Social Housing Rent Increase

[Saleen836]

This will have the great unwashed up in arms I imagine,,,
https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/social-t...

Obviously they wont want to make any sacrifices the same as normal people like lowering their sky package or not upgrading to the newest model iPhone

[Johnnytheboy]

My council tax goes up that much every year.

[austinsmirk]

50% of “my” TNT’s don’t pay rent
25% pay part
25% full.

The sector has very low rents anyway

[rodericb]

Someone somewhere is gonna have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Or someone can print some money to pay for it.

[milkround]

Some people work hard and don’t get a lot of money for it. So the state helps them out. Not sure what the problem is with that?

My mum was one of them. Was a teaching assistant for kids with special needs. She had 4 kids and my dad went off, moved abroad and didn’t give her a penny. So she needed school holidays off as we were young.

It would have been great if the job paid enough to raise her kids. But it didn’t. Even with the in work benefits we didn’t have a lot. Some people seem to think people who get help live fancy lives.

£200 was a lot to her. And still is. She is a pensioner now and with her state pension, council pension and no kids is better off than she has ever been.

So the state helping her out a bit meant she could raise 4 boys. We all now pay a fair amount in tax and ni. So the investment paid off if you ask me.

[Derek Smith]

milkround said:

Some people work hard and don’t get a lot of money for it. So the state helps them out. Not sure what the problem is with that?

My mum was one of them. Was a teaching assistant for kids with special needs. She had 4 kids and my dad went off, moved abroad and didn’t give her a penny. So she needed school holidays off as we were young.

It would have been great if the job paid enough to raise her kids. But it didn’t. Even with the in work benefits we didn’t have a lot. Some people seem to think people who get help live fancy lives.

£200 was a lot to her. And still is. She is a pensioner now and with her state pension, council pension and no kids is better off than she has ever been.

So the state helping her out a bit meant she could raise 4 boys. We all now pay a fair amount in tax and ni. So the investment paid off if you ask me.

I think you must be wrong.

As the OP pointed out, those in social housing all have Sky and the newest model iPhone. It would appear that you mother was a poor manager. How difficult can it be to bring up four children all on your own? Don’t come on PH with the intent of confounding the prejudiced with facts. They’ve read all about it in the DM, so they know.

While some people are quite correct in thinking of these payments as handouts, they make the mistake of confusing the purpose. They are subsidies to businesses, so they can pay wages as low as the national minimum. Families can’t live on that, so they need either, 1/ a living wage, or 2/ governments to make it possible for them to pay less than the minimum wage by topping up. They chose the latter.

[98elise]

Derek Smith said:

milkround said:

Some people work hard and don’t get a lot of money for it. So the state helps them out. Not sure what the problem is with that?

My mum was one of them. Was a teaching assistant for kids with special needs. She had 4 kids and my dad went off, moved abroad and didn’t give her a penny. So she needed school holidays off as we were young.

It would have been great if the job paid enough to raise her kids. But it didn’t. Even with the in work benefits we didn’t have a lot. Some people seem to think people who get help live fancy lives.

£200 was a lot to her. And still is. She is a pensioner now and with her state pension, council pension and no kids is better off than she has ever been.

So the state helping her out a bit meant she could raise 4 boys. We all now pay a fair amount in tax and ni. So the investment paid off if you ask me.

I think you must be wrong.

As the OP pointed out, those in social housing all have Sky and the newest model iPhone. It would appear that you mother was a poor manager. How difficult can it be to bring up four children all on your own? Don’t come on PH with the intent of confounding the prejudiced with facts. They’ve read all about it in the DM, so they know.

While some people are quite correct in thinking of these payments as handouts, they make the mistake of confusing the purpose. They are subsidies to businesses, so they can pay wages as low as the national minimum. Families can’t live on that, so they need either, 1/ a living wage, or 2/ governments to make it possible for them to pay less than the minimum wage by topping up. They chose the latter.

Do businesses decide how many kids you have and what your childcare situation is? My son does a full time minimum wage job and gets zero benefits.

