Social Housing - Creating a monster

[TheBigShort]

If someone in social housing can afford to pay the market rate and is not charged that rate then they are being subsidised by the tax payer. While we have families sleeping in hotels, a suicide epidemic among young men and boys, and many other areas which need funding I don't think that's an appropriate use of government money. I would be interested to know why you think that people who can afford to pay market rents should be subsidised by people who can not.

First off, if someone in social housing can afford to pay the market rate it is presumably because they are earning an income – in which case, they are ‘the taxpayer’. We could spend the rest of the month detailing all of the subsidies that various different sectors of society receive by virtue of ‘the taxpayer’. A PAYE worker receives a tax credit, an effective subsidy. CT is at 12.5% and there appears to be plenty of means to reduce that liability through tax laws – an effective subsidy of the corporate sector. My wife pays full PRSI and although she can afford the ‘market rate’ of a dental check-up and cleaning, she is subsidised by ‘the taxpayer’ for a free visit to the dentist. I got a 20% rebate of the cost of a root canal procedure – why should taxpayers who have never had as much as a filling in their life subsidise my root canal treatment?

Farmers are subsidised through the CAP. The hotel & restaurant industry is subsidised through a preferential VAT rate over other businesses.

Everyone else is subsided by the taxpayer if they need to call the Gardai, or putting their kids through school, using public roads, availing of the convenience of street lighting.

Even though we can afford the ‘market rate’ for childcare, the state subsidises us with child benefit to help with the costs of raising children.

Others are subsidised by way of social housing, but if they are working and paying taxes they are contributing to the cost of that benefit, no more, no less. Simply because they are availing of that provision is no different to my elderly neighbour whose life-saving operations (which I pray I don't have to endure) cost more than the cost of two-bed house.

Secondly, it is debatable as to how much of income should be used to pay mortgage/rent. If my rent is swallowing up 70% of my income – technically I am able to pay it, but I would consider that amount unaffordable, and in the long-term unsustainable.


Which brings us to -thirdly, I have every sympathy for those looking to buy a property to set up home or for those being fleeced in the rental market. But the cause of the problem is not existing social housing tenants that are now earning decent incomes. The cause of the problem is more to do with this

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2018/0423/956446-goodbody-house-completions/

The private sector housing market has failed to provide a sustainable house building program suitable for the needs of the population and the public sector housing policy, effectively allowing the market determine the supply and demand is now shown to be wholly inefficient – both in more prosperous times (building too many houses in the wrong locations) and in austere times (too few houses).

There has only been one proposal in this subject that I have seen that I would agree that it would go some way to resolving the issue

rather the State should build public housing and it should be allocated by local authorities

While we have families sleeping in hotels, a suicide epidemic among young men and boys, and many other areas which need funding I don't think that's an appropriate use of government money. I would be interested to know why you think that people who can afford to pay market rents should be subsidised by people who can not.

Because to do so is to actually exacerbate the problem – not resolve it.


Why is there a housing crisis? Is it because there is a shortage of houses? Is it because house prices are too high? Is it because potential buyers cannot afford the mortgage repayments of the properties that they would like to live because they then can commute to and from work? Is it because rent prices are too high? Or is it a combination of all these factors to lesser and greater degrees.

To my mind, there is not one scintilla of evidence to suggest that the housing crisis has anything to social housing tenants whose circumstances have now improved. In fact, if you were to take a look at the comments in this thread the general gist of it is that people who are living in social housing and not working should make way for low and middle income families;

https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threa...uld-be-prioritised-for-social-housing.204999/

Whereas in this thread, the focus is that if you are working and earning a living you should make way for those most needy!

In all of this, I have asked the simple question - where will the people who have to 'move on' go to? Its never been answered, aif anyone thinks about it logically, there are so many hurdles and obstacles, other than a persons income, to consider implementing such a scheme would be a political and administrative quagmire causing more disruption and costing more in taxation than it could possibly save.

Everyone would lose.

 

[Purple]

It looks like your view is that because there is waste and unfairness in other parts of society it is okay to have waste in this part, because there are unfair subsidies in other areas it is okay to have unfairness in this area.
You are just conflating everything so that nothing is addressed. Madness.

I fail to see why charging some tenants a market rate when they can afford to pay it and using that extra income to provide more social housing will make the housing crisis worse.

