Oh the outrage bob crow prefers to reside in a council house he has no doubt stayed in for
years and although he could more than likely afford to stay in the middle class suburbs he
he's happy where he is whats the problem??
You know maybe he prefers the kinda people you find on the estate where he lives and doesn't
fancy being surrounded by those tory voting types who start threads like this
Oh the outrage bob crow prefers to reside in a council house he has no doubt stayed in for
years and although he could more than likely afford to stay in the middle class suburbs he
he's happy where he is whats the problem??
You know maybe he prefers the kinda people you find on the estate where he lives and doesn't
fancy being surrounded by those tory voting types who start threads like
He doesn't have to live near Tory types. He has enough money to buy a property where ever he likes. Unfortunately a family who are living in an overcrowded B and B whilst waiting on the homeless housing list don't have that choice.
Social housing should be like benefits.... means-tested and periodically reviewed. You can't sign-on "for life" so why should you get social housing "for life". Current system is effing insane.
HA, are non profit making. What is a housing association?
A not-for-profit organisation which owns, lets and manages rental housing. As not-for-profit organisations, revenue acquired through rent is ploughed back into the acquisition and maintenance of property.
"All those people on the waiting list who are desperate for a home"
I'll ask again, who are these people on the waiting list?
Do you have their names?
"living in a subsidised by the tax payer council house."
I thought housing associations were private companies?
My parents live in a housing association owned flat. The association is a private company. My parents rent is not subsidised by the tax payer.
Housing associations are the largest providers of affordable housing in the UK. They are often, but not always, registered charities. They are non-profit and receive £billions in government grants (which they match by raising private investment money), and therefore ARE subsidised by the tax-payer.
If Crow was forced to move and a family moved in - possibly with loads of kids with different fathers, on benefits etc - people would be saying it's an outrage that they were given it and Crow made to leave.
Much as I dislike him, I don't see Crow as doing anything wrong. He could lose his job tomorrow, get divorced and have to pay out a fortune, anything could happen. It's his home - that seems to mean nothing these days.
I get a bit sick of all this 'let's chuck someone out just to get someone else in' mentality - we all have to be somewhere, leave him where he is.
Im on a good wage and i live in a Council House, Personally i don't see a problem with it. I could buy, but choose not to.
Incidentally how high do your wages have to be before it's considered Wrong/Immoral for you to live in a Council House?
So your paying full rent and you pay your taxes! Your house therefore is not subsidised. People have no reason to complain.
When people like you rent social housing people complain even though you pay your way, when some chav mother with ten kids moves in and lives on the state people complain they are given a house and are a drain on tax payers lol you really can't win!
So your paying full rent and you pay your taxes! Your house therefore is not subsidised. People have no reason to complain.
When people like you rent social housing people complain even though you pay your way, when some chav mother with ten kids moves in and lives on the state people complain they are given a house and are a drain on tax payers lol you really can't win!
Im on a good wage and i live in a Council House, Personally i don't see a problem with it. I could buy, but choose not to.
Incidentally how high do your wages have to be before it's considered Wrong/Immoral for you to live in a Council House?
And I bet you keep your place in a good condition and have made costly improvements - and you'd be expected to give your place up just like that (if certain people had their way).
Yes it does say live there as long you like. However if he wants to be ' a man of the people' he should give the property up to some other family on the list that are in desperate need.
Do these fabled people exist? As I posted on nother thread last week,the 3 bed, huge gardened, with outhouse in a spectacular location council house next door recently became vacant. Who was at the of the waiting list? Person with disabled kids? Single mum living in B & B with 3 kids? Big family from a rackrenting private landlord's slum living in bad conditions? No. A druggie and her elderly hubby with 2 kids under 4. The house is so under-occupied they were paying bedroom tax from the day they moved in. Homeless? In B & B? In a house so bad it was due to be knocked down? No. From a nice (I'm told) private rented, detached house in a nicer part of York. We are not even in York. This is not York council. And these people are at the very top of another council's waiting list, above every single person on the waiting list from this and neighbouring areas?
There can be no demand for council houses if the people at the top of the list are already better housed than people in council houses, and only have 2 kids young enough to share one room.
I've stopped believing there are people in genuine need, now my council has rehomed these people who are inadequates, sure, but were already safely housed, and don't even have enough kids to fill the house they've been given, on the day they walked in.:)
Let him stay there. It is his family's home. The council would only give it to a load of druggies, or people wealthy enough to buy the house as soon as they have bagged the secure tenancy, after the first year (my new neighbours are so poor they have an Audi and another big car in the drive. We work for a living, and could never afford them cars. )
Its cheaper because you aren't covering the cost of the landlords mortgage on the place plus a bit of profit on top.
