a review of the financial circumstances of those in social housing with a plan to evict within 12 months those who don't need it? Surely social housing should be for the most vulnerable and it just seems daft to me that people who get it, get it based on circumstances a long time ago which dont ever seem to get reviewed? Surely thst would help address some of the social housing issues. ask Eddie Dempsey, Mick Lynch and Bob Crowe Just because you move into social housing when you are poor why should you move out when you become wealthy Because you don't need it. Just because someone gets Job seekers allowance when they're unemployed, why should it be removed when they are employed? Social housing should be for the vulnerable who need it most. It shouldn't be a lottery where those who got it when they needed it a decade ago get to continue having it.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 21, 2023 13:54:14 GMT
if you are working and can get one does anyone know the average rent of a three bedroom council/social houseing house
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Nov 21, 2023 13:56:03 GMT
Mrs Thatchers policy to allow people to buy their homes was massively correct. it allowed people with nothing to own their own homes and I suspect there are people on this very forum who have had or will get an inheritance out of this policy. However the subsequent decision not to reinvest that money in building more council/social housing is equally as wrong It's only correct if it didn't impact housing stock and homes purchases where replaced with further social housing. Then fact this isn't what happened means Thatchers plan, in my opinion, wasn't massively correct.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Nov 21, 2023 13:57:46 GMT
if you are working and can get one does anyone know the average rent of a three bedroom council/social houseing house Where I live a 3 bedroom on social housing is just over £100 a week. In a private rental its probably near double.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 21, 2023 13:57:58 GMT
Mrs Thatchers policy to allow people to buy their homes was massively correct. it allowed people with nothing to own their own homes and I suspect there are people on this very forum who have had or will get an inheritance out of this policy. However the subsequent decision not to reinvest that money in building more council/social housing is equally as wrong It's only correct if it didn't impact housing stock and homes purchases where replaced with further social housing. Then fact this isn't what happened means Thatchers plan, in my opinion, wasn't massively correct. which is exactly what I said
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 21, 2023 13:59:04 GMT
if you are working and can get one does anyone know the average rent of a three bedroom council/social houseing house Where I live a 3 bedroom on social housing is just over £100 a week. In a private rental its probably near double. some sort of means tested "rental tax" for high earners in a council house?
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 21, 2023 13:59:39 GMT
ask Eddie Dempsey, Mick Lynch and Bob Crowe Just because you move into social housing when you are poor why should you move out when you become wealthy Because you don't need it. Just because someone gets Job seekers allowance when they're unemployed, why should it be removed when they are employed? Social housing should be for the vulnerable who need it most. It shouldn't be a lottery where those who got it when they needed it a decade ago get to continue having it. massive whoosh
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 21, 2023 14:06:32 GMT
Why does no governing party suggest doing a review of the current circumstances of those in social housing? From what I gather once you get a social house you're sorted for life. And then if you become a millionaire you still keep your social housing. Why do none of the parties ever seem to suggest doing like a review of the financial circumstances of those in social housing with a plan to evict within 12 months those who don't need it? Surely social housing should be for the most vulnerable and it just seems daft to me that people who get it, get it based on circumstances a long time ago which dont ever seem to get reviewed? Surely thst would help address some of the social housing issues. How many from social housing become millionaires? I lived on a council estate. The vast majority of the people there made barely enough to get by and the lower costs of rent were still struggled to be met in many cases. The social mobility index in the UK is awful. Council housing provides a low rent option that many families need to just get by. Many of the people I know from that estate will never own their own home. My parents eventually did but if we’d have got kicked out of the home before they were eventually able to scrape the minimum down for a deposit, they’d have just fell back there again a year or two later. I get the point you make but surely the answer is to build estates skywards to provide more housing. Better still, the government could try and find ways to reduce the need for council housing in the first place. Have you seen Park Hill et al? They've been there and done that. They just become ghettos in the sky.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 21, 2023 14:07:39 GMT
Mrs Thatchers policy to allow people to buy their homes was massively correct. it allowed people with nothing to own their own homes and I suspect there are people on this very forum who have had or will get an inheritance out of this policy. However the subsequent decision not to reinvest that money in building more council/social housing is equally as wrong It's only correct if it didn't impact housing stock and homes purchases where replaced with further social housing. Then fact this isn't what happened means Thatchers plan, in my opinion, wasn't massively correct. Read and understand the rules around RTB receipts, it's set against LAs now. I believe the discount element should be removed so anyone purchasing RTB pays the market rate. www.gov.uk/government/publications/retained-right-to-buy-receipts-and-their-use-for-replacement-supply-guidance/retained-right-to-buy-receipts-and-their-use-for-replacement-supply-guidanceLocal authorities seem to be investing in build to rent at a market rate, ensuring the investment of public money at least achieves a positive return.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Nov 21, 2023 14:12:44 GMT