The root cause of the housing crisis is that there are too few houses being built. The reasons for that are many and fall at the feet of the banking sector, the State employees who were paid to regulate it but utterly failed to do so, the ministers who failed to legislate adequately, the State employees paid to draft legislation to regulate the sector but failed to do so properly, the Social Partnership agreements which then removed the Department of finance from the table when economic policy was being formed, the greedy developers and union officials who carved up the economic cake during the boom and overheated the economy, the politicians elected and paid to run the country who abdicated that responsibility when they allowed unelected social partners to set government policy, the members of the public who borrowed unsustainable amounts and took out mortgages which not only funded the purchase of their home but also its decoration and maybe a car.
There are many reasons why we got here and very few "leaders" of any sort can be said to be blameless. While interesting it is of little consequence in the context of how we get from where we are to where we want to be; it's hard to move forward while looking backward.

This thread is about social housing policy, not the broader housing crisis. I'm in favour of the resources which the State has been able to allocate to this problem being directed to those who need them most.

 

[TheBigShort]

It looks like your view is that because there is waste and unfairness in other parts of society it is okay to have waste in this part, because there are unfair subsidies in other areas it is okay to have unfairness in this area.
You are just conflating everything so that nothing is addressed.

No, its not. Clearly when I say “anyone that thinks about it logically, there are so many hurdles and obstacles, other than a persons income, to consider implementing such a scheme would be a political and administrative quagmire causing more disruption and costing more in taxation than it could possibly save”, it is my view that getting people to ‘move on’ or applying ‘market rates’ would be a retrograde and costly exercise.

I fail to see why charging some tenants a market rate when they can afford to pay it and using that extra income to provide more social housing will make the housing crisis worse.

Because you have not outlined how such a system would work. If the ‘market rate’ for 3 bed terrace council house in D1 is €1000 a month rent, how much would the following social housing tenants pay if they were earning the following incomes; €20,000; €30,000, €40,000; €50,000, €60,000 €70,000 etc…etc…would they all be liable to pay the market rate of €1,000 pm?

Who sets the market rate? Daft.ie? Is it possible for anyone to dispute the market rate? Is it possible that whatever, or whoever sets the market rate that an individual can dispute this rate? If you think about it logically, the housing crisis is in some part, because market rates are too high! In my view the ‘market rate’ for both property ownership and rental are way over the top. On the other hand, developers are not building and landlords are leaving the market, apparently, because it is no longer worth their while.
So how would the State set a 'market rate' when clearly all market rates are subjective?

This thread is about social housing policy, not the broader housing crisis.

The two are inter-linked. Read the OP again.

 

[Purple]

Because you have not outlined how such a system would work. If the ‘market rate’ for 3 bed terrace council house in D1 is €1000 a month rent, how much would the following social housing tenants pay if they were earning the following incomes; €20,000; €30,000, €40,000; €50,000, €60,000 €70,000 etc…etc…would they all be liable to pay the market rate of €1,000 pm?

Maybe the smart, professional, overworked and underpaid dedicated and selfless people working so hard in the RTB and Department of the Environment could come up with a mechanism for that or is the mantra in those places "It's hard to do the right thing so don't bother"?

Who sets the market rate? Daft.ie? Is it possible for anyone to dispute the market rate? Is it possible that whatever, or whoever sets the market rate that an individual can dispute this rate?

How do they set the rate for property tax?

If you think about it logically, the housing crisis is in some part, because market rates are too high! In my view the ‘market rate’ for both property ownership and rental are way over the top. On the other hand, developers are not building and landlords are leaving the market, apparently, because it is no longer worth their while.

No, the property crisis is only because of lack of supply. Other factors caused that lack of supply and others again, such as high rents, are a result of that lack of supply.

So how would the State set a 'market rate' when clearly all market rates are subjective?

By measuring the rates being charged for similar property types in the same area. It's not hard.

The two are inter-linked. Read the OP again.

They are inter-linked but so are lots of things. This thread is about how the State handles one aspect of that crisis.

 

[TheBigShort]

Maybe the smart, professional, overworked and underpaid dedicated and selfless people working so hard in the RTB and Department of the Environment could come up with a mechanism for that or is the mantra in those places "It's hard to do the right thing so don't bother"?

But you have the said the mechanism to be the 'market rate'. Now it appears that some other 'mechanism' will need to be applied? So clearly the notion of simply applying the 'market rate' to all social housing tenants is a non-runner?

How do they set the rate for property tax?