Private renters are paying a premium.
Housing Associations receive government grants in addition to the rents they collect, at present and for the past twenty years those grants total £2 billion per year from central government and then they can apply for other money on top. So yes the tax payer does subsidise them.
I think people on as much money as Bob Crowe is on should be made to pay the full market rent for the property not receive a 50% discount on market rent.
Social housing should be like benefits.... means-tested and periodically reviewed. You can't sign-on "for life" so why should you get social housing "for life". Current system is effing insane.
The obvious answer to stop all the righteeous indignation is - build more council houses, then, and pass legislation to say the newbuild ones are exempt from the right to buy.
Apparently, under this gvt there is the least building going on since the 1930s. People's council houses are their homes. I do think the need of people on waiting lists may be exaggerated for the reasons stated above . For now, whilst houses are like hens' teeth, they should be confined only to be let to the disabled, or people who work for a living but are on minimum wage (which would filter out the druggies etc). But longterm solution has to be to build enough council houses - that people can't buy - to house anyone who needs it. When I said to the council "What the hell were you doing as this druggie must have been in that state when you handed her the keys" they said "It's social housing - what do you expect?" Well, 2 of my kids have gone from social housing to university and a third is going next year. When even the council employees call you scumbag to your face, and use that tory term 'social housing' it is time for a shake-up.
When I was a kid in the 60s and 70s, all kinds of people had council houses - my aunty had one. Her kids ended up being a government adviser/senior scientist and MD of a successful firm. Loads of my mates lived in them - mostly their parents were in work, and just average people.
In less than a generation council houses are now 'social housing' and seen as for the scumbags. That's because they aren't common enough and only dicks like my new neighbours can get to the top of the list (druggies, the unemployable, etc). We need to have a massive home building plan, and start to see them as homes - not 'social housing'.
People forget that council houses are families' homes. Why should anyone move out if they don't want to? If I was him, I'd buy it and buy a second house that I'd rent out to a family in need (who worked).
I don't think anyone would criticise him for paying a full rent rather than a subsidised one.
I'd question the fantasy home'owners' have that council rents are 'subsidised'. My house was built in the 30s or 40s, on a piece of land they probably paid £100 for, if that. The materials and labour were cheap. I'd guess the buildings were paid for, say within a decade of being built.
From then on - pure profit. I know it is profit because I have had very few repairs done in over a decade. I had a major kitchen refurb and new central heating - paid for not by my council but with EEC money to bring substandard housing (ie: where my council felt it was OK for my kids to be living) upto European standards. That cost you nothing.
I have no gas mains. No sewage mains. No pavements. No street lighting. The rent I pay is 100% profit for the council I pay it to. I think the truth is, some council tenants subsidise home-owners. Me paying rent means your council taxes are lower.:)
Comments
years and although he could more than likely afford to stay in the middle class suburbs he
he's happy where he is whats the problem??
You know maybe he prefers the kinda people you find on the estate where he lives and doesn't
fancy being surrounded by those tory voting types who start threads like this
Cheaper does not mean subsidized!
But it is subsidised which is why it is cheaper!!
Its cheaper because you aren't covering the cost of the landlords mortgage on the place plus a bit of profit on top.
Private renters are paying a premium.
It's subsidised
The council get no subsidies against rent! Can't speak for other social housing though.
Council rents are actually being brought in line with the private sector but over time.
HA, are non profit making. What is a housing association?
A not-for-profit organisation which owns, lets and manages rental housing. As not-for-profit organisations, revenue acquired through rent is ploughed back into the acquisition and maintenance of property.
What is a Housing Association: http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/pub.housing.org.uk/20100617%20What%20is%20a%20housing%20association.pdf
Housing associations are the largest providers of affordable housing in the UK. They are often, but not always, registered charities. They are non-profit and receive £billions in government grants (which they match by raising private investment money), and therefore ARE subsidised by the tax-payer.
Incidentally how high do your wages have to be before it's considered Wrong/Immoral for you to live in a Council House?
Much as I dislike him, I don't see Crow as doing anything wrong. He could lose his job tomorrow, get divorced and have to pay out a fortune, anything could happen. It's his home - that seems to mean nothing these days.
I get a bit sick of all this 'let's chuck someone out just to get someone else in' mentality - we all have to be somewhere, leave him where he is.
