|
Post by adri2008 on Nov 21, 2023 15:06:12 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. They've done a great job renovating those flats - its a 1:4 ratio private to social housing though so not completely relevant to this topic. There's certain rules meaning you can't paint the concrete so you've got a surreal look inside
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 21, 2023 15:10:58 GMT
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. There is no evidence that the reason you give is the motivation on a Cultural practice that goes back almost 200 years The main motivation is to encourage equality of earnings Of course the advent of the internet made access to records easier but a change in Law in 2014 which meant if your records had been searched you could see who searched them. This saw a dramatic fall in the number of searches. There are Pros and Cons of course but research shows that it increases anxiety amongst lower earners without having much effect on higher earners as it can increase low esteem I know what your point is I just think it is unworkable and inefficient It's why I favour a system of Universal Basic income where currently you have Jobsworths unqualified to make medical decisions on fitness to work often times leading to suicide when wrong decisions are made There are about 100,000 working in DWP I see no reason to increase that number in fact the vast majority could be redeployed under UBI, maybe some assessing Asylum Claims of people that do want to Work.
|
|
|
Post by frasier37 on Nov 21, 2023 15:12:53 GMT
Maybe if they found a way through capitalism that was used solely to create a fare society for the masses instead of profit for the greedy they'd find the sweet spot Then I suppose no one would get on board with that as we are all taught from the cradle to be greedy bastards and want more than our neighbours
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Nov 21, 2023 15:13:29 GMT
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? I don't really know enough on the criteria of those benefits to give an exact answer right now, even googling doesn't really make it clear. Those with a social house there's plenty of incentive to earn more. Just a lack of incentive to buy or rent a home outside of their council house.b
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 21, 2023 15:21:03 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. 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.
Or if you're Royal, for generations, with Multiple Options of Accommodation
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Nov 21, 2023 15:34:54 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. I thought the so called 'bedroom tax' was a sensible measure so that you make the most out of the social housing stock available. Same with the 'dementia tax' - another good policy that was attempting to deal with funding social care but as you say, any policy that takes anything off anyone causes a massive uproar and is manipulated politically forcing governments to boot these tricky decisions deep into the long grass.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 21, 2023 15:39:53 GMT
Have you seen Park Hill et al? They've been there and done that. They just become ghettos in the sky. They've done a great job renovating those flats - its a 1:4 ratio private to social housing though so not completely relevant to this topic. There's certain rules meaning you can't paint the concrete so you've got a surreal look inside There was a great documentary on BBC 4 in 2008 about them. Urban Splash bought them and bit off more than they could chew. English Heritage had got the concrete frame listed, so it couldn't just be flattened. I used it as an example more of the mistakes of building high rise that we've already made rather than a particular comment on the quality of social housing.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 21, 2023 15:43:58 GMT
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? Get rid of the defective outdated properties as per the Pathfinder clearance projects, stop throwing good money after bad retrofitting existing sub-standard properties. The amount of brownfield land available is enough to cope, it's the cost of clearing it of contamination that ramps the cost of building on this up. To be fair your idea is being implemented with regard to elderly housing in the form of extra care schemes. They're not a bad idea but they have flaws like anything else. That said I'd choose an extra care flat over most over 55 housing & bungalow offers.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 21, 2023 15:49:54 GMT
They are, but what if you're that comfortable on it that you can't be arsed to earn more, or even at all? I don't really know enough on the criteria of those benefits to give an exact answer right now, even googling doesn't really make it clear. Those with a social house there's plenty of incentive to earn more. Just a lack of incentive to buy or rent a home outside of their council house.b A big thing with people wanting to buy their council house is that those that were built to The Parker Morris standards are far more liveable than modern social housing properties. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Morris_CommitteeEven the high rise social housing around Stoke from the 60s and 70s is surprisingly spacious.
|
|
|
Post by mrrine on Nov 21, 2023 16:02:52 GMT
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.
