In the Murdoch Press this morning was this item

http://www.news.com.au/national/social-housing-cheats-get-accommodation-meant-for-victorias-most-needy/story-e6frfkvr-1225957515446

It said:"But seven "single parents" and nine couples with children, with incomes beyond $80,000, are living in state-sponsored accommodation."

I have a personal interest in this. Here in Qld, my ex-wife is living in Housing Commission acommodation with an income last year of just under $80k. Housing Commission rents are capped at $250 a week, while private rentals in the area are around $400 for an equivalent 3 bedroom home. IOW, the Qld taxpayer is subsidising her to the tune of about $5000 a year, plus has spent at least $20000 on the place in recent years with new security screens, bathroom, fencing.

This subsidy is not accounted for in any way, either by the ATO, FAO, Centrelink or the CSA - it's a straight handout with no strings. I understand that Qld Housing Commission will allow clients to earn up to $95000 before asking them to leave or buy the place (at a reduced nominal market value and with subsidised vendor finance).

When should we draw the line with handouts to the demonstrably not needy? We have a major problem in our cities with homelessness and inadequate provision of public housing. The income limits are intended to prevent the formation of a poverty trap, allowing several family members to work without risking the extra few bucks that little Johnny earns forcing the family to find a new home.

What they do, however, is allow the increasing number of high-income "single mothers" to live cheaply. I say it's time to re-think the way we do this business. Perhaps a formula that takes account of the number of residents might be a good start.

I can imagine the howls of outrage from the very wealthy single-mother's lobby groups now.

A correction to the above. I have just discovered that the rental is apparently capped at market, not $250, yet I know my ex-wife pays only $250. Either the Qld Housing Commission is not doing its job, or the "market" value being applied is highly erroneous.

My first thought was that raising children and earning just under 80k sounds like she’s doing okay but I have learnt differently in the last few years here.

I guess she is maybe having it a bit easier at the expense of someone on less than 30k a year?

My other thought is… well it’s a bit snotty of me, but we have blocks of housing commission apartments around where I live and I think you have to have a bit of a mix of slightly different tax brackets or they end up a little bit ghetto.

Wouldn’t a single father be entitled to the same concessions?

I have always felt that public housing, as it works in Oz is immoral. Those who know the right people, can pull a con, are prepared to live in a chicken coupe, or caravan for a year or so, or are just lucky get cheep housing costs. That these are subsidised, often by people who are less well off themselves, is where the thing becomes immoral.

When we hear of NSW MPs living in public housing in Glebe the rot becomes obvious. She justified staying there on the grounds that "it would be very hard for here to get housing as close to parliament, for the same rent, elsewhere". The poor dear.

I have always disliked multiple payments of welfare. All welfare should be the same for all. Not a dole payment with hidden extras, like rent assistance, public housing etc for some only. Some people are ripping 60 grand tax free out of the public purse, & still crying they are poor welfare case.

That we are now filling public housing, at an alarming rate, with boat people is even worse. These people start in Oz, after their con entry, better off than very many young Ozzies, who have to pick up the bill for them, before they can even start getting somewhere themselves, generates a very bad smell. No wonder public housing is disliked by most Ozzies.

Antiseptic:

I have to admit that I know next to nothing about public housing except that I had always assumed it was not an easy thing to obtain.
That there were very long waiting lists and that the housing was predominantly for people on low incomes. (That emergency housing may be available in some cases of extreme need). Therefore I don't understand how someone on an income just under $80,000 would qualify
for such housing unless there were extenuating circumstances.

In addition, I don't understand your concern. Isn't this lady the mother of your children? Shouldn't you be happy for their luck in this case? It must surely mean that
your child-support payments are lower, especially if she is earning her own living at such a good salary and paying so little in rent?
That can only benefit the family surely.

Well I agree,anti such housing should be for the neediest or paid market value rents.
I think we need much more but know we let some very real rorts go on.
In my view social welfare, this surely is a form, should be accountable for its costs.
If it was just your ex or just a few I would except the cracks some get past but it is not.