A self -assessed value of the property and charge 0.18% tax on values up to €1m. So for a property with a 'market value' of €250,000 the property tax is €405pa - is this the amount you are now suggesting should be applied? If not, why bring it up? I would imagine it falls somewhere short of charging the 'market rate' for rent?

By measuring the rates being charged for similar property types in the same area. It's not hard.

And then charge how much for tenants on varying incomes of €20,000; €30,000, €40,000; €50,000, €60,000 €70,000 etc…etc…? Oh yeah, hang on, a new mechanism to be decided by Department of Environment.

If you cant answer the question of where social housing tenants move to should their financial circumstances improve, and you cant answer the question of whether it is the 'market rate' or some other 'mechanism', as yet undefined, then what hope is there for all the other obstacles and hurdles that will be placed in front of a scheme such as this - and believe me, there will be dozens of variable circumstances within different households as to make this scheme a costly and cumbersome, and ultimately futile exercise.

 

[Purple]

But you have the said the mechanism to be the 'market rate'. Now it appears that some other 'mechanism' will need to be applied? So clearly the notion of simply applying the 'market rate' to all social housing tenants is a non-runner?



A self -assessed value of the property and charge 0.18% tax on values up to €1m. So for a property with a 'market value' of €250,000 the property tax is €405pa - is this the amount you are now suggesting should be applied? If not, why bring it up? I would imagine it falls somewhere short of charging the 'market rate' for rent?



And then charge how much for tenants on varying incomes of €20,000; €30,000, €40,000; €50,000, €60,000 €70,000 etc…etc…? Oh yeah, hang on, a new mechanism to be decided by Department of Environment.

If you cant answer the question of where social housing tenants move to should their financial circumstances improve, and you cant answer the question of whether it is the 'market rate' or some other 'mechanism', as yet undefined, then what hope is there for all the other obstacles and hurdles that will be placed in front of a scheme such as this - and believe me, there will be dozens of variable circumstances within different households as to make this scheme a costly and cumbersome, and ultimately futile exercise.

That's a complete nonsense post. By your logic unless you can detail how something should be designed, calculated and implemented then your view on a matter is not valid.
I ask about property tax because there is a system, designed by those paid to do such things, in place.
I don't believe it is beyond the wit of the combined intellect of the Civil Servants who are the experts in these matters to come up with a method of calculating market rents, just as Daft.ie can do by measuring rents in a given area and breaking them down by property type.
I don't believe that it is beyond the wit of the combined intellect of the Civil Servants who are the experts in these matters to come up with a method of assessing incomes (means testing) in this matter just as they do in other areas where the State hands out money.
You seem to have a very low opinion of our Public Servants. I think they are more than capable of such a task, if they were let do it.

Let me ask you this; If a person gets a council house for them and their partner and three kids and is charged only nominal rent because they are unemployed should that person always be charged that nominal rent even if they become a business owner and have an income of €250,000 a year? If not then how should the rent they pay be calculated?

 

[TheBigShort]

By your logic unless you can detail how something should be designed, calculated and implemented then your view on a matter is not valid.

On I beg your pardon, when you were talking about 'market rates' I automatically assumed that you were talking about the market rates applicable in the private market for rents and mortgages. Instead you are talking about 'a market rate' that is designed and applicable to income earners availing of social housing?

Like this you mean;

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e..._buying_a_home/affordable_housing.html#la9c7b

or this

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e..._buying_a_home/mortgage_allowance_scheme.html

or this

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e...help_with_buying_a_home/shared_ownership.html

or this

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e...ing/applying_for_local_authority_housing.html

I ask about property tax because there is a system, designed by those paid to do such things, in place.

Yes, so what? There are plenty of systems in place - you want to create a new one, bully for you. Do you want to share how you would envisage it to work?

Here is the Department of Housing website where you can link to rules applicable to Local Authority rents; including this

"Where you are allocated a tenancy you will be charged a rent based on your income.
This is calculated by the housing authority in accordance with its Differential Rent Scheme.
It is based on your ability to pay, i.e. the higher your income the higher the rent."

http://www.housing.gov.ie/node/6557

Here is where I said that there is scope to charge higher rents in response to a proposal to charge market rates where a social housing tenant had improved their financial situation;

I think there would be scope to increase rent for sure

I don't believe it is beyond the wit of the combined intellect of the Civil Servants who are the experts in these matters to come up with a method of calculating market rents, just as Daft.ie can do by measuring rents in a given area and breaking them down by property type.

