A word of warning on buying council houses

[MrSmith]

yes families with children whether they be unemployed or working will allways be a priority over someone single with no kids whether they are working or not .

 

Unfortunately it always seems to be irresponsible ones that take priority over the responsible ones.

[pottedplant]

Unfortunately it always seems to be irresponsible ones that take priority over the responsible ones.

 

What makes one person responsible and the other irresponsible?

 

I genuinely struggle with the concept that thousands of young girls have babies just to get a flat on a run down estate and consequently live in (relative) poverty for the next 15 years.

 

But if their lives are so awful that this is the best choice for them surely they need support?

[Cyclone]

Well wasn't it you who said that if you lived in a council property you wouldn't buy it? Of course not.

No, I definitely didn't say that.

Do you give money away in the street as well?

No, although I have occasionally bought a burger for someone that was begging and looked hungry.

 

For many working people, i.e. not all people in council property are unemployed, buying a council property is the only way on to the property ladder because it is not easy to pay rent and save up a deposit for a private home as well, in fact it is nearly impossible in this day and age.

It's equally difficult for those who are working and don't have the advantage of council housing and a subsequent discount when buying.

 

As for you other comments in what amounts to rounding up poor people and sticking them in one building, it is best left unsaid...

It's happening with a lot of adult children and to families that don't live in council housing, and we were talking about a single family, not a disparate collection of 'poor' people (income had nothing to do with it in fact).

 

In terms of shortage of housing, you might want to look towards the millions of single old pensioners living in 3+ bedroom houses. What do you suggest with that, round them all up and force them to live with their children?

 

I believe the idea regarding that is if it's social housing then as their requirements change so should their allocation of housing.

I suppose at the point that their children move out (long before they are OAPs) they should loose the right to occupy a 3 bedroom house unless they want to buy one.

[MrSmith]

What makes one person responsible and the other irresponsible?

 

I genuinely struggle with the concept that thousands of young girls have babies just to get a flat on a run down estate and consequently live in (relative) poverty for the next 15 years.

 

But if their lives are so awful that this is the best choice for them surely they need support?

The two I know didn't get flat’s on a rundown estates, one got a three bedroom house and the other got a two bedroom house, neither had a partner and neither worked, both had their babies at age 17. Neither had a bad childhood and neither has been abused. They were just two 17 years olds taking advantage of a system that gives them a free house and money for having a baby.

 

I would say a responsible person would have a baby when they can afford it and an irresponsible person has a baby and allows everyone but themselves to support it.

[Benedictine]

It's equally difficult for those who are working and don't have the advantage of council housing and a subsequent discount when buying.

 

It is hard, but what's to stop them putting their names down on the council list themselves? Often, I find, it is snobbery, too good for council/'social housing' and then come back complaining when they can't afford to buy, blaming other people for having children etc, etc.

 

I believe the idea regarding that is if it's social housing then as their requirements change so should their allocation of housing.

I suppose at the point that their children move out (long before they are OAPs) they should loose the right to occupy a 3 bedroom house unless they want to buy one.

 

So you would round up pensioners and throw them out then?

 

If you are looking at large houses with single occupancy you also need to look towards privately owned houses because this is where they all are in comparison. Maybe these should be forced to sell their homes to first time buyers and larger families?

[Mecky]

It is hard, but what's to stop them putting their names down on the council list themselves? Often, I find, it is snobbery, too good for council/'social housing' and then come back complaining when they can't afford to buy, blaming other people for having children etc, etc.

 

 

 

So you would round up pensioners and throw them out then?

 

If you are looking at large houses with single occupancy you also need to look towards privately owned houses because this is where they all are in comparison. Maybe these should be forced to sell their homes to first time buyers and larger families?

 

Absolutely spot on. You see, the rightwhingers/tories are quite happy to push people around but as soon as someone proposes new legislation which affects them e.g. Homeowners should give up their spare rooms to homeless people, they soon throw their toys out of the pram. So why should they expect people to like/support what they say?

[Cyclone]

It is hard, but what's to stop them putting their names down on the council list themselves? Often, I find, it is snobbery, too good for council/'social housing' and then come back complaining when they can't afford to buy, blaming other people for having children etc, etc.

Social housing should be for those who can't afford to rent or buy privately. Not for those who'd just prefer to pay less.

 

 

 

So you would round up pensioners and throw them out then?

No, the entire premise of council housing would change (I think this is already happening), it would be a house provided whilst you needed it, not a house provided for life or until you chose to leave.

 

If you are looking at large houses with single occupancy you also need to look towards privately owned houses because this is where they all are in comparison. Maybe these should be forced to sell their homes to first time buyers and larger families?

No you don't, because the state isn't providing those large houses to someone that doesn't need them and subsiding them at the same time.

This is about the efficient use of limited state resource and help, private homes have nothing to do with it.

[Cyclone]

Absolutely spot on. You see, the rightwhingers/tories are quite happy to push people around but as soon as someone proposes new legislation which affects them e.g. Homeowners should give up their spare rooms to homeless people, they soon throw their toys out of the pram. So why should they expect people to like/support what they say?

 

Home owners aren't a specific group, they don't all have one set of policies they'd like to see enacted, any attempt to group them together like that as if they all propose or object to ideas is foolish.

 

Tax payers however, would presumably all like to see their tax used as efficiently as possible, and that would include only giving appropriate state aid to people, for example only subsidising housing as appropriate, not giving 3 bedrooms to someone who only needs one and thus wasting tax money.

[Grandad.Malky]

Indeed, it's down to a whole bunch of things of which income is only one, .

 

Well said ………… pity other people haven’t grasped it yet.

[Benedictine]

Social housing should be for those who can't afford to rent or buy privately. Not for those who'd just prefer to pay less.

 

No, the entire premise of council housing would change (I think this is already happening), it would be a house provided whilst you needed it, not a house provided for life or until you chose to leave.

 

So you effectively trap people into paying rent for the rest of their lives if they can't afford 20/30K outright for a deposit?

No you don't, because the state isn't providing those large houses to someone that doesn't need them and subsiding them at the same time.

This is about the efficient use of limited state resource and help, private homes have nothing to do with it.

 

Subsiding? I've paid out over 50 thousand pound in rent to the council in the last 14 years, the council will have made off of me! Without the RTB you could stick another 150K on top of that was well, over 200k in rent for a council property and it is not even yours. And then when I became a pensioner you would have me forced out to make way for other people?

 

And yes private homes filled up with single occupants have everything to do with house market prices, more so. How many privately owned homes have one occupant in the UK?

 

Tax payers however, would presumably all like to see their tax used as efficiently as possible, and that would include only giving appropriate state aid to people, for example only subsidising housing as appropriate, not giving 3 bedrooms to someone who only needs one and thus wasting tax money.

 

This tax payer has already paid 50k in rent, as above, and will be handing over another 35k in cash to the council and thinks he owns nothing to other tax payers. Neither does my wife's grandmother who has paid rent for 60 years, having paid more than 5 times the value of her house out in her lifetime and continues to pay small contributions out of her pension payments. How's that for 'wasting tax money?'