Council tenants to be checked out financially

[ricgem2002]

I don't know about council tenants but I do know a little about housing association tenants.

 

Is it fair that someone who needs social housing pays £73/week to rent the identical house as their neighbour who's having to fund a mortgage of say £130,000, say £430/month.

 

Not too bad at first - you could say that it's 'affordable housing' for those in need. However, if the circumstances of the tenant improve, is it really fair that they should live in the same home as their neighbour for less money? When they could now afford to buy or rent their own home, on commercial rates?

 

The days of state-provided housing for life should have far gone, and should be replaced by housing for those in need, for the period in which they ARE in need.

 

Tenants who could afford to exist in the free market are taking accommodation from whose who are now in need. Subsidised housing should be means tested, and people moving into it should be aware that it's only for a relatively short time to allow them to get back on their feet (aged and disabled people excluded).

if the people are paying £73 a week to rent social housing and the neighbour paying a mortgage of £430 a month why is it anyones problem but the said two families? what gives the gov the right to order anyone to (a) rent a more expensive house because they say so (B) evict people because they have improved their salary (not neccasary their lifestyle) .you say its not fair that one neighbour pays rent and one has a mortgage for roughly the same house (remember one will eventually own the house outright the other one wont) if anyone wants to either rent in a higher bracket/or buy a house it should be the individuals choice and not the governments ?

[INTERVIEWER]

'No more snooping surveillance society' was a major plank of the Conservative party's general election manifesto 2010, endorsed by every Tory candidate.

 

Yet we find that the powers of the state to check into the financial affairs of people who have committed no crime, people who are not even suspected of committing a crime - and who are not even claiming any state aid in the form of benefits - will find themselves being investigated by a new public sector army of bureaucrats, with the powers to examine the bank accounts of innocent people.

 

I find this very frightening. Instead of rolling back the snoopers, the ConDems want to increase their numbers and scope...

[ricgem2002]

'No more snooping surveillance society' was a major plank of the Conservative party's general election manifesto 2010, endorsed by every Tory candidate.

 

Yet we find that the powers of the state to check into the financial affairs of people who have committed no crime, people who are not even suspected of committing a crime - and who are not even claiming any state aid in the form of benefits - will find themselves being investigated by a new public sector army of bureaucrats, with the powers to examine the bank accounts of innocent people.

 

I find this very frightening. Instead of rolling back the snoopers, the ConDems want to increase their numbers and scope...

wait for the "if you got nothing to hide brigade" coming on .i wonder while they are all watching us who is watching them

[donkey]

A couple mohttp://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/images/editor/separator.gifre years and the long term averages will be back in line.

 

I very much doubt it. My father and mother in law bought a good three bedroom house in London for £2,200 in 1960 At the time that was about two years average wages. The house is now worth about £300,000, which is about 15 years average wages.

[tifftifco2]

Private rental property isn't for life, and I don't see why council and social housing should be any different. I had to leave a flat I'd been renting for a few years because the landlord was selling up. It wasn't the end of the world!!

 

Yes but when you have children and are made to move and you dont want to is that fair? and alot of private rented lanlords dont like you to redecorate so my kids cant ever say id like a disney bedroom please i can buy curtains etc but its not the same as puttin your own mark on your own home and its not a secure tenancy. It can be very emotional keep up rooting your family from home to home if landlord decides to sell or whatever. At least council properties are or were secure and you felt safe.

[tifftifco2]

I don't know about council tenants but I do know a little about housing association tenants.

 

Is it fair that someone who needs social housing pays £73/week to rent the identical house as their neighbour who's having to fund a mortgage of say £130,000, say £430/month.

 

Not too bad at first - you could say that it's 'affordable housing' for those in need. However, if the circumstances of the tenant improve, is it really fair that they should live in the same home as their neighbour for less money? When they could now afford to buy or rent their own home, on commercial rates?

 

The days of state-provided housing for life should have far gone, and should be replaced by housing for those in need, for the period in which they ARE in need.

 

Tenants who could afford to exist in the free market are taking accommodation from whose who are now in need. Subsidised housing should be means tested, and people moving into it should be aware that it's only for a relatively short time to allow them to get back on their feet (aged and disabled people excluded).

 

But both families will be aware of long term prospect as in one will own a property eventually! so yes it is fair.

[Berberis]

I don't know about council tenants but I do know a little about housing association tenants.

 

Is it fair that someone who needs social housing pays £73/week to rent the identical house as their neighbour who's having to fund a mortgage of say £130,000, say £430/month.

 

Not only the fact that this situation is unfair and rewards laziness, but why should the rest of us pay for these peoples subsidised housing when they are not in need of such support. If Joe blogs receives such support why should we all not receive a large part of our housing costs paid for by the tax payer?

 

Social housing should be for those that need it, not those that want it.

 

The money saved can be used else where, maybe in our care for the elderly or better drugs to help those afflicted with illness, as opposed to those perfectly capable of paying their own way ion the world.

[fake]

Not only the fact that this situation is unfair and rewards laziness, but why should the rest of us pay for these peoples subsidised housing when they are not in need of such support. If Joe blogs receives such support why should we all not receive a large part of our housing costs paid for by the tax payer?

 

Social housing should be for those that need it, not those that want it.

 

 

 

Thankfully its not about what you think it should be for.

 

Social housing was designed for all and was not designed just for those in need. Look up Rachmanism to understand what had previously happened under private landlords. Harold Wilson's government helped to change that exploitation by vastly increasing the social housing stock and placing rent caps on the private sector rents.

 

Social housing is NOT and has never been subsidised by the tax-payer and any rents charged were classed as fair affordable rents.

 

People don't have to mortgage their life away in a social engineering experiment called Home Ownership but chose to get entrapped into the false idea that they are "bettering themselves." Its the middle England mentality that makes working class people think they are better than the rest by getting into debt with a mortgage. The "we own our own home syndrome."

 

If people who have a mortgage get their costs subsidised then shouldn't they pay that back when the house is sold on? After all, the private or council renting tenants get nothing out of it so why should the mortgage payers be different?

[Cyclone]

Social housing is clearly not 'for all', there are massive waiting lists all over the country and that's with only a fraction even wanting to use social housing. It's obviously for those in need.

Social housing IS subsidised by the tax payer, indirectly.

No, instead they live somewhere that they don't and will never own at a reduced rate because the tax payer is helping to pay for it.

I'm not sure what subsidies you think mortgage payers get?

[ricgem2002]

Social housing is clearly not 'for all', there are massive waiting lists all over the country and that's with only a fraction even wanting to use social housing. It's obviously for those in need.

Social housing IS subsidised by the tax payer, indirectly.

No, instead they live somewhere that they don't and will never own at a reduced rate because the tax payer is helping to pay for it.

I'm not sure what subsidies you think mortgage payers get?

and how many people were helped out by the miras scheme?