[Derek Smith]

98elise said:

Do businesses decide how many kids you have and what your childcare situation is? My son does a full time minimum wage job and gets zero benefits.

Might I suggest reading the two posts you quoted, particularly the first. If you disagree with my point about the subsidy being to businesses, I have lots of links I could post.

[chrispmartha]

Saleen836 said:

This will have the great unwashed up in arms I imagine,,,
https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/social-t...

Obviously they wont want to make any sacrifices the same as normal people like lowering their sky package or not upgrading to the newest model iPhone

'normal' people?

[roger.mellie]

milkround said:

Some people work hard and don’t get a lot of money for it. So the state helps them out. Not sure what the problem is with that?

My mum was one of them. Was a teaching assistant for kids with special needs. She had 4 kids and my dad went off, moved abroad and didn’t give her a penny. So she needed school holidays off as we were young.

It would have been great if the job paid enough to raise her kids. But it didn’t. Even with the in work benefits we didn’t have a lot. Some people seem to think people who get help live fancy lives.

£200 was a lot to her. And still is. She is a pensioner now and with her state pension, council pension and no kids is better off than she has ever been.

So the state helping her out a bit meant she could raise 4 boys. We all now pay a fair amount in tax and ni. So the investment paid off if you ask me.

Good post. There are a few to the manor born types on here. At times growing up my parents barely saw each other as one was working two jobs and the other was working three. I’m pretty sure I’ve a stronger work ethic than many I meet as a result. Thankfully they’re doing ok now but the get on your bike brigade don’t understand much about real life.

[Gecko1978]

The assumption is a subsidy to minimum wage comes up alot but say the state has not top up. Employees might ask for more and get it. Business then pass down the cost in either lower profit or higher sale price. Bet net no one is better off. Business pay a market rate for staff in relation to the value of their output firms that don't struggle to find staff. A well known bank in the city pays around 30% less than rivals it can take 12 months to fill a role and those who apply often have lower skill set. The firm accepts this as it has lower wage costs. Its market forces and if the day.

[Pieman68]

austinsmirk said:

50% of “my” TNT’s don’t pay rent
25% pay part
25% full.

The sector has very low rents anyway

We're in social housing and are under the 25% paying full rent - not an issue as we both work. My wife moved into social housing around 15 years ago after she separated from her ex. I ended up having to sell my house in negative equity around the time of my divorce and was left with a heap of debt

Since we have lived together we have claimed no other benefits, but the lower rent meant that I was able to recover and pay off all of my debt rather than taking the "easy" way out and declaring bankrupt

£202 a year - circa £4 a week! We only pay about 60% of the market rate for a similar property so I have no problem with that

Not everybody in Social Housing is a freeloader - some are here through circumstance. Though Austinsmirk's experiences are valid and there are people of that vein about, I can quite happily confirm that the vast majority of my neighbours go out to work every day the same as any of the rest of you

And FYI now the debt is paid off I am currently saving for a deposit so that we can get on the housing ladder again. We may use right to buy, or we may take advantage of the fact that the kids are now grown (my stepson is 18 in February and daughter nearly 20 and lives with her Mum) and downsize to a 2 bed and free a family home up for someone that needs it

[valiant]

Saleen836 said:

This will have the great unwashed up in arms I imagine,,,
https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/social-t...

Obviously they wont want to make any sacrifices the same as normal people like lowering their sky package or not upgrading to the newest model iPhone

Blast!

I nearly had full NP&E bingo there. All I needed was a free motability car and I’d have won

Edited by valiant on Thursday 23 December 09:25

[TonyRPH]

My view on the benefits system is that they seem to apply a "one size fits all" rule.

I know of several people on benefits, all living in social housing, and they all appear to have a healthy disposable income.

And yet, on the flip side there are some on benefits who seemingly struggle to make ends meet - but without knowing the full extent of their circumstances, it's difficult to understand why.

[KAgantua]

Derek Smith said:

milkround said:

Some people work hard and don’t get a lot of money for it. So the state helps them out. Not sure what the problem is with that?