No, its not. There are plenty of schemes and methods of calculating rents as detailed above. I assumed you would have known this, thus your argument to be based on the prevailing private market rates.
It appears you know absolutely diddly-squat about social and affordable housing schemes in this country and that you are just on here for a rant proposing things that sound like one thing, but actually mean something completely different once your suggestions come under any sort of scrutiny.

 

[TheBigShort]

If a person gets a council house for them and their partner and three kids and is charged only nominal rent because they are unemployed should that person always be charged that nominal rent even if they become a business owner and have an income of €250,000 a year? If not then how should the rent they pay be calculated?

This would be one of those situations where there would be scope to increase the rent.
On the other hand, if they have €250,000 pa, do you think there is chance they might move willingly, of their own volition? I seriously doubt there are a many €250,000 income earners, occupying social housing, meaning that this example goes nowhere near to resolving the problem of the housing crisis.

 

[Purple]

On I beg your pardon, when you were talking about 'market rates' I automatically assumed that you were talking about the market rates applicable in the private market for rents and mortgages. Instead you are talking about 'a market rate' that is designed and applicable to income earners availing of social housing?

You were correct; I was talking about the market rates applicable in the private market for rents. I thought that was so obvious that everyone would understand it. My mistake, I apologise.

Yes, so what? There are plenty of systems in place - you want to create a new one, bully for you. Do you want to share how you would envisage it to work?

I covered that here;

I don't believe it is beyond the wit of the combined intellect of the Civil Servants who are the experts in these matters to come up with a method of calculating market rents, just as Daft.ie can do by measuring rents in a given area and breaking them down by property type.
I don't believe that it is beyond the wit of the combined intellect of the Civil Servants who are the experts in these matters to come up with a method of assessing incomes (means testing) in this matter just as they do in other areas where the State hands out money.

Here is the Department of Housing website where you can link to rules applicable to Local Authority rents; including this

"Where you are allocated a tenancy you will be charged a rent based on your income.
This is calculated by the housing authority in accordance with its Differential Rent Scheme.
It is based on your ability to pay, i.e. the higher your income the higher the rent.

Does that keep increasing in an open ended manner or is it capped at the market rate? If not it seems unfair that social housing tenants can be charged more in rent than the market rate.

Here is where I said that there is scope to charge higher rents in response to a proposal to charge market rates where a social housing tenant had improved their financial situation;

Excellent! We are getting somewhere. What rate do you think it should be capped at?

No, its not. There are plenty of schemes and methods of calculating rents as detailed above. I assumed you would have known this, thus your argument to be based on the prevailing private market rates.

I did know that. That's why it's utterly bizarre that you are taking such a nonsensical stance on the issue.

It appears you know absolutely diddly-squat about social and affordable housing schemes in this country and that you are just on here for a rant proposing things that sound like one thing, but actually mean something completely different once your suggestions come under any sort of scrutiny.

It may appear that way to you but we can leave it up to others at to what they says about either of us.

This would be one of those situations where there would be scope to increase the rent.

Again, should the rate be capped at the market rate or should it be increased above that rate (in line with their income) in order to force wealthy tenants to move into private rental accommodation?

 

[TheBigShort]

You were correct; I was talking about the market rates applicable in the private market for rents. I thought that was so obvious that everyone would understand it. My mistake, I apologise.

This is into the realm of farce. So you do consider that if the prevailing market rate for renting a property is €1000 pm that a social housing tenant should also pay that amount if they are earning an income, regardless if it is €20, 30,40,50,60,70k etc...etc...

I covered that here;

No you didnt. You side-stepped the question put to you, and bizarrely you are now relying on the wit and combined intellect of civil servants that administer schemes for housing and the associated rents for your answer.

Does that keep increasing in an open ended manner or is it capped at the market rate? If not it seems unfair that social housing tenants can be charged more in rent than the market rate.

And now we really have turned full circle. The unjust nature of the cost of property and rents facing first time buyers and those in the private rental market while social housing tenants get cheap accommodation, sometimes for life, has taken a back seat.
Instead, in an attempt to resolve the shortage of housing, you have concocted a scenario where high income social housing tenants could be targeted for rents over and above the market rates to move them out!!
This will free up how many houses? 1, 2 houses? Or are you going to bamboozle me now with detailed stats of how the social housing stock is actually occupied with high income earners?
Oh, and by the way, if you force someone out by virtue of their high income, how does that help in any way those income earners who dont qualify for housing but are struggling to buy a property or pay the rent?

