[jenscow]

I live in social housing (in the UK), and could easily afford to buy or rent non-social... and I was already in that situation when my current tenancy started.

You could say I abuse it, and I agree in principal. However, I'm only abusing it because social housing is scarce. The solution is to build more, and I do my bit by voting for a government that would probably do that.

If they ever decided to make it means tested, and my tenancy was at risk, I would just buy the house.

[IkmoIkmo]

Making use of any scarce resource intended for the poor, while you're rich, because it's so scarce, is beyond backwards... I have trouble being generous and playing devil's advocate because I simply can't see the argument you're making.

[jenscow]

OK, I worded that very badly. I'm not using it because they're scarce. I mean to say:

The reason someone could say I'm "abusing" it, is because they're scarce.

They shouldn't be scarce, and they're not intended for just poor people.

To be clear, I'm not here for financial reasons. In fact, I would not object to paying more, if it meant putting more in the pot for poorer households to benefit from.

[ricardobeat]

If you're not there for financial reasons, then clearly you should not be benefiting from social housing. You are making it more scarce for people who actually need it, by holding onto it.

The tax your landlord will pay on their profits, once you move out to a market-priced property, will be adding to the pot for poorer households to benefit from.