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.

TPP, yes she is doing OK, which is great. I don't see why she needs subsidising though.

Lexi:"I had always assumed it was not an easy thing to obtain."

She was on the waiting list for only 8 months. She staged a burglary and claimed she didn't feel safe, so they bumped her up the list. She could have been placed more quickly, but she rejected a couple of offers.

At the time she was on the SPP, attending uni full-time for her third undergrad degree and being paid extra to do so, receiving a large amount of CS from me and working part-time to the maximum allowed. Oh yeah, she was also doing her level best to get sole custody of the children so she could get even more of the stuff mentioned above.

That was funded by the Government too, through Legal Aid.

I estimate that she has received at least $200k in direct and indirect subsidies over the past 10 years or so.

Lexi:"Shouldn't you be happy for their luck in this case?"

There was no luck, it's a simple scam. I have the children for half the time, I pay half their cost of living but don't ask for or need any subsidy any more. I have been so broke that I have had to rely on the charity of friends to survive, yet been told by Centrelink that I was ineligible for assistance because I was self-employed and BTW, when was I going to pay the Child Support?

I have been forced into self-employment to survive and I have prospered moderately.

Why should I be glad that the mother of my children is a deadbeat?

Why should I applaud a system that encourages what is essentially a fraud on the taxpayer?

I asked a simple question above and only Hasbeen has been (sry, couldn't resist) game to have a go at it. So, here it is again: When should we draw the line with handouts to the demonstrably not needy?

I thought we weren't discussing specific personal situations on this forum?
As usual, Antiseptic is airing his hatred for his ex-wife again.

Re the supposed topic about public housing, I imagine none of us knows the full story of how or why some people get public housing and some don't.

At the end of the day, is it the fault of the public housing recipients , or the system that is at fault, for allowing apparently well-off people to access or hold on to public housing?

Suzeonline:"As usual, Antiseptic is airing his hatred for his ex-wife again."

I was asked a question, actually. Do try to keep up.

Suzeonline:"At the end of the day, is it the fault of the public housing recipients , or the system that is at fault, for allowing apparently well-off people to access or hold on to public housing?"

What do YOU think? I asked that question earlier.

Antiseptic,
Suzie did have a point, you do give your x a good roll out on this forum.
Never mind the question is valid and problematic. I am with Lexi i didn't realise public housing was such a ripoff. As a single parent i have never applied for nor been interested in public housing. I too thought that it was very hard to secure and always assumed that as i have a small business i would be out despite my modest income. What you have said that people with annuals of around the 80k mark are in public housing is absolutely outrages. I would have thought anyone with a job and around 50k a year can get their own home like the rest of us.

Antiseptic:

Thanks for answering my questions. It must be a very difficult situation for you to have to deal with. I admire a person who stands by his family obligations no matter how difficult they are.

As for public housing - I don't know what can be done about it - it seems totally unfair to rort the system when there are so many truly needy people that need help.

Have to admit Anti most of my thoughts were along the lines of it didn’t seem a big deal as far as big deals go.

But then I was reminded that NSW takes newborn babies off their mums here and one of the reasons they use is if the mother is homeless. Not sure when being broke became child abuse but seems to shape up that way.

So yeah I changed my mind, everything is a big deal because it affects someone else when you take advantage of services you don’t need.

Anti:” When should we draw the line with handouts to the demonstrably not needy?”

Now.

Antiseptic, I am not sure that I believe that someone making 80 grand a year remains eligible for state housing.

I see many really desperate people without suitable housing for medical reasons- with their Doctors virtually begging the Government housing department to find them a house. This takes ages to happen.

I have also seen some people who were originally living below the poverty line, and eventually got into a state housing home, only to find a good job and make something of themselves a few short years later.

If the Government were to say to people that they could only have a state housing home if they REMAIN on the breadline forever more is not really encouraging anyone to make an effort in finding better jobs and living conditions is it?

So I guess what I am saying is, good luck to them!
If I were to live in some of the awful state housing homes I have seen, I would be doing whatever it took to get out of them.

Anti I am no crawler you and I have clashed in the past.
And you do give your ex a bit here,BUT such women exist, certainly they do.
Suz believe me, please 80 grand is not the most some who live in public housing get.
It has become just one of hundreds of well intentioned welfare type things that harm the publics view of welfare.
Public housing, we do need more, should be two things, for the true needy, and to create more housing in tight markets.
Some, more than many want to hear, government employees rent the very best for peanuts.
We do better with pensioners single or not they have a better Chance but even sleep in parks [while not having to] to speed up allocation of a flat or unit.

Suzeonline:"I am not sure that I believe that someone making 80 grand a year remains eligible for state housing."

Technically, in Qld they become ineligible at $80k, but the policy is to allow up to $95k in household income before taking action.

Did you read the Age story?

Suzeonline:"If the Government were to say to people that they could only have a state housing home if they REMAIN on the breadline forever"

Do you read what is written before you post? The point of the high limit is to avoid just that poverty trap. I have already suggested that one way to improve things might be to look at the individual incomes within the house as well as the gross household income.

There is a big difference in the situation of (say) Mum, Dad and a grown child all bringing in $25k - $30k and an individual bringing in $80k. Still, neither should be subsidised.

Interesting that you are prepared to pay tax to support well-off single mothers to rort the system, but you won't support paying $5 a month in a child support levy that would alleviate some of the pressure on poverty-stricken single fathers. Nice work...

Belly, I reckon we see eye to eye on more than you might like to acknowledge.

Want to know the best part about my ex? She works as a Social Worker for Qld Health. One of her tasks is assisting old people to find supported accommodation. Nice, eh?

Nairbe:"As a single parent i have never applied for nor been interested in public housing. "

The best way for a single mother to secure preference in the process is to claim either violence makes her unable to work, or homelessness, as Belly points out.