Excellent! We are getting somewhere. What rate do you think it should be capped at?

What rate do I think what should be capped at?

Again, should the rate be capped at the market rate or should it be increased above that rate (in line with their income) in order to force wealthy tenants to move into private rental accommodation?

Nobody...nobody should be forcefully evicted from their home. If it is a private arrangement that is a different matter, but the State should not actively evict anyone from their home (save criminal behaviour), if they did, where would they put them?

 

[dereko1969]

I'm not really sure where I stand on this topic but I'd like to share a story. Now I know bad examples make for bad law/policy.
I live in Dalkey in a former council home, estate features the most expensive former council house in the country and a mixture of current and former council tenants and private owners and renters. I purchased my home in 2010, having had to prove I had a housing need as I purchased from the estate of a former council tenant who had herself purchased from the council.
There was a knock on the door last year and a neighbour (who I didn't recognise as she's from the far end of the estate) had a petition she wanted me to sign, about how the daughter of another neighbour had moved home from the UK to help her sick mum and was now being threatened with being kicked out of the house after the mother dying. I think there was a match on so I signed without thinking and then she followed up with the kicker, apparently because the daughter has an apartment in Monkstown she wasn't entitled to "inherit" the house in Dalkey which was apparently an outrage!
I agree with social housing, I agree with not kicking people out if they have bettered themselves but have children in school in the locality - but I cannot agree with inter-generational transfer of a public asset.

 

[TheBigShort]

about how the daughter of another neighbour had moved home from the UK to help her sick mum and was now being threatened with being kicked out of the house after the mother dying.

apparently because the daughter has an apartment in Monkstown she wasn't entitled to "inherit" the house in Dalkey which was apparently an outrage!

If I get this straight, the council is not permitting the daughter to stay in the house as it has been established that she already has an apartment of her own?
If so, I don't see what the issue is here.

 

[Delboy]

The issue is that some of the locals were campaigning for her to 'inherit' the council house too

 

[TheBigShort]

So what? She is being refused the apartment. They can campaign to inherit the world for all anyone cares if she is not entitled to the apartment by virtue of the fact that she has a property of her own then she wont get it.
What this has to do with the OP I do not know.

 

[Sunny]

So what? She is being refused the apartment. They can campaign to inherit the world for all anyone cares if she is not entitled to the apartment by virtue of the fact that she has a property of her own then she wont get it.
What this has to do with the OP I do not know.

I have no idea on where you stand on this. You agree with the council not letting her keep the social house because she was lucky enough to inherit a smaller apartment in a different location? That goes against everything you said above... is it not just cruel. What about the life she has built?Do you even know what you are trying to say anymore?

 

[TheBigShort]

I have no idea on where you stand on this. You agree with the council not letting her keep the social house because she was lucky enough to inherit a smaller apartment in a different location? That goes against everything you said above... is it not just cruel. What about the life she has built?Do you even know what you are trying to say anymore?

Perhaps you should read the...post...carefully...and get the facts right before commenting. Its the social house that she is campaigning to inherit...while owning another property in Monkstown.

 

[Purple]

This is into the realm of farce. So you do consider that if the prevailing market rate for renting a property is €1000 pm that a social housing tenant should also pay that amount if they are earning an income, regardless if it is €20, 30,40,50,60,70k etc...etc...

It certainly is descending into the realm of farce. I don't think you know what you are arguing about any more. That or your preconceptions about other posters is so bad that it has rendered you incapable of reading their posts clearly. Council tenants should pay rents in line with their income, increasing as their income increases until it reaches the open market rent.

No you didnt. You side-stepped the question put to you, and bizarrely you are now relying on the wit and combined intellect of civil servants that administer schemes for housing and the associated rents for your answer.

No, I answered it.

And now we really have turned full circle. The unjust nature of the cost of property and rents facing first time buyers and those in the private rental market while social housing tenants get cheap accommodation, sometimes for life, has taken a back seat.
Instead, in an attempt to resolve the shortage of housing, you have concocted a scenario where high income social housing tenants could be targeted for rents over and above the market rates to move them out!!

No, read... my... post... I asked you at what level income related rents should be capped.