Or if you're Royal, for generations, with Multiple Options of Accommodation I'm being slow today, You've lost me a bit with the royals? Those in SH are sorted for their purposes. especially when you consider the pure amount of people gunning for the places! I'd like to see the data on how long people stay in SH and what % of working age SH Tenants move out/after how long. I obviously dont have that data and I'm slightly too lazy to look - but I think Gawa is right, they at least have the option to be set for life re: house. As for the royals, they've got their own sort of SH don't they, except their qualification isn't means tested, rather, if they're born or not. If they are, which estate do they want?
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Nov 21, 2023 16:58:46 GMT
It's a sad reflection of what we have become when most of the complaints are about people with fuck all having the cheek to want a roof over their head. Everyone has a right to be warm and dry - that should just be a given in a civilised society.
The real issue is affordability. House prices are ridiculously high and pretty much out of reach for most youngsters starting. The housing market needs to crash to make it accessible. A huge social housing programme would help put downward pressure on house prices. There may be a need to help those caught in negative equity but housing policy should be all about affordability.
If also tax second home ownership so it becomes financially attractive which would free up housing stock - the number of empty properties is a scandal. I'd also massively increase inheritance tax - the biggest freeloaders by far are the silver spoon sucking progeny of the middle and upper classes, not those at the bottom of the pile
Obviously none of this would be popular but it doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 21, 2023 17:42:39 GMT
It's a sad reflection of what we have become when most of the complaints are about people with fuck all having the cheek to want a roof over their head. Everyone has a right to be warm and dry - that should just be a given in a civilised society. The real issue is affordability. House prices are ridiculously high and pretty much out of reach for most youngsters starting. The housing market needs to crash to make it accessible. A huge social housing programme would help put downward pressure on house prices. There may be a need to help those caught in negative equity but housing policy should be all about affordability. If also tax second home ownership so it becomes financially attractive which would free up housing stock - the number of empty properties is a scandal. I'd also massively increase inheritance tax - the biggest freeloaders by far are the silver spoon sucking progeny of the middle and upper classes, not those at the bottom of the pile Obviously none of this would be popular but it doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. The biggest thing, bar finance, that a huge social housing construction programme would lack in this country is the quantity of skilled labour available to deliver it at the scale required 😬
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Nov 21, 2023 20:51:38 GMT
It's a sad reflection of what we have become when most of the complaints are about people with fuck all having the cheek to want a roof over their head. Everyone has a right to be warm and dry - that should just be a given in a civilised society. The real issue is affordability. House prices are ridiculously high and pretty much out of reach for most youngsters starting. The housing market needs to crash to make it accessible. A huge social housing programme would help put downward pressure on house prices. There may be a need to help those caught in negative equity but housing policy should be all about affordability. If also tax second home ownership so it becomes financially attractive which would free up housing stock - the number of empty properties is a scandal. I'd also massively increase inheritance tax - the biggest freeloaders by far are the silver spoon sucking progeny of the middle and upper classes, not those at the bottom of the pile Obviously none of this would be popular but it doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. The biggest thing, bar finance, that a huge social housing construction programme would lack in this country is the quantity of skilled labour available to deliver it at the scale required 😬 Not a problem - we'll be rejoining the EU soon and we really need to revamp FE/HE to I vest more in vocational skills.
|
|
|
Post by stokeson on Nov 21, 2023 20:59:28 GMT
Thatchers "right to buy." created the social housing crisis because they didnt allow the cash sales to be reused by counsils to rebuild the housing stocks. 76% of houses sold are now in the hands of private landlords .
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 21, 2023 21:07:56 GMT
The biggest thing, bar finance, that a huge social housing construction programme would lack in this country is the quantity of skilled labour available to deliver it at the scale required 😬 Not a problem - we'll be rejoining the EU soon and we really need to revamp FE/HE to I vest more in vocational skills. The interesting thing is that female apprentices in the trades are wiping the floor with lads going up for the same training placements.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 21, 2023 21:08:14 GMT
Thatchers "right to buy." created the social housing crisis because they didnt allow the cash sales to be reused by counsils to rebuild the housing stocks. 76% of houses sold are now in the hands of private landlords . Exactly this.
|
|