Juddian:
Jesus wept, since when has £31k gross been a good wage in lorry terms, particularly in the south east.
Ironically there were probably still are plenty of examples of incomes in the South East being set by ‘national’ wage agreements in which the difference between here and anywhere else is relatively small.As for me I’ve lived in the home counties all my life and never earn’t anywhere near that figure in real terms.My last figure finished up at around £375 pw for class 1 night work in 1999 which was certainly one of the reasonable paying jobs.
Freight Dog:
He didn’t say he netts £31000pa. He earns that. So Gross, not nett. So it’s a reasonable thing to say after tax and NI for the average Brit, he’ll be looking at £1850 a month. This leaves say £1325. I know you’ll say your point still stands but worth getting the starting point right I guess. Sorry don’t like to pick holes. Big fan of the show 
I don’t have much of an opinion either way on the OP comment.
I’m going on the fact on another post he boasted of taking home £600 per week
Juddian:
Jesus wept, since when has £31k gross been a good wage in lorry terms, particularly in the south east.
But remember he claims to only do 5 hours shifts on many occasions!
Kenny1975:
Carryfast:
damoq:
I don’t know if I’m reading this wrong. But the OP says he has never claimed for anything in his life, suggesting that his rent is not been subsidised in the first place. It appears now that he is earning a decent wage, they have bumped up his rent. I’d be a bit peed off at that too. Where’s the incentive to better yourself if that’s what’s going to happen.
The real Conservative definition of ‘bettering yourself’ means not relying on the state to subsidise your living costs especially if you’re earning £600 pw. 
However ‘if’ the OP was to say that even £600 per week isn’t enough to live on comfortably.Then just maybe his ( possibly justified ) argument should be that those 1970’s strikers weren’t the greedy militants they were painted as being and we’ve got an incomes crisis not a housing or benefits one. 
Thats not the Tories parties way of thinking, its about screwing people over to make the rich richer.
Heaven forbid people are allowed affordable housing, rather than a market which is artificially overinflated. If it was really for people bettering themselves it would pump money into the economy building more council or HA houses, create jobs like a government should really job.
Instead its wanting to turn us all into wage slaves with unaffordable housing, whilst the government subsidises banks, big business in the form of government contracts, tax breaks and everything else.
The 1970’s is like a magic word the Tories have made, as soon as they are mentioned most people think of unions out of control, strikes, if you mention socialism its you want to go back to the bad old days of the 70’s. Yeah some unions were out of control, and huge mistakes made, but we have gone way the other way now with no rights and the country basically just a rat race. We will be working till we die.
You’re joking if you think you’re getting off that lightly.
waddy640:
Juddian:
[Enjoy the cheap mortage if you have one, but don’t get too cosy cos we’ve seen 15% interest rates before under a tory govt, history can easily repeat itself.
That was in 1990 and I was six months into a 25 year mortgage.
We copped the 18% rates around that time, but we’d used a bit of forethought and bought a modest place so even though it was a bit difficult, we managed. Unlike nowadays over here where every young couple have to have the posh house, two beemers in the double driveway and a ■■■■ off big tele in every one of their six bedrooms. I’m exaggerating a bit, but you see my point… Have I drifted off topic. 
peterm:
We copped the 18% rates around that time, but we’d used a bit of forethought and bought a modest place so even though it was a bit difficult, we managed. Unlike nowadays over here where every young couple have to have the posh house, two beemers in the double driveway and a [zb] off big tele in every one of their six bedrooms. I’m exaggerating a bit, but you see my point… Have I drifted off topic.
It’s fair to say that the definition of a modern industrialised economy should be one that pays sufficient wages to afford something better than a zb small house in a high density housing estate in an over populated urbanisation.While also paying savers a decent return on the money they’ve lent to help buy it.
peterm:
waddy640:
Juddian:
[Enjoy the cheap mortage if you have one, but don’t get too cosy cos we’ve seen 15% interest rates before under a tory govt, history can easily repeat itself.
That was in 1990 and I was six months into a 25 year mortgage.
We copped the 18% rates around that time, but we’d used a bit of forethought and bought a modest place so even though it was a bit difficult, we managed. Unlike nowadays over here where every young couple have to have the posh house, two beemers in the double driveway and a [zb] off big tele in every one of their six bedrooms. I’m exaggerating a bit, but you see my point… Have I drifted off topic.
Forgot to add that my modest three bed semi then went into negative equity for around twelve, yes twelve years.
Looking at it in another prospective,living in “subsidised” housing also means that tenants will be still paying rent long after they retire,forever and a day compared with the majority who will have paid of their a mortgage by then
In actual fact all they are doing is paying full whack but over a life time instead of a fixed term
I’m a bit confused here. Are all Council Houses classed as subsidised rent for low earners? surely the rent amount is the going rate for just that…a council house, as opposed to the artficially inflated rent by many profiteers in the private sector.
