In America we call that income-based housing. I had the same misconception that Robert Maxwell had with the terminology.
Public housing
- Thread starter Miss Chicken
- Start date
It was more public key-worker aspect rather than police per se. I imagine starting grade PC and clerical staff probably average...
But I guess there's also the issue of that market's relatively low rents (to make them affordable as compared to private sector), which are subsidised by taxes and grants. Of course the counter-argument is usually that mortgages and private builders get tax relief, so it's all swings and roundabouts...
That's not a bad idea. The only problem I could see would be inflation of housing prices if the council was buying too many homes. In order to prevent that, the council would have to only be allowed to purchase some maximum percentage of homes sold, probably in the low single digits. We don't want government purchase of homes distorting the real estate market.
The council should only buy what they need. They shouldn't accumulate a surplus, and if they do find themselves with a surplus then they can simply put them back on the market.
That problem of inflation you talk about stems directly from supply and demand. But if the number of home-owners and the number of owned-homes stays relatively similar, then demand will self regulate.
What creates an imbalance is people who own multiple homes. I feel that these people should face a surcharge on their council tax for their second home, which is fed directly into the council housing scheme. That would create a feedback mechanism which further regulates supply and demand keeping prices stable and competitive.
Houses are an essential and limited social commodity, like water. They're not something people should be able to privately accumulate without a penalty.
It seems like the council needs to do periodic reviews and treat everybody the same. If others are living in 3 bedroom units when their family size has downsized, then they too need to be moved to smaller places. Compassion to the 83-year-old can be shown by allowing him and those others who need to move, to stay in the same area they are familiar with. But it is totally unfair to those families with children who desperately need this subsidized housing.
Moving isn't the end of the world as we all know.
Moving isn't the end of the world as we all know.
Not necessarily. There are many children in the UK who are suffering mental health issues due to living in overcrowded conditions, not to mention the effect on physical health, school performance, and so forth. Where I live the wait for a council house can be up to 9 years. I feel sorry for this gentleman but, having worked with underprivileged families and seeing the harm that unsuitable housing can cause, he should not be occupying a 3-bedroom house.
Agreed 100%. Homes are not just brick boxes.
I lived in the same house for almost 30 years. My two youngest sons had lived there from birth. The Housing Department decided that the maintenance on the house was no longer economical for them to do and they asked me to transfer stating that if I stay only essential maintenance would be carried out in future - I wouldn't get new carpet or lino, the house would not be painted etc. In the end I agreed to move but was fussy about where I wanted to move to. I ended up in a nicer house, in a nicer neighbourhood.
The Department sold the house when I moved out.
The Department sold the house when I moved out.
No, but houses are. And if it's not your house, I don't think you should get a lot of say unless you've signed a contract.
I agree. If you didn't pay for the house, you should be grateful the state is paying for you to live anywhere, and if you don't like where they tell you to live, you're more than welcome to go find your own place and pay for it yourself.
Spending your entire life or even just many, many years in the same house is not something anyone is entitled to, and certainly not on the taxpayers' dime.
If you can keep paying the rent, you can stay in the property, but the rental rate should reflect the achievable commercial market rate, and be reviewed annually i.e. all tenancies should be short-term (one-year) leases, no long-term leases.
If you have some of your rent paid through benefits or other government support, that money should not reflect the rent in your current property, but the average rental yield for your area, for the minimum property that meets your need i.e. if you're single, the rental cost of a bedsit or studio.
Those two measures should price out any spongers.
If you have some of your rent paid through benefits or other government support, that money should not reflect the rent in your current property, but the average rental yield for your area, for the minimum property that meets your need i.e. if you're single, the rental cost of a bedsit or studio.
Those two measures should price out any spongers.
Well - here's to hoping neither of you develop any political influence in the future.
Nick, do you really think that it is fair that one of my friends has to only pay $50 a week for a three bedroom house and gets sole use of the house, yet I, have to pay $172 a week for a similar house that I share with my sons?
God forbid; that would involve far too much work. I'm quite happy being a landlord instead. With no social housing tenants!
Why? Because I don't think people deserve free rides out of sentiment?
Similar threads
