Public Housing should be STOPPED & SOLD

[ufo_investigations]

The government buys houses and rents them out to people at a discounted rate and the tax payer has to carry this burden.

Why is this so?   Governments should not be buying houses!

I'm sorry but we should not have government housing!

Complete waste money!

All government housing should be sold to private sector!

The millions of dollars raised from the sale will build better roads, freeways, hospitals.

Governments should govern NOT buy houses for people to live in!

The job of government is to govern not babysit people!

***** Dear State Governments **** Please SELL ALL GOVERNMENT HOUSES !!! ****

[chameleon54]

---

@secondhand-wonderland wrote:

I am disapointed that I have to work extra time away from my wife and kids to support low life bludgers who are quite capable of getting a job and supporting themselves

In all fairness though you aren't workng specifically "to support" anyone but yourself and your family.  Everyone pays income tax where and how that money gets spent is generally not up to you...

---

Sorry, but your post doesnt really make a lot of sense. It seems to be based on your stated assumption that everyone pays income tax. This is clearly wrong as NOT everyone pays income tax. This is only paid by businesses and individual workers who spend their time productively earning an income and earn over a pre stated taxable threshold..

 Low income ( often part time ) workers earning under the taxable income threshold rightly dont pay income tax.

Then there is a group of people who are genuinly unable to earn an income due to health, age related issues, genuine unemployment ( really trying to find work but cant, particularly bad with youth unemployment ) and many single mums. These people dont pay income tax and rely on the fit and healthy workers for support.  In a compassionate society this is as it should be. It is also a form of insurance as we never know when we may need access to the system ourselves.

Then there is another large group. These people are fit and healthy and should be able to support their own families and also contribute to looking after those in genuine need. Instead they CHOOSE to live on social security, often earning income on the sly ( like the neighbors trading in used cars ) . They take public housing, depriving genuine people from this important resource and just generally suck the system dry. Because this group takes rather than gives ( through income tax ) those that do the right thing have to actually work harder and longer to support both their own families and also pay for the leeches. Its basic maths really. The less workers you have and the more leeches you have, the harder and longer the remaning  workers need to toil to pay for the whole system to keep functioning. The more workers paying tax and the less leeches, the less hours everyone has to work to keep the system going.

[ufo_investigations]

The value of public housing in Australia is probably worth around $300 billion dollars.

My argument is that government should not be buying houses. Housing is very costly, land is expensive and maintaining the houses is an ongoing concern which burdens the tax payer.  If anything breaks the tax payer has to pay to have it fixed. If the hot water fails the tax payer has to pay. If the fence needs to be done the tax payer has to pay. If the roof needs repairs the tax payer needs to pay. Makes no sense for governments to buy houses.

If people need assistance to pay their rent they should apply for it at centrelink but expecting a government house is a bit much I think. Instead they can use tax payer money to assist the needy rent a home. There is no need to spend tax payer money on buying expensive housing.

It does not make sense to me for governments to be sitting on houses worth 1/2 million dollars and renting them out for $150 per week. Mathematically makes no sense. Tax payer money would be better spent by providing financial assistance to the needy so they can rent a house.

[lionrose.7]

I think UFO is a private Landlord 🙂

[cherry*135]

To be fair the State Govt's are selling off some of the public housing that has increased signnificantly in value in recent years.

The negative side to that is,they aren't spending any of that money on new public housing in cheaper areas though, leaving a bigger shortfall in public housing available.

Where I live there is  a shortage of public housing and private rentals.. more demand than supply... we don't want people to be homeless either those on low income or those who have a  good income but no private rentals available.

The State Governments are responsible for providing Public Housing, no doubt over that... They aren't going to stop doing that. They do sell some off in high value areas.

There is no way private rentals could house everyone in Australia that needs a house to lease.

If a person on a benefit/low income finds a private house to rent for $500 (that is not unreasonable in many areas in the wider Sydney area), you suggest they go into Centrelink and ask them to subsidise the rent... the subsidy required would be around $400 p.w. 

I am sure C/L has the funds to cough that up every week, for all people that need private house rental assitance....

[joz*garage]

you do realized when an area becomes "up market" the gov sells off a few properties at market value, which the gov / tax payer benefits from

then buys other properties for the purpose of state housing in less expensive locations

[wilk1149]

Soldiers need practice killing people. They could go to all the unemployed people such as I myself have been and chase us down and shoot us in the street like the useless wasters of everything working people should have. That way the politicians can have more money to waste on themselves and all the hard done by workers can be happy the megalomaniac politicians can have a n even better life because politicians are a much better breed if people that taxes should be wasted on not useless, dirty, smelly, ugly unemployed people

[cherry*135]

In NSW they sell off public housing properties with high values but don't necessarily buy any more to replace those sold off.

[cherry*135]

What you suggest ufo, that Centrelink subsidises private rentals, is dead money for the Govt. The rentals will increase artificially because the private landlord knows the Govt will keep paying the subsidies.

If the Govt owns public houses/apartment blocks and receive rents (lower than market),  the Govt being owner of that house/block  benefits from any valuation increases and can sell it off if they decide too and use the money for other purposes.

[joz*garage]

---

@am*3 wrote:

In NSW they sell off public housing properties with high values but don't necessarily buy any more to replace those sold off.

---

well if they did that then, public housing would become extinct, could be a flaw whom ever is running the state at the time

im unaware they stop buying up properties in W.A to cater for the needy

i know more people whom require assistance are being shifted to the out skirts 

[ufo_investigations]

Government can provide financial assistance to the needy, no need to buy big ticket items like a house and land. It is a huge burden to the tax payer. The cost outweighs the objective. All they have to do is provide financial assistance. It achieves the same result without having to buy a house. Government is there to help people to a certain degree. I don't think it is fair on tax payers to carry this debt.