As has already been said, in the 60s and 70s the vast majority of the Working class, (guys like us) lived in a Council house.
Some people still choose to in the UK. When I worked abroad they used to laugh at their Brit drivers being mortgage slaves, and a vast amount of the nationals lived happily in realistic amount rented homes on the Continent.
In an attempt to discourage ind action leading to strikes (being the true but hidden agenda) Maggie brought in the Right to buy scheme, under the guise of helping working people own their own homes.
Reading this thread there now looks as if most of you view living in a council house as a stigma, and to be looked down on 
or have I got you all completely wrong.
I think I get the o/post, and I aint condoning it, but I reckon the ones you should be looking down on, are the pathetic take all give nothing type of underclass that has developed in this country who are blatantly working the system.
In Europe mortgages are available over much longer periods much more realistic.
robroy:
I’m a bit confused here. Are all Council Houses classed as subsidised rent for low earners? surely the rent amount is the going rate for just that…a council house, as opposed to the artficially inflated rent by many profiteers in the private sector.
As has already been said, in the 60s and 70s the vast majority of the Working class, (guys like us) lived in a Council house.
Some people still choose to in the UK. When I worked abroad they used to laugh at their Brit drivers being mortgage slaves, and a vast amount of the nationals lived happily in realistic amount rented homes on the Continent.
In an attempt to discourage ind action leading to strikes (being the true but hidden agenda) Maggie brought in the Right to buy scheme, under the guise of helping working people own their own homes.
Reading this thread there now looks as if most of you view living in a council house as a stigma, and to be looked down on or have I got you all completely wrong.
I think I get the o/post, and I aint condoning it, but I reckon the ones you should be looking down on, are the pathetic take all give nothing type of underclass that has developed in this country who are blatantly working the system.
this is what I cant really get my head around (I may do in a few hours once the budget has been completed), I live in a council house I pay full rent and yes its about £75 a month cheaper than my neighbour who rents private, his rent in the last 3 years has remained the same - mine has increased every year by at least 5-10%. so I assume I may potentially fall into the category the op has mentioned. but as I pay full rent not subsidised in any way everyone on here thinks I am a sponger? I cant afford to buy a house and doubt I would get a mortgage for long enough to make affordable at my age. my grandma live n a council house and has for the last 60 years so am guessing in the eyes of a fair few on here she was/is a sponger too?
I pay my rent I look after the house (I have actually improved it as fitted a new bathroom / shower etc. as they wouldn’t) but I sponge by living in a council house? I pay taxes I have worked since I left school so explain how what type of house I live in would make me a sponger? but if I paid an extra x amount I wouldn’t be.
judging by some of the posts on here I assume I don’t deserve it so I will tender my notice and rent private as there is obviously a needy family fresh off the back of a Calais truck who need it more than me and my family do or a young mother who fell out with mom and dad went and got pregnant so she could move into a nice house whilst claiming for the rest of their sorry lives without paying ■■■■ all into the pot.
It’s amazing you read the thread from the beginning and after a few replies you still have the same opinion, then 4 pages later you’ve changed your mind 
Trucknet really should have a debating section
Looks like I’m in war1974 Sponger’s club also then.
Before my business went ■■■■ up in 96 ish I had a brand new house in a select area which I lost. I was on my arse with 4 kids to feed, (got a job even though I could have lived off the social with the 4 kids) and had to rent off a guy that done ■■■■ all in repairs but ripped me off every month. When I cleared bankruptcy I was a financial leper due to my history, the only mortgages I qualified for was the ones that had ludicrous sky high interest rates.
Eventually I was offered a council house. It conjured up in my mind a ■■■■ hole with scrap cars in the garden living next door to crackheads (btw I aint a snob, I was brought up in a decent home council house, but that is the way a lot are now) Luckily it was a end terrace house in a country village, in a nice setting surrounded by fields so I was delighted with it.
When the leper status had died off I was about 45ish so did not want to start another mortgage around my neck so we decided to stay.
I am not going to disclose my rent, mainly as it has ■■■■ all to do with anybody, but suffice to say it is realistic and cheaper than private.
So like the other guy I am now going to give that last landlord a bell for my previous house, move out and make way for one of our long term unemployed, or a mother of 5 kids with assorted dads, or a smackhead.
In fact one of you lot that think I’m a sponger can give me advice.