Where I live a 3 bedroom on social housing is just over £100 a week. In a private rental its probably near double. some sort of means tested "rental tax" for high earners in a council house? Or just make them rent privately like many other people earning less than them? Or with their lower rent they should have been able to accumulate savings to potentially put a deposit down to buy a home. It seems like the comfort of social housing removes all of thst ambition though and they're happy to reap the awards while those who genuinely need it struggle.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 21, 2023 14:17:30 GMT
some sort of means tested "rental tax" for high earners in a council house? Or just make them rent privately like many other people earning less than them? Or with their lower rent they should have been able to accumulate savings to potentially put a deposit down to buy a home. It seems like the comfort of social housing removes all of thst ambition though and they're happy to reap the awards while those who genuinely need it struggle. Playing devil's advocate the same could be said of those receiving CTB and HB to pay for that social housing.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 21, 2023 14:18:33 GMT
How many from social housing become millionaires? I lived on a council estate. The vast majority of the people there made barely enough to get by and the lower costs of rent were still struggled to be met in many cases. The social mobility index in the UK is awful. Council housing provides a low rent option that many families need to just get by. Many of the people I know from that estate will never own their own home. My parents eventually did but if we’d have got kicked out of the home before they were eventually able to scrape the minimum down for a deposit, they’d have just fell back there again a year or two later. I get the point you make but surely the answer is to build estates skywards to provide more housing. Better still, the government could try and find ways to reduce the need for council housing in the first place. I and my extended family all grew up on a council estate. I'm not suggesting getting rid of it, I'm saying it should be for the most vulnerable at the present. Not the most vulnerable at the time of application. Plenty of young parents get it at a young age and then 10 years later find themselves in completely different financial positions. While people who maybe had a child later in life and with lower incomes are stuck in a private rental loop with no security. It shouldn't be a first come first get service in my opinion. It should be evaluated in the same way other benefits are so that those who need it most have it. My family also benefited from purchasing a council house which while it's great, it reduces the supply and disadvantages many other families. I think the system needs an overhaul. There are Maximum Income levels to get a Council house in the first place Rent is based on the value and size of the house If people who originally qualified went marginally over the Income Threshold subsequently which forced them out of the accommodation it would just create insecurity of Tenure and stifle upward mobility I suspect most households which substantially increase household income would make the voluntary choice to get on the house ownership ladder if they were in a position to do do I think the last thing we need is another bunch of Jobsworths checking people's income to see if they qualify for Social Housing
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Nov 21, 2023 14:23:06 GMT
How many from social housing become millionaires? I lived on a council estate. The vast majority of the people there made barely enough to get by and the lower costs of rent were still struggled to be met in many cases. The social mobility index in the UK is awful. Council housing provides a low rent option that many families need to just get by. Many of the people I know from that estate will never own their own home. My parents eventually did but if we’d have got kicked out of the home before they were eventually able to scrape the minimum down for a deposit, they’d have just fell back there again a year or two later. I get the point you make but surely the answer is to build estates skywards to provide more housing. Better still, the government could try and find ways to reduce the need for council housing in the first place. I and my extended family all grew up on a council estate. I'm not suggesting getting rid of it, I'm saying it should be for the most vulnerable at the present. Not the most vulnerable at the time of application. Plenty of young parents get it at a young age and then 10 years later find themselves in completely different financial positions. While people who maybe had a child later in life and with lower incomes are stuck in a private rental loop with no security. It shouldn't be a first come first get service in my opinion. It should be evaluated in the same way other benefits are so that those who need it most have it. My family also benefited from purchasing a council house which while it's great, it reduces the supply and disadvantages many other families. I think the system needs an overhaul. What would the proposal for an overhaul look like? Monthly applications for housing? Weekly? Yearly? Who would fund that? At what point would people be deemed ineligible for social housing? Social housing is an important safety net. If used properly, it can be used to also allow for families to save enough money to eventually get their own home, something they’ll likely never do if thrown back to the wolves on the private market. There is a shortage of housing in the UK, for sure. Perhaps social housing could also be accompanied by classes on financial planning as a prerequisite (which I think most people (myself included) benefit from) to provide skills for people to help themselves get out of the need (where possible).