My mum was one of them. Was a teaching assistant for kids with special needs. She had 4 kids and my dad went off, moved abroad and didn’t give her a penny. So she needed school holidays off as we were young.

It would have been great if the job paid enough to raise her kids. But it didn’t. Even with the in work benefits we didn’t have a lot. Some people seem to think people who get help live fancy lives.

£200 was a lot to her. And still is. She is a pensioner now and with her state pension, council pension and no kids is better off than she has ever been.

So the state helping her out a bit meant she could raise 4 boys. We all now pay a fair amount in tax and ni. So the investment paid off if you ask me.

I think you must be wrong.

As the OP pointed out, those in social housing all have Sky and the newest model iPhone. It would appear that you mother was a poor manager. How difficult can it be to bring up four children all on your own? Don’t come on PH with the intent of confounding the prejudiced with facts. They’ve read all about it in the DM, so they know.

While some people are quite correct in thinking of these payments as handouts, they make the mistake of confusing the purpose. They are subsidies to businesses, so they can pay wages as low as the national minimum. Families can’t live on that, so they need either, 1/ a living wage, or 2/ governments to make it possible for them to pay less than the minimum wage by topping up. They chose the latter.

This is the biggest problem, and one I could not get my head around when I was younger, growing up in such a family.
Subsidies are great, but they increase teh tax burden and also, more importantly, suppress wages, leading to a need for more subsidies...

These subsidies subsidise employers not employees

[eccles]

valiant said:

Saleen836 said:

This will have the great unwashed up in arms I imagine,,,
https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/social-t...

Obviously they wont want to make any sacrifices the same as normal people like lowering their sky package or not upgrading to the newest model iPhone

Blast!

I nearly had full NP&E bingo there. All I needed was a free motability car and I’d have won

They also missed out ' 50" flat screen telly' (even though you can't buy any other kind of telly!), that's one of the bingo usuals

[Dromedary66]

98elise said:

Derek Smith said:

milkround said:

Some people work hard and don’t get a lot of money for it. So the state helps them out. Not sure what the problem is with that?

My mum was one of them. Was a teaching assistant for kids with special needs. She had 4 kids and my dad went off, moved abroad and didn’t give her a penny. So she needed school holidays off as we were young.

It would have been great if the job paid enough to raise her kids. But it didn’t. Even with the in work benefits we didn’t have a lot. Some people seem to think people who get help live fancy lives.

£200 was a lot to her. And still is. She is a pensioner now and with her state pension, council pension and no kids is better off than she has ever been.

So the state helping her out a bit meant she could raise 4 boys. We all now pay a fair amount in tax and ni. So the investment paid off if you ask me.

I think you must be wrong.

As the OP pointed out, those in social housing all have Sky and the newest model iPhone. It would appear that you mother was a poor manager. How difficult can it be to bring up four children all on your own? Don’t come on PH with the intent of confounding the prejudiced with facts. They’ve read all about it in the DM, so they know.

While some people are quite correct in thinking of these payments as handouts, they make the mistake of confusing the purpose. They are subsidies to businesses, so they can pay wages as low as the national minimum. Families can’t live on that, so they need either, 1/ a living wage, or 2/ governments to make it possible for them to pay less than the minimum wage by topping up. They chose the latter.

Do businesses decide how many kids you have and what your childcare situation is? My son does a full time minimum wage job and gets zero benefits.

Well said. Having 4 children while being in a weak financial position seems utterly selfish to me.

[markh1973]

Dromedary66 said:

98elise said:

Derek Smith said:

milkround said:

Some people work hard and don’t get a lot of money for it. So the state helps them out. Not sure what the problem is with that?

My mum was one of them. Was a teaching assistant for kids with special needs. She had 4 kids and my dad went off, moved abroad and didn’t give her a penny. So she needed school holidays off as we were young.

It would have been great if the job paid enough to raise her kids. But it didn’t. Even with the in work benefits we didn’t have a lot. Some people seem to think people who get help live fancy lives.

£200 was a lot to her. And still is. She is a pensioner now and with her state pension, council pension and no kids is better off than she has ever been.