Funnily enough Rob my business went ■■■■ up 3 years ago and I almost went the bankruptcy route, sole trader so stood to lose (not loose) house, well it was 60 - 40 on house loss but the look on my other halfs face at the threat of this pushed me into tne IVA route (170k worth of debt if anyones interested).
Anyway now almost into the 3rd year of the IVA Im wondering if I should have just bit the bullet and chose the bankruptcy route, would have ment renting via council or private but at least I would have been disharged by now.
Just sharing really but I dont begrudge any working person / family cheap rent but I dont blame my woes on the government of the day, in fact im not against a fiddle or two myself. If folks can work the system in their favour thats great for them. Bloomin spongers 
Looks like social housing rents are losing their subsidy, in hindsight refusing that raise may not have been wise.
So govt wins again. Gotta love the conservatives.
it doesn’t really say online what it means though? is it these ‘newbuild’ type where people are moving into a 400k family home and paying £50 a week or old style council houses which are all paid for?
either way it still encourages the workshy to remain workshy to me.
robroy:
Looks like I’m in war1974 Sponger’s club also then.
Before my business went ■■■■ up in 96 ish I had a brand new house in a select area which I lost. I was on my arse with 4 kids to feed, (got a job even though I could have lived off the social with the 4 kids) and had to rent off a guy that done [zb] all in repairs but ripped me off every month. When I cleared bankruptcy I was a financial leper due to my history, the only mortgages I qualified for was the ones that had ludicrous sky high interest rates.
Eventually I was offered a council house. It conjured up in my mind a [zb] hole with scrap cars in the garden living next door to crackheads (btw I aint a snob, I was brought up in a decent home council house, but that is the way a lot are now) Luckily it was a end terrace house in a country village, in a nice setting surrounded by fields so I was delighted with it.
When the leper status had died off I was about 45ish so did not want to start another mortgage around my neck so we decided to stay.
I am not going to disclose my rent, mainly as it has [zb] all to do with anybody, but suffice to say it is realistic and cheaper than private.
So like the other guy I am now going to give that last landlord a bell for my previous house, move out and make way for one of our long term unemployed, or a mother of 5 kids with assorted dads, or a smackhead.
In fact one of you lot that think I’m a sponger can give me advice.
Council house tenants are only scroungers in the sense that the object of going to work ( should be ) to earn enough to comfortably afford a deposit and mortgage,on a decent privately bought house in a a decent setting,which can be cleared in a reasonable time.It’s obvious that will involve a large amount of ‘militancy’ and a different form of ‘Capitalism’ to create the wage regime required.
As opposed to expecting the state and tax payers to subsidise the socialist cop out of council housing and/or in work benefits.While even your reference to the ‘right’ setting in the rural area is actually a hypocritical private sector housing criterea not council.Being that the socialist idea of ‘council housing’ would actually be to cover those fields in more high density urbanised council house development.In which case,as usual,the socialist idea of council housing ends up with a contradictory solution which only panders to the idea of a dependency culture,low wage employment and where no one with any sense wants to live.
So we ( the council I.E. you and me ) have decided to pay for and build a house. It is being built because some people, for a huge variety of reasons can’t afford to buy or rent from the private sector. The rent for this house will the same as a comparable one in the private sector, that is £■■■/month. Anyone who is able to pay this rent will not be allowed to have it, as we don’t have enough houses for those who are unable to pay the full rent.
We will offer reductions in the amount of rent payable depending on the tenants ability to pay. If a tenants financial circumstances change, we reserve the right to increase the rent proportionally up to a maximum of the amount quoted earlier. In that circumstance we have one less house available for some one who NEEDS it at a reduced rent. We will not ask you to move to " free up " the house as we realise people need a settled home.
This seems quite reasonable to me, or have I got it all wrong, and it doesn’t work like this ?
Regards. John.
old 67:
So we ( the counsel, I.E. you and me ) have decided to pay for and build a house. It is being built because some people, for a huge variety of reasons can’t afford to buy or rent from the private sector. The rent for this house will the same as a comparable one in the private sector, that is £■■■/month. Anyone who is able to pay this rent will not be allowed to have it, as we don’t have enough houses for those who are unable to pay the full rent.
We will offer reductions in the amount of rent payable depending on the tenants ability to pay. If a tenants financial circumstances change, we reserve the right to increase the rent proportionally up to a maximum of the amount quoted earlier. In that circumstance we have one less house available for some one who NEEDS it at a reduced rent. We will not ask you to move to " free up " the house as we realise people need a settled home.
This seems quite reasonable to me, or have I got it all wrong, and it doesn’t work like this ?
Regards. John.
Or we knock the whole contradictory bs socialist idea on the head and start to look on union militancy and a protectionist trading environment,which creates a better wage environment,that allows people to look after themselves,as a good thing.