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Nov 21, 2023 14:23:45 GMT
Or just make them rent privately like many other people earning less than them? Or with their lower rent they should have been able to accumulate savings to potentially put a deposit down to buy a home. It seems like the comfort of social housing removes all of thst ambition though and they're happy to reap the awards while those who genuinely need it struggle. Playing devil's advocate the same could be said of those receiving CTB and HB to pay for that social housing. Are those not means tested though on an ongoing basis? As in if you got accepted for housing benefit and then began to earn more you'd lose it? So I think the same method should be used for social housing. Obviously deeply unpopular subject amongst some which I get. But just seems daft that a family earning 100k could have a council house while a family with 2 kids and say 25k income would be on a waiting list.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Nov 21, 2023 14:26:16 GMT
I and my extended family all grew up on a council estate. I'm not suggesting getting rid of it, I'm saying it should be for the most vulnerable at the present. Not the most vulnerable at the time of application. Plenty of young parents get it at a young age and then 10 years later find themselves in completely different financial positions. While people who maybe had a child later in life and with lower incomes are stuck in a private rental loop with no security. It shouldn't be a first come first get service in my opinion. It should be evaluated in the same way other benefits are so that those who need it most have it. My family also benefited from purchasing a council house which while it's great, it reduces the supply and disadvantages many other families. I think the system needs an overhaul. There are Maximum Income levels to get a Council house in the first place Rent is based on the value and size of the house If people who originally qualified went marginally over the Income Threshold subsequently which forced them out of the accommodation it would just create insecurity of Tenure and stifle upward mobility I suspect most households which substantially increase household income would make the voluntary choice to get on the house ownership ladder if they were in a position to do do I think the last thing we need is another bunch of Jobsworths checking people's income to see if they qualify for Social Housing In terms of your last paragraph I disagree. I think we should adopt the Norwegian method where anybody can find this information on their neighbours and report them if they think they're playing the system. As for your "maximum income cap to get a house in first place", that isn't my argument. My argument is there should be controls to ensure only those who need it have it on a continued basis. Not just at the time of application.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Nov 21, 2023 14:27:48 GMT
How many from social housing become millionaires? I lived on a council estate. The vast majority of the people there made barely enough to get by and the lower costs of rent were still struggled to be met in many cases. The social mobility index in the UK is awful. Council housing provides a low rent option that many families need to just get by. Many of the people I know from that estate will never own their own home. My parents eventually did but if we’d have got kicked out of the home before they were eventually able to scrape the minimum down for a deposit, they’d have just fell back there again a year or two later. I get the point you make but surely the answer is to build estates skywards to provide more housing. Better still, the government could try and find ways to reduce the need for council housing in the first place. Have you seen Park Hill et al? They've been there and done that. They just become ghettos in the sky. What other option is there? You can destroy ever increasing amounts of British countryside or build upwards. I don’t really see another option there other than home sharing, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by Dutchpeter on Nov 21, 2023 14:27:53 GMT
Mrs Thatchers policy to allow people to buy their homes was massively correct. it allowed people with nothing to own their own homes and I suspect there are people on this very forum who have had or will get an inheritance out of this policy. However the subsequent decision not to reinvest that money in building more council/social housing is equally as wrong It also shrank the pool of council houses available. Coupled with the Callaghan government decision in 1977 to let anybody rent a council house (previously you had to be employed), meant that the shrinking pool became more and more the preserve of more dysfunctional elements of society. Hence there sad decline as nice places to live to potential (but not always) crime affected hot spots.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 21, 2023 14:36:50 GMT
Mrs Thatchers policy to allow people to buy their homes was massively correct. it allowed people with nothing to own their own homes and I suspect there are people on this very forum who have had or will get an inheritance out of this policy. However the subsequent decision not to reinvest that money in building more council/social housing is equally as wrong It also shrank the pool of council houses available. Coupled with the Callaghan government decision in 1977 to let anybody rent a council house (previously you had to be employed), meant that the shrinking pool became more and more the preserve of more dysfunctional elements of society. Hence there sad decline as nice places to live to potential (but not always) crime affected hot spots. and thats my point. they never reinvested the money in replacing the stock sold off
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Nov 21, 2023 14:41:22 GMT
It also shrank the pool of council houses available. Coupled with the Callaghan government decision in 1977 to let anybody rent a council house (previously you had to be employed), meant that the shrinking pool became more and more the preserve of more dysfunctional elements of society. Hence there sad decline as nice places to live to potential (but not always) crime affected hot spots. and thats my point. they never reinvested the money in replacing the stock sold off And because they didn't do that, it was an absolutely catastrophic policy that has helped shape the current housing crisis..........