So the state helping her out a bit meant she could raise 4 boys. We all now pay a fair amount in tax and ni. So the investment paid off if you ask me.

I think you must be wrong.

As the OP pointed out, those in social housing all have Sky and the newest model iPhone. It would appear that you mother was a poor manager. How difficult can it be to bring up four children all on your own? Don’t come on PH with the intent of confounding the prejudiced with facts. They’ve read all about it in the DM, so they know.

While some people are quite correct in thinking of these payments as handouts, they make the mistake of confusing the purpose. They are subsidies to businesses, so they can pay wages as low as the national minimum. Families can’t live on that, so they need either, 1/ a living wage, or 2/ governments to make it possible for them to pay less than the minimum wage by topping up. They chose the latter.

Do businesses decide how many kids you have and what your childcare situation is? My son does a full time minimum wage job and gets zero benefits.

Well said. Having 4 children while being in a weak financial position seems utterly selfish to me.

Can you explain for those of us that understood milkround’s post what the weak financial position you are referring to is?

[Desiderata]

austinsmirk said:

50% of “my” TNT’s don’t pay rent
25% pay part
25% full.

The sector has very low rents anyway

Like you, I worked in social housing for a number of years, however I found that it was quite easy to pick up the wrong impression of our tenants.
The thing that clouded my judgement was that over 90% of my work was in dealing with less than 10% of our tenants.
The same few families seemed to always have problem kids, problems with neighbours, houses which were "falling apart", and "difficulties in paying" for the stuff they demanded on an almost daily basis.
The vast majority of our tenants were hard-working people who paid the rent and kept their tenancies (and lives) in good order and therefore we had very minimal dealings with them.
It was very easy, when enacting constantly with "scum" to imagine that our houses were riddled with them when in actual fact they were a small minority amongst a large majority of decent human beings. I'm afraid to admit that I didn't fully realise this until I'd retired.
Sometimes you can't see the wood for the trees.

Edited by Desiderata on Thursday 23 December 10:06

[Derek Smith]

markh1973 said:

Dromedary66 said:

98elise said:

Derek Smith said:

milkround said:

Some people work hard and don’t get a lot of money for it. So the state helps them out. Not sure what the problem is with that?

My mum was one of them. Was a teaching assistant for kids with special needs. She had 4 kids and my dad went off, moved abroad and didn’t give her a penny. So she needed school holidays off as we were young.

It would have been great if the job paid enough to raise her kids. But it didn’t. Even with the in work benefits we didn’t have a lot. Some people seem to think people who get help live fancy lives.

£200 was a lot to her. And still is. She is a pensioner now and with her state pension, council pension and no kids is better off than she has ever been.

So the state helping her out a bit meant she could raise 4 boys. We all now pay a fair amount in tax and ni. So the investment paid off if you ask me.

I think you must be wrong.

As the OP pointed out, those in social housing all have Sky and the newest model iPhone. It would appear that you mother was a poor manager. How difficult can it be to bring up four children all on your own? Don’t come on PH with the intent of confounding the prejudiced with facts. They’ve read all about it in the DM, so they know.

While some people are quite correct in thinking of these payments as handouts, they make the mistake of confusing the purpose. They are subsidies to businesses, so they can pay wages as low as the national minimum. Families can’t live on that, so they need either, 1/ a living wage, or 2/ governments to make it possible for them to pay less than the minimum wage by topping up. They chose the latter.

Do businesses decide how many kids you have and what your childcare situation is? My son does a full time minimum wage job and gets zero benefits.

Well said. Having 4 children while being in a weak financial position seems utterly selfish to me.

Can you explain for those of us that understood milkround’s post what the weak financial position you are referring to is?

I can explain. He's suggesting that milkround's mother should not have been so selfish as to have children when married. She must have known that divorce is quite common, as is the penury suffered by a number of women whose husbands and partners fail to pay for the children's upkeep. After all, she must have known the risk.

Given his point of view, I suggest that when he talks of being utterly selfish, he knows whereof he speaks.