So your paying full rent and you pay your taxes! Your house therefore is not subsidised. People have no reason to complain.
When people like you rent social housing people complain even though you pay your way, when some chav mother with ten kids moves in and lives on the state people complain they are given a house and are a drain on tax payers lol you really can't win!
Nope Can't win either way
Do these fabled people exist? As I posted on nother thread last week,the 3 bed, huge gardened, with outhouse in a spectacular location council house next door recently became vacant. Who was at the of the waiting list? Person with disabled kids? Single mum living in B & B with 3 kids? Big family from a rackrenting private landlord's slum living in bad conditions? No. A druggie and her elderly hubby with 2 kids under 4. The house is so under-occupied they were paying bedroom tax from the day they moved in. Homeless? In B & B? In a house so bad it was due to be knocked down? No. From a nice (I'm told) private rented, detached house in a nicer part of York. We are not even in York. This is not York council. And these people are at the very top of another council's waiting list, above every single person on the waiting list from this and neighbouring areas?
There can be no demand for council houses if the people at the top of the list are already better housed than people in council houses, and only have 2 kids young enough to share one room.
I've stopped believing there are people in genuine need, now my council has rehomed these people who are inadequates, sure, but were already safely housed, and don't even have enough kids to fill the house they've been given, on the day they walked in.:)
Let him stay there. It is his family's home. The council would only give it to a load of druggies, or people wealthy enough to buy the house as soon as they have bagged the secure tenancy, after the first year (my new neighbours are so poor they have an Audi and another big car in the drive. We work for a living, and could never afford them cars.
Housing Associations receive government grants in addition to the rents they collect, at present and for the past twenty years those grants total £2 billion per year from central government and then they can apply for other money on top. So yes the tax payer does subsidise them.
I think people on as much money as Bob Crowe is on should be made to pay the full market rent for the property not receive a 50% discount on market rent.
So what figure would the cut off figure be
I don't think any true high-profile socialist exists, all the high-profile ones tend to be rolling in it.
Especially that Russell Brand
"Let us all challenge economic disparity...just as long as you don't take any of my money". :rolleyes:
If he moves somewhere else, the same pillocks will only be lining up to berate him for being out of touch with ordinary people.
Apparently, under this gvt there is the least building going on since the 1930s. People's council houses are their homes. I do think the need of people on waiting lists may be exaggerated for the reasons stated above . For now, whilst houses are like hens' teeth, they should be confined only to be let to the disabled, or people who work for a living but are on minimum wage (which would filter out the druggies etc). But longterm solution has to be to build enough council houses - that people can't buy - to house anyone who needs it. When I said to the council "What the hell were you doing as this druggie must have been in that state when you handed her the keys" they said "It's social housing - what do you expect?" Well, 2 of my kids have gone from social housing to university and a third is going next year. When even the council employees call you scumbag to your face, and use that tory term 'social housing' it is time for a shake-up.
When I was a kid in the 60s and 70s, all kinds of people had council houses - my aunty had one. Her kids ended up being a government adviser/senior scientist and MD of a successful firm. Loads of my mates lived in them - mostly their parents were in work, and just average people.
In less than a generation council houses are now 'social housing' and seen as for the scumbags. That's because they aren't common enough and only dicks like my new neighbours can get to the top of the list (druggies, the unemployable, etc). We need to have a massive home building plan, and start to see them as homes - not 'social housing'.
People forget that council houses are families' homes. Why should anyone move out if they don't want to? If I was him, I'd buy it and buy a second house that I'd rent out to a family in need (who worked).
I don't think anyone would criticise him for paying a full rent rather than a subsidised one.
He is paying full rent, or he would be in rent arrears he is paying what his rental agreement says to pay
I'd question the fantasy home'owners' have that council rents are 'subsidised'. My house was built in the 30s or 40s, on a piece of land they probably paid £100 for, if that. The materials and labour were cheap. I'd guess the buildings were paid for, say within a decade of being built.
From then on - pure profit. I know it is profit because I have had very few repairs done in over a decade. I had a major kitchen refurb and new central heating - paid for not by my council but with EEC money to bring substandard housing (ie: where my council felt it was OK for my kids to be living) upto European standards. That cost you nothing.
I have no gas mains. No sewage mains. No pavements. No street lighting. The rent I pay is 100% profit for the council I pay it to. I think the truth is, some council tenants subsidise home-owners. Me paying rent means your council taxes are lower.:)