|
|
|
Post by Dutchpeter on Nov 21, 2023 14:45:28 GMT
It also shrank the pool of council houses available. Coupled with the Callaghan government decision in 1977 to let anybody rent a council house (previously you had to be employed), meant that the shrinking pool became more and more the preserve of more dysfunctional elements of society. Hence there sad decline as nice places to live to potential (but not always) crime affected hot spots. and thats my point. they never reinvested the money in replacing the stock sold off That’s quite correct. I thought it was worth mentioning the Callaghan government decision as it was just as influential on the future of council housing as the Thatcher sell off. Council house sales came within a whisker of being included on the Labour manifesto in 1974, and was looked at favourably by James Callaghan later in the decade. Labour Party activists were constantly asked about council house sales in the 1970s by the very people who lived on council estates. Council house sales were nothing new of course and had started decades earlier.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 21, 2023 14:49:48 GMT
and thats my point. they never reinvested the money in replacing the stock sold off And because they didn't do that, it was an absolutely catastrophic policy that has helped shape the current housing crisis.......... absolutely correct in its shaping the market today i think the policy in principle is good. lets sell off the old stock plus the responsibility for repairs etc. that empowers new owners and gives them some wealth of what they have been renting for years. like i said lots of normal people have and continue to benefit from that it will give us money to build new stock. great in theory until they don't build the new stock
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 21, 2023 14:50:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 21, 2023 14:59:22 GMT
Playing devil's advocate the same could be said of those receiving CTB and HB to pay for that social housing. Are those not means tested though on an ongoing basis? As in if you got accepted for housing benefit and then began to earn more you'd lose it? So I think the same method should be used for social housing. Obviously deeply unpopular subject amongst some which I get. But just seems daft that a family earning 100k could have a council house while a family with 2 kids and say 25k income would be on a waiting list. They are, but what if you're that comfortable on it that you can't be arsed to earn more, or even at all?
|
|
|
Post by mrrine on Nov 21, 2023 15:03:58 GMT
Why does no governing party suggest doing a review of the current circumstances of those in social housing? From what I gather once you get a social house you're sorted for life. And then if you become a millionaire you still keep your social housing. Why do none of the parties ever seem to suggest doing like a review of the financial circumstances of those in social housing with a plan to evict within 12 months those who don't need it? Surely social housing should be for the most vulnerable and it just seems daft to me that people who get it, get it based on circumstances a long time ago which dont ever seem to get reviewed? Surely thst would help address some of the social housing issues. The spare room subsidy (Bedroom tax) tried to address the fringes of this a little bit (and look how popular that was) - but not so much for 'do they need it financially' moreso: 'Are there one or two people in an eight bedroom house' Any policy that "takes away from" is always going to be universally hated and ripped by solicitor firms/barristers during any Gov consultation. Even if it were the best idea in the world, the public/voters would have very little appetite for it, so no one does it and the list who need social housing gets bigger, and those in social housing like you say, are sorted for life.
|
|