This will free up how many houses? 1, 2 houses? Or are you going to bamboozle me now with detailed stats of how the social housing stock is actually occupied with high income earners?

Why do you ask?

Oh, and by the way, if you force someone out by virtue of their high income, how does that help in any way those income earners who dont qualify for housing but are struggling to buy a property or pay the rent?

It doesn't. It does mean that the valuable state resources go to those who need them more.

What rate do I think what should be capped at?

The market rate. Have you not been listening?

Nobody...nobody should be forcefully evicted from their home. If it is a private arrangement that is a different matter, but the State should not actively evict anyone from their home (save criminal behaviour), if they did, where would they put them?

Wow, so you think a person in a council house who gets a good job and has a good income but just decides to not pay their rent should be left where they are.

 

[TheBigShort]

I don't think you know what you are arguing about any more

I will tell you what im arguing. I think the solution to the OP situation is to build more housing. If private developers are not up to the job then the State should intervene providing housing who have no means to do so for themselves and for working families that are struggling to buy or rent. Any yes, the state should not be in direct competition with first time buyers as I have said from page 1.

No, I answered it.

You didnt answer the question put to you, you laid it off to suggest that some others would have the answer to my question.
You side-stepped the question.

I asked you at what level income related rents should be capped.

No cap. Why?

It doesn't. It does mean that the valuable state resources go to those who need them more.

So a working family of two, living in social housing, earning, paying taxes that go toward the provision of that housing - now faced with 'market rate' rents that are so high (by virtue of their good incomes and your, as yet undefined mechanism for determining 'market rates') they consider perhaps buying their own property or renting privately. This is good yes? As it frees up valuable state resources for an unemployed family of two who couldnt be bothered (your words) looking for work, so that they can get the house.
In the meantime, the working family are struggling to pay increasing rents on their new private rental space and the husband has been told that his hours are being cut.

Who is more needy in that situation?

The market rate.

Which is what? Is the prevailing market rates in the open market or is it some other mechanism already being used in many different social housing schemes?

Wow, so you think a person in a council house who gets a good job and has a good income but just decides to not pay their rent should be left where they are.

Dont be a twit all your life. Someone who has the means to pay, but wont pay - in my book criminal behaviour.

 

[Purple]

I will tell you what im arguing. I think the solution to the OP situation is to build more housing. If private developers are not up to the job then the State should intervene providing housing who have no means to do so for themselves and for working families that are struggling to buy or rent.

But you're okay with people who have a good income and can well afford to buy their own home keeping a council home that is needed by a family currently living in a hotel.

You didnt answer the question put to you, you laid it off to suggest that some others would have the answer to my question.
You side-stepped the question.

No, I answered it.

No cap. Why?

Because then we could end up in a farcical situation where someone ends up paying more than the market rent.

So a working family of two, living in social housing, earning, paying taxes that go toward the provision of that housing - now faced with 'market rate' rents that are so high (by virtue of their good incomes and your, as yet undefined mechanism for determining 'market rates') they consider perhaps buying their own property or renting privately. This is good yes? As it frees up valuable state resources for an unemployed family of two who couldnt be bothered (your words) looking for work, so that they can get the house.

People who can't be bothered to work shouldn't get any council house. The State should help people who can't provide for themselves, not people who won't provide for themselves.

In the meantime, the working family are struggling to pay increasing rents on their new private rental space and the husband has been told that his hours are being cut.

What about the wife/husband/partner? We cherish all family types in this country now (the positive side of left-wing politics).

Which is what? Is the prevailing market rates in the open market or is it some other mechanism already being used in many different social housing schemes?

The market rate is the market rate. Some other mechanism already being used in many different social housing schemes is not the market rate.

Dont be a twit all your life. Someone who has the means to pay, but wont pay - in my book criminal behaviour.

Now now, be nice. This is only the inter-webie-net.
You may think it's a criminal offence not to pay rent but I don't think it is in this country. Given that I don't have access to "your book" I have to go by the law of the land. I'm happy to be proven wrong though.

 

[Firefly]

But you're okay with people who have a good income and can well afford to buy their own home keeping a council home that is needed by a family currently living in a hotel.

I must say I am still flummoxed that a so-call socialist could have this view. There are families with children sleeping in emergency accommodation at the same time that there are people who could afford their own place occupying council houses with spare bedrooms.
The sense of entitlement is staggering. It's no wonder that the same outlook is present in all things union/work related.