As a self-employed person, you presumably are pretty self-reliant, so neither of those things will work for you. Oh yeah, you're male, as well.

Lexi, yes, it is grossly unfair. It is essentially a fraud against the State. Do you reckon there's ever been a prosecution for it?

Sometimes i am not sure if being male means there is a bias against us in this system or whether most of us that are in my situation as single parents do the usual male thing and don't ask for help. (can't comment for dad's who struggle with csa)
I am fortunate to have a very supportive family, makes all the difference. I try to stay away from the system but that is my underlying lack of trust in the system. My problem.
I know of four other single fathers in my area which is a small rural shire. I am sure there are more but those i know all work and pay their own way. This is not a put down of women as most of the Dad's are older and the greater majority of single mums you see are kid's. This is really a problem of it's own as the few older single mum's i know are also workers.

nairbe:"Sometimes i am not sure if being male means there is a bias against us in this system or whether most of us that are in my situation as single parents do the usual male thing and don't ask for help."

From my experience, most single dads are fiercely independent and pride themselves on doing the best they can with what they have. They don't seek handouts as a matter of course.

A great deal of that is to do with the selction process for becoming a single father. It usually involves onerous, expensive and debilitating Court proceedings. It often involves having to prove all sorts of things about one's fitness to the Court, which never seem to crop up for single mothers.

I think it also has a lot to do with our cultural perception of men as self-reliant individuals, vs the perception of women as poor helpless victims in need of protection.

I'd hazard a guess that you're not planning to grow old in Queensland, Antiseptic...

>>Want to know the best part about my ex? She works as a Social Worker for Qld Health. One of her tasks is assisting old people to find supported accommodation. Nice, eh?<<

You might find yourself in a humpy, someplace back o' Bourke...

You'd love it in London anti. They have public housing in prime real estate locations. What happens is the recipients rent them out to someone else at a premium and use some of the money to live somewhere cheaper while pocketing the rest.

I've lived a charmed life and I've only recently had to deal with the governmnet to get the baby bonus (With which I bought a wonderful TV). Twice!

The way I look at these type of things is, well, I really don't care what others do. Taking away the people who are missing out (I'm happy to pay even more tax to ensure that doesn't happen), if people truly want to rort the system I'm happy to let them.

In my mind, they're not 'winning', and really I pity them. If someone doesn't have the pride to pay their own way, wants to constantly deal with governmnet bureaucracy (in itself a harder and more stressful job than mine), be living around social chaos in many respects and has no desire to improve their lot above the level of living week to week for a handout, well they can have that gear.

I don't feel the loss of the extra tax dollars. I feel the injustice for the really poor, but as I said I'd be happier to just pay more tax. In my view there are enough of us decent middle class worker bee people to keep things running and enough born with a silver spoon to be exploited out of some of that inheritance.

Pericles:"I'd hazard a guess that you're not planning to grow old in Queensland, Antiseptic.."

Surely you're not suggesting that Qld Health is capable of anything other than perfect rectitude in its dealings with its needy clients? Next thing you'll be suggesting that they're not to be trusted running their own computer systems and the like. Pure paranoia...

Oh, hold on. As you were...

Perhaps emigration to sunnier climes may be a good idea in a few years.

Houellebecq, I don't begrudge the tax either, really. It's hypocrisy that gets up my nose.

Im a pensioner and I live in a Housing Comission flat. In my block theres lots of single ladies with kids and thats good cause were all like one big happy family. EXCEPT when there ex's come round.

Dear Huggins,
Do any of you have a job or is this one of those low socio situations where you all sit around and complain happily because your ex's don't pay enough and you know he's getting cash on the side.
Maybe your ex's would like it if you would get off your back sides and do something so they don't have to work their gut's out supporting two house holds so you can live the "Days of our lives" dream.
Sorry, normally very tolerant but you said all the wrong things. Stop blaming your ex's for what is wrong with your lives. They are feeling just as hurt and used as you. Try being more understanding and compassionate to their position and you may find things are not so bad.

Antiseptic:

I came across this today. I thought you might enjoy it.

Interjector:

"Wotcha gonna do about 'ousing?"

Sir Robert Menzies:

"Put an "h" in front of it."

Antiseptic:
There is a saying I am familiar with; “Women are funny Cattle”. I am still friends with a girl who took to my boat wiring with a pair of scissors one night a few weeks ago over an imagined slight. But she makes far less than $80k PA and doesn’t live in a council flat, so there may be some secret to relationship stability in circumstances .

I sympathise with you though on the gall of your ex-wife and her total rorting of all things free and Government, and admit the difficulty of keeping a sense of humour in view of her obvious dishonesty, but we live in a very dishonest and dishonourable world where capitalist advantage outweighs moral principal, I need not remind you.

The reason for this post though was to add an observation from my own walk of life, given I am acquainted with some desperadoes of sorts have noticed a system for public housing offered by a NGO operation here in NSW called Anglie Care (or something close to that) which offers single males unit accommodation for a fixed period of time; I think three months. During this period they must actively attempt to rehouse themselves in the private market. It is probably classified as emergency housing.

Shouldn’t all public housing be subject to similar short term tenancy agreements and be simply a stepping stone to the private market. That rule change would make public housing available to vastly more of the population and add the appearance if not the fact of fairness

nairbe you got it wrong, Im a guy on a Disabilty Allowance but I pay my ex child support too. $20 out of every fornights pay, some of the ladies here are working girls too but there cool. One good thing is be-ing the only guy in a block full of chicks sometimes they get horny but Im a Cristian so I leave them alone mostly.... ;-)

No way I'd want to live anywhere near housos. They pong and they pinch stuff.

Thats not very nice Pat The Bogan, I can see where you got your name.