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 !!! ****

[lionrose.7]

In Nz State Housing is being sold off in the most expensive areas, a lot of the houses came with big sections so Developers are buying up and cross leasing the sections, can get three or four houses on some.

Some old houses in old family areas but close to the city have sold for Millions.

No more State houses being built to replace.

A lot of State housing are going down hill because maintenance has not been kept up to a good standard.

Old people who have been in the same house for years are being shifted in to flats or units to make way for families.

I think Australia is doing the same.

[cherry*135]

Aug 2014

NSW

Last year, the state government sold 1386 public houses and built only 536 new ones. And the NSW budget for public housing was halved from $240 million in 2010, to $120 million in 2014.

[cherry*135]

---

@ufo_investigations wrote:

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.

---

Everyone needs a house/unit/apt to live in. Paying citizens money to go towards private rentals is dead money.

Centrelink does pay out Rent Assistance to those eligible. It is a fairly low amount and wouldn't go far for a family home privately rented at $450 a week though, to a beneficiary or person on a low income. Those people would not be able to afford rent a privately owned property.

Apart from that it is State Govts responsibility to provide public housing by law, they can't opt in and out of that.

Houses/units/apts owned by the Govt are not debts, they are assets.

[chameleon54]

---

@ufo_investigations wrote:

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.

---

This is good in principle, but ignores the fact that many people just would not be able to keep it together enough to rent in the private sector. The three men ( mentioned in earlier post ) in the public house behind me simply do not have the IQ to manage private renatal. They would find it very difficult to find a landlord who would take them on, and if they did, they may be "ripped off"" or otherwise exploited. Many people with major disabilities need special fitouts which the private sector would be unlikely to assist with. Particularly if the person lives in country towns or remote areas etc. 

[cherry*135]

There are currently 105,237 people in Australia who are homeless.

The rate of homelessness (which takes into account population density) is 49 out of every 10,000 people (0.5% of the population).

56% male

44% female

[the_hawk*]

From what I have been told, is that public housing is funded by the state, rent assistance is funded by the federal goverment.

The states are selling of public housing to avoid having to fund it and cashing in on the asset sales leaving the short fall to be picked up by tennants and the federal government  

[cherry*135]

That sounds right. Rent assistance paid by C/L wouldn't go far in areas where avg rent for basic 3 brm home is $450 pw.

UFO - I suppose you think a bullet proof car for the Prime Minister costing $525 000 is good value? Cars depreciate in value quite quickly don't they?

He only bought 9 of them!

[joz*garage]

---

@ufo_investigations wrote:

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.

---

no it wouldnt

all the money would go to private landlords

[the_hawk*]

yep bullet proof cars and vests, have to wonder what he has to fear and why if he is doing such a great job

[ufo_investigations]

---

@am*3 wrote:

That sounds right. Rent assistance paid by C/L wouldn't go far in areas where avg rent for basic 3 brm home is $450 pw.

UFO - I suppose you think a bullet proof car for the Prime Minister costing $525 000 is good value? Cars depreciate in value quite quickly don't they?

He only bought 9 of them!

---

$450 p/w is still cheaper than buying a house and land and paying maintenance on it forever. Council rates on average houses in Vic is like $1,800. Providing financial assistance works out cheaper for the tax payer.

As for the Prime Minister he has to protect himself from terrorists he